The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3

First topic message reminder :

Well obviously, while Headley's achievements statistically outweighed those of Constantine, I do think that Constantine, from what I have read, had a massive impact, especially in England. His whole philosophy was to entertain because, by playing entertaining cricket, the WIndies were more likely to draw crowds and guarantee that they would be invited back. Again, according to Swanton "he indeed personified West Indian cricket from the first faltering entry in the Test arena in 1928 until the post-war emergence of the trinity of Worrell, Weekes and Walcott."

well you'll get little argument from me re his FC record Corporal. I'm sure he still holds the record number of centuries in a season (and perhaps a career) for Middlesex, and there's no doubting his FC record is superb.

My question wasn't so much about comparing him to Hobbs and Hammond (if we had to compare all HoF inductees to those two we'd have a very very small HoF), but more with regards to other "lesser" leading batsmen of his time, if that makes sense. The 20s is a period I admit to knowing little about...

Quick view on other candidates:

Thomson: the view I always have of Thomson is of a player whose star shone very brightly for not very long. A terrorising bowler to face undoubtedly, and formed a fearsome duo with Dennis Lillee, but his ultimate record is nothing too special (200 wickets at 28). Claims of him being the fastest bowler of all time are of course wrong, but he was probably the fastest bowler of his era by some margin. Also seems to be quite a disagreeable character (certainly in any interview I've seen he comes across as rather arrogant). At the moment I'll need plenty of convincing.

Titmus: I'm struggling to look past his average test record TBH. He did though have a remarkable FC career, both in terms of wicket-taking ability and longeveity. A lovely story about his last FC match too, and showed remarkable spirit to recover from what should have been a career threatening injury. As I said though, rather unconvinced at the mo.

Woolmer: waiting for our resident coaching expert (Mike) to expand here, as his playing career is unremarkable.

Willis: always think he tends to get wrongly overlooked when talking about English seamers, and over 300 wickets at 25 is nothing to be sniffed at. Am I wrong in saying that too often he only performed when talk was of him getting dropped? certainly was the case before his most remarkable performance (Headingley 81). While I won't count his commentary against him, it certainly doesn't add to his case

Thinking about Willis - open mind atm. Mad's reference to Willis performing when his place was under threat rings true. However, there is another matter of vital national importance on my mind. I have a distinct recollection that when a seagull was hit by a ball in the outfield during the 1970/71 tour of Australia it was our Bob who gave first aid to the injured bird. But I am struggling to find any corroboration of that recollection. So for the moment we may not be able to add kindness to dumb (well "ish" in the case of seagulls) animals to his credits.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Thinking about Willis - open mind atm. Mad's reference to Willis performing when his place was under threat rings true. However, there is another matter of vital national importance on my mind.

Don't know about that. There must have been a lot of talk about dropping him for him to take 300+ wickets
I do know that he took 77 wickets at 21.5 during his time as capatin, when there can't have been too much talk about dropping him from the team.

I'm very open to the idea of Jeff Thomson potentially getting in because of 'impact' rather than 'consistency'.

But issues with his overall record must be raised. In his 51 Tests he took a round figure of 200 wickets, and at an average of 28. This is not typically enough to get somebody into the Hall of Fame.

The first part of his career was his strongest - 33 wkts @ under 18 in the 74/75 Ashes, his first full Test series (he didn't take a wicket on debut a year earlier), 16 wkts in the 1975 Ashes @ 28, and a similar figure v WI in 1975/76. This type of consistency (in around the 28 mark, with a few series more towards 25, including against the top teams) continues until the end of the 1970s.

Then, after various WSC-related reasons causing him to take a break from the game, he averaged less than 30 in only one of his last six Test series (albeit that was another strong Ashes display, taking 22 wkts @ 18 in the 82/83 season).

Indeed, he often seems to have saved his best efforts for England - his average of 24.18 in 21 Tests against the Old Enemy is significantly better than his overall record. Compare this, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, to an average of 65.80 from 8 matches v Pakistan, who you might have expected to have greater trouble against pace and bounce, and who had few genuine world class batsmen apart from Miandad.

On the question of Hendren vs. Australia, I've done a bit of research regarding the averages of English middle-order batsmen against Australia between the wars and, interestingly, (or perhaps not), of those players who scored 500+ runs in those matches Maurice Leyland, who hardly anybody even mentions in terms of great English batsmen, had the best average, over 58. Next was Hammond with an average just over 57, and then came Hendren, with an average of 38.3

I started my research with Patsi Hendren. Initial impressions, good player, but not a HoF one. His record is good, but as the discussions on Tate earlier suggest, he played his cricket during a period that has to be considered among the best for batting. His record against Australia that along with England was the dominant side of the era is nothing more than decent.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well you'll get little argument from me re his FC record Corporal. I'm sure he still holds the record number of centuries in a season (and perhaps a career) for Middlesex, and there's no doubting his FC record is superb.

My question wasn't so much about comparing him to Hobbs and Hammond (if we had to compare all HoF inductees to those two we'd have a very very small HoF), but more with regards to other "lesser" leading batsmen of his time, if that makes sense. The 20s is a period I admit to knowing little about...

Quick view on other candidates:

Thomson: the view I always have of Thomson is of a player whose star shone very brightly for not very long. A terrorising bowler to face undoubtedly, and formed a fearsome duo with Dennis Lillee, but his ultimate record is nothing too special (200 wickets at 28). Claims of him being the fastest bowler of all time are of course wrong, but he was probably the fastest bowler of his era by some margin. Also seems to be quite a disagreeable character (certainly in any interview I've seen he comes across as rather arrogant). At the moment I'll need plenty of convincing.

Titmus: I'm struggling to look past his average test record TBH. He did though have a remarkable FC career, both in terms of wicket-taking ability and longeveity. A lovely story about his last FC match too, and showed remarkable spirit to recover from what should have been a career threatening injury. As I said though, rather unconvinced at the mo.

Woolmer: waiting for our resident coaching expert (Mike) to expand here, as his playing career is unremarkable.

Willis: always think he tends to get wrongly overlooked when talking about English seamers, and over 300 wickets at 25 is nothing to be sniffed at. Am I wrong in saying that too often he only performed when talk was of him getting dropped? certainly was the case before his most remarkable performance (Headingley 81). While I won't count his commentary against him, it certainly doesn't add to his case

Mad - good counter attack on Hendren following an experienced and slick military retreat from the Corporal!

A few thoughts on the others, particularly from their playing days:

* Thomson: I've always adhered to the view that a good team needs piano shifters as well as piano players. Whilst that relates principally to football, it can also be applied to cricket. The guy prepared to roll up his sleeves and scrap it out can be well worth his place even if he doesn't have the style of team mates. If that can be applied as well to cricket partnerships, there's no doubt that Lillee was the stylish and talented natural player. Thomson, by contrast, was not only prepared to fight it out but disappointed if a punch up didn't come his way. He spoke of wanting to see ''a batsman's blood''. Whether he took things too far is one of the aspects that will need to be considered - I find it difficult to envisage anyone who objected to Larwood on ''moralistic'' grounds being able to vote YES to Thomson. For me, Thomson took it further than Larwood and the other Bodyline bowlers; their desire was to intimidate, Thomson's was to hit (I consider there's a difference although accept some may not see it that way). As well as being a less elegant bowler than Lillee, my memory (which could be wrong) is that he was less effective. Certainly, I believe Thomson's star shone less long. I also saw a Cricinfo article article recently which showed his record in ODIs was pretty ordinary; I'll see if I can dig that out. I don't rule Thomson out and have less morals than many here when it comes to bowling fast at batsmen; however, I will need to be re-assured and that's not just his record.

* Woolmer: I'm glad his nomination isn't on account of his playing record. I recall him as an exceedingly tedious batsman, a snailblazer for Chris Tavare.

* Willis: I don't immediately warm to Big Bob despite him being a Guildford grammar school boy (wonder if that actually puts anyone off!). Old memories run deep - when I was about 12 and living in the Midlands, I and some friends watched Willis playing for Warks at Edgbaston. After the match we saw him and tried to get his autograph - he grudgingly did so but only after making us all line up before him, he was just like an old schoolmaster with not a hint of humour. I'll try not to hold that against him. However, whilst always willing and hardworking, he never struck me as particularly inspirational as a bowler or captain. His Test average though is better than I expected (shades of Pollock) and merits proper consideration along with the rest of his records and achievements.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to run in up hill and bowl against the wind on behalf of Titmus ....

Jeff Thomson was a fine fast bowler, and his record is pretty good although his average is on the higher side for a HoF candidate, particularly considering there wasn't much of a useful 2nd string to his game. Would like to see how the debate goes from here on.
Fred Titmus too, initial impressions do not suggest anything more than an ok test bowler who could bat a bit.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Thinking about Willis - open mind atm. Mad's reference to Willis performing when his place was under threat rings true. However, there is another matter of vital national importance on my mind. I have a distinct recollection that when a seagull was hit by a ball in the outfield during the 1970/71 tour of Australia it was our Bob who gave first aid to the injured bird. But I am struggling to find any corroboration of that recollection. So for the moment we may not be able to add kindness to dumb (well "ish" in the case of seagulls) animals to his credits.

Corporal - I believe your recollection is correct.

I also believe the seagull died.

msp83 wrote:
Fred Titmus too, initial impressions do not suggest anything more than an ok test bowler who could bat a bit.

Just as Mike did not propose Jonty Rhodes for his playing record, the same applies to Fred Titmus. As I tried to flag this morning, I am nominating him for his ''irrepressible spirit'' and will try to make the case in the next couple of days. By all means have your doubts and chuck it out but please let me make it and don't judge him on a case which isn't being made.

I've highlighted msp's comment above but several refer. Thanks.

The playing record has to be an important component in determining the validity of the case for any player. There could be other major factors, factors that could even outclass the playing record. In the case of Titmus, I am certainly waiting for guildford's case in his favor.

guildfordbat wrote:

* Woolmer: I'm glad his nomination isn't on account of his playing record. I recall him as an exceedingly tedious batsman, a snailblazer for Chris Tavare.

May be a tad harsh - but I largely agree. As a player Woolmer was probably not much better than routine and nowhere near HoF calibre. But I will also await the wider case. Certainly don't rule out voting YES if the case is there.

Re Hendren - following up MSP's comments. If we are going on test record alone - a good record with a number of stand out achievements - but on its own probably only sufficient to put Hendren in the HoF Championship Div as opposed to the Premier League. What sets Hendren apart is his utterly formidable record of achievement in first class cricket over a prolonged period when that aspect of the game was of far more importance/standing than has been the case for many years. For me if we are looking at overall contribution to the history of game, and not simply at test matches, he readily gets into our HoF.

There are some brilliant cricketers like Frank Woolley who did some pretty magnificent things in FC cricket and did very well in tests but couldn't make it to the HoF. There are players like Vijay Merchant who did well in a short test career but was massive in FC cricket.
I am not approaching Hendren with a closed approach, but I think I need a great deal of convincing.

Regarding Woolmer's playing career: irrelevant. He is being nominated as a coach, just as Arlott was as a commentator. Woolmer was, for all his faults as a player, surely on a different level to Arlott...

Guildford - one thought re the handling the case for Titmus. I would have thought it would be rather difficult to evaluate whether someone's irrepressible spirit is sufficient to warrant entry to HoF. Not least, as numerous cricketers in the history of cricket will have shown indomitable spirit in all sorts of different ways -reflecting for example difficulties in childhood, family tragedy, obstacles they have overcome, courage in the face of adversity and so one. It's feasible to get into the area when looking at fighting racism, for example. But - I would have thought - considerably more difficult when it's more an issue of individual circumstances....

So, I will be interested in how one might evaluate Titmus. What might happen for example if we are all minded to vote for Titmus but then at last moment someone comes up with research illustrating half a dozen other cricketers who score even more highly in the irrepressible spirit stake, in full heart-rending detail? Could be difficult?

Whilst I think a Yes vote from me for Titmus is quite unlikely, I do think he's worth discussing. I read some obituaries when he died a year or so ago, and his was a very interesting story.

He must also be pretty unique in longevity in the post-war era (we can look at Wilfred Rhodes pre-war) - he made his first-class debut in the same team as Gubby Allen, and played his last first-class game alongside Norman Cowans.

Reminds me of something we were trying to with Rhodes - trying to get the smallest number of names people had played with/ against into a single chain running from WG Grace to a current player.

Corporal - thanks for giving me the answer then.

Gents, a quick heads-up that I may not be that free over the next few days. Just heard from the junior final in France (I know, we finish our junior season in November, strange eh?) and there could be quite a fall-out from that which merits my attention (2 national junior players involved in the final, if apparently not the fall-out).

Mike Selig wrote:Regarding Woolmer's playing career: irrelevant. He is being nominated as a coach, just as Arlott was as a commentator. Woolmer was, for all his faults as a player, surely on a different level to Arlott...

Mike - fully acknowledged now as it was meant to be earlier that Woolmer's playing career is irrelevant. I was previously merely showing off my age and trying to add in a jokey way that Woolmer's batting was remembered as far from scintillating.

A more serious point - meant helpfully - is that, unlike Arlott as a commentator, I know extremely little about Woolmer as a coach. I therefore can't agree with you tonight that Woolmer was ''surely on a different level to Arlott'' - not because you're necessarily wrong but because I don't know.

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - thanks for giving me the answer then.

Guildford - I came across article from 2011 by Steven Lynch "Cricketers who got over physical or social obstacles to make a mark in the game". The cricketers come into the following categories: polio; racial prejudice; asymmetric arms; epilepsy; impaired vision; tuberculosis; a bullet; missing fingers; lost arm.

I was unaware of the lost arm case. "Frank Chester was talked of as a Test prospect after he scored nearly 1000 runs for Worcestershire in 1914, when he was only 19. But during the Great War he received a severe injury to his right arm, which had to be amputated just below the elbow. Not even a brilliant young batsman could overcome that disability to play first-class cricket again - but Chester did the next-best thing, turning to umpiring and becoming the world's best in a white coat (and the best known until Dickie Bird came along). Chester stood in 48 Tests between 1924 and 1955, which remained a record until Bird surpassed it late in 1992 ...."

Interesting that Lynch doesn't include Bob Appleyard. But I think he might be a very strong candidate for the front line cricketer who had to contend with most adversity in his personal life....

It looks as though some of the comparators could offer some stiff competition for Titmus! Anyway, whatever the outcome I'm looking forward to learning more about him ....

msp83 wrote:There are some brilliant cricketers like Frank Woolley who did some pretty magnificent things in FC cricket and did very well in tests but couldn't make it to the HoF. There are players like Vijay Merchant who did well in a short test career but was massive in FC cricket.
I am not approaching Hendren with a closed approach, but I think I need a great deal of convincing.

Vijay Merchant might be worth a punt in his own right on account of his stellar first class average. But if we are looking at overall impact on first class cricket Hendren, in broad terms, scored around four times as many runs and scored nearly four times as many centuries. That's quite a difference!

I was doing some research for a possible nomination for HOF consideration, exploring more information about George Hirst, father of swing bowling, accumulator of 36,000 runs and 2,700 wickets.

And to further underline his credentials, I see, how now, that he was born in The Brown Cow Inn, in Kirkheaton.

We hear about Godfrey Evans, Maurice Tate, etc, etc, who ran a pub in their retirement years, but how refreshing to read about an outstanding cricketing who opened his batting down the pub.

First impressions:

Hendren: Looks to have a reasonable case based on pure numbers. OK, not the equal of his legendary contemporary Hobbs, but appears to be well ahead of Woolley in terms of performance and not that far short for longevity. Test record appears to be very good rather than clearly exceptional, so on its own probably would have him just short of the HoF.

Thomson: career as a whole definitely falls short of HoF level (200 wickets at 28 is very good but well off the level for a HoF fast bowler). The question really is whether he was a better bowler early in his career who was then held back by injuries. The impression so far given is that it was more a case of him saving his best performances for England. Perhaps a stronger candidate for the Ashes HoF than an overall one?

Willis: Career-wise much closer to HoF level than Thomson, and certainly the definition of a 'trier'. It is somewhat ironic that his finest moment for England will be for ever overshadowed - while Botham's innings at Headingley in 1981 was the foundations to give the bowlers something to work with, Willis's 8-43 in the second innings was what won the match. Clearly a match winner on his day (and unlike several recent England fast bowlers, not a case of 'unplayable one day, unbowlable the next').

Titmus: Clearly falls some way below HoF levels based purely on career achievements, he is notable for longevity of career and for his recovery from what could have been a career ending injury. Will be interested to see what case is made to promote him from the level of good pro to HoF.

Woolmer: As with Titmus, not an HoF player, but enjoyed some success as a coach. The question for me is in what ways was Woolmer an innovator, and in particular which of those innovations are having a long-term effect on how the game is played.

An interesting bunch for discussion - at this stage I don't see anyone that unquestionably merits HoF inclusion, but certainly some worthy candidates.

Question, have any other coaches been inducted into the Hall of Fame?

If not, would it not be better to handle coaches that may be deserved of induction as a group?

In other words, think of the best 6 or so candidates and then handle them all at once.

Biltong wrote:Question, have any other coaches been inducted into the Hall of Fame?

If not, would it not be better to handle coaches that may be deserved of induction as a group?

In other words, think of the best 6 or so candidates and then handle them all at once.

Not a bad call. I'd be inclined to treat a group of women's cricketers the same way - Heyhoe-Flint, Hockley etc

I think coaching was a consideration when Flower was made a founder member biltong (though for me the biggest consideration was his stand in the 03 WC). I suspect much like Rhodes the case for Woolmer will be based on his impact on modern coaching methods, but I'm waiting for Mike's input here (which may take a while as he's busy dealing with "stuff" from the French junior final at the mo) to know more.

Think Flower's in there already, but then he was a superb batsman, the best from his country by a very long way.
By the way shelsey, where do we find a list of candidates inducted into the HoF already? If such a list is not there, I think there should be one created.

I only really know about two, Thomson and Willis.

Thomson - Quick in his day and I would expect a handful but when I think of all time great Aussie bowlers, his name is behind a few, so no.

Willis - Would bowl through a wall for his club/country and was obviously a very good bowler but how could I say yes to him,when Walsh was just a maybe.

msp, there's a post on the Honours board part of the cricket board, but not sure how up to date it is...

Msp, there is a (somewhat out of date) list in the Honours Board section.

It will hopefully get updated at some point this week!

Ok, seeing as I know next to nothing about the list of candidates I did some research on Jeff Thomson.

You need to look at his career in two parts.

Prior 1980 and post 1980.

His first 32 tests delivered 152 wickets at an average of 25.60
His second stint, 19 tests, delivered only 48 wickets at an average of 35.6

His strike rate prior to 1980 was 49.34
His strike rate post 1980 was 84.78

I don't know why he didn't play between 1979 and 1980, perhaps it was through injury?

But there is a marked difference in his performances when you break his career down like that.

Could it be that when he started losing his pace in the second half of his career that he lost his effectiveness?

Which could suggest a lack of ability to adapt wihout pace, compared to McGrath who was simply superb right through his career.

Anyway just food for thought.

From memory Biltong Thomson was involved in World Series Cricket in 79/80, so (like most top Aussie players) wasn't selected for tests

Thanks Pete, that explains it then.

In fact Thomson - to his credit , I feel - initially refused to join WSC , and lead the Australian attack in England in 1977 and in the home series against India which followed . He did accept a second invitation , however , and played WSC in 1979/80.
In truth it was injuries which did for him : he had a very nasty collision with Alan Turner at Adelaide in late 1976 which injured his shoulder - and was the reason he missed the Centenary Test later that summer. He had also suffered injury to his shoulder in 1974/5 (playing tennis on a rest day !) , and given the extraordinary stress his action put on the joint it is hardly surprising that his extreme pace faded ...he was still a very good bowler , but not the force he had been , and he probably went on a little too long , to the detriment of his overall figures.

At his peak though , he was awesome.

Haven't had time to look at this lot in detail,yet , but am hopeful of Willis .Must confess to personal bias here , as we share a mutual regard for the music and poetry of the great Bob Dylan (though I didn't go as far adding his name to my middle names !) , and he was always a favourite of mine.
Plus one has to applaud a captain who was concentrating so hard on his team's position in a Test match at Lord's that he went out to resume batting after tea without taking his bat

Thomson certainly seems to have suffered from a fall off in his pace in the latter part of his career, despite a remarkable swansong in 1982/83.
I saw him in his last test in 1985, and his bowling certainly didn't appear threatening at all (though, to be fair, he was going on 35 then).
It would seem that, unlike various other 'tearaway' fast bowlers before him like Trueman or his own partner, Dennis Lillee, Thomson relied more on his pace and was unable to effectively counteract loss of that pace through increased control or swing and seam movement.
Of course, that may well simply have been a result of the way that he bowled and his bowling action, and it must be remembered that, in his pomp, Thomson was one of the fastest and most memorable fast-bowlers in cricket history, and one half of, possibly, the best known fast bowling partnership of them all.
Having said that, however, I still feel that, of the two fast-bowlers in this group of candidates, Willis has the better overall case for inclusion.

I remember Gower giving Thomson a right caning at Edgbaston in 1985.
Looking at Willis. He was good but I've read before that Snow was the better bowler?

Well I only really remember Snow towards the end of his career, so maybe some of the old-timers could give us a better idea of their relative merits. All I would say is that Willis has, possibly, the superior statistical record and, for me at least, the fact that he overcame and coped with injury throughout his career in order to achieve those figures would probably give him the edge in this process.

Guildford made a comment yesterday along the lines of 'those that voted against Larwood because of a principled view against Bodyline, should not vote yes to Thomson - whilst Larwood intimidated, Thomson wanted to 'hit' '.

I voted against Larwood and part, if not all, of the reason for that was a feeling that Bodyline was immoral. I said at the time that:

Shelsey93 wrote:there were very good reasons for the dismay which it [Bodyline] caused when you consider the equipment which players used then - only leg pads offered any real protection and with no helmet or arm guard and gloves offering little protection injuries were common and Bodyline bowling increased the chances of this occurring. Indeed, it is noted in Wisden 1996's obituary to Larwood that "Among batsmen who sustained serious injury from Larwood's thunderbolts were Reg Sinfield of Gloucestershire, the South African `Jock' Cameron, and Patsy Hendren, a seasoned exponent of the hook shot. All were stretchered off unconscious. Scores of others suffered breaks and bruises in the line of Larwood's fire, and many a batsman in county cricket discovered minor ailments that necessitated their withdrawal before matches against Nottinghamshire"

Now to Thomson, and two core questions for me:

- Was Thomson's bowling deliberately intimidating?
- If so, was that acceptable/ how does it compare to Bodyline?

1. Clearly Thomson himself felt he was deliberately intimidating (he also thought he bowled at 180 kph!). He says in a 2008 interview on Cricinfo - "Intimidation was a key factor in the way I bowled". He also reportedly once said that "I like to see blood on the pitch". Protection had moved on somewhat by this time, and of course Jeff was restricted more tightly by the rules which changed post-Bodyline

2. My personal view is that there is a difference between bowling to intimidate and bowling to injure. It is clear that on occasion Thomson over-stepped that mark but, unlike with Larwood, Thomson's reputation/ case for inclusion isn't built almost exclusively on the use of intimidatory bowling (with Larwood the other section of my case was, quite simply, that expect in '32-'33 his Test record doesn't really stack up).

Therefore, I'm willing to suggest that if the case for Thomson is strong enough, his use of intimidatory tactics should not preclude him from entry to the Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, I still maintain that 'bowling to injure', particularly in an era where the risks of injury were significantly higher, should not be morally acceptable...

Shelsey,
I'm a great believer that players of any sport should play to the fullest extent of the laws of the game and, as a result, am supportive of Bodyline bowling in its day, and the intimidation of Thomson and Lillee, Hall and Griffith.

But to suggest that Tommo's "use of intimidatory bowling" was not the key factor to his success, against England in particular, is just plain incorrect.

Shelsey
At the start of Thomson's career, the protection for batsmen hadn't moved on an awful lot from that used in the 30s - pads and gloves were better quality (although even now batting gloves don't offer great protection if the ball jams your hand into the bat handle) and I think thigh pads had come in. Helmets, ribs and arm guards weren't available until the later 70s, in part because of WSC and batsmen having to cope with the Windies quicks on sometimes quite poor batting tracks.

In one sense I have more sympathy for Larwood than Tommo - Larwood was a professional player in the service of his (supposed) Gentleman captain Jardine. Larwood said later that he had no option but to do as his captain instructed. Tommo appears to have been more than willing to try and knock batsmen down and out all at his own behest.

Interesting stats on Tommo from Biltong, although as has already been mentioned, his absolute best form occurred when he was a young bowler before injuries in his 1976 on-field collision took the edge off his pace. That his stats up to 79 continued to be so good is testament to what a fine bolwer he was in his 20s. Now, if you draw a line at that point, has he done enough to get into the HoF? 150 wickets at a shade under 26 is extremely good, especially with a strike rate of 49, but doesn't quite do it for me.

A further question is whether being one half of the best female bowler of all time (Lillian Thomson ) should give him extra credit or count against him - did he help set up the wickets for Lillee, or was he more a beneficiary of Lillee's greater consistency?

Have located the list of inductees, hopefully it will be updated soon, I realize it does take to keep the show running. Keep up the good work fists and shelsey. Now before we move on, please tell me how do we nominate candidates?
Now back to topic, think biltong's point about Thomson not being able to adapt after suffering a loss in pace is a significant one. A recent inductee, Shaun Pollock, started moreorless as an out and out quick, but following injuries he cut down on pace but remained very effective and consistent throughout most of his career.

msp
Similarly, and perhaps even moreso (not sure Shaun Pollock was ever genuinely fast), both Fred Trueman and Dennis Lillee went from being true fast bowlers to outstanding fast-medium seam and swing bowlers as a result of aging and injuries. It's arguable that Fred in particular was actually a better bowler later in his career once he lost a bit of pace.

Wikipedia (OK, not always the most reliable source) suggests that Tommo bowled with very little hand or wrist work, simply running in and 'whanging' it down (his own description). Maybe it just wasn't in his action to develop an effective seam or swing ball - his very fast and slingy action suggests that he should have been able to develop reverse swing, but the knowledge on how to do this (at least in a predictable way) seems to have only spread from Pakistan in the late 80s / early 90s.

Kwini,

There may be some gap between our definitions of 'intimidation'. Thomson got his wickets through being a fine fast bowler, including the fully legitimate use of the bouncer. Where it becomes 'intimidation' for me is where he is trying to hurt people or at least bowling in a way where the chances of somebody being hurt are greatly increased - doubtless he did that, but he didn't build his reputation entirely upon that. As I see it Larwood did - nothing in his Test record other than Bodyline should get him remotely close to the Hall of Fame. Anyway, I'll save the continuation of the Larwood debate for when he comes back up again!

Msp,

All you have to do to nominate somebody is post some names, and I'll add them to the list to be considered (obviously if they've been considered already you can't resurrect them!). They'll be included alongside repecharge candidates: 3 repecharge and 2 new each week until we exhaust the repecharge, then more new if we still have any.

So far I've got:

Claire Taylor (MFC)
Warwick Armstrong (Hoggy_Bear)
Charlie Macartney (Hoggy_Bear)
Athol Rowan (Hoggy_Bear)

I think someone (it might have been Hoggy too) mentioned that we need to look at Arthur Morris.

I've got one I'd like to have a go at myself too: Simon Taufel

Thanks shelsey.
I would like to propose the name of Anil Kumble for consideration at some point.

Simon Taufel is a great shout

Shelsey,
The kindest word for Tommo's bowling that I can think of to characterise his aggression is "indiscriminate"; priority one was speed, preferable to make it bounce, aim straightish, and see what happens. If he didn't know, what chance did the batsman have??!!
But highly effective and deemed within the laws, but as dummy_half says, no meaningful protection for the batsman. Seriously doubt he'd be as lethal given the over-armour batsman wear nowadays.

A few nominees if not already done.

Waqar
M Crowe
Kerry Packer

Good calls Stella. I'd assumed Waqar was in, but a check of the list tells me I don't think he is.

Packer could be a great debate.

[quote="kwinigolfer"]Shelsey,
The kindest word for Tommo's bowling that I can think of to characterise his aggression is "indiscriminate"; priority one was speed, preferable to make it bounce, aim straightish, and see what happens. If he didn't know, what chance did the batsman have??!!
...[quote]

Reminds me of the comment about the rugby league player Phil Ford - he had a running style that suggested even he didin't know where he was going, so what chance had the defender.

Your description of Thommo's bowling brings to my mind Steve Harmison - tall, fast (though not as quick as Thomson at his peak - very few have been, perhaps Tyson, Holding and Akhtar?) and aiming primarily to get the ball rising into positions that the batsman would find difficult to play. Worked well enough for Harmison to reach #1 in the Test bowling rankings for a short time even with the modern protective equipment batsmen have - I do wonder if the increased weight of bats makes it harder to adjust to really fast and bouncy bowling.