The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

The thread to debate additions to the v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame

Current members:
https://www.606v2.com/t18388-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-inductees-graphics-included

FoF's original HoF debate summation:

Spoiler:

Previous debate:
https://www.606v2.com/t28256-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame
https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

by guildfordbat Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:29 pm

Hoggy - before the Corporal gives away too many tricks of the trade, I'll just add that I always saw several similarities between Dermot Reeve and Adam Hollioake. Both forward thinking captains who were never afraid to issue a challenge and enjoyed deserved success in the domestic game.

by Corporalhumblebucket Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:41 pm

guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - before the Corporal gives away too many tricks of the trade, I'll just add that I always saw several similarities between Dermot Reeve and Adam Hollioake. Both forward thinking captains who were never afraid to issue a challenge and enjoyed deserved success in the domestic game.

And both were all rounders not quite good enough to justify an England place. One, however, looks a bit smugger than the other.... Erm

by Hoggy_Bear Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:30 am

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - before the Corporal gives away too many tricks of the trade, I'll just add that I always saw several similarities between Dermot Reeve and Adam Hollioake. Both forward thinking captains who were never afraid to issue a challenge and enjoyed deserved success in the domestic game.
And both were all rounders not quite good enough to justify an England place. One, however, looks a bit smugger than the other....

Oh I don't know.
Adam Hollioake never looked that smug to me. Very Happy

by Mike Selig Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:30 am

I think guildford raises excellent concerns. I'm not too sure I have an answer, but I offer contextual extenuating circumstances.

On Cronje: I think this episode does show that trust and loyalty can be taken too far. I guess the only defence is that it is perhaps better to trust too much, than not enough. Woolmer was indeed guilty of an error in judgement, in thinking that Cronje was worthy of his trust. It is a blotmark against him, but surely not in the same league as other "character flaws" (e.g. Ranji or even Chappell) which have led to NO votes in the past. Woolmer's error stemmed from the best of intentions, there can be no question of direct or indirect involvement in match-fixing; it is simply a case of a trusting and good man trusting the wrong person. With disastrous consequences (the consequences are certainly worse than the crime).

The world cup charge is a bit different IMO. Woolmer had 3 goes at the world cup: in 96, despite winning all their pool matches, there can be no real suggestion that South Africa had the strongest side: their batting was more workmanlike than anything (Hudson and Kirsten as openers were hardly in the class of Mark Waugh, Tendulkar, Saeed Anwar and of course Jayasuriya; their best batsman was Cullinan, a very good player on his day, but other sides had at least 2 or 3 equals if not better), whilst their bowling had Symcox as their designated spinner. Sure, they still maybe should have beaten a West Indian side who had lost to Kenya (but West Indies had Lara, Richardson, Chanderpaul - still young - in their batting line-up, and of course their bowling had Walsh and Ambrose).

99 was the real failure: South Africa did probably have the best side at that World cup (with Pakistan). However for the two matches they lost and tied against the Aussies, it's hard to see how the blame can rest with Woolmer - first match, Gibbs drops a sitter and Steve Waugh plays a great innings (also, lack of Kallis was a hindrance); second match, tactics spot on, but Warne bowls a brilliant spell and then Klusener and Donald yield to pressure.

2007 WC Woolmer was convinced against his better judgement to stay on with a Pakistan team who he felt he'd taken as far as he could. It's hard to really comment on this WC due to the tragedy which marked it. The defeat to Ireland is obviously a blotmark, but well, it's one shock result.

I guess the more general point is can we really hold a failure to win a WC in just 3 attempts against a coach in a sport in which once the players are out on the field he has but little say? Football is a bit different, the coach can communicate tactics during the match in a constant way which he can't do in cricket, and also because most of the great football coaches have far more goes at the CL than Woolmer would at the WC.

I am not sure that that much emphasis is being placed on Woolmer's time with Warwickshire. I have just used it to illustrate two things:
- Woolmer had success in every environment he worked in, and he worked in a lot of different environments.
- he was one of the handful of coaches who IMO got the best out of Lara, a notoriously difficult character.

by Shelsey93 Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:31 am

Mike. Just got round to reading your piece on Woolmer. An excellent case clap

Some discussion points:

- As an innovator what were his strengths as compared to, say, Mickey Stewart, England's first full time coach, who Steve James describes as " was way ahead of his time, not least in the aspects of fitness and planning.. "?
- How does he compare to John Buchanan? Buchanan of course had tremendous success, even if the likes of Warne didn't always rate him. Would a Warne have enjoyed Woolmer's coaching more, or was this just an opposition to coaching per se?
- I do have reservations regarding rebel tours, particularly the 1982 one when the end of Apartheid was still some way away (although it must be noted that Hall of Famers Derek Underwood and Alan Knott also went).
- I don't know what to make of his relationship with Cronje. I'm not aware of any suggestions that Woolmer was in on the fixing, but as coach he should be accountable for ensuring that his team (and lets remember Herschelle Gibbs and others were also implicated) act in a professional manner. Similarly, when Waqar Younis comes round soon, should his role as coach overseeing the spot-fixing scandal be taken into account, even though there is no conclusive proof he new what was going on?

by Shelsey93 Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:37 am

I agree that the World Cups aren't overly relevant.

To reach the stage that they did in 1999 - 1 run away from a final that they would have stood a very good chance of winning if they got there is a good effort. In '96 he'd only just taken over a team which had been back playing international cricket for less than 5 years - winning a World Cup would have been a miracle. In 2007 that Pakistan team were poor. Woolmer probably should have quit after the 3-0 hammering in England (who were missing Vaughan, Flintoff, Giles, S. Jones from the team that won the Ashes the year before), but I guess felt obliged to go on to the World Cup with an ageing Inzy, a curiously weak spin department (for a Pakistan team) and a brittle batting line-up.

by Shelsey93 Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:29 pm

Following the Dravid precedent, I assume the nomination of Ricky Ponting will be a formality. To allow the dust to settle at least a bit, I'll put him towards the end of our current list.

by Hoggy_Bear Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:43 pm

Shelsey93 wrote:Following the Dravid precedent, I assume the nomination of Ricky Ponting will be a formality.

Should certainly hope so.
Can I just ask, are votes due for the current set of candidates at the usual time?

by Shelsey93 Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:11 pm

Was thinking about that.

I do feel that the debate on these is yet to fully develop, and so it might be best to give them a bit more time. What do people think?

by Mike Selig Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:05 pm

I think we should give it another week - if only because you've raised some interesting questions about Woolmer which I would like to answer in detail but am busy tomorrow... Plus still plenty of debate to be had on most of the other candidates.

by Shelsey93 Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:14 pm

Yep. Will go with that.

I haven't had time to assess Clark or Taylor properly either. And would like (even if I'm pretty certain which way I've voted) to have a closer look at Chappell and Gibbs' careers.

by msp83 Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:02 am

OK I am back. Have been travelling quite a bit over the last one week or so and couldn't catch up much on the cricket other than the scorecard on cricinfo at times.
So Mike's much anticipated case for Woolmer is here and I must say its a very interesting one.
His adaptability and his overall stats as a coach at the different levels he worked at, are pretty impressive.
However, I am not sure inconsiderate loyalty could be a hallmark of a good coach. Cronje had trapped some of the upcoming players. He had first hinted about the possibilities of fixing international matches in 1996 while playing an ODI in India. Then 1998 happened, Cronje targeted players who were vulnerable, the likes of Gibbs and Henry Williams who were either from a coloured background or were finding their feet in international cricket. Players like Peter Stridom had refused to go with the powerful captain. Had there been a coach who the players could count on to stand up to the powerful captain, I believe they would have gone to him. The fact that Cronje was running his racket from 1996 onwards, and the coach, who should be the one players should be able to trust with their problems could never find it out, is a very serious problem in my view.
Even during the 2006 issue, I think his stand wasn't the best response from a position of great responsibility. Of course the players may have been very upset and perhaps they may had a reason for the same. But what Pakistan did that day, not coming out to play and throwing away a test just like that, was not an action within the spirit of the game. I could under to some extend the way the players went, but a responsible coach should certainly have acted more responsibly, more statemanly. Despite his massive flaws, Cronje was a good strategist on field. I am not sure as to how much was Woolmer's contribution to some of the innovations. Never was Inzi as innovative a captain as Cronje was.
My next issue against Woolmer is the rebel tour to SA in 1982. The sporting boycott of South Africa was the outcome of a concerted international effort at putting pressure on one of the most despicable regimes of the modern era. The rebel tours contributed to delegitimizing and downrighting such efforts. Woolmer, a man who loved the finer things that money could offer, like others who were involved, failed to see the larger moral side of the problem.
So as a coach and a human being, I have major reservations on Woolmer's nomination.

by msp83 Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:08 am

Besides, many of the innovations that SA introduced under Woolmer were introduced by other coaches as well. Bob Simpson has to be among the first modern coaches, Dav Whatmore was an innovative and successful coach with Sri Lanka, Fletcher saw England through a remarkable era of transformation during which they not only showed remarkable cricketing improvement, but also saw new administrative innovations like central contracts and restrictions on international player's county slogs. John Right has been one of the most adaptable and successful coaches of the modern era. There of course is John B, the ultimate Laptop Coach of them all.

by alfie Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:23 am

Shelsey93 wrote:Was thinking about that.

I do feel that the debate on these is yet to fully develop, and so it might be best to give them a bit more time. What do people think?

Absolutely agree. Just for me , health and other reasons have largely kept me out of this round , though I have a fair idea how I'll vote I would prefer to read all the arguments and give them fair consideration.
If no- one is protesting , an extra week sounds like a great idea.

by alfie Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:30 am

msp raises some interesting points re Woolmer.

The 2006 match is tricky. I tend to agree that the coach should have put his foot down and said get back out there , we'll complain later. But I wonder if cultural considerations or what ever you want to call it might have been a snag there. Was not a high ranking Pakistani cricket boss in on the discussion , or is my memory playing tricks ?

I wouldn't rule out his candidacy on that score in any case. But a relevant point to raise.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:01 pm

Agree another week would be very helpful.

The discussion on Woolmer is warming up and my vote is entirely up for grabs. MSP raises important issue about how does Woolmer rank alongside other coaches.

On the question of corruption, I don't think you can necessarily hold it against a coach if there is a corrupt individual in the team, even if it is the captain. But if there are found to be several players getting in on the act I think there must be something wrong with the style or culture of team management if no one felt able to whistleblow.

by msp83 Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:58 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Agree another week would be very helpful.

The discussion on Woolmer is warming up and my vote is entirely up for grabs. MSP raises important issue about how does Woolmer rank alongside other coaches.

On the question of corruption, I don't think you can necessarily hold it against a coach if there is a corrupt individual in the team, even if it is the captain. But if there are found to be several players getting in on the act I think there must be something wrong with the style or culture of team management if no one felt able to whistleblow.

Corporal
The likes of Gibbs and Henry Williams were also dragged along by Cronje. The likes of Klusener and Stridom were given offeres. Cronje had openly hinted at the possibilities in 1996, perhaps a good coach should have registered it at some part of his mind? It, in my view is very instructive that none of the players really went to Woolmer even when the offers were made to them and they refused to fall in line. Even after it all got exposed, Woolmer never came out very strongly against Cronje.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:59 pm

MSP - that does look like a strong minus against Woolmer.

I have been looking further into the background to the Chappell underarm incident. From the reports it sounds like he was (or after the event was claiming to be) suffering from some form of stress or depression.

Chappell insisted that a tough schedule that summer and ongoing negotiations with officials over playing conditions had left him "mentally unfit" to be captain that day.

"By that stage I just didn't care," Chappell continued. "If they told me I'd never play again I wouldn't have cared, which gives an indication of the state of mind I was in.

"As I walked off the ground I was in shock. I had no feelings at all but then a young girl ran across in front of me, stopped and tugged on the sleeve of my shirt. She looked at me and said: 'you cheated'.

"I had known it wasn't going to be well received, but it was only then I realised that maybe it was going to be worse than I thought."

For me what it boils down to is whether that explanation is valid. If it is I would vote yes to Chappell. While it would be a further minus if the excuse was a way of diminishing his responsibility..... Not sure whether there is any decisive evidence either way on that..... Erm

by Hoggy_Bear Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:27 pm

Corporal
I think MfC mentioned earlier in the thread that he recalled that Chappell had wanted to leave the field before the underarm incident, only to be persuaded to stay on by Rod Marsh.
Perhaps that gives some credence to Chappell's version of events.

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:35 pm

yep, that was me Very Happy

read about it in a book called "cricket's strangest matches" I think...

unfortunately said book is at my parents place so I can't give you a direct quote, but I certainly remember getting the impression that Chappell was far from on top of things at the time.

Now of course this doesn't really excuse what he did, but it is mitigation of a sort. For me, my stance hasn't changed on Chappell: the underarm incident is a huge blot, but it's not enough to exclude him from the HoF, and I think we'd all agree that without it he'd be a shoe-in.

by Hoggy_Bear Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:40 pm

Found a quote from the New Zealand batsman Brian McKechnie that confirms your recollection Mad for

"McKechnie confirmed Chappell's state of mind. "He was under pressure," he said. "He wanted to leave the field during the game. He stood at long-off, which is near the boundary. That's unusual for a captain.""

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/498574.html

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:48 pm

on the other candidates

Woolmer: some interesting debate and counter-debate going on. I do agree that loyalty can sometimes be taken too far, and in Woolmer's case probably was. However, loyalty is an admirable (and necessary) quality of course. From personal experience, it's something I've always apreciated, and I know Mike as a coach is fiercely loyal (possibly why the Woolmer case rings so close to home) and that the players think very highly of him for it (well, the players I know anyway).

Now I don't actually hold the Cronje incident against Woolmer. People need to remember this was in an age where match-fixing was mostly unheard of, so Woolmer wouldn't have had a clue as to what was going on. Msp mentions that other players were tempted by Cronje but didn't go to Woolmer. I'm not sure that's entirely fair to criticise Woolmer on...

I do hold the 2006 match against England against him rather more. Regardless of how strongly he felt about the issue, I believe there are channels for this sort of thing, and refusing to rejoin the field crossed the line for me.

I'm genuinely not sure which way to go so far with Woolmer...

Taylor and Clark: well I've made my case. I appreciate people have a problem with how exactly to judge women's cricket, but I think if we don't include Taylor or Clark in the HoF there's not much point in considering others. These two for me are the two greatest women cricketers of all time, and more importantly the role they played in driving the standards of the women's game cannot be denied. For Taylor, I'll ask people once again to have a look at her year in 2009. Now I appreciate one year can be a one-off, but for me it's the crowning glory of a great career: player of the tournament in two limited overs triumphs, average of 65+ in ODIs, etc.

Gibbs: perhaps not quite enough debate on Gibbs yet for my liking. A great career and heading towards a YES vote, but would like a little more convincing.

PS: thanks for that Hoggy

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:47 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
....Gibbs: perhaps not quite enough debate on Gibbs yet for my liking. A great career and heading towards a YES vote, but would like a little more convincing....

MfC: Any particular reservations about Gibbs? To recap....
* Held world record for test wickets for five years
* only second bowler to pass 300 test wickets - and the first spinner to do so
* Tight containing bowler working around the Windies quicks in the first innings of tests; match winner in the second innings - exactly what was needed of him
* took 5 wickets on 18 occasions
* best performance: at Bridgetown single-handedly reduced the Indians from 149/2 to 187 all out with eight wickets in 15.3 overs at a total cost of just six runs
* took by far the most test wickets of any bowler with economy rate under two
* strike rate held back by incredibly low proportion of LBWs
* excellent performer for Warks

by msp83 Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:05 am

Mad for Chelsea wrote:on the other candidates

Woolmer: some interesting debate and counter-debate going on. I do agree that loyalty can sometimes be taken too far, and in Woolmer's case probably was. However, loyalty is an admirable (and necessary) quality of course. From personal experience, it's something I've always apreciated, and I know Mike as a coach is fiercely loyal (possibly why the Woolmer case rings so close to home) and that the players think very highly of him for it (well, the players I know anyway).

Now I don't actually hold the Cronje incident against Woolmer. People need to remember this was in an age where match-fixing was mostly unheard of, so Woolmer wouldn't have had a clue as to what was going on. Msp mentions that other players were tempted by Cronje but didn't go to Woolmer. I'm not sure that's entirely fair to criticise Woolmer on...

I do hold the 2006 match against England against him rather more. Regardless of how strongly he felt about the issue, I believe there are channels for this sort of thing, and refusing to rejoin the field crossed the line for me.

I'm genuinely not sure which way to go so far with Woolmer...

Taylor and Clark: well I've made my case. I appreciate people have a problem with how exactly to judge women's cricket, but I think if we don't include Taylor or Clark in the HoF there's not much point in considering others. These two for me are the two greatest women cricketers of all time, and more importantly the role they played in driving the standards of the women's game cannot be denied. For Taylor, I'll ask people once again to have a look at her year in 2009. Now I appreciate one year can be a one-off, but for me it's the crowning glory of a great career: player of the tournament in two limited overs triumphs, average of 65+ in ODIs, etc.

Gibbs: perhaps not quite enough debate on Gibbs yet for my liking. A great career and heading towards a YES vote, but would like a little more convincing.

PS: thanks for that Hoggy

MFC, match fixing and related issues were pretty much in the air in the late 90s. The 1994 issue involving Warne and Mark Waugh came out in the open in 1998, there were suspicions on players like Saleem Malik even then. So when the Cronje scandal eventually came out, not many was shocked was this was happening, the more shocking bit was South Africa's respected captain was involved in it all. As I said, Cronje had given some open hints to the team as early as 1996 and Woolmer as the coach, should have played closer attention. I think it is very much possible that the likes of Klusener and Stridom didn't approach the coach as he was debilitatingly loyal to the captain to see and understand the obvious flaws of Cronje.

by msp83 Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:44 am

In Woolmer's case, it has to be noted that his fears loyalty towards South Africa's disgraceful former captain was something that extended even way beyond the immediate aftermath of the scandal. Even in the last interview before his death, Woolmer chose to play down the obnoxious act of deception.

by msp83 Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:56 am

Former South African coach Bob Woolmer has called for sacked captain Hansie Cronje to be given a second chance.
Cronje was dropped from the national squad after admitting receiving money from a bookmaker for supplying match information, prompting the United Cricket Board of South Africa to order a full-scale inquiry. He got too much power and felt invulnerable
Bob Woolmer

But Woolmer, now coach of English county side Warwickshire, has spoken out in support of 30-year-old Cronje, who he described as a "wonderful person".

"Hansie should be brought back into the fold as soon as possible," the Pretoria News quoted Woolmer as saying.

"Mark Waugh and Shane Warne were convicted of the same offence by the Australian Cricket Board and given a monetary fine. If Hansie has done the same as them why should we be any different?"

Waugh and Warne were fined for providing information during Australia's 1994 tour to Sri Lanka, but the ACB did not make details public until four years later.

Evidence

Woolmer has returned to South Africa to give evidence to the match-fixing inquiry, particularly about allegations that the team were asked to throw a match in India in December 1996, an offer which was turned down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/cricket/779630.stm

No wonder the likes of Henry Williams, Gibbs, Klusener and others never went to Woolmer.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:54 pm

Msp
You do raise some interesting questions with regard to Woolmer, his loyalty to Cronje, and the fact that other players who Cronje approached didn't report that to the coach.
But, could it be argued that the failure of the players you mention to report Cronje's approaches to Woolmer could simply have been a manifestation of THEIR loyalty to their captain and teammate? After all, as far as I'm aware, they didn't report the matter to anyone. Maybe it was more a case of not wanting to rat on a mate, than not feeling comfortable enough to report it to the coach?

by Shelsey93 Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:06 pm

I have finally got round to updating the Hall of Fame home page in the Honours Board section which includes a full list of all inductees so far, and also now has links to the 3 previous discussion threads and a list of candidates to be considered in the future weeks:

https://www.606v2.com/t18388-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-home-page-and-inductees-graphics-included

Sorry that this took so long. But now it is up to date fully it should be much easier to keep up to date after each round of voting.

That thread has also been locked. The reason for that is that in future it may be necessary to split the posts again (due to character limits) and it isn't possible to just insert a post above comments. Therefore, as has happened here, comments would have to be deleted to keep the page tidy. If people have any general comments or questions about the nominees so far, the voting precedure, or the future candidate schedule, you can of course post them in this thread.

by guildfordbat Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:05 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
... Maybe it was more a case of not wanting to rat on a mate, than not feeling comfortable enough to report it to the coach?

Hoggy - I don't know enough of what went on concerning Cronje and others to provide any detailed analysis. However, even if it was the case you speculate, shouldn't the environment have been created where it was understood to be essential to report such a matter to the coach?

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:27 pm

You do have a point Guildford, but I would argue that it's very difficult to create an enviroment that will overcome the natural reluctance to be seen as 'telling tales', no matter how important those 'tales' may be.
I mean, the players involved may well have realised (and probably did), that not reporting these issues was completely wrong, against the ethics of the team or the coach and, potentially, damaging to South African cricket. Yet they didn't report them to anyone. That's why I think it was more a matter of not wanting to 'grass' on Cronje, than a reluctance to do so to the coach. Surely, if they simply did not want to tell Woolmer because of his loyalty to Cronje, they could have told someone else?

by guildfordbat Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:37 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
... Surely, if they simply did not want to tell Woolmer because of his loyalty to Cronje, they could have told someone else?

Hoggy - yes, they surely could have - and should have, regardless of whether it was to Woolmer or someone else. I think all would agree that what happened and didn't all seems some way from being ideal. I guess the resulting question is whether Woolmer merits sympathy or criticism?

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:20 pm

Well I'd say that Woolmer perhaps deserves some censure for not creating an atmosphere within the team that would have persuaded someone to come forward, but not, IMO, that much, as creating such an atmosphere is a very difficult thing to do, particularly when those involved are less senior members of the team, as Gibbs etc. were at the time.

by guildfordbat Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:56 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
....Gibbs: perhaps not quite enough debate on Gibbs yet for my liking. A great career and heading towards a YES vote, but would like a little more convincing....

MfC: Any particular reservations about Gibbs? To recap....
* Held world record for test wickets for five years
* only second bowler to pass 300 test wickets - and the first spinner to do so
* Tight containing bowler working around the Windies quicks in the first innings of tests; match winner in the second innings - exactly what was needed of him
* took 5 wickets on 18 occasions
* best performance: at Bridgetown single-handedly reduced the Indians from 149/2 to 187 all out with eight wickets in 15.3 overs at a total cost of just six runs
* took by far the most test wickets of any bowler with economy rate under two
* strike rate held back by incredibly low proportion of LBWs
* excellent performer for Warks

A summary of characteristic military precision from the Corporal.

For anyone looking for even more 'stand outs', just to mention:

* In the 1960-61 series against Australia, he took 3 wickets in 4 balls in the Sydney Test. He went one ball better in the very next Test when he took a hat trick at Adelaide. It was over fifteen years before anyone took another Test hat trick for any nation. Gibbs was the second West Indian to take a Test hat trick. Only two other West Indians have achieved the same in the following fifty years.

* ODIs only started to appear on the scene as Gibbs' career was coming to an end. He only played three ODIs. However, in the second of these he showed he could still apply his miserly economy rates in Tests to the ODI stage as he produced the remarkable match winning figures of 11-4-12-1 against England at the Oval.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:05 pm

Shelsey93 wrote:I have finally got round to updating the Hall of Fame home page in the Honours Board section which includes a full list of all inductees so far, and also now has links to the 3 previous discussion threads and a list of candidates to be considered in the future weeks.

Thanks, Shelsey. Should reduce, (if not eliminate Erm

) risk of me attempting to cast duplicate votes for candidate already in HoF. Probably instructive for posters who are wavering on a particular candidate to cast an eye down the list to see whether they match up to this calibre of cricketer.

by dummy_half Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:26 am

Agree that we still need to flesh out the discussions of one or two candidates before voting.

I note MFC's comment that Clark and Taylor are the two greatest women players of all time, but I'd like that to be fleshed out more particularly with regard to Taylor (Clark's captaincy record and role in Cricket Australia in promotion of the women's game add a lot of positives to her already strong playing record, so I feel she is a very strong candidate for our HoF).

Woolmer I keep flip-flopping on - clearly a very successful coach for Warwickshire and then was widely respected at international level, but did he have too much of a blind spot for the misbehaviour of his players (Cronje's match fixing, Pakistan's dissent)?

by Mike Selig Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:29 am

Morning all. Would like to attempt to adress some concerns about Woolmer, and in particular a few things coming up from the Cronje match-fixing thing. First though, I should answer Shelsey's post:

Shelsey93 wrote:
- As an innovator what were his strengths as compared to, say, Mickey Stewart, England's first full time coach, who Steve James describes as " was way ahead of his time, not least in the aspects of fitness and planning.. "?

Of course there have been other innovators in the field of coaching. msp has named a few as well. I don't see how that invalidates Woolmer's claim for HoF status though. We don't hold it against Compton (who first played the sweep shot) that Ranji was an innovator before him, and others were after him. Woolmer drove forward the use of computer analysis in cricket, to the extent that it's used by everyone everywhere (including myself, although with far less sophisticated software) today. I don't see how that Mickey Stewart was the first to introduce fitness training, or Dav Whatmore effective use of PP overs, or Fletcher driving central contracts reduces that case.

Shelsey93 wrote:- How does he compare to John Buchanan? Buchanan of course had tremendous success, even if the likes of Warne didn't always rate him. Would a Warne have enjoyed Woolmer's coaching more, or was this just an opposition to coaching per se?

Buchanan was a strange one - very left-field, but with some remarkably interesting ideas. I would love to spend an hour chatting to him, you could potentially learn so much. I don't think Warne had an opposition to coaching per se, but his coaching philosophy is far more aligned to Woolmer's (and Benaud's) "listen to everything, try everything, but keep only what works for you". I think Woolmer would have got a lot out of Warne, he would have adapted his methods as he did to Lara (who was also notoriously difficult to coach). I also think Warne would have respected Woolmer more because of his playing record as opposed to Buchanan's; that reflects poorly on Warne as opposed to Buchanan, but some players want coaches to have playing pedigree - Warne (and I think Pietersen) amongst them.

Shelsey93 wrote:- I do have reservations regarding rebel tours, particularly the 1982 one when the end of Apartheid was still some way away (although it must be noted that Hall of Famers Derek Underwood and Alan Knott also went).

As you say, others went on them. I think Woolmer did his penitance for that when he returned to South Africa to coach. I'm not excusing the rebel tour, but I don't think it can be a sticking point really.

Now onto the Cronje issue. Apologies for being blunt.

I'm afraid some of you really don't get it; it's hard to explain because unless you've been involved in cricket in a serious way you can't really understand what's going on inside some of these changing rooms. the pressure these guys are under is enormous (and obviously played a part in the Chappel underarm incident, which is why I'm willing to be more forgiving). To deal with that pressure you have to create an environment where the TEAM backs itself up at all times.

As a coach, the last thing I want to do is create an environment where team members think it is ok or even desirable to "rat" on other team members. What I want is an environment where every team member would be willing to dive on gravel if it would help the team move forward. You need players to trust and respect each-other (and you). We've seen recently with England how a divisive changing-room (for whatever reason) can contribute to the downfall of the team.

Let me give you two real-life examples of teams I know about (no names given).
1) as can sometimes happen at European level, visa problems for one of the players of a country (won't say which one). Players felt the board wasn't helping as much as they felt they could expect. Captain said without more board contribution he wasn't prepared to lead the team to the tournament. In the 2 hours that followed 7 players said if the captain pulled out so would they. Now you can make what you like of the morality of the blackmail, but there is no doubt that that kind of loyalty and unity is a strength for a team to have.
2) An U17 team I coached at a Euro. I sent one of our subs to pick up a practice bat to do some fielding practice before the match. He came back and asked me to come with him to the changing room, and showed me two beers he'd found in a player's kit bag. I thought this was despicable, and one of the worst things you could do. In this case, I'd already seen the beers on day one, had it out with the player involved who promised me they were left over from a previous tour. I said I believed him, but that those two beers better still be intact and in his bag come the end of the tour. Trust. Worked both ways. Incidentily the guy was comfortably our best batsman during the tournament (OK, now MfC can figure out who it is, as could others with use of the internet).

Now of course there is a major difference between some (potential) underage drinking and match-fixing. I would like to think that if a player I coached had been approached to fix games, he would come to me about it, I would like to think he'd respect me enough to trust me to deal with it effectively. But realistically you are doing everything you can to create an environment where the players are loyal to each-other above everything. I'd feel completely betrayed by my captain in this situation, but the other players? I'd be willing to forgive, after honest and open discussion if remorseful etc.

All this to say that let's not forget who the real culprit was here. It was Cronje who abused the trust of his coach and his players, and used his position of responsability to try and corrupt his team-mates. Woolmer was guilty of a huge error in judgement in giving Cronje his trust, but really no more. I just don't think it is reasonable to criticise him for players not coming forward.

For me, the bigger issue is Woolmer refusing to admit (in public at least) his mistake with Cronje. That is a bit of a sticking point. Perhaps it is simply conceit at not wanting to be shown to be wrong.

by guildfordbat Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:13 pm

Mike Selig wrote:
... the pressure these guys are under is enormous ...

Hi Mike, a thorough response. I'll comment further this evening when I have more time. Just a quick stir of the pot now Wink

with this old fogey's favourite quote from the great (and I don't use the term lightly) Australian allrounder and distinguished airforce pilot in WWII, Keith Miller:
''Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not.''

by Mike Selig Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:18 pm

guildfordbat wrote:
Mike Selig wrote:
... the pressure these guys are under is enormous ...

Hi Mike, a thorough response. I'll comment further this evening when I have more time. Just a quick stir of the pot now with this old fogey's favourite quote from the great (and I don't use the term lightly) Australian allrounder and distinguished airforce pilot in WWII, Keith Miller:
''Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not.''

Fair. I stand corrected. I amend to "the pressure these guys are under is not something we can really understand because we haven't experienced anything like it".

by msp83 Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:17 pm

Mike, an approach to fix a match can now way make a team move forward, so I am not sure your excellent case for loyalty that otherwise makes lots of sense could apply here. We have had players coming out in the open of late, Tony Paladino?
As to Hoggy's point, well, that is an interesting reading, but as Woolmer never took the deception as seriously as he should have done even after the range of Cronje's act became clear, I would stick with my reading that the players were not going to approach Woolmer as they would have sensed not much support would come their way. Remarkable it is to remember that Woolmer had argued that Cronje could make a fine coach for SA, and later he suggested that all that Cronje did was to make some easy money, as he could do from his position of power.
Massive mistake in my view.
The point on Woolmer status as an inventor is not just that others have also done it. As Mike himself pointed out, Woolmer was more of a driving force rather than an inventor. But the way computers have become part and parcel of our life these days, all that Woolmer did was to join forces. As I said, Buchanan was the ultimate laptop coach, and guys like Whatmore and Fletcher have left stronger legacies, and there is a touch of invention about their roles.
We have many batsmen with a superb batting record in our HoF, but many others have missed out and the general feeling on many of them was good, but not good enough.
With the rebel tours, stupid loyalty and an underestimation of the massive challenge of match faxing and innability to offer a cool head in crisis situataions when that was what was needed his position of authority and responsibilities, I need far far greater convincing on Woolmer.

by Mike Selig Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:47 pm

msp83 wrote:Mike, an approach to fix a match can now way make a team move forward, so I am not sure your excellent case for loyalty that otherwise makes lots of sense could apply here.
We have had players coming out in the open of late, Tony Paladino?

It is interesting that Paladino came into the open not to his coach but to the authorities. And there were a few mutterings both amongst the players and fans that he shouldn't have done so (not that I agree, but I am giving a perspective here - it is expected in a team sport that you back your team-mates in almost all circumstances).

msp83 wrote:As to Hoggy's point, well, that is an interesting reading, but as Woolmer never took the deception as seriously as he should have done even after the range of Cronje's act became clear, I would stick with my reading that the players were not going to approach Woolmer as they would have sensed not much support would come their way. Remarkable it is to remember that Woolmer had argued that Cronje could make a fine coach for SA, and later he suggested that all that Cronje did was to make some easy money, as he could do from his position of power.
Massive mistake in my view.

As I said, the refusal to condemn Cronje's actions after it all came out are for me the more problematic actions.

msp83 wrote:But the way computers have become part and parcel of our life these days, all that Woolmer did was to join forces. As I said, Buchanan was the ultimate laptop coach,

Not true. Buchanan was a great innovator, but in the art of computer analysis he very much took over from where Woolmer left off. Woolmer was THE driving force behind modern analytical methods.

msp83 wrote:guys like Whatmore and Fletcher have left stronger legacies

Not in the coaching world they haven't. Woolmer is held in extremely high regard not only because of his success, his methods, but also his philosophy (Fletcher was and possibly is far more rigid, Whatmore doesn't have the pedigree Woolmer did or indeed anything close) and willingness he'd pass on his knowledge.
We have many batsmen with a superb batting record in our HoF, but many others have missed out and the general feeling on many of them was good, but not good enough.

msp83 wrote:With the [...] stupid loyalty [...]

You can call it stupid; I call it admirable, and a necessary basis for any successful coaching method.

by Hoggy_Bear Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:15 pm

Msp

Don't know whether Woolmer was the first 'lap top coach' but, according to Paul Smith (former Warks. all-rounder), he was, possibly, the first coach to use video analysis "I didn’t think of Bob as a laptop coach. That came later. But what he did like was video analysis. I’m not aware of anyone doing that before him. “You can’t argue with what’s on the screen,” he used to say. Long after we went home he would be watching videos of practice sessions, previous games or, if available, footage of our opposition."

by msp83 Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:23 pm

When we discussed Sanath Jayasuriya, one point of view that was presented was that the Jayasuriya style powerplay blitzing was an eventuality that had to happen after the introduction of the 15 over powerplays. I wasn't entirely sure of that claim, but in Woolmer's case, Video and computer, the way they have developed, would have found a place in the larger scheme of coaching and other aspects of the game. Video support and 3rd umpire seamlessly became part of the game, although I am not suggesting that's similar to coaching and using video analysis.

by guildfordbat Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:29 pm

Quick look in.

Hoggy - reference to Paul Smith is interesting. Didn't he subsequently admit substance abuse and get a lengthy playing ban (even though he had by then retired)?

by kwinigolfer Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:33 pm

Shelsey,
Fab job on the updated Hall Of Fame and status report - clap

I am very busy this week - have written testimonies before on Lance Gibbs, and would have definitely voted Greg Chappell in to the HOF if I hadn't been a little late to the party.

I will be voting No! for Clark and Taylor, but am having the hardest time with Woolmer, there being an understandable, but frustrating, tendancy to honour roles/influences that are largely born of the past twenty years.

More thoughts on this later, but a very tricky one in my opinion.

by msp83 Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:35 pm

"The other factor in the rise of the coach, generally ignored, was television. Instant, then slow-motion, video replays made it possible to study technique up close over and over again. Brian Booth, who captained Australia in the 1960s, recalled that in his entire career he saw himself bat for only one delivery: by chance, he once saw himself being bowled on a newsreel. Ricky Ponting, the present incumbent, can now watch every ball of his international career as often as he wants, on TV or his laptop. It is one thing to tell a player he is doing the wrong thing; it is quite another to show him. The role of replays has expanded from the analytical to the motivational, for Test cricketers today routinely prepare for playing by watching footage of their earlier successes".
An interesting and perhaps instructive extract from a Wisden article.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/247080.html

by msp83 Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:36 pm

"Two men in particular were perceived to have moved the game onwards. Bob Woolmer ran South Africa's team innovatively with help from sports scientist Tim Noakes from the University of Cape Town. And eventually Australia turned to John Buchanan, who has a degree in "human movements'' from the University of Queensland and a first-class batting average of 12. Not all Woolmer's innovations, however, occasioned admiration, particularly the earpiece with which he fitted captain Hansie Cronje at the 1999 World Cup; the later revelation that his players consorted with match-fixers without telling him also suggested communication between them was less than constant. And Buchanan, with his affinity for management-consultancy jargon, has never convinced, for instance, Ian Chappell: "If I had a son, the last bloke in the world I would take him to for cricket coaching would be John Buchanan."
This extract from the same article suggests Woolmer did play a significant role in advancing the idea of a national coach as did Buchanan. But at the same time, the kind of concerns I had put up are certainly limited to very few people.

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:39 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:Shelsey,
Fab job on the updated Hall Of Fame and status report -

I am very busy this week - have written testimonies before on Lance Gibbs, and would have definitely voted Greg Chappell in to the HOF if I hadn't been a little late to the party.

I will be voting No! for Clark and Taylor, but am having the hardest time with Woolmer, there being an understandable, but frustrating, tendancy to honour roles/influences that are largely born of the past twenty years.

More thoughts on this later, but a very tricky one in my opinion.

may I enquire as to why?

by msp83 Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:43 pm

Something more from the same article.

"But the individuals most closely identified with significant improvement have been three hard-working sweats who made the most of sometimes limited abilities in their playing days, and who are likewise capable as coaches of wringing extra from talent at their disposal: Dav Whatmore in Sri Lanka, John Wright in India and Duncan Fletcher in England. All came from outside their respective cricket systems. All won reputations for meticulous preparation and close relationships with their captains".
Interesting to note that Right took over the India job after the Cronje disaster and the confirmation of the roles played by Azhar, Ajay Jadeja and other in dragging Indian cricket to it all.
Also interesting to note a highly successful coach like Fletcher became a victim of hyper-loyalty that was rather not very admirable, although not on the scales of What Woolmer had to face.

by msp83 Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:55 pm

Again, is it totaly acceptable that Woolmer was the exclusive pioneer of video analysis? Steve Waugh, in his autobiography, while talking about Australia's landmark tour of the West Indies in 1995, mentions that Shane Warne had to use a lot of video analysis on Carl Hooper who had played one of the most brilliant counterattacking innings to start off the series before Warney gained the upperhand.

by kwinigolfer Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:53 pm

Hi Chelsea,

Well, I have proposed before that the Hall should constitute a wide tent that includes a variety of contributors to the sport including, but not limited to, writers, broadcasters, umpires, coaches, entrepreneurs (I see Packer is up for consideration shortly, akin to having Hitler as Time Person of the Year in my opinion), even one-day specialists, etc. And I would place women's cricketers in that category.
In Claire Taylor's case, I'm also reluctant to induct a person who has only just retired from the sport without some sort of perspective of time and place.
As it is, she and Clark and Bakewell and Heyhoe could be the absolute bee's knees but she wouldn't match up in the men's game and I would offer the thought that this is inequitable (but then I wouldn't classify paralympians with Olympic champions either). (Frank Chester could get in with one arm perhaps, but only in the umping section.)

by Sponsored content