The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1

First topic message reminder :

Following on from Gregers' idea to implement our very own Hall of Fame at 606v2, here is the thread where all the deliberating will take place.

As you know, there is a Hall of Fame already set up by the ICC, though looking through it there are some names in that list which are debateable as to whether they really belong in such company. That, then, is up to us to decide. Let's make our Hall of Fame elitist in every way, ensuring that only the most worthy of candidates are elected.

I propose that we elect 30 founder members of our Hall of Fame before the voting gets underway - whose position in cricketing history we can all agree on. Remember, this Hall doesn't have to only include players but can include managers, figureheads or anyone else that we feel has had a significant impact upon the sport to deem them worthy of a place.

In order for a candidate to gain election to the Hall, they will need a yes vote of 75% or more. Anything less will see them fail to get in, although if they get between 50 and 75% of the vote they will be voted on again at a later date. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and therefore no currently active players will be considered.

Every fortnight 5 candidates are considered. Voting deadlines and forthcoming candidates are listed at the bottom of the the stickied thread in the Honours Board section.

Forum members can nominate candidates by posting in the current thread, which is stickied in the main cricket section.

My suggestion for the inaugural 30 is as follows. It is intended that these be the 30 very best and uncontroversial inductees, so please put forward any suggestions that you may have as to possible changes to this list, before we get started. We need to get the right names in this initial 30. In no particular order:

1) Don Bradman 2) Ian Botham 3) Sydney Barnes 4) Sunil Gavaskar 5) W.G Grace 6) Jack Hobbs 7) Richard Hadlee 8) Imran Khan 9) Malcolm Marshall 10) Garfield Sobers 11) Shane Warne 12) Muttiah Muralitharan 13) Viv Richards 14) Clive Lloyd 15) Keith Miller 16) Andy Flower 17) Brian Lara 18) Bill O'Reilly 19) Wasim Akram 20) Glenn McGrath 21) Michael Holding 22) Richie Benaud 23) Adam Gilchrist 24) Allan Border 25) Curtly Ambrose 26) Dennis Lillee 27) Frank Worrell 28) Victor Trumper 29) Kapil Dev 30) Jim Laker

So, let me know your thoughts and possible changes to this 20, and then we will get on with the business of the first ten names that are up for nomination. Any questions let me know.

Yeah pretty much spot on, mate, in my view. Interested to see the opinions of others on these 5, I think a couple of them could divide opinion.

I agree with Hoggy_Bear with the no's for the same reasons.

Bedser and Barrington are all-time great players for England and have tremendous records, so cannot argue with that.

G Chappell is still a YES for me (now) Great record and classy strokeplayer. Arguably Australia's second greatest bat after Bradman.
I stated my reason(s) earlier.

Good stuff.

Very briefly as I am busy ATM (will write something longer either over this week-end, or monday).

Barrington: tougher than you might think. The only attribute in his favour seems to be his extraordinary record. On the down side, does anyone still around from that time say "I remember the day when Barrington..." By all accounts he was a fairly dour player. Would he make a world 11 of all time? I would argue not. Even an English 11? Probably, but with Hammond, Compton, and others not universally.
For me, we are looking at being elitist in the sense that those making the cut must be unargued all-time greats, or have changed the face of the game, or have done such extraordinary services outside the game.
I'm tempted to say Barrington is none of the above, and hence is a NO

Bedser:
For all the reasons given, and being the best medium-pace bowler post war, a definite YES. One of the main-stays of the great Surrey side of the 50s, and one of England's best all-time cricketers.

Bedi:
A good, very good spinner, but an all-time great? Not for me. Has done a lot for cricket since retiring providing a much needed balance (if not balanced) from Indian voices. But not enough to force his way into the hall of fame certainly. An easy enough NO.

Boycott:
For the reasons given by others. Wouldn't make an England all-time 11, let alone a world one. A very good player who fell short of being great, before you even mention the selfishness which inhabited his batting. A fairly comfortable NO.

Chappel:
I understand the furore over his underarm tactic, but in his defence as extenuating circumstances, he has always severely regretted the incident since then. To deny him a place in the hall of fame based on one monumental error in judgement seems tough.
According to many the best Australian batsman since Bradman. Would comfortably make an Aussie all-time 11 and push for a spot in a world 11. Faced the fearsome West Indies attack and came away mostly in credit. Elegant style, great to watch. Has done much for the game since retiring. An easy enough YES.

Mike Selig wrote:Very briefly as I am busy ATM (will write something longer either over this week-end, or monday).

Barrington: tougher than you might think. The only attribute in his favour seems to be his extraordinary record. On the down side, does anyone still around from that time say "I remember the day when Barrington..." By all accounts he was a fairly dour player. Would he make a world 11 of all time? I would argue not. Even an English 11? Probably, but with Hammond, Compton, and others not universally.
For me, we are looking at being elitist in the sense that those making the cut must be unargued all-time greats, or have changed the face of the game, or have done such extraordinary services outside the game.
I'm tempted to say Barrington is none of the above, and hence is a NO

Bedser:
For all the reasons given, and being the best medium-pace bowler post war, a definite YES. One of the main-stays of the great Surrey side of the 50s, and one of England's best all-time cricketers.

Bedi:
A good, very good spinner, but an all-time great? Not for me. Has done a lot for cricket since retiring providing a much needed balance (if not balanced) from Indian voices. But not enough to force his way into the hall of fame certainly. An easy enough NO.

Boycott:
For the reasons given by others. Wouldn't make an England all-time 11, let alone a world one. A very good player who fell short of being great, before you even mention the selfishness which inhabited his batting. A fairly comfortable NO.

Chappel:
I understand the furore over his underarm tactic, but in his defence as extenuating circumstances, he has always severely regretted the incident since then. To deny him a place in the hall of fame based on one monumental error in judgement seems tough.
According to many the best Australian batsman since Bradman. Would comfortably make an Aussie all-time 11 and push for a spot in a world 11. Faced the fearsome West Indies attack and came away mostly in credit. Elegant style, great to watch. Has done much for the game since retiring. An easy enough YES.

Personally think Barrington would be a shoe-in for an England all-time XI, but we've all got different opinions which is what makes for lively debate.

Mike, you make a compelling argument regarding Barrington. When casting my own votes I saw him as a shoe-in to be elected, but you make an excellent point with regard to what he did that deserves the HoF status.

Indeed just yesterday we were beating Kallis with the same stick, saying he didn't have a real stand-out innings (though Barrington does, I guess) and that he had never really tipped the balance of a match by putting his foot down when needed etc.

It'd appear a great deal more thought is required on this one on my part.

Fists of Fury wrote:Mike, you make a compelling argument regarding Barrington. When casting my own votes I saw him as a shoe-in to be elected, but you make an excellent point with regard to what he did that deserves the HoF status.

Indeed just yesterday we were beating Kallis with the same stick, saying he didn't have a real stand-out innings (though Barrington does, I guess) and that he had never really tipped the balance of a match by putting his foot down when needed etc.

It'd appear a great deal more thought is required on this one on my part.

I think consistent, superb performance (as shown by the stats) is more important than stand-out innings, as such things are likely to become lost in the mists of time, especially where no TV footage exists.

All things considered, you are probably right, Hoggy. I guess it is just down to the individual voters interpretation of just how elitist they want to be. Makes for some intriguing discussion.

Barrington was a FAR better batsman than Lloyd who is in the HoF.
So Barrington should be a no brainer IMHO.

Lloyd is not in our hall of fame for his batting.

Shanky, we aren't just considering batting. We consider their overall impact on the sport, too.

Lloyd belongs in any cricket Hall of Fame.

yep, Lloyd gets in for his batting (incl. a match-winning hundred in a WC final), captaincy, and of course contributions after he retired. More than deserves it IMO.

As for the nominees, can't quite make up my mind on Chappell right now. For the others am going with the general sentiment:

Barrington - YES (sometimes makes my world XI, always makes my England XI)
Bedi - NO (very very good, but not great)
Boycott - NO (same)
Bedser - YES.

With Chappell, you have to ask if the one major blot on his career (underarm-gate) is enough to rule him out, as if you take that incident away he's a no-brain inclusion IMO.

I'll think about it, and get back to you later, along with more details for the others.

Mike is a poster whom I immensely respect and I'm really sorry if you feel bad about my following comment but I find it incredibly hard to digest that the person suggesting Jayasuriya(who IMO was nothing more than a flat track bully)for a HoF believes that a guy with a Test average of over 60 on UNCOVERED pitches and with also a Bradmansqeue record in alien conditions in India is not worthy for a place in the HoF.
You may feel that he changed one day batting but at the end of the day,when has he ever fighted it out in conditions assisting bowlers.Batsmanship is not just being able to dominate,its also being able to grind in tough conditions,being mentally tough and not giving your wicket away when the bowler is on top rather than just hammering the bowlers on flat pitches,

I am not a Greg Chappell fan by any stretch of imagination.In fact,I cant stand the bloke.But there is no denying that he was a great batsman.And if that underarm ball is the only reason why he cant get in our HoF then its very very sad IMO.
If I am not mistaken,the great Shane Warney was banned in 2003 ahead of the WC for taking drugs.What he did was not only against the spirit of cricket but it was also against the rules of the game.At least Chappell didnt break any rules.And Warney is indeed in the HoF(and deservedly so).This is not at all dig at Warney who is one of my favourite cricketers and IMO he would be one of the first names for such a list but those who feel that Chappell shouldnt be there just because of that underarm ball,think again.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Mike is a poster whom I immensely respect and I'm really sorry if you feel bad about my following comment but I find it incredibly hard to digest that the person suggesting Jayasuriya(who IMO was nothing more than a flat track bully)for a HoF believes that a guy with a Test average of over 60 on UNCOVERED pitches and with also a Bradmansqeue record in alien conditions in India is not worthy for a place in the HoF.
You may feel that he changed one day batting but at the end of the day,when has he ever fighted it out in conditions assisting bowlers.Batsmanship is not just being able to dominate,its also being able to grind in tough conditions,being mentally tough and not giving your wicket away when the bowler is on top rather than just hammering the bowlers on flat pitches,

No offence taken. I'm very honoured you feel respect for me.

I see the hall of fame as being a place for those very special cricketers. I don't think I will end up giving yes votes to more than 50 people (including the original 30). To qualify for it, a cricketer must have made an outstanding contribution to the game. This could be a world first (and possibly never to be surpassed) one-off performance (deals with Lara, Laker, etc.) or a statistical impossibility over his career (Bradman, Barnes), or even something outstanding outside the game (Flower). It could also be to have changed the way cricket is played. This deals with Jayasuriya, Rhodes, Trumper, Warne, Murali and others. Alternatively, it could be for "undisputed all-time greats". The definition is loose, but perhaps can be best approximates by "great, and known to sufficiently many non-cricket fans".

Someone like Bedser won x consecutive titles with Surrey. Someone like G. Chappel not only had a tremendous record, but also batted with grace and style and has contributed massively since retirement.

Barrington has no real one-off, and didn't change the way the game was played. You could argue and make a very good case that he is an undisputed all-time great, but the very fact I am unsure about whether he fits the bill, means for me he doesn't.

To summarize, I am not only looking for excellence, I am looking for "excellence + epsilon" (for mathmos, epsilon can be arbitrarily small, but needs be positive of course), or in english, "excellence and a little bit extra". Barrington doesn't quite fit, but I don't mind people disagreeing.

I like your philosophy on this HoF, Mike.

Shanky, are they your votes, mate? If so, can you add a YES or a NO after each of your reasons.

Mike Selig wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Someone like Bedser won x consecutive titles with Surrey. Someone like G. Chappel not only had a tremendous record, but also batted with grace and style and has contributed massively since retirement.

Barrington was also an integral member of that Surrey side. He also had a tremendous record and batted with guts and determination, an ability to raise his game against the toughest opponents (see his record against Australia) and a willingness to put the needs of the team first that is rare, and also contributed massively (at least to English cricket), after his retirement.

Ken Barrington - I just don't think you can argue with a Test average of over 58. And for me, he would make a England All Time XI and despite not being a flashy player, he was mightily effective and not every player can be the maverick strokemaker, you need the glue aswell. Yes from me.

Bishan Bedi - Pretty much agree with everything said. No.

Alec Bedser - Again, he has been pretty much covered by everyone else. Clear yes.

Geoffrey Boycott - Going to be a bit controversial here and say yes to Boycs. If he hadn't missed out on Tests in his self imposed exile then he would have made 10,000 runs and been a shoo in for this Hall. A run machine, maybe he doesn't make an all time England XI, but this is only due to England having a list of exceptional openers and in addition to this, he is one of the great characters of cricket in the commentary box now and his influence outside of the game muct count for something. So yes from me.

Greg Chappell - The underarm inicident is the only evidence against him making this hall, and his record in the game outweighs this for me. Yes.

Fists and all - some excellent debate going on here. Great to see arguments being put so effectively in some cases both for and against the same player.

I'll confirm all my votes later tonight or tomorrow.

I'll certainly be giving a ''yes'' to Barrington although will hold off confirming until I've seen the Corporal's tribute which, I'm sure, is to follow.

I'm totally unmoved by the soppy modern thinking in support of Greg Chappell [there should be an icon for half a wink]. I think you really need to have been around in 1981 to appreciate the dismay and upset his actions caused. Questions were even asked and Chappell was roundly condemned in the New Zealand Parliament. It was not a mistake but a calculated and cynical betrayal of our game's core values.

Mike suggests it would be ''tough'' to exclude a great batsman (and I fully accept he was a great batsman) for this one act. I agree with that, Mike. However, who said entry should be easy? For our Hall of Fame to be meaningful, we are going to have to turn away on the door some big names ....

Guildford.
Have to disagree with you on Chappell.
I was around in '81 and remember the furore, but my question would be, where do we draw the line?
Would we not allow Jardine in because of Bodyline? (I know he probably isn't even a candidate)
Would we rule out inveterate non-walkers, or those who have claimed catches that were obviously not, or those who constantly appeal and harass the umpire, all of which are against the spirit of the game.
How about those who've been convicted of bringing the game into disrepute, or tampering with the ball, or using banned substances?
To me, though what he did was wrong, ruling him out on the basis of that one act opens up a massive can of worms IMO.

Hoggy - as always, you make a good case and put it well.

I don't know where we draw the line and don't claim to know. Whilst I don't like any actions contrary to the spirit of the game, I wouldn't automatically exclude someone due to a relatively minor infringement - whatever that may be. To me, it's a question of degree. In my book, Chappell crossed the line so far by that one act to rule him out of being in our Hall of Fame.

I realise this isn't at all a thorough answer to your legitimate query but I hope it conveys why Greg Chappell can't have my vote.

You're right Guildford, it's been an intriguing day of debate over these 5 candidates.

I guess it boils down to a matter of personal preference as to whether you will allow a controversial character into our Hall.

You're right though, there are going to be some mighty fine players that fail to gain entrance to this exclusive club.

im very glad that wasim akram is in there, as a fellow left arm quick

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - understand your thinking about Lloyd although I would make the point that it's not necessarily easy captaining very good players and the egos that can go with them. Add to that for Lloyd, the 'political' challenges of the different West Indian islands.

Corporal and all (even you Shanky if you promise not to argue ) - George Dobell expresses the above so much better in his current CricInfo article (see thread headed ''Current England team ranked amongst the 5 greatest test teams in history''):

''Clive Lloyd ... managed to unite individuals from disparate nations of the Caribbean into a harmonious team''.

IMO, lloyd has to be in the list. Very good batsman, and one of the best, if not the best captains in history.

Maybe the effect of a couple of glasses of wine but I can't see what I thought was my earlier contribution. Anyway to confirm:

Barrington - has to be a yes - my first cricketing hero. I never saw him play - but I listened to him for hours and hours on the radio holding out against the enemy. The better the opponent the higher his average. Best English batsman post WW II. One rung on the ladder above the likes of Cowdrey, May, Gower.

Boycott - no (not quite) Bedser Yes 100%, Bedi Not quite. Chappell - reluctant yes on basis of his stylish batting and his invention of "death" bowling

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
Chappell - reluctant yes on basis of his stylish batting and his invention of "death" bowling

Hmmm.

Corporal - being a military man, you clearly subscribe to the view of General Douglas MacArthur:
''In war there is no substitute for victory.''

Being as old as time itself, I opt for the view of my good friend Sophocles:
''Rather fail with honour than succeed by fraud.''

I'm even older than time - so I of course remember with affection WG Grace, well known for his questionable approach to morality.

But I do actually agree that the underarm ball is a blot on the reputation of an otherwise fine player. If GC scrapes into the hall of fame it is very much in spite of that incident.

My votes.

Ken Barrington YES A highly accomplished and successful batsman as well as a totally dependable team man as demonstrated by his service and stats for England and Surrey.

Bishan Bedi NO - with considerable regret

A delightful cricketer who so often brought life and variety to a game with his clever and teasing bowling as well as his range of colourful turbans. Was a massive hit with English and Indian fans when India toured here in '71. Has taken more first class wickets than any Indian bowler. However, didn't always seem to possess the killer touch or instinct. His final bowling averages in tests is also probably a little on the high side for ''a great''. Furthermore, we already have 5 slow bowlers in our Hall of Fame (Warne, Muralitharan, O'Reilly, Laker and Benaud - although Benaud's place is also due to his captaincy and X factor) with probably more to come; Bedi came eighth in our recent ''greatest ever spinners'' vote and, amongst others, was behind Grimmett, Abdul Quadir and Gibbs. Much as I would welcome Bedi in our Hall of Fame, I think we would be opening the door just a little too wide.

Alec Bedser YES A masterful bowler for club and country. His test match figures and County Championship successes prove this beyond doubt.

Geoffrey Boycott NO A very fine and determined batsman but undone by, to quote Hoggy, ''innate selfishness''. JDizzle speculates what might have been but for Boycott's ''self-imposed exile''; unfortunately, Boycott has no one to blame for that but himself. His avoidance of Lillee and Thomson leave further question marks over his character and willingness to pit himself against the best.

Greg Chappell NO Explained at length previously. I accept and respect Hoggy's view that few cricketers haven't acted outside the spirit of the game at times. However, for me, Chappell went far too far. I fully agree Chappell was a great batsman but that's not just what I'm voting about here.

Guildford, I voted yes for Boycott under the fact he is one of the highest English Test run scorers of all time, and he could be the highest were it not for his self imposed exile. Admittedly, he never proved himself against Thomson and Lillee but he scored runs against everyone else and he defined an era. If you asked a man on the street to name a great English cricketer he might day Botham, Flintoff and then Boycott.This must count for something. Rightly or wrongly he still transcends the game today and people know who he is. Clive Lloyd is an automatic pick not because of just his batting, but because of other factors aswell. I think Boycs is the same, his influence on the world of cricket reaches past his playing career and for that reason he is a yes from me.

what do we need to vote about?

JDizzle wrote:Guildford, I voted yes for Boycott under the fact he is one of the highest English Test run scorers of all time, and he could be the highest were it not for his self imposed exile. Admittedly, he never proved himself against Thomson and Lillee but he scored runs against everyone else and he defined an era. If you asked a man on the street to name a great English cricketer he might day Botham, Flintoff and then Boycott.This must count for something. Rightly or wrongly he still transcends the game today and people know who he is. Clive Lloyd is an automatic pick not because of just his batting, but because of other factors aswell. I think Boycs is the same, his influence on the world of cricket reaches past his playing career and for that reason he is a yes from me.

JD - you highlight the case and positives for Boycott admirably. I generally accept your comments. However, for me at least, there were negatives about him and, whilst they may not outweigh the positives, they are sufficient to prevent him getting my vote.

Whilst Fists (quite rightly) continues to select nominees from the ICC Hall of Fame, it would be very surprising if every player didn't have a considerable amount in their favour. Some hard decisions will therefore need to be taken if we are to prevent an open invitation being given to all. As you may have picked up from my earlier comments, I found it very hard to vote against Bishan Bedi's inclusion.

To quibble slightly, I don't think your comparison between Boycott and Lloyd is entirely appropriate. Whilst I agree strongly with your ''other factors'' comment about Lloyd, his influence was always for the good of his team and/or the game. The same cannot be said of Boycott. Best, Guildford
PS Have you seen the George Dobell article and his comments about Eddie?

Guildford makes good points as to why Bedi is just outside what we are looking for. He was a fine bowler, but there have been at least three or four spinners in recent decades who have a greater claim....

cricketfan90 wrote:what do we need to vote about?

As to whether you believe any of those 5 that I have listed deserve a place in our own Hall of Fame, with an explanation as to why you have or haven't voted for them.

what we just pick any 5, and say why we would pick them, in there, and why we wouldnt...

No, I have listed 5 fighters above.

We all vote on them.

Then in 2 weeks time another 5 fighters get listed, and then we vote on them, until we have made our way through the current ICC HoF.

5 in my era will be appreciated

Like I said before, part of the point of this exercise is that we all get to learn about cricketers we may not know much about. If one of the candidates is from your era and you have first hand experience of their exploits then great, but if not then it is amazing what can be learnt from 10 minutes of reading, and it's very interesting. Following such reading, you should then be in a position to make your own mind up as to whether they deserve a place in our HoF.

what

barrington

Bedi

Bedser

Boycott

Chappell?

Yep, they're our 5 candidates for this 2 weeks, cf, so you just need to vote on those 5.

ok cool i will vote later.

Fists
I'm only joking but although I read and know a bit regarding the history of Cricket it is difficult to argue with a poster who has first hand experience.

Barrington - YES.
While he may not have been the most exciting of batsmen, he was a great one, and a most reliable one at that. His ability to shine against the very best in the world (as shown by the way his averages increase as the level of opposition does) make him a must for me. He sometimes makes my world XI so no way can we leave him out. Also an integral part of Surrey's success.

Bedi - NO.
Very good cricketer, but not a great IMO. It isn't certain he would make an all-time Indian XI for instance. Our Hall of Fame needs to be hard to get into, so Bedi misses the cut.

Bedser - YES.
Terrific seam bowler, great record for England and won a ridiculous amount of silverware for Surrey too. One of the greatest medium pacers of all time.

Boycott - NO.
For much the same reasons as Bedi, Boycott misses out. While he was a very very good opening batsman, he did have a tendency to bat for himself rather than the team, and his self-imposed exile which saw him never face Lillee and Thompson at their best counts against him too.

Chappell - YES.
Thought long and hard about this one, but ultimately his one blot wasn't enough to rule him out for me. A truly great and elegant batsman, also has done plenty for the game since retirement. While the underarm incident was awful, it must be remembered that it was within the rules at the time, and also that he has always been very apologetic about it. Finally, we've included in our HoF Gavaskar and Grace who both have a certain amount of controversy about them too.

Barrington- YES: Quality batsman, very reliable. An average of 58 shows how good he is. IMO he has to be in our hall of fame, very key player for Surrey as well

Bedi- NO, Wouldnt get into my greatest indian side of all time, so IMO he dosent get into a hall of fame

Bedser-YES: he has to be in there. 236 at wickets at an average of 24, he has to be in there. Extremely reliable seam bowler not express by any means, but very accruate, and wouldnt let the side down.

Boycott-NO, Very tough call this one. He averaged 47 and scored a lot of test runs. However he did bat for himself on many occasions and not the team, and based on that he dosent get into it for me.

Greg Chappell-YES- Very good captain, He averaged 53 with the bat, and was very reliable for Australia, he could also bowl some useful medium pace, however a great captain, and a test average of 53, for me he gets into the hall of fame

Barrington:YES.A no brainer for me.One of the greatest English batsman of all time and a shoo in for an England All Time XI.The third highest average among all English batsmen.May not be a quick scoring player but a very prolific one.A true fighter and a team player who raised his game against the best.He also has a Bradmansqeue record in India something not something which many English batsman can boast of.You have got to be a hard man not to include this guy.

Bedi:NO.I think this has been said far too many times.A very very good bowler,but just misses out on the HoF.

Bedser:YES.One of the best Englsih bowlers of All Time.The greatest medium fast seamer of all time.Would make my English All Time XI.Do I need to say more?

Boycott:YES.I doubt he is going to get in the list as so many people have voted against him.And I too was inclined to do the same and I must say the arguments of innate selfishness are very valid.But when I look at it more closely Boycs would walk into any All Time XI except England and Australia where he would get into the second XIs and thats more to do with the quality of openers England and Australia have produced.For all the other Test teams he would walk into the All Time XIs.He is among the top 2 openers in the past 50 years.Only Sunny Gavaskar is better than him IMO.And more importantly for me,he has scored runs in each and every corner of the world.He played in an era where India had 4 great spinners and he came up trumps over there.He might have avoided Lillee and Thomson in that series but he was more than good enough against quality pace as his record against West Indies would show.Just too good a batsman to leave out IMO.

Greg Chappell:A truly great batsman.The best Test batsman if his generation IMO alongwith Viv.An average of 54 in that era You cant ignore that.Averaging 56 against the great West Indians.His lowest average against a particular country was 46 against England.Just shows how good he was.Absolutley brilliant and IMO that underarm ball incident is made to look worse than it actually was.It was within the rules and there are great players who have done worse things.Example:Murali called for throwing twice,Warne consuming banned substances,etc.His batting is just far too good for him to be left out.Just far too good.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Barrington was also an integral member of that Surrey side. He also had a tremendous record and batted with guts and determination, an ability to raise his game against the toughest opponents (see his record against Australia) and a willingness to put the needs of the team first that is rare, and also contributed massively (at least to English cricket), after his retirement.

Nearly missed this. A couple of things:

1) Barrington's average in FC cricket was fairly mediocre. Thus I am not sure I am willing to accept his ever-presence in the great Surrey side as a criteria for inclusion. If there are key matches where he made key performances then feel free to point to them (I honestly don't have good enough knowledge).

2) What has Barrington done since retirement (genuine question)?

Didn't Barrington die on a tour to the West Indies?

Mike
Barrington's FC average was superior to most other major English batsmen of his time (only May's was better as far as I can make out). He also managed England on tours to India, Pakistan and New Zealand, was the England team manager at the Centenary test and, as Stella points out, died while managing England's tour of the West Indies in 1981.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Chappell - YES.
Thought long and hard about this one, but ultimately his one blot wasn't enough to rule him out for me. A truly great and elegant batsman, also has done plenty for the game since retirement. While the underarm incident was awful, it must be remembered that it was within the rules at the time, and also that he has always been very apologetic about it. Finally, we've included in our HoF Gavaskar and Grace who both have a certain amount of controversy about them too.

Mad - although we came to different conclusions, I respect the consideration you've given to this. Best, Guildford.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Mike
Barrington's FC average was superior to most other major English batsmen of his time (only May's was better as far as I can make out). He also managed England on tours to India, Pakistan and New Zealand, was the England team manager at the Centenary test and, as Stella points out, died while managing England's tour of the West Indies in 1981.

Hummm, I may have to reconsider my vote in that case...