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.

In terms of his wider contribution, Barrington also helped to paint Oxford station, (according to Wiki), which may help to tip the balance.

But I feel that Barrington doesn't need any additional recommendations beyond those already given, including that he is an overwhelming candidate for inclusion in an all time great England XI.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:In terms of his wider contribution, Barrington also helped to paint Oxford station, (according to Wiki), which may help to tip the balance.

Yeah it does, Oxford's a dump (I went to Cambridge lol).

I'm sure it's not entirely Ken's fault if the upkeep of Oxford station, or indeed the city as a whole, has been let slip in the decades since he was wielding a paintbrush!

Any thoughts on the reasoning that I gave?

Shanky - which player? Agree with you on Barrington 100% - that he's a no brainer... outstanding record overseas.....

all the players mate

I agree with all of yours mate, as they match mine.

However, it's not about whether the other posters agree any more. It is your vote, and the idea is that we vote how we personally see it, in the hope that those we want in the HoF get a 75% vote.

Whereas we had to agree on the inaugural 30, each 5 names that get nominated now will do so as an accumulation of personal opinion.

Your reasons are certainly in line with my thinking on these 5, though!

How many players will be going into our HOF?

As many as are voted, Stella.

We are initially working our way through the existing ICC HoF, so I'd imagine that not all of those would get in (for example, it looks like maybe 3 of the 5 this week will be inducted).

Once we have worked our way through that list, we will give everyone an opportunity to suggest any more players that should be considered for our Hall of Fame, and we will then have the opportunity to vote on those, too.

sounds good fists

I do visit the boxing board more than occasionally, and if this thread ends up with even a tenth of the knowledge that is on theirs it will be superb. And I have no doubts it will!

As for our nominees, I am surprised as to how many people have turned away Boycott. He certainly has transcended the sport in England and is a recognisable face to most people in the UK. If asked to name an ex England cricketer I would imagine Botham will be number one from casual viewers, and then Boycott or Gooch. Good or bad, there is never a dull moment around when Boycott is on the mic (completely contrare to his batting!) and he makes watching cricket interesting for me. His batting puts him boarderline HoF, but for me his work outside cricket, good or bad, gets him in. A great character of the game. There has to be room for at least one in our HoF.

JDizzle wrote:I do visit the boxing board more than occasionally, and if this thread ends up with even a tenth of the knowledge that is on theirs it will be superb. And I have no doubts it will!

As for our nominees, I am surprised as to how many people have turned away Boycott. He certainly has transcended the sport in England and is a recognisable face to most people in the UK. If asked to name an ex England cricketer I would imagine Botham will be number one from casual viewers, and then Boycott or Gooch. Good or bad, there is never a dull moment around when Boycott is on the mic (completely contrare to his batting!) and he makes watching cricket interesting for me. His batting puts him boarderline HoF, but for me his work outside cricket, good or bad, gets him in. A great character of the game. There has to be room for at least one in our HoF.

I'm pretty sure that, if you asked members of the general public who were not football afficianados to name an England footballer, many would say David Beckham.
Wouldn't make him an all-time great players though.

I'm not sure he has transcended the sport in the way that say Beckham has with football, though.

Beckham, whilst not being amongst the greatest players of all time, would most definitely make a football HoF owing to his overall impact, but I'm not so sure Boycott has had anywhere near that kind of impact on cricket.

Each to their own, of course, and if you feel he should be in then give him a yes and keep your fingers crossed.

If there are unlimited numbers then why can't all mentioned players get in?

Stella wrote:If there are unlimited numbers then why can't all mentioned players get in?

Because they're not all good enough?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Stella wrote:If there are unlimited numbers then why can't all mentioned players get in?

Because they're not all good enough?

But if our HOF ends up having 200 members then they will be.

Because we are deciding who WE think should get in. It's down to our own interpretation of who we think is deserving of a Hall of Fame, whereas we might not agree with all that are currently in the ICC HoF - as seen from our first round of voting with plenty of no votes for Boycott and Bedi.

This, much like the HoF we are doing over at boxing, is meant to be decidedly more elitist. Us boxing fans don't believe that the current boxing HoF at Canastota is right - we feel that they induct far too many undeserving fighters, and as such took it upon ourselves to choose who we think should be in such a HoF. The idea is to do the same exercise here at the cricket section.

i think this is a fantastic thing we are doing, and i like where it is heading

Fists of Fury wrote:
we might not agree with all that are currently in the ICC HoF - as seen from our first round of voting with plenty of no votes for Boycott and Bedi.

And not enough no votes for Chappell

More seriously, Fists, completely agree with your full answer and the approach being taken.

It will be particularly interesting when it comes to our own nominations. I can think of at least one non player I will put forward but that is for another day ....

Did anyone read my reasoning on giving a Yes to Boycs?
Is anyone re considering their opinion?
I think I have made a pretty good case for him.

Did anyone read my reasoning on giving a Yes to Boycs?
Is anyone re considering their opinion?
I think I have made a pretty good case for him.

What was your case?

You do put forward a good argument, but for me he still ranks just outside of the kind of candidate I'm looking to vote in to this HoF. Your reasoning for including him is perfectly valid, though.

I must admit that my reasoning for saying no to G Chappell were a little PC.

SO, I will now give him a yes.

:O Guildford will be most disappointed!

Can you edit it on your main voting post please stella? Ta.

Done.

JDizzle wrote:I do visit the boxing board more than occasionally, and if this thread ends up with even a tenth of the knowledge that is on theirs it will be superb. And I have no doubts it will!

As for our nominees, I am surprised as to how many people have turned away Boycott. He certainly has transcended the sport in England and is a recognisable face to most people in the UK. If asked to name an ex England cricketer I would imagine Botham will be number one from casual viewers, and then Boycott or Gooch. Good or bad, there is never a dull moment around when Boycott is on the mic (completely contrare to his batting!) and he makes watching cricket interesting for me. His batting puts him boarderline HoF, but for me his work outside cricket, good or bad, gets him in. A great character of the game. There has to be room for at least one in our HoF.

JD - totally agree with you about the 606 v2 boxing board. Immense knowledge there - I'm always typing above my weight when I'm on a boxing thread although most of the guys are still welcoming and good natured. Human Windmill (aka Windy) is charm personified and always a delight.

Even if you folks here are not into boxing, I would still recommend a look at their Hall of Fame - cases so well presented and argued. I also find many articles in The Boxing Vault fascinating from a point of social history - again, have a look. Some particularly tragic stories there.

As for Boycott, I suspect you, JD, just don't appreciate how frustrating and annoying a batsman he could be. The opposite of a team player which is an important factor to me when casting my votes. I don't dispute he's a character but so was Dr Crippen and I wouldn't put him in a Medical Hall of Fame! [For the record, before anyone complains, I'm not suggesting Boycott has chopped a wife up and buried her body parts in his cellar.]
PS JD - Have you caught up yet with George Dobell's article and his support for Eddie?

There really is some cracking stuff on the boxing board Guildford, you're right. I consider myself to know a fair bit about boxing, but that pales in comparison to the likes of Windy, Captain Carrantuohil, Rowley, Jimmy Stuart, 88Chris05 etc over there. Since first joining the old 606 I have learnt an immense amount.

If we can get this section to anywhere approaching that standard, I'll be delighted.

as long we dont keep comparing it to the boxing one, i think it will be really good.

Fists of Fury wrote:There really is some cracking stuff on the boxing board Guildford, you're right. I consider myself to know a fair bit about boxing, but that pales in comparison to the likes of Windy, Captain Carrantuohil, Rowley, Jimmy Stuart, 88Chris05 etc over there. Since first joining the old 606 I have learnt an immense amount.

If we can get this section to anywhere approaching that standard, I'll be delighted.

Spot on, Fists. I haven't come across Jimmy Stuart yet but I'll look out for him. Great and bizarre poster names as well on the boxing site - also such as Sir Badgerhands and John Bloody Wayne who have both been very hospitable. Perhaps surprising given the latter's name!

This thread and others like it are definitely improving the standard on the cricket site. As well as giving opinions, so important to try and give reasons for them - the boxing boys are well ahead on points as regards that but we're starting to get a few jabs in. Also vital though not to be too serious and always look for some banter

Couldn't agree more, Guildford.

Jimmy Stuart is another old timer that rarely gets chances to visit these days owing to work commitments, but when he does he is another font of knowledge.

Ha, yeah, by hook or by crook we will get there.

With posters such as Fists,Guildford,Corporal,Hoggy,Stella,msp,MFC,JD,Biltong over here there is no reason why this site cant reach the top level?
Have I missed out anyone?

Shanky - your personal reference is very kind but it's about everyone. Fists flagged quite a few in his recent Q & A - I hadn't better say too much about that as the Corporal is still threatening to put him in the glass house!

The site really does seem to be taking off which is very pleasing.

CF - I agree we don't want to be constantly comparing ourselves to the boxing site but it is darned good and something for us to aspire to.

Just realised that even though I suggested this I haven't commented on the current nominees! (Or got a mention on Shankys list :P)

Anyways, whos up for nomination?

Barrington
Bedi
Bedser
Boycott
Chappell (Greg)

Forgot about you Gregers.
Sorry mate.
You are of course very knowledgeable as long as you arent talking about KP LOL.

Cheers MFC, I'll give them thought this evening.

And Shanks and CF just leave it would ya?

when will the votes for these 5 players be counted?

Fists has specified the date somewhere.

Come on guys,vote for Sir Geoffrey
only two of us so far

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:I do visit the boxing board more than occasionally, and if this thread ends up with even a tenth of the knowledge that is on theirs it will be superb. And I have no doubts it will!

As for our nominees, I am surprised as to how many people have turned away Boycott. He certainly has transcended the sport in England and is a recognisable face to most people in the UK. If asked to name an ex England cricketer I would imagine Botham will be number one from casual viewers, and then Boycott or Gooch. Good or bad, there is never a dull moment around when Boycott is on the mic (completely contrare to his batting!) and he makes watching cricket interesting for me. His batting puts him boarderline HoF, but for me his work outside cricket, good or bad, gets him in. A great character of the game. There has to be room for at least one in our HoF.

JD - totally agree with you about the 606 v2 boxing board. Immense knowledge there - I'm always typing above my weight when I'm on a boxing thread although most of the guys are still welcoming and good natured. Human Windmill (aka Windy) is charm personified and always a delight.

Even if you folks here are not into boxing, I would still recommend a look at their Hall of Fame - cases so well presented and argued. I also find many articles in The Boxing Vault fascinating from a point of social history - again, have a look. Some particularly tragic stories there.

As for Boycott, I suspect you, JD, just don't appreciate how frustrating and annoying a batsman he could be. The opposite of a team player which is an important factor to me when casting my votes. I don't dispute he's a character but so was Dr Crippen and I wouldn't put him in a Medical Hall of Fame! [For the record, before anyone complains, I'm not suggesting Boycott has chopped a wife up and buried her body parts in his cellar.]
PS JD - Have you caught up yet with George Dobell's article and his support for Eddie?

First off, Hoggy. I think I now see where we differ. You say that Beckham wouldn't get into a football HoF, but I think he would for his sheer impact on the game in general. We obviously have different barometers for our entries to the Hall, which is what this is all about, and I personally would take into account some thing outside the game when making my decisions in addition to playing abilities.

Guildford - True, I don't have first class knowledge of him batting or playing in general, and I suspect that some of his less desirable characteristics have been diluted over the years and he is now portrayed as a a bit of a lovable miscreant, when in all honesty he may have been a pain in the etc. and a incredibly selfish batsman. Describing people as batting like "Boycott" generally isn't seen as a bad thing today, more as a joking phrase to describe a negative batsman but perhaps his selfishness has been forgotten over the years and maybe it shouldn't be good for people's styles to be compared to his.

And I am going to draw a boxing comparison again I am afraid, to Mike Tyson. He is not generally seen as an all time great fighter, or even a top 10 heavyweight of all time but he would get into to any HoF due to the interest he drummed up in boxing. Boycs isn't half as an unpleasant a character as Iron Mike was back in the day and he probably hasn't had the same effect on cricket that Mike had on boxing, but he still creates interest in it today. He is synonymous with the sport and people will inevitably be drawn to a game he is involved in on commentary.

But it looks like your campaign is going to win through, and Boycs won't make it! Maybe I am underestimating how much of an irritating character he was, and overestimating how much influence he has had on cricket but it is the way I see it and it would be dull if we all saw it the same!

And unfortunately I haven't read it yet. I have been snowed under with work the last two weeks but it is high on the priorities list! Hopefully I will get some time this weekend to read it, and give me excuse to drag the Barlow thread back to the top of the board!

Back on topic good!

My initial thoughts, will expand tonight/this week

Barrington - Yes
Bedi - Yes
Bedser - No
Boycott - No
Chappell (Greg) - Yes

i agree about all of them gregers, execept i would have said yes for bedser and no for Bedi.

It was just off the top of my head from what I remember about seeing them (from archives etc)

Gregers wrote:Back on topic good!

My initial thoughts, will expand tonight/this week

Barrington - Yes
Bedi - Yes
Bedser - No
Boycott - No
Chappell (Greg) - Yes

Interesting votes there, Gregers.

Even though I and, I think, everyone else so far has voted NO in respect of Bedi, I'm pleased you have voted for him. He deserves better than a nil vote.

Look forward to reading all your arguments. You're certainly also going against the tide with a NO vote in respect of Bedser.

All about personal opinions and evaluation. Nothing wrong at all about coming to different conclusions.

JDizzle - no campaign being mounted against Boycott. As I said before, you've put points in his favour admirably. For me, too many negatives about him but I undersrstand why you and others vote YES.

Stella - no problem with you changing your vote to a YES in respect of Chappell. Pleased people have generally taken on board my concern and put it into the mix. Each to their own as to the conclusion drawn. Whilst I'm not in favour of Chappell being in our Hall of Fame, I reiterate he was a great batsman and am certain we're all unanimous on that at least.

IMO Bedser had to be in there. He was class. I also think Chappell has to be in there, i expalined my reasoning in an earlier post.

Wasim Akram will be in there for me, when we get to nominate

cricketfan90 wrote:Wasim Akram will be in there for me, when we get to nominate

He is already there.

ah right my mistake, when it comes to him being in the group of 5 like we are doing now, i will say yes then.