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.

cricketfan90 wrote: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.

The top 30 are set in stone.They wont be discussed anymore I reckon.

Sorry I forgot Mike from my list :d'oh'

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote: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.

The top 30 are set in stone.They wont be discussed anymore I reckon.

fair enough, you are probably right.

Barrington - Yes
One of the true greats in my eyes. Obviously way before my time but from what I've heard of him he evidently achieved a heck of a lot. Is often featured in greatest England test teams. Also for what he achieved outside of the game such as the amount of time he dedicated to teaching the game to youngsters.

Bedi - Yes

Again can only go on what I've heard, read and seen in the time I've been alive! But he was probably one of the first great Indian spinners. Played county cricket and was one the most successful ever wicket wise (I believe). Also he had a truly beautiful action. Perhaps he's tarnished his legacy recently with his opinions but their is no doubting his class.

Bedser - I'd actually vote yes!

Got confused between Eric and Alec! Alec was a true great of the game and as stated earlier in the topic was one of the greats of the mid 20th century

Boycott - No

Will add later this week

Chappell (Greg) - Yes/No -Undecided actually

Will add later this week

good stuff gregers, glad you changed your mind about bedser

Gregers - good stuff from me too. Glad you stuck to your guns about Bedi.

cricketfan90 wrote:good stuff gregers, glad you changed your mind about bedser

as he said he was thinking about Eric the first time around.

i know, i was just saying

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
as he said he was thinking about Eric the first time around.

Maybe Guildford was actually thinking about Trevor when he voted no for Chappell

What do all these cricketers actually do when they get into the Hall of Fame? Perhaps if they have some kind of mega celeb award ceremony we could park all the dodgy or flawed characters on a table by themselves - eg Grace, Chappell etc.

Right guys, I have removed all of that nonsense, let's carry on as normal hey?

Some very good posts in amongst all of that. The vote will be counted around the 18th if I remember rightly.

Cheers

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
as he said he was thinking about Eric the first time around.

Maybe Guildford was actually thinking about Trevor when he voted no for Chappell NOT AS SUCH, CORPORAL, BUT NICE TRY.

What do all these cricketers actually do when they get into the Hall of Fame? Perhaps if they have some kind of mega celeb award ceremony we could park all the dodgy or flawed characters on a table by themselves - eg Grace, Chappell etc.

I'M SURE GRACE WOULD DEMAND A PLACE AT THE TOP TABLE INSISTING EVERYONE HAD COME TO SEE HIM.

nice one fists

I'M SURE GRACE WOULD DEMAND A PLACE AT THE TOP TABLE INSISTING EVERYONE HAD COME TO SEE HIM

-----------------------------

lol................Maybe we should have a dinner party guest thread.

be very intresting to see how many people we end up with in our hall of fame.

Am I really going to be the only one to dissent on Barrington? I feel quite lonely and possibly foolish.

Here is the thing though, having an average in the high 50s is exceptional but not unique. Guys like Kallis, Headley, Pollock (didn't play as many tests), Tendulkar (I think) all have similar averages. Hayden averaged 58ish at some point. Ditto Ponting.

Now I know what you're going to say: the fact that the last two didn't maintain there averages that high is surely an indication of Barrington's achievement. Again, here's the thing: Barrington played a lot less. In particular when he got past his peak, he played a lot less, which gave him much less chance to lower his average. Now I know, he also played a lot less at his peak, so maybe it balances out, but does it?

It seems to me that Barrington's only real asset for inclusion in the HoF is his remarkable test batting average. You all obviously think that is enough on its own. My reasoning is that whilst it is a fantastic average, there are others around with similar averages. To force your way into my HoF you need to stand out from those with similar statistics (or have such good statistics that they warrant your inclusion on their own). I am not sure Barrington does.

I stick to my votes.

The key is Barrington has maintained that average of 58 though, compared to Ponting, Hayden and even Tendulkar hasn't got an average that high. Barrington played a lot less? He played 82 Tests. That is still a hell of a lot of Tests and to keep an average that high over that length of time is an exceptional, and pretty much unique achievement.

All players have have an average as high with a similar number of Tests as Barrington should be sure fires for our HoF in my opinion. Look at his company, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Sobers are all automatic picks for the Hall and so should Barrington.

And the reason Barrington does stand out is because of his awesome average. That is his defining case and if an average of 58 isn't good enough for our Hall then I don't know what is.

Just out of interest Mike, on what grounds do you include Chappell but not Barrington?

He also scored heavily around the world - averaging almost 70 in tests overseas - with the substantial majority of his centuries made abroad. How many other batsmen in the HoF have exceeded that level of performance?

Mike Selig wrote:

......Again, here's the thing: Barrington played a lot less. In particular when he got past his peak, he played a lot less, which gave him much less chance to lower his average. Now I know, he also played a lot less at his peak, so maybe it balances out, but does it?

Barrington averaged over 56 in his last series, aged 37, against the Aussies, and then had to retire following a thrombosis. I can't see any reason there for marking him down.

Botham does not belong in the top 30 retired cricketers.

I suggest the following initial 30:

1. Sobers
2. Bradman

3. Viv Richards
4. G Headley
5. Marshall
6. Holding
7. Ambrose
8. Lara

9. K Miller
10. G Chappell
11. Lillee
12. McGrath
13. Warne
14. A Gilchrist

15. Hobbs
16. Hutton
17. Hammond
18. Barrington
19. Trueman
20. Barnes

21. Gavaskar
22. Kapil Dev

23. G Pollock
24. A. Donald
25. S. Pollock

26. Imran Khan
27. Wasim Akram

28. R Hadlee

29. Muralitharan

30.Trumper/O'Reilly/Grimmett/Mankad/Sutcliffe/Worrell/Walcott/Weekes/Walsh/Garner/Lindwall/Hall/Barlow/Roberts

Procter and Barry Richards didn't play enough test cricket. My list is based on performances only, not on the basis of their other contributions to cricket. Hence, Worrell and Grace missed out from the initial 30.

JDizzle wrote:The key is Barrington has maintained that average of 58 though, compared to Ponting, Hayden and even Tendulkar hasn't got an average that high. Barrington played a lot less? He played 82 Tests. That is still a hell of a lot of Tests and to keep an average that high over that length of time is an exceptional, and pretty much unique achievement.

All players have have an average as high with a similar number of Tests as Barrington should be sure fires for our HoF in my opinion. Look at his company, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Sobers are all automatic picks for the Hall and so should Barrington.

And the reason Barrington does stand out is because of his awesome average. That is his defining case and if an average of 58 isn't good enough for our Hall then I don't know what is.

Just out of interest Mike, on what grounds do you include Chappell but not Barrington?

His average is awesome, but doesn't place him in a league of his own. Of the other guys you quote, Sutcliffe was part of the all-time great opening pair, Hammond had a triple century, Sobers had all those wickets and of course the 6 sixes. My question is a genuine one: what else does Barrington have?

Chappell G. gets in for his coaching, his style, his captaincy, being also a great fielder and a handy bowler. More subjectively he gets in for "having a little something extra" which I just don't see with Barrington.

England lost only 15% of the matches with Barrington in the team.

To your question, my response would be he doesn't need anything else! If he was averaging 51/52 then he would need something else, a little extra as it were but an average of 58 is enough on it's own to get him in for me. Anyone who averaging that much gets in for me. Everyone else I named with an average that high gets in purely for that, and everything else is an extra and I see no reason why barrington should be any different.

Fair play, similar to my reasons on Chappell. Just wondered what you saw in Greg and not in Ken.

Greg Chappell was very very stylish with dazzling strokes.

Ken Barrington bored crowds to death, but served England very effectively.

Ken Barrington has the highest test batting average in the history of cricket for any player that has played more than 54 tests. Sadly that doesn't seem enough to convince Mike...

As I stated above Barrington had a test batting average of almost 70 when playing overseas. I would like to know how many other test players have surpassed that over a substantial career?

He went on to manage the England team, only halted by a fatal heart attack. He was also a serviceable leg spinner.

I spent an hour typing up my reasons, including facts, figures and other info, but then to my f$^&*$^(g horror, i accidentely deleted it,

Can't be bothered at this time to do it all again, so will you please except my short YES and NO.


Ken Barrington YES



Bishan Bedi NO



Sir Alec Bedser YES



Geoffrey Boycott NO



Greg Chappell A big NO

Mike - please forgive the lack of stats etc but I'm not long home from the Woking Beer Festival and have certainly felt better.

However, I'm just well enough to strongly state that every great team needs one player who may not be great but can apply himself and deliver the goods on the odd occassions that the super stars fall down. If Barrington doesn't meet the first criteria (of greatness), he definitely meets the second of being the invaluable glue to hold everything together.

Hi Skyeman - all votes are derived from personal assessment and evaluation so can't be wrong. I'm therefore not looking to challenge your NO vote on Bedser but would be interested as to why. Best, Guildford.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Skyeman - all votes are derived from personal assessment and evaluation so can't be wrong. I'm therefore not looking to challenge your NO vote on Bedser but would be interested as to why. Best, Guildford.

No problem Guildfordbat, i am just peeved at the moment,that i deleted all my work, i will post all 5 reasons again later in the day.

Now, sleep off that beer.

And WTF has that flat track slogger Jayasuriya done to get into the HoF.I like Mike as a poster but your reasons for not including Barrington seem insane to me.

Interesting that Skyeman clearly sets very high entry standards for the HoF. But still puts Barrington as a yes when the other four are nos.

Like Guildford (when he wakes up this afternoon ) I'll be interested to hear Skyeman's view on Bedser who, to my mind at least, was the only other clearcut "yes" candidate. (I dithered to and fro before giving Chappell a reluctant yes!)

Ken Barrington YES - With the second highest ave of 58.67 (over 50 Tests) in Englands Test history, and included in an all time England team by such players as Botham, Boycott and Edrich, Barrington is a MUST.
Facts, 20 Test hundreds (4th best for England), 1960 Cricketer of the year, scoring 2,499 in all matches with an ave of 54.32. He started off as a bowler, but then turned to batting,but did take a few wickets for England when called upon (mainly by himself, as captain lol). His figures show that he was a batsman who raised his game to another level, when the opposition got better. This is the sort of attribute you would need to get into an all time elite list.



Bishan Bedi NO - One of India's finest spin bowlers with a dream action. 266 Test wickets at an ave of 28.71, SR 80.03 and an economy of 2.14 which shows very good control.
He was involved in quite a few controversies throughout his career and Muralitharan has called him an ordinary bowler.
But although his wicket ave is good, for me, together with his SR, they are not good enough to warrant a place on such an elite list.



Sir Alec Bedser YES - Tough one this, initially i was going to put NO, because although his figures (236 wkts, ave 24.89 in 51 Tests) were very good, you have to remember that this is for an elitist list, where only the truely remarkable belong.
But in hindsight and with further research into why he became a Knight of the Realm, and his cricket abilities, i now have changed my mind- A YES from me.
I have always heard of Bedser, but never realised just how much of an icon he was in his day. In the 1950's, there was not many people in Britain who did not know about him, and is British fighting spirit.
Although he did not make his Test debut until aged 28 (due to war), he more than made up for it, by playing so well for England and Surrey. This man just loved to bowl and play cricket.
Later, to become an England selector, 13 of them as chairman.




Geoffrey Boycott NO - Still Englands fourth highest Test run scorer with 8114 runs from 108 matches. Whilst, having a very good batting ave of 47.72 and being joint top in the hundred list (22) with Wally Hammond and Colin Cowdrey, he just reminds me too much of J.Trott in the fact that he was a selfish so and so, who played as much for himself as he did for the team.
One to also be known to say what he thinks, thus upsetting many at club and country. Nothing has changed now, he still say's what he thinks, right or wrong.
Very good player, but not good enough for our list.




Greg Chappell NO - All facts are irrelevant for me. What this guy did in that ODI against New Zealand will always overshadow his acheivements for me. Never ever, ever, ever should be on an all time list.
The great Richie Benaud called the incident disgracful and i agree.

Hi guys and Skyeman in particular,

Thanks, Skyeman, for supplying your reasons. Although you were under no pressure from me to do so, I also appreciate your change of mind over Bedser. Interestingly (or not!), our votes are identical and our reasoning very similar.

Now back to my my second strong coffee ....

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:And WTF has that flat track slogger Jayasuriya done to get into the HoF.I like Mike as a poster but your reasons for not including Barrington seem insane to me.

I'm very honored so many people seem to rate me as a poster. I've explained this numerous times. First of all, to call Jayasuriya a flat track slogger is plain nonsense: flat-track maybe but slogger, no he played proper aggressive cricket shots. Secondly the reason I will advocate his inclusion (when the time comes) is that he simply changed the way the game was played. Gillchrist, Shewag, Gayle, all these exciting players at the top of the order, none of these would have happened without Jayasuriya.

I personally find it slightly moralistic and certainly hypocritical of people to not include Chappell based on that one incident. I wonder whether people would vote against Warne for his drug ban, or Ambrose/Lilee for their ugly incidents with S. Waugh/Miandad respectively? What about Tendulkar (ok still playing but when the time comes) for his 6 changes of story in the Harbajhan/Symonds palaver? Or the West Indian 10 over an hour to avoid defeat tactic? I could no doubt go on... On the other hand, I think we'd all agree that if say Cronje was a candidate for the HoF his match-fixing would almost certainly exclude him, so there is a line to be drawn. I'm just not so certain that Chappell's offence was any worse than those listed above. Did it damage cricket? I don't really think so...

guildfordbat wrote:Hi guys and Skyeman in particular,

Thanks, Skyeman, for supplying your reasons. Although you were under no pressure from me to do so, I also appreciate your change of mind over Bedser. Interestingly (or not!), our votes are identical and our reasoning very similar.

Now back to my my second strong coffee ....

No Guildfordbat, no pressure from you, i would have given reasons. eventually (you have to really) to Yes and No's. Just as mentioned i was peeved at losing my work at the first attempt.
Bedser was a tight one for me, but with everyone saying yes, i thought i would give him some more research.

Just having a fry up, would you like a greasy egg

Mike Selig wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:And WTF has that flat track slogger Jayasuriya done to get into the HoF.I like Mike as a poster but your reasons for not including Barrington seem insane to me.

I'm very honored so many people seem to rate me as a poster. I've explained this numerous times. First of all, to call Jayasuriya a flat track slogger is plain nonsense: flat-track maybe but slogger, no he played proper aggressive cricket shots. Secondly the reason I will advocate his inclusion (when the time comes) is that he simply changed the way the game was played. Gillchrist, Shewag, Gayle, all these exciting players at the top of the order, none of these would have happened without Jayasuriya.

I personally find it slightly moralistic and certainly hypocritical of people to not include Chappell based on that one incident. I wonder whether people would vote against Warne for his drug ban, or Ambrose/Lilee for their ugly incidents with S. Waugh/Miandad respectively? What about Tendulkar (ok still playing but when the time comes) for his 6 changes of story in the Harbajhan/Symonds palaver? Or the West Indian 10 over an hour to avoid defeat tactic? I could no doubt go on... On the other hand, I think we'd all agree that if say Cronje was a candidate for the HoF his match-fixing would almost certainly exclude him, so there is a line to be drawn. I'm just not so certain that Chappell's offence was any worse than those listed above. Did it damage cricket? I don't really think so...

Mike, please explain how the word "hypocritical" comes into it. We have not as yet even been given the chance as yet to vote on any of the other names you mentioned (do you know how we would vote?)
Besides, the incidents you mentioned were totally different to the Chappell incident. Most were bad behaviour, heat of the moment, bad blood between players or an attempt to avoid defeat, which all teams do.

Chappell not only disrespected New Zealand, he disgraced himself, his team mates, his country and most of all he disgraced cricket!!


Delivery and post-match reaction

New Zealand needed six runs to tie the match from the final ball, with eight wickets down. Greg Chappell, the Australian captain, ordered the bowler (his brother Trevor) to bowl underarm, rolling the ball along the ground to prevent the Number 10 New Zealand batsman (Brian McKechnie) hitting a six from the last ball to tie the match.

As the ball was being bowled, Ian Chappell (older brother of Greg and Trevor, and a former Australian captain) who was commentating on the match, was heard to call out "No, Greg, no, you can't do that" in an instinctive reaction to the incident, and he remained critical in a later newspaper article on the incident.

Australia won the game, but were booed off the field by spectators. The New Zealand batsmen walked off in disgust, McKechnie throwing his bat to the ground in frustration. Incidentally, McKechnie was censured for bringing the game of cricket into disrepute by doing so.

After the incident, the then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Robert Muldoon, described it as "the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket",[6] going on to say that "it was an act of true cowardice and I consider it appropriate that the Australian team were wearing yellow".[7] Even the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, called the act "contrary to the traditions of the game."[6]

Commentating for Channel 9 at the time, former Australian captain Richie Benaud described the act as "disgraceful" and said it was "one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field." According to Benaud, Greg Chappell "got his sums wrong" and instead of using Dennis Lillee for the last over, he was forced to use his brother Trevor, a considerably less talented bowler. The fact that Trevor Chappell managed to dismiss two batsman in his final over was not enough to convince the captain to allow an overarm final delivery. In limited-overs cricket, a bowler can only bowl a certain number of overs in an innings, and in this match, Lillee had already bowled the maximum number of overs allowed.

skyeman wrote:

Guildfordbat,

Just having a fry up, would you like a greasy egg

guildfordbat wrote: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.

Mike - the highly esteemed poster Hoggy- Bear raised similar queries to yourself as to why I had voted NO to Chappell and asked ''where do we draw the line?''.

I understand and respect that argument.

To me it remains a question of degree which probably only personal evaluation can determine. In case you didn't see it before, my reply to Hoggy is now also shown here.

Skyeman A very honourable decision re Bedser.

I've had this unpleasant feeling gnawing away at me for setting aside Guildford's ethical standards which guided his decision to vote no for Chappell. I was too influenced by the feeble joke that Chappell invented "death" bowling. In the light of the further information from Skyeman among others I would like to change my vote for Chappell to No. If there is still time. This is on the basis that (a) the offence is so directly cricket related (eg it's not like for example taking recreational drugs) (b) it required clear forethought (so it's not like claiming a catch that wasn't) and (c) any sensible person would only take 0.5 of a second to work out that it was a mean and crass thing to do and would result in massive disgrace for your team.

skyeman wrote:
Mike, please explain how the word "hypocritical" comes into it. We have not as yet even been given the chance as yet to vote on any of the other names you mentioned (do you know how we would vote?)

Ambrose, Warne and Gavaskar are already in the HoF. No one questioned their inclusion on bad behaviour. Murali is another who continued to bowl his doosra despite being told not to by the ICC. Many people (myself included) considered this quite churlish at the time.

skyeman wrote:Besides, the incidents you mentioned were totally different to the Chappell incident. Most were bad behaviour, heat of the moment, bad blood between players or an attempt to avoid defeat, which all teams do.

And Chappell's wasn't? Certainly it was in the heat of the moment (he has always regretted the incident since), and certainly it was an attempt to avoid defeat (or avoid a tie). I don't see the difference.

skyeman wrote:Chappell not only disrespected New Zealand, he disgraced himself, his team mates, his country and most of all he disgraced cricket!!

In what way did he disrespect NZ? This is pure hyperbole. Certainly he disgraced himself and cricket, but the same could be said of all the above.

As an aside, Doug Walters hit a similar delivery for 6 in the nets by flicking the ball up with his foot.

I respect Guilford's view that it is a matter of degrees, drawing unclear lines and personal opinion. My opinion is that it was no worse than many other incidents we have seen before and since.

On the flip side what Chappell did forced the ICC to change the rules and make a provision for disallowing underarm bowling.Imagine if he hadnt done so and if the ICC rules hadnt banned underarm bowling and someone else used that tactic in a World Cup Final?

What Chappell did was morally incorrect but was it any worse than consuming banned substances?
What Chappell was NOT against the laws of the game however consuming banned substances was against the laws.
Now tell me which was worse?

Mike Selig wrote:

skyeman wrote:
Mike, please explain how the word "hypocritical" comes into it. We have not as yet even been given the chance as yet to vote on any of the other names you mentioned (do you know how we would vote?)

Ambrose, Warne and Gavaskar are already in the HoF. No one questioned their inclusion on bad behaviour. Murali is another who continued to bowl his doosra despite being told not to by the ICC. Many people (myself included) considered this quite churlish at the time.

skyeman wrote:Besides, the incidents you mentioned were totally different to the Chappell incident. Most were bad behaviour, heat of the moment, bad blood between players or an attempt to avoid defeat, which all teams do.

And Chappell's wasn't? Certainly it was in the heat of the moment (he has always regretted the incident since), and certainly it was an attempt to avoid defeat (or avoid a tie). I don't see the difference.

skyeman wrote:Chappell not only disrespected New Zealand, he disgraced himself, his team mates, his country and most of all he disgraced cricket!!

In what way did he disrespect NZ? This is pure hyperbole. Certainly he disgraced himself and cricket, but the same could be said of all the above.

As an aside, Doug Walters hit a similar delivery for 6 in the nets by flicking the ball up with his foot.

I respect Guilford's view that it is a matter of degrees, drawing unclear lines and personal opinion. My opinion is that it was no worse than many other incidents we have seen before and since.

Couldnt agree more Mike

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:On the flip side what Chappell did forced the ICC to change the rules and make a provision for disallowing underarm bowling.Imagine if he hadnt done so and if the ICC rules hadnt banned underarm bowling and someone else used that tactic in a World Cup Final?

What Chappell did was morally incorrect but was it any worse than consuming banned substances?
What Chappell was NOT against the laws of the game however consuming banned substances was against the laws.
Now tell me which was worse?

i agree shanks. If bowling underarm was allowed then i think cricket would be a much worse sport. What he did changed them game forever, and to be honest just to disallow him just because of that is pretty poor. His record speaks for itself.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

That is what makes democracy so great,

guildfordbat wrote:
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 ....

Mike - I posted this about ten days ago. I'm reposting it here now in case you didn't see it before and also because it has relevance to 'the ''disrespecting New Zealand'' element which has cropped up in some of today's posts from Skyeman and yourself.

As stated in my earlier post quoted above, questions were asked and Chappell was roundly condemned in the New Zealand Parliament for his actions. Whilst that doesn't prove any intentional disrepect on Chappell's part, it shows the perception of New Zealand.

As an aside, some posters here have excused Chappell on the grounds that his actions were not against the laws of the game. In a strange sort of way, that makes it even worse to me. If Chappell had acted illegally and somehow got away with it, my disgust would probably be aimed equally if not even more at the incompetence of the umpires. However, Chappell left the umpires powerless to act through taking not an illegal action but one which, whilst legal, was calculated and cynical with a total disrespect for the spirit of our game.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
I've had this unpleasant feeling gnawing away at me for setting aside Guildford's ethical standards which guided his decision to vote no for Chappell. I was too influenced by the feeble joke that Chappell invented "death" bowling. In the light of the further information from Skyeman among others I would like to change my vote for Chappell to No. If there is still time. This is on the basis that (a) the offence is so directly cricket related (eg it's not like for example taking recreational drugs) (b) it required clear forethought (so it's not like claiming a catch that wasn't) and (c) any sensible person would only take 0.5 of a second to work out that it was a mean and crass thing to do and would result in massive disgrace for your team.

Corporal - this was never going to come between us but I am particularly pleased by your change of vote above.

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
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 ....

Mike - I posted this about ten days ago. I'm reposting it here now in case you didn't see it before and also because it has relevance to 'the ''disrespecting New Zealand'' element which has cropped up in some of today's posts from Skyeman and yourself.

As stated in my earlier post quoted above, questions were asked and Chappell was roundly condemned in the New Zealand Parliament for his actions. Whilst that doesn't prove any intentional disrepect on Chappell's part, it shows the perception of New Zealand.

As an aside, some posters here have excused Chappell on the grounds that his actions were not against the laws of the game. In a strange sort of way, that makes it even worse to me. If Chappell had acted illegally and somehow got away with it, my disgust would probably be aimed equally if not even more at the incompetence of the umpires. However, Chappell left the umpires powerless to act through taking not an illegal action but one which, whilst legal, was calculated and cynical with a total disrespect for the spirit of our game.

I'm not defending what Chappell did.

However the New-Zealand parliament thing is a red herring, honestly I couldn't care less what some parliament thought about a (very much non in this case) sporting action.

I wasn't around in 1981 (my parents were just about married I think) but I disagree entirely with your statement that it was calculated. IMO and according to everything which has occurred since it was not. It was a very bad decision made in the heat of the moment, with absolutely no thought given as to what the major consequences would be.

I have no issue with people drawing lines and saying Chappell falls on the wrong side, but to say his actions were completely different to the cases I have highlighted in above posts is IMO wrong.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:(a) the offence is so directly cricket related (eg it's not like for example taking recreational drugs) (b) it required clear forethought (so it's not like claiming a catch that wasn't) and (c) any sensible person would only take 0.5 of a second to work out that it was a mean and crass thing to do and would result in massive disgrace for your team.

Nonsense in all 3 cases. If you believe the ingestion of masking agents (not recreational drugs) is not related to cricket then I'm afraid your head is truly buried in the sand.

And I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that Chappell's actions were premeditated. It is IMO very similar to claiming a catch that wasn't or (from personal experience) appealing for handled the ball when the batsman picks up the ball to give to a nearby fielder. In all cases, there is an initial "bright" idea which happens in the spur of the moment, you act immediately on it, and you have a brief moment to reconsider (for Chappell he could have said "hang on Trev, this isn't such a good idea", for the other two you actually have longer as you can withdraw the appeal anytime until the batsmen cross on/off the ground). Once you don't take that very small window of opportunity there is no going back.

As to the 3rd point, Chappell didn't have that 0.5 seconds available. There is no time to sit back and think in that kind of situation.

With respect, I think some of our members on here don't understand the pressures of international cricket, and how hard it is to keep your mind clear and make the "right" decisions at all time. As someone who has been there both as a player and coach, albeit at a low standard, it is tough. I myself often get lost in the heat of the moment, and the pressure I face is exponentially less than that faced by Chappell.

As I have said, I accept the exclusion of Chappell on the basis of personal line-drawing, but I reject strongly the view that his actions were cold and calculating.

Mike - I ''don't understand the pressures of international cricket'' from personal experience and have never claimed to do so. I have no wish to denigrate the Corporal's own sporting past but suspect the same applies to him.

However, two who do are Richie Benaud and Rod Marsh. I'll leave them to make the last contribution on my behalf concerning this matter.

Benaud described Chappell's actions as ''a disgraceful performance'' and ''one of the worst things ever done on a cricket pitch''.

During the time Trevor Chappell was being instructed to bowl underarm and the umpires were being advised accordingly (hence calculated in my book), wicketkeeper Marsh continued to shake his head and repeatedly mouth the word ''No''.

Mike - (a) that's why I said it was not like taking recreational drugs. (b) it is entirely different from claiming a catch that you knew wasn't a catch - which has to be an instant decision in relation to a situation thrust on you. But to decide to ask a player to bowl underarm in no way is an instinctive reaction for a professional cricketer who has spent years bowling overarm! And so (c) you most certainly do have sufficient time - when you go up to your bowler and ask him to do something no professional cricketer ever does in a proper cricket match and ask him to bowl underarm.....