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.

Good post Mike.

Mike Selig wrote:The one I would argue strongly is the inclusion of Gilchrist. If you push me to replace someone, then erm... erm... Hadlee. There, I've said it.

I'd agree with the inclusion of Gilchrist, but not in place of Hadlee.
I reckon he should be there instead of Flower.

botham was the icon of his generation for english cricket fans and alot of people became involved in the game, myself included after watching the 1981 ashes, his career figures fell off towards the end of his career as he probably played on for longer than he should have but he was almost too important to english cricket at the time to be allowed to retire

if you take acount of his records, his importance to the game at the time and his part in one of the greatest series of all time then i dont know how he can be ignored

Actually I realise that I am also strongly arguing for Trumper to be included. According to many, he is the reason people bat like they do today...

Great post Mike, and has made me rethink the way we look at this. Shall we increase our initial intake to 30, just like we did with the boxing HoF?

Fists of Fury wrote:Great post Mike, and has made me rethink the way we look at this. Shall we increase our initial intake to 30, just like we did with the boxing HoF?

It'd help

I'll change that later today, then. It appears there is far more to consider than initially thought.

Dont think Kapil Dev is top 20 material tbh.

Mike
Jayasuriya???Really?

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:
Mike
Jayasuriya???Really?

His approach to one-day cricket was revolutionary (not the use of a pinch-hitter, but the use of arguably your main batsman as a pinch-hitter extraordinaire), and his batting in the 96 WC is probably the main reason people talk about using the powerplays nowadays. Look at scores beforehand, they rarely got more than 4 per over in the first 15...

I am arguing that he changed the way cricket was played. Do you disagree?

Fists of Fury wrote:I'll change that later today, then. It appears there is far more to consider than initially thought.

Hi Fists and everyone else,

I very much welcome us having our Cricket Hall of Fame and believe it is definitely something we should work towards.

However, I do have a concern about trying to set it up immediately. As Fists suggests in his quote above, there are so many people and factors to consider. Just where and how do we properly start?

My suggestion is that for now we continue choosing ''the ten greatest'' in their categories (seamers, spinners, keepers, openers, middle order, captains, etc) and that the winner of each category (plus possibly the runner up as well) automatically go into our Hall of Fame. I think that would then give us a framework and a starting point to discuss and elect others going forward. Otherwise, I fear we're going to be swamped with an overwhelming number of names even if nearly all of them are highly credible.

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:I'll change that later today, then. It appears there is far more to consider than initially thought.

Hi Fists and everyone else,

I very much welcome us having our Cricket Hall of Fame and believe it is definitely something we should work towards.

However, I do have a concern about trying to set it up immediately. As Fists suggests in his quote above, there are so many people and factors to consider. Just where and how do we properly start?

My suggestion is that for now we continue choosing ''the ten greatest'' in their categories (seamers, spinners, keepers, openers, middle order, captains, etc) and that the winner of each category (plus possibly the runner up as well) automatically go into our Hall of Fame. I think that would then give us a framework and a starting point to discuss and elect others going forward. Otherwise, I fear we're going to be swamped with an overwhelming number of names even if nearly all of them are highly credible.

That's fair enough guidford.
The only problem is that most of those votes so far have IIRC been constricted to post WWII. To have a fair Hall of Fame we'd have to re-vote to produce all-time lists.

I think it's something we can go ahead with Guildford, and it will take a matter of a few months, but we can do it, and hopefully have ourselves a Hall of Fame to be proud of. It should certainly inspire some very interesting, thought invoking posts - and I expect we will all learn a great deal from the voting.

How's that 30 look?

Fists of Fury wrote:How's that 30 look?

still no botham ?

Hmm, Botham is a tough one, isn't he? Not sure who we would replace for him. The likes of Rhodes etc I guess, but as was rightly said, he did revolutionise fielding etc.

Fists of Fury wrote:How's that 30 look?

Yep.
Pretty decent, especially taking into account ODIs.
I'd like Hammond and Sutcliffe somewhere in a top 30, but I'm just being picky really so that's a pretty good list for me.

i can think of about 12 players from that list botham would replace tbh

383 wickets at 28 , a batting average of 35.6 with 16 hundreds and tbh those figures were probbaly spoiled as he played on for a couple of years longer than he should have

and thats not counting the impact he had on english cricket

i doubt many players have had such an impact on people to get them interested in cricket as botham did in the 1981 ashes

a hall of fame should be about more than just pure numbers tbh , in 50 years time people will still talk about "botham's ashes" , how many other players will stay in memory like that ?

Are you Ian Botham?

btw you have glenn mcgrath listed twice in that 30

he wasn't that good

To be fair, having looked at the list again, I think it'd be very reasonable to include Botham in place of Kapil Dev.

still no Ambrose???

Botham for Dev and Ambrose for Glenn McGrath Mk II perhaps?

Botham in for Dev, then, and I think that'll do for our top 30, the others will have their chance to be voted in, so don't worry, it'll just be up to you to make sure you make a solid case for their inclusion.

Well spotted Hoggy, did think I'd already included him. Just included Botham for Dev, and Ambrose for McGrath the 2nd. Sorted.

Dev carried Indian Cricket through the 80's.

I'm English but would prefer to see Dev ahead of Beefy.

Ok, looking at your new list.

If Botham stays then I think Dev should be ahead of Garner.

Stella wrote:Dev carried Indian Cricket through the 80's.

I'm English but would prefer to see Dev ahead of Beefy.

Could argue that Botham pretty much did the same with England.
It's tight but, for me, at his best Botham was better than Dev at his. Both had massive impact on cricket, but Botham edges it.
One name I've just noticed is missing from the list is Jaques Kallis. I'd include him over either of them.

i'm not belittling how good a fielder jonty rhodes was but how can a guy who was a specialist batsman but averaged only 35 with just 3 centuries in his test career ever make it into an all-time hall of fame

Hoggy - interestingly (to me anyway), of the 64 players in the ICC Hall of Fame only 15 made their test debut pre 1945. That seems a pretty small number and percentage of the overall membership.

Fists - happy if you want to go ahead now, just flagging the difficulties shouldn't be underestimated.

As for the current 30, I appreciate it's always easier to criticise than create. However, to my mind Richie Benaud should be nailed on for a place in the top ten. I can't believe he's not currently in this 30. A great leg spinner, an intelligent batsman, a marvelous fielder, possibly the greatest ever test captain and a commentator whose knowledge, wisdom and humour have entertained and educated millions over several decades.

Who do you leave out for Benaud? Well almost anyone but certainly Bevan, Flower and Rhodes. In a Brain of the World Quiz they would all be Forest Gumps to Benaud's Einstein.

rich1uk wrote:i'm not belittling how good a fielder jonty rhodes was but how can a guy who was a specialist batsman but averaged only 35 with just 3 centuries in his test career ever make it into an all-time hall of fame

Have to agree.

Bland was said to be just as good as Rhodes, anyway.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Stella wrote:Dev carried Indian Cricket through the 80's.

I'm English but would prefer to see Dev ahead of Beefy.

Could argue that Botham pretty much did the same with England.
It's tight but, for me, at his best Botham was better than Dev at his. Both had massive impact on cricket, but Botham edges it.
One name I've just noticed is missing from the list is Jaques Kallis. I'd include him over either of them.

Forgot about the still playing caveat.
Ignore the bit about Kallis.

Right you are, guildford.

What would be your own take on Botham vs Dev?

Fists
What about Dev for Garner?

Dev for Garner, agreed.

Benaud has replaced Bevan, too.

Fists of Fury wrote:Right you are, guildford.

What would be your own take on Botham vs Dev?

Fists - suspect this may have already been taken over by events but, in any case, I go along with Hoggy. At his best, Botham just edges it.

Fists - meant to say, thanks for Benaud's inclusion.

Fists
You poo-pooed my Benaud claim earlier

What about Walsh? If Ambrose is there so should Walsh be.

Over Andy Flower for me

what about Scott Borthwick

Did you recommend him, stella? Apologies, must have missed it.

Fists of Fury wrote:Did you recommend him, stella? Apologies, must have missed it.

I did but it was only top 20 then

Salman Butt?

Stella - I think you ended up saying of Benaud, ''He might sneak into the next 10?''.

Didn't quite convince me you were prepared to die in a ditch over his selection ....

More seriously, the guys on the Boxing section generally try to set out a strong case for a particular fighter to be voted into their Hall of Fame. I feel we'll need to do the same moving forward if we want to properly assess competing claims ....

well we are different to the boxing section!

we have our own identity, our own reason to live!

I did say next 10, you're right.

Right Fists.

Frank Worrell for Jonty Rhodes.

One a legendary skipper, leader and batsman. The other, ok bat, and great fielder.

No brainer for me.

Guildford, spot on, we shouldn't just have 'he should be in'. It should be more in the manner that I began to talk about Bill O'Reilly earlier, with some real explanation, in context, and with quotes from fellow players, pundits, whoever to back that up, if available.

Really try to show that the person you are picking belongs in the Hall of Fame, or doesn't...

Ok Worrell for Rhodes, and then we are done, yes?

I'm not sure on that one Fists, I think Rhodes still deserves to be there for the way he revolutionised fielding (yes you always used to have the odd great fielder, but post-Rhodes fielding became much more important) so in a way he had a bigger impact on cricket in general than Worrell did.

Worrell does have more strings to his bow though, MFC.