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.

I've now just seen the Corporal's post which very much mirrors my own thoughts at this stage.

Garner was a magnificent bowler in his day and, as Mad has already said, would have been brilliant today in T20. ''Death'' bowling was either made for him or by him.

I've just commented to Mad about Gibbs. [Hoggy - to your credit, you are clearly looking at the big cricket picture and not just Warks. Probably before your time but in the 1971 season Gibbs took over 130 first class wickets for the Bears and was a Wisden cricketer of the year.]

Some posters last time out had concerns that Cowdrey didn't make the most of his talent and early promise. On that basis, I wonder what you all feel about Gower?

As for Gooch and Graveney, initial thoughts tally with the Corporal's although I want to check further.

Yep guildford, I'm trying to keep Warks bias out of it (though that might be a bit more difficult if Dennis Amiss or Dermot Reeve ever come up for discussion )
Gibbs was a bit before my time, although he was obviously a very good bowler but, and here's the rub, not a great one. At least not an 'all-time great' one IMHO.
Similarly Gooch, Gower and Graveney were all very good players. Non of them would be in the ICCs HoF if they were not. But when you talk of all-time greats, you talk of Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Pollock, Tendulkar, O'Reilly, Laker, Warne.
Gibbs, Gooch, Gower and Graveney, to me, are not quite in the same category.

Initial thoughts are yes for Garner, Gibbs and Gooch, still tentative on Gower (though leaning toward a no) and probably a no to Graveney.

Early thoughts from myself:

Garner is a definite IMO. Undoubted all-time great who also possessed the "little extra" in that fantastic yorker.

Gibbs is undecided. I'm leaning towards a yes vote but not sure right at the moment.

Graveney is an easy no. Unless anyone convinces me otherwise.

Gower is a somewhat harder no. He was very good but not great. He could get in for style, but that would be unfair given some of the players I've refused.

Gooch should be a yes by my criteria: very good player with those two defining matches. However I am going to be completely hypocritical and vote no for sheer personal opinion: his treatment of Gower IMO harmed English cricket more than people realise, and undoes his "one-off" performances. What remains is very good, but not great. Of course, this didn't stop me with Chappell, but it is my view that as MfC puts it the Gooch man-management (or lack of) was probably more harmful to the game of cricket (in that IMO it was a determining factor of the english decline of the mid to late 90s) than the underarm incident.

More on this later tomorrow.

Garner - A bit fat massive yes. The best ODI bowler of all time and a test great.

Gibbs - Yes

There may have been better spinners since but he was the first to 300 tests wickets.

Graveney - No
He was apparently a very good, stylish middle order bat but that doesn;'t warrant a HOF place, IMO.

Gower - As above.

Gooch - Yes
Maybe not as talented as the two G's but he took on Marshall and co with bravery and was also a very good ODI opener.

Some more expansion from me:

Garner: in a great West Indies attack, people single him out as the best. An absolutely fantastic record, and by accounts arguably the greatest ever yorker. I remember reading Mike Brearley commenting on the 79 WC final and saying England got their tactics wrong, relied on wickets in hand and a bash at the end, but WI had Garner and it was hard enough getting 5 an over off him, let alone the 8+ they ended up needing. Would surely have excelled at T20 also. An easy YES.

Gibbs: undecidded. Apart from his record I don't know much about him. Now tending towards a no vote as I just checked and he didn't get into my top-10 all-time spinners list (although I cheated somewhat and put in Saqlain for his one-day efforts). Will wait to see what other more knowledgeable posters than myself have to say about the matter.

Gower: I loved his batting. Seriously loved it. In terms of grace and elegance of those I've seen only M. Waugh comes close. But let's be honest, he probably shouldn't make an England all-time XI, or a top 10 (or even 20) all-time middle-order batsmen. Despite my admiration for his batting, I can't reasonably vote him in, so it's a reluctant NO.

Graveney: similarly to Gower although not as good a test record IIRC but has the added longetivity in first class cricket. Another NO.

Gooch: on purely cricketing terms he would be a yes, for his very good (but not great) record (inc. most runs by an Englishman still), and of course his two career-defining matches: the 456 runs against India (which still stands as a record) and that 154 against the West Indies which I believe Wisden rated as the best knock of all-time a few years back.

However his treatment of Gower and indeed of anyone who didn't do it "his way" was shameful. More than that, it engrained in English cricket the idea that there was a right way of doing things, and anything else was the wrong way. This idea then dripped down to the lower levels, and if you speak to some coaches still coaching club cricket who were influenced by it, some still go by this mantra.

Now any decent coach will tell you that the idea that there is one and only one way of learning is a load of BS. Every player is different, learns differently, reacts differently to different styles. A good coach/manager recognises this and adapts. For example I have one player who is very good, usually very serious, but started mucking around at a training session once. Now because he's deep down a good guy, he looked over to me after his latest stupidity (I presume to see if I had observed it). I could have had a go at him, but instead I merely raised my eyebrows and shrugged; he reacted by raising his hand in apology and then got into the training properly. Had it been someone different I'd have done something different.

Now of course Gooch wasn't a coach. But by all accounts he was the leading spirit in this one-dimensional style. It put the English cricket world (from the top all the way down to the bottom) where the only acceptable way to train was hard, long, repetitive, until it worked. Of course for a lot of people it didn't, and they either didn't achieve their potential (e.g. Mark Lathwell) or they stopped playing altogether (many kids I'm sure). This IMO was a contributing factor to England being bottom of the world in 98.

As I say, if you speak to coaches who were influenced by this era, some of them are still convinced that the only way (for example) to learn how to play a cover-drive is to go into the nets at 8.30 every morning and hit 100 of them, with a coach throwing the balls at you. It is certainly a way, but it is far from the only one. It will certainly work for a lot of people, but not all.

For this "legacy" my vote for Gooch has to be a NO.

Very thorough, Mike.

This week I have decided to fight the corner of Gibbs, whom to me is an under-rated cricketer if ever there was one. When I add to that my Warwickshire bias, I'll be hopefully making it a strong case.

Fists - hardly any time now but just to say I'm happy to lend support on Gibbs.

Mike - very good post. Something I find odd about Gooch is that despite the committment, dedication and practice he demanded of himself and everyone else, he was often a very reluctant tourist for England. I'll try to check that later.

Should being a 'rebel' count against Gooch?

Joel Garner - YES With a nickname of Big Bird you would think someone was gentle, not this Big Bird. I remember watching the 1984 Test series between England and the West Indies when Garner was playing along with the likes of Marshall and holding. It was an absolute massacre with the WI whitewashing England 5-0 on our own turf.
Garner used to frighten me and i was just a spectator. Those were the days with unlimited bouncers allowed, and boy could he use them well. He also was capable of brilliant yorkers mixed with great pace that accounted for many a batsman.

Part of one of the greatest ever Test teams in history, Garner more than played a role. Although he never had many 5-for's (WI quicks spread the load) he more than made up for that in quick short bursts.

His Test figures of 259 wkts at an ave of 20.97, SR 50.8 and then his ODI figures of 146 wkts at an ave of 18.84 show us how devastating he was in both forms of cricket

He also has the best figures in a World Cup final with 5-38 against England.

A great player to watch but not one to bat against, he definitely gets a YES from me.




Lance Gibbs - NO A tough call this one. Only the second bowler (but first spin bowler) to pass the 300 wkt mark in Test cricket which was quite an achievement with many matches being played on his home tracks.

One particular performance that stands out for me was a match against India in Barbados where he finished with the following figures 53.3-37-38-8 which shows great stamina which he was well known for. Those figures also show how restrictive is bowling was and he finished his 79 Test career with an economy of just 1.98.
Also taking over a thousand wkts in first class cricket, a very good bowler indeed.

But based on my previous criteria, this is where the NO vote comes from. His ave of 29.09 and then a SR of 87.7 whist being very good are not truly exceptional.
Very close but not quite making it.


Graham Gooch - NO I very much enjoyed watching Gooch bat with his attacking strokes, and his 333 against India will always stay in my memory.
The leading England Test run scorer with 8900 and 20 centuries in 118 Tests rightly give him a place as of one of Englands best.
His fitness regime was a major reason for his long career and one of the few that got better with age.
A good catcher of the ball and picked up 103 in his Test career. He also played 125 ODI' with 8 centuries and a decent ave of 36.98.

He had a fair bit of controversy with the rebel tour to South Africa, which i disagreed with, but do not hold against him for his YES/NO vote.

But back to his ave in Tests, which was 42.58, SR 49.23 and together with the ODI ave is just where Gooch falls short of my giving him a YES.

So a very good player, but not a HoF great, and i will stick with my NO.



David Gower - NO I loved to watch Gower play, he had such a good style and grace in his stroke play. He always excited me when he came into bat.
But with gower he could frustrate you, one second he looked so comfortable and on his way to a decent score, then out of nowhere he would be gone. Another batsman that could have been so much better. A bit similar to Kevin Pietersen in the fact that when he got out to an attacking stroke, some would call him irresponsible.

Career wise, he played in 117 Test matches with a very good ave of 44.25, but alas yet again another player who comes up just that little bit short of an HOFer.



Tom Graveney - NO Again, whilst he was a very good Test cricketer, his final figures of P79, ave44.38 just don't make the grade for an HoF spot.

But i did love watching him on BBC cricket shows, he always showed great passion and had a top notch understanding of the sport.

Skye - a highly thorough and considered post.

I totally agree with your votes and comments re Garner, Gooch, Gower and Graveney.

Your comments particularly well capture the looming menace of Big Bird. Perhaps worth adding for younger posters that he was devastating for Somerset in one day domestic tournaments.

I think your final verdict on Gibbs is a little harsh although I understand it. Fists has said he'll fight Gibbs' corner. I'll be watching that with interest and seeing if I can add to it in any way.

guildfordbat wrote:Skye - a highly thorough and considered post.

I totally agree with your votes and comments re Garner, Gooch, Gower and Graveney.

Your comments particularly well capture the looming menace of Big Bird. Perhaps worth adding for younger posters that he was devastating for Somerset in one day domestic tournaments.

I think your final verdict on Gibbs is a little harsh although I understand it. Fists has said he'll fight Gibbs' corner. I'll be watching that with interest and seeing if I can add to it in any way.

Garner, Sir Viv and Sir Botham in the same team, loved to watch them when they played together. Not like that any more with the International and County situation as it is.
I suppose that is the price for England being No1.

My Gibbs defence will be posted when I get a moment away from work. Rushed off my feet at the moment but hopefully I can do it justice either tonight or tomorrow.

It seems that Thorpe may cause a divide this week, too, judging by the thoughts thus far.

It seems that Thorpe may cause a divide this week, too, judging by the thoughts thus far.

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

Graham Thorpe?

I'm a fully paid up member of the Graham Thorpe fan club, but entry to the HoF would be a big ask.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I'm a fully paid up member of the Graham Thorpe fan club, but entry to the HoF would be a big ask.

A nigh on impossible task i should think, even if ha had a Guildford defence

Pity quite a few of the Surrey lad are -as Guildford has neatly put it - only on a summer contract with 606v2 otherwise I am sure we could organise a heavy turnout on polling day

HA HA , But that would be like an election in Zimbabwe

A group of nominees without too much contention this week

yes this week's group does seem easier, Garner looks like he'll get a unanimous vote, the three English blokes look set to miss out, so the only one where there looks like they'll be much debate around is Gibbs. I'm waiting for people who know a bit more about him to present their defense in his case, at the moment I'm tending towards a marginal call of NO.

If his work allows, I know Fists is planning to present a case for Gibbs tomorrow. I'm looking forward to that and will then be happy to be called as a character witness if it might help.

The defence for Lancelot Richard Gibbs

Evening gents,

Having read the comments on Lance Gibbs thus far, it seems his inclusion in our Hall of Fame remains very much in the balance at this moment in time. Forgive me for being a Warwickshire supporter, but I'll try and remain unbiased throughout this post.

It would seem that the major criticism levelled at Gibbs, and the most prominent reason for him not to be included in our Hall of Fame, is his Test bowling average of 29.09. Firstly, I would bring to your attention that many of the top bowlers in the era that Gibbs played Test cricket in averaged mid 20's at lowest. If you look at the pace bowlers that Gibbs played alongside initially, with Wes Hall being one example, he was viewed as a deadly fast bowler yet, like Gibbs, averaged in the high 20's with the ball. A few years on the same can be said of other top fast bowlers in Charlie Griffith and then Andy Roberts. There are various reasons for this being the case, and of course there were exceptions, but it is important to note that Gibbs was by no means a lone case of someone considered to be a top bowler averaging a shade below 30.

The 1960's were an era of Test cricket where it the game truly was a war of attrition. Batsmen were not going to play overly extravagant shots at the risk of giving their wicket away, and the ethos amongst bowling attacks was very much to build pressure from both ends, strangle the life out of an innings and cause the batsman to make a mistake. This is where Lance Gibbs really excelled, with an incredible career economy of just 1.98 runs per over.

The days of attacking spinners were yet to come. Indeed, other top spinners of the era, Richie Benaud for example, only averaged slightly less than Gibbs with the ball, and wasn't quite as economical. Accuracy was key, and when it came to accuracy, Gibbs was king.

Even the greatest of bowlers have their averages enhanced by picking up the wickets of hapless tailenders. Whilst Gibbs undoubtedly has a few of those to his name, it has to be considered that the West Indies method of dealing with tailenders was a cocktail of venomous pace and bounce, often resulting in Gibbs being shelved whilst the likes of Hall, Griffiths and Roberts went to work. Likewise, the fact that the West Indian team possessed such skilled pace bowlers meant that Gibbs was without the luxury of spin friendly pitches for almost all home matches. I've seen comparisons to Bishan Bedi mooted thus far, but I think we can all agree that the Indian would have had conditions in his favour on a much more regular basis.

Gibbs statistics don't let him down in other traditionally pace friendly conditions, either. A 1960-61 tour of Australia saw Gibbs return tour figures of 19 wickets at 20.78 from 3 Tests, followed by 26 wickets at 21.30 in a 1963 tour of England. In between these tours, Gibbs did of course take 24 wickets at 20.41 in a home series against India, picking up his best bowling innings figures of 8-38 along the way. A Hall of Famer needs a defining moment, and this was undoubtedly Gibbs'.

WARNING: Girlfriend has arrived and is moaning like hell, defence adjourned, and to be continued tomorrow. Apologies.

Fists of Fury wrote:

WARNING: Girlfriend has arrived and is moaning like hell ....

Nice piece of work and good research, some good points for me to mull over.

Sounds like Mrs Skyeman.

In the period in which Gibbs was bowling (ie between 1958 and 1976) 12 other spin bowlers took 100+ wickets. 6 of those had superior averages to Gibbs. 7 had economy rates that were either better than Gibbs or within 0.10 runs per over. 8 had superior strike rates.
While I can appreciate the argument that Gibbs was competing with good fast bowlers and that pitches he bowled on were not always conducive to spin, to me this is not the record of a HoF'er

With the arguments finely poised we wait to see whether Fists escapes unscathed. Corporal on standby to mount a rescue mission

I'm still tending towards a yes vote but Hoggy makes some important points.

must say I'm tending towards a NO vote at the moment. Hoggy makes some good points, and quite frankly I don't see anything in Gibbs's records as a test player that warrants HoF greatness, not sure being the first spinner to 300 wickets is quite enough in my book.

I believe Fists is right to put his case in the context of the age in which Gibbs was playing. I also believe Gibbs' achievements by the end of his career sufficiently distinguish him from many of the others alluded to by Hoggy.

Anyway, I look forward to Fists continuing his case tomorrow and will see if anything might be added to it then. For me, Gibbs is not a ''Garner-like YES'' but I currently take the view he still did enough.

I shall of course wait for tomorrow's arguments (providing Fists is still alive by then ) before making a final call.

Mad for Chelsea wrote: .... not sure being the first spinner to 300 wickets is quite enough in my book.

Mad - I'll comment on that tomorrow and, in particular, how it was viewed around the time. I think it's only fair to let Defence Counsel Fists complete his fine case first.

Corporal, the rescue mission can be aborted

Defence to resume this evening.

Lancelot Richard Gibbs - a little filler whilst Fists works on Part II of the Defence

Lovely combo here between Gibbs and Sobers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_j1BvNuTgw

It's not clear from the clip but these two wickets were in successive balls which contributed to the pitch invasion by joyous West Indian supporters. The unnamed second batsman falling for a golden duck is England captain Ray Illingworth.

After this 1973 three match series that the Windies won 2 - 0, Norman Preston, the editor of Wisden (a position he held for twenty-eight years), wrote that ''Gibbs' skill and guile remained undiminished''.

Garner - The biggest yes so far, a genius with the ball

Gibbs - Maybe (I'll make up my mind tomorrow)

Graveney - No, just not quite good enough to get into a hall of fame

Gower - Looking at the list of people who could be in the hall of fame Gower just doesnt strike me as quite good enough. No

Gooch - Yes, if purely selfishly for him being one of my Grandads favourite players

Fists and all - some clearly very knowledgeable comments in support of Gibbs were posted yesterday by Kwinigolfer on the '606 v2 Greatest Test Spinners Rankings' thread and the County Cricket sub-thread 'Lancashire Season 2012 News / Articles'. Well worth a look.

Kwini has been US based for the last thirty-five years and so, by his own admission, is not able to follow the modern game that much. However, his knowledge and appreciation of earlier eras is immense. Highly recommended.

Kwini - if you're looking in, it would be very good if you could say something about Gibbs on this particular thread.

As also mentioned yesterday, it would be excellent, Kwini, if you could regularly contribute to our 'top ten listings' and Hall of Fame threads. Other posters would, I'm sure, benefit from your insight and it would certainly be fairer to cricketers of the past who might otherwise be overlooked. Thank you.

Morning, Guildford.

I was following Kwini's excellent posts as I looked in briefly yesterday, and I echo your sentiments that it'd be great if he contributed to such threads, and the cricket section as a whole, on a regular basis.

My defence of Gibbs has stuttered somewhat, I really cannot find the time at the moment, but it'll be concluded before Friday's deadline, rest assured. This working away is messing with my schedules!!

Thanks, Fists.

I'm out tonight and meant to be working today. However, I'll see if I can add a bit extra in support of Gibbs tomorrow evening. Trust that won't be seen as treading on your toes.

Guildford, not at all, free to add whatever you can, it'd be most welcome, and between us we will see if we can't change a few minds.

I would echo Guildford's comments re Kwini's views on Gibbs! Clearly a poster of great shrewdness and sagacity.

Corporal - You're full of it!

But about Lance Gibbs:
With the sometime exception of the left-arm slows of Sobers, Lance Gibbs carried the load of the West Indies slow bowling attack for 79 Tests, eventually becoming, fleetingly, the leading wicket-taker in Test history.

On face value almost forty years on, 307 wickets at an average of 29 is impressive, but not spectacular. But when closer scrutiny takes account of his runs per over of 1.99, one starts to realise that Gibbs was required to bowl defensively for much of this time, eating up overs while two or three generations of fast bowling batteries recharged.

Gibbs was the best slow bowler in the world for most of his 18-year Test career, an integral part of successive West Indies teams that entertained and dominated in equal parts. He took 100 wickets against both England and Australia, including a Test hat-trick and a 4 in 5 balls spell.

Comparisons with Laker and perhaps Underwood who roughly bookended Gibbs' career are valid. Underwood was obviously a different kind of bowler, lethal on drying wickets, but could be pretty ordinary on flat tracks, while Laker had his iconic year which, just perhaps, leads us to hold his career in higher esteem than perhaps it should be. Gibbs was a constant, one of the first names on team-sheets from Worrell to Lloyd, an extended period of sustained excellence and professionalism that neither Laker's nor Underwood's career maintained.

Hall Of Famer? In my book, certainly.

(Unless anything happens to change the position before the polling booth closes), the Corporal's votes are cast as follows, Garner, Gibbs both Yes; Graveney, Gower, Gooch, No. There were no abstentions or spoiled ballot papers.

Not sure of the protocol here: How many votes each?
If it's two; Gibbs and Graveney
If three: Gibbs, Graveney and Gooch,

Kwini - no real protocol.

You simply vote YES or NO for each individual as you deem appropriate. You can therefore give 5 YES's or 5 NO's or any mix of YES's and NO's.

It is expected that each voter give some reasoning (it can be as short or as long as you want).

One warning - abstentions are regarded as very poor form and strongly discouraged as I found recently!

Very, very interested that if it was limited to 3 each time, there would be no place for Garner as far as you go.

Trust all clear. I need to write a bit more about Gibbs now ....

kwinigolfer wrote:Corporal - You're full of it!

But about Lance Gibbs:
With the sometime exception of the left-arm slows of Sobers, Lance Gibbs carried the load of the West Indies slow bowling attack for 79 Tests, eventually becoming, fleetingly, the leading wicket-taker in Test history.

On face value almost forty years on, 307 wickets at an average of 29 is impressive, but not spectacular. But when closer scrutiny takes account of his runs per over of 1.99, one starts to realise that Gibbs was required to bowl defensively for much of this time, eating up overs while two or three generations of fast bowling batteries recharged.

Gibbs was the best slow bowler in the world for most of his 18-year Test career, an integral part of successive West Indies teams that entertained and dominated in equal parts. He took 100 wickets against both England and Australia, including a Test hat-trick and a 4 in 5 balls spell.

Comparisons with Laker and perhaps Underwood who roughly bookended Gibbs' career are valid. Underwood was obviously a different kind of bowler, lethal on drying wickets, but could be pretty ordinary on flat tracks, while Laker had his iconic year which, just perhaps, leads us to hold his career in higher esteem than perhaps it should be. Gibbs was a constant, one of the first names on team-sheets from Worrell to Lloyd, an extended period of sustained excellence and professionalism that neither Laker's nor Underwood's career maintained.

Hall Of Famer? In my book, certainly.

An excellent post by Kwini.

A bit more now in support of Gibbs

When Fists first posted ''In Defence of Lancelot Richard Gibbs'', I commented that he was right to put Gibbs' career and overriding achievement of 300 test wickets in the context of the age in which he played.

I call my first witness from beyond the grave, Frederick Sewards Trueman, an England fast bowler of some distinction as he is more than happy to confirm and professional Yorkshireman.

In his 1976 autobiography, Ball of Fire, Trueman writes, ''When I came back from the Australian tour of 1962-3 I was filled with the sort of burning ambition that I hadn't felt since I was a lad .... I had my sights on something which everyone said was impossible - 300 Test wickets.'' The chapter was even titled In Pursuit of the Impossible.

Later in the same chapter, Trueman comments upon the significance and effect on him of attaining the Impossible against Australia in August 1964, ''The full significance of the occasion didn't hit me until much later in the dressing room when I was being interviewed by press and television. They were still clamouring round when suddenly I knew I had to get away and be on my own. I excused myself, went to a bathroom, put the bolt on the door and let the tears come.''

Trueman went on to take 307 Test wickets and many thought at the time and in the immediately following years that this figure would never be surpassed. It was eventually overtaken but it took over eleven years and Lance Gibbs to do so. Trueman acknowledged this achievement although wasn't exactly gracious about it, ''I know that Lance Gibbs crawled past my record against the Australians in January 1976. Spinners do have an advantage over fast bowlers because they can go on until they qualify for the old age pension, if the selectors allow it.''

As far as I am aware, no other spinner (or any other type of bowler) seriously threatened Trueman's Test record until Gibbs. In turn, it took almost another six years for the great Dennis Lillee to overtake Gibbs' Test record wicket haul. Rather than the selectors simply ''allowing'' Gibbs a place in the national side, I would suggest it was more down to him continually demonstrating ability, consistency, mental strength and physical fitness. In support of this, I call my second witness from the Caribbean, Jimmy Adams, a former West Indies captain.

In July 2010 Adams chaired a panel comprising himself and nine other West Indian cricket writers, broadcasters, officials etc tasked with selecting a West Indies All Time Invincibles XI. The XI finally selected reads as follows, ''Greenidge, Hunte, Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, Hendriks, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and ... [my pause] ... Gibbs.''

Not all the West Indies public were happy with this side. Some in particular said Gibbs' place should go to Garner. Others said Gibbs' place should go not to Garner but to Roberts. However, others still said it was right that Gibbs had been selected. Certainly Adams' panel were virtually unanimous in their choice of Gibbs. Adams and eight of the other nine panellists each chose Gibbs in their own individual XI at the start of this process.

One of Adams' fellow panellists, the cricket writer Frank Birbalsingh stated, ''Lance Gibbs used his great height, lean, athletic build and long, supple fingers to become not only the greatest West Indian spin bowler (309 Test wickets) - but one of the most combative of West Indian cricketers.''

To get a place in such an Invincibles XI speaks volumes for the greatness of Gibbs. Just consider some of those who did not make the cut. Besides Garner and Roberts, quality slow bowlers like Ramadhin and Valentine plus other quicks such as Hall and Walsh. Although not rivals for Gibbs' place, the batsmen missing out illustrate the incredible combined strength of this XI - Haynes, Kanhai, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott and Lloyd to name just a few.

My final witness is the Cricketers' Association in this country, forerunner to the P(Professional) CA. Gibbs received the ultimate accolade from his fellow professionals when in 1971 they voted him Cricketers' Cricketer. This was considered to be in part due to his success then for Warks on the county circuit (he took an incredible 131 Championship wickets that season) and also his general popularity.

Lance Gibbs - immensely respected by a West Indies cricket panel today, grudgingly acknowledged by Trueman thirty-five years ago and highly regarded by all his fellow professionals in this country forty years ago.

It's a YES from me.

I can't compete with such testimony, and will let my previous post stand as to why Gibbs should be a "YES"!
I will therefore retract my advocacy for Messrs and Graveney etc, and vote induction into the 606v2 HOF for Lance Gibbs only.
Messrs Garner, Gooch, Gower, Graveney will be "NO"!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I would echo Guildford's comments re Kwini's views on Gibbs! Clearly a poster of great shrewdness and sagacity.

No place for Garner???????????

Kwini - I'm glad you're sticking with a YES for Gibbs. However, just because I went to town a bit on him, please don't feel you have to vote NO for others. I just wanted to emphasise - particularly to some of the younger posters who never saw Gibbs - why I thought he was a good call.

Whatever your final votes - and please feel free to reconsider -, I and others would be interested in your reasons, however brief they might be.

I find it particularly interesting that Garner is not an immediate YES for you. That is not a criticism - we are most of all dealing with personal opinion which cannot be governed by a mathematical formula as I have recently tried to convey to another poster. I would though be especially interested as to why you might go against the tide with Garner.

It is obviously a big plus for Gibbs that you rate him above Big Bird!

Guildford, excellent addition to my case for Gibbs. Hopefully have persuaded a few between us.

Votes to be counted this evening, chaps.

Mine are as follows:

Gibbs - YES
Garner - YES
Gooch - YES
Gower - NO
Graveney - NO

guildford,
Don't feel qualified to critique Garner - in the years that I followed hom he was a fast bowler, but not necessarily a great bowler. Would certainly place him well behind Andy Roberts, but then I saw Roberts at his best, live and on the box.

I will always associate Graveney with great performances by England, not a great accumulator of stat's but an integral part of some iconic series wins which, at one time anyway, was what it was all about. But difficult to statistically translate that into a justification over some others.

Gower: Just an 80's version of Dexter.

Gooch: High regard for Gooch, scored tons of runs during a difficult period for England batting.