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.

Thanks for your comments, Kwini.

Can I just check please - do any of your thoughts and comments immediately above change any of your 4 NO's? I'm honestly not trying to lead you for a moment - just don't want you feeling you have to stick with an earlier vote which might have been cast as a result of a misunderstanding about protocol.

I do believe Garner developed much further later in his career but note your view. I also believe, as I've posted elsewhere, that Roberts is a much underrated bowler - ''the best I ever faced'', according to Gavaskar.

I have to say I'm somewhat puzzled by the number of people voting NO for Gower but YES for Gooch. Their records are almost identical (in test cricket) and indeed there is a view that Gooch prolonged his test career just enough so he could overtake Gower's records.

Certainly those who voted NO to Chappell based on the "underarm" incident should be careful to consider Gooch's influence on cricket in England during and just after his tenure (as outlined above).

I still have no idea which way to vote on Gibbs. There are excellent cases both ways.

I guess it might be down to defining innings, at least that is how I saw it. However, you've now made me reconsider, as my vote for Gooch was a little tentative as it was, so in these dying hours I'll decide whether to stick or twist.

Hi Mike,

I'm actually giving all three England ''G'' batsmen here a NO (unless anyone converts me otherwise in the next few hours).

For me, they were all very decent batsmen but their overall playing achievements just weren't quite great enough for admittance to the Hall of Fame. That may be harsh voting but, as you sometimes touch on, they're my votes based on my assessment.

Because of my No to Gooch for the main reason above, I haven't really needed to fully consider the additional factors relating to his influence that you brought to the table although I noted them with interest and appreciated you doing so.

As for others voting NO to Gower, I suspect there may be an element of resentment at what was perceived on his part as a lack of grit and application. A negative comment made about Cowdrey was that his early natural talent never fully blossomed. I accept there was some truth in that although believe it applies even more to Gower.

I realise it is always so much harder to justify turning down a ''very nearly man'' than a ''miles off guy''. However, I would be interested in your concerns about Gibbs.

I may be completely wrong but I would query - based possibly on your concern here and some other posts -whether you give sufficient credit for longevity and consistency of a Test career. That is a factor to me in my assessment of greatness as with it comes dependability and reliability which are so important to a team. Sorry, not trying to preach here and certainly not to a coach like yourself. Just perhaps touching on differences of personal values (suggest we don't tell BiltongBek! ).

Anyway, I believe the supportive posts by Fists and Kwini are very impressive; ditto the comments by the Corporal, albeit brief, about Gibbs never having a spinners' wicket to bowl on for home Tests nor often getting the chance to bowl at rabbits and ferrets with two of Hall, Griffith, Roberts and Holding being first in the queue.

As for my own post above, I couldn't line up Sobers this time but don't think the witnesses I did call let down either me or, far more importantly, Gibbs too badly.

guildford,
YES for Gibbs.
I'm going to vote "NO!" on all the other four under the circumstances, the most prevalent being that I feel strongest about Graveney but don't have the time to put together a convincing case other than gut feel.

As an aside: Is Benaud in based upon his cricket or his other contributions? The latter I would hope!

Thanks, Kwini.

I actually pushed for Benaud to be in our original thirty, mainly due to his outstanding captaincy and cricketing brain.

fists when will these be counted, and the next lot go up?

Interesting that it took so long for Benaud to be inducted in to the Australian Cricket HOF, far later than some others not in the v2 HOF.

Kwini - I didn't know that and am surprised by it. Benaud is very highly revered in this country and has been for many years.

Hi guilford,

I agree that I don't value longevity that highly. Or that is, I don't rate "being very good over an outstanding length of time" as enough to be "great". This doesn't mean I don't value longevity, far from it: I perfectly accept that someone who averages 50 over 15 years is a better player than someone who averages 50 over 5 years.

My problem with Gibbs is a very similar one I had to Barrington: I am struggling to fin that "outstanding" contributor which just nudges him from excellence to HoF inclusion worthiness.

I admit that in Gibbs favour are:
- Excellent career particularly given the circumstances (pitches, cricket in general dominated by fast bowlers)
- First spinner to 300 wickets (this is possibly his "outsanding" contribution)
- Long career
- Selection in the all-time West Indies 11 (however as MfC points out, as a spinner his competition wasn't all that great - I would say, forgive the mathematical terminology, that this is a necessary condition, but is it sufficient?).

Argued against this is simply the fact that his record is very good, but not exceptional.

I am looking at this HoF as something only the best of the best can get into (unless they have contributed outstandingly to the game overall). Does Gibbs fall into that category?

I am at the moment leaning towards a yes vote, based on the opinions of yourself, Fists and Kwinigolfer (who has turned down Garner...).

MS,
When he retired Lance Gibbs was the leading Test wicket taker in history. Can't do much better than that.

Mike,

Some stand out moments for Gibbs.

* In the 1960-61 series against Australia, he took 3 wickets in 4 balls in the Sydney Test. In the very next Test at Adelaide, he went one ball better and took a hat trick. That was in January 1961. The next hat trick in Test cricket for a bowler of any country was not achieved until over fifteen years later in October 1976.

* During the 1961- 2 home series, in the Bridgetown Test he single handedly reduced India from 149-2 to 189 all out with 8 wickets in 15.3 overs at a cost of just 6 runs.

* ODIs very much came after the end of Gibbs' career. However, in one of the three he played he took the remarkable and miserly figures of 11-4-12-1 as he helped bowl England to defeat at the Oval in 1975.

For me though, 309 wickets between 1958 and 1976 is the real standout achievement.

Mike Selig wrote:
My problem with Gibbs is a very similar one I had to Barrington: I am struggling to fin that "outstanding" contributor which just nudges him from excellence to HoF inclusion worthiness.

If Gibbs is on a par with Barrington, then I rest my case for Gibbs' inclusion in HofF.

Corporal -

To confirm my own votes:

Garner YES

Gibbs YES

Gooch NO

Gower NO

Graveney NO

My YES vote for Gibbs pretty much covered above.

My other votes pretty much tally with Skye's comments a few days ago.

I'm like Mike, a bit undecided on Gibbs still. Probably just about leaning towards a "yes" vote at the moment, but it's close. Otherwise, YES for Garner, NO for the English G's.

On the Benaud one, he was a very very fine bowler, a very good all-rounder, one of the best test match captains IMO, and his fine work in the commentary box no doubt added to his case too. Maybe he's regarded higher in England than in Aus, I wouldn't know, but for me his inclusion was a no-brainer.

24 Aussies selected to their Hall Of Fame before Benaud. That seems a little harsh; you'd think he'd be higher for his captaincy and overall contributions alone. Good all-rounder too, probably not a great though.
But food for thought as to his place in history.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

On the Benaud one, he was a very very fine bowler, a very good all-rounder, one of the best test match captains IMO, and his fine work in the commentary box no doubt added to his case too. Maybe he's regarded higher in England than in Aus, I wouldn't know, but for me his inclusion was a no-brainer.

Thanks for that, Mad. I was starting to wonder if I had missed some negative aspect.

24 Ausies before Benaud

who on earth were they?

kwinigolfer wrote:
But food for thought as to his place in history.

Kwini - take the point although Benaud's place is secure in my mind and, I suspect, many others.

Yeah top player, top man and an all round positive effect on the sport ranging from his playing days through to his fine work in the commentary box. I'd be very interested to know who the 24 chosen ahead of him were, seems very harsh!

Require votes on Gibbs from both Mike Selig and MFC - they will prove pivotal.

According to wiki:
Blackham, Spofforth, Trumper, Grimmett, Ponsford, Bradman, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Lillee, Armstrong, Harvey, Border, Woodfull, Morris, 2 x Chappell, McCabe, Hassett, Trumble, Davidson, Hill, Marsh, Simpson, Noble.

Don't think Jdizzle has voted this week, has he?

kwinigolfer wrote:According to wiki:
Blackham, Spofforth, Trumper, Grimmett, Ponsford, Bradman, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Lillee, Armstrong, Harvey, Border, Woodfull, Morris, 2 x Chappell, McCabe, Hassett, Trumble, Davidson, Hill, Marsh, Simpson, Noble.

Thanks, Kwini. Must say I'm surprised by that. Very good players one and all, but company that Benaud certainly belongs in.

Oh JD has voted, ignore me.

kwinigolfer wrote:According to wiki:
Blackham, Spofforth, Trumper, Grimmett, Ponsford, Bradman, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Lillee, Armstrong, Harvey, Border, Woodfull, Morris, 2 x Chappell, McCabe, Hassett, Trumble, Davidson, Hill, Marsh, Simpson, Noble.

There's a few there who, you could argue, Benaud was at least the equal of as a player.

Right then, my official votes:

Garner - YES. no doubt for me, truly outstanding test record, and arguably the greatest ODI bowler ever (or one of the, at least). Still has the best bowling figures in a WC final. Terrifying to face.

Gibbs - a very reluctant NO. There have been excellent arguments for and against, but ultimately I believe he falls half a step beneath HoF greatness. Yes he was the first spinner to 300 wickets, but for me that's not quite enough. He wasn't the first bowler to 300 wickets for instance, and his record, while excellent, doesn't leap out as one of the very best. Neither does he have any other truly outstanding feats to his name that to me would warrant HoF inclusion. His selection in the WI XI for me remains mostly down to the lack of competition in the spinning department (and I don't believe the panel were ever going to go without one). That he was the WI best spinner of all time is in no doubt. That he was a great cricketer, also. That he deserves HoF status? Perhaps the very fact that I have tossed and turned about his inclusion has in the end forced me to leave him out.

Gooch - NO. Much as Mike said, I think his lack of "man-management" skills were very detrimental to England in the short and long term, and it was only really when Michael Vaughan arrived that England really started having a decent blend of characters again. A very very fine batsman, with some truly outstanding innings, but his "my way or the highway" approach costs him dear here (and his record itself is not enough to warrant unanimous inclusion).

Gower - NO. Very very fine player, but not a HoF great, much like Ian Chappell et al. Tough to leave him out, as he was such a great player to watch, but ultimately doesn't have enough on his record (either statistically or in terms of defining innings) to include him.

Graveney - NO. Very much the same reasons as Gower. Another mighty fine player, but again, lacking that little bit extra which would make him worthy of HoF greatness IMO.

kwinigolfer wrote:According to wiki:
Blackham, Spofforth, Trumper, Grimmett, Ponsford, Bradman, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Lillee, Armstrong, Harvey, Border, Woodfull, Morris, 2 x Chappell, McCabe, Hassett, Trumble, Davidson, Hill, Marsh, Simpson, Noble.

thanks for that. I admit I'm very surprised to see some names in there ahead of Benaud. Mighty fine players all of them, but I'd probably have Benaud ahead of at least ten of them.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Gibbs - a very reluctant NO.

Mad - apart from the reluctance, I'm sure Fred Trueman would go along with that.

The results can be announced once Mike and Gregers give me their verdict on Gibbs.

Gibbs - Yes (will say why tomorrow)

Thanks Gregers.

Out of the five G's only Garner has made it through it seems. Some good debate and evidence for Gibbs guys. The other 3 G's, as good as they were, were not really in the picture for an HoF spot.

i stated it in my reasons a few days ago, but for me gibbs was a must.

Well I am coming very late to this thread ... have been able only to read bits at work and so am not quite sure of everything that has gone on but here are a few thoughts for what they're worth:

1 The whole deal sounds like an exercise in collective vanity in putting our combined wisdom above that of the ICC and creating a "more exclusive" HOF
Which makes it an excellent idea. And certainly justified as we are a pretty shrewd lot and are not responsible for the International fixture list or the rules relating to light/weather etc...

I presume Fists isn't going to put on a lavish ceremony at which the inductees are wined dined and presented with certificates (bit hard anyway as a number are deceased) so this is only a "virtual" honour , but the parts I have read seem to justify the whole thing just for the quality of the arguments being put.
Well done all so far!

2 Generally agree with the "first 30" (After starting on the "G" page I was relieved to look back and see the good Doctor was already installed - had he not been I am sure he would have haunted anyone who had the cheek to vote against him) Suppose we would all pick slightly different lists of 30 but they are a very sound selection.

3 Has a definition of acceptable criteria been made? Myself I would look at:
Career statistical record/longevity/historical impact/very significant one-off performances/off-field contribution. Depends how exclusive we all want it to be where we draw a line I guess , but the argument is the main thing...

Now I sense I am a shade too late to be counted for the "g" group , but anyway:

Gibbs Yes , the 300 plus wickets in his time and circumstances and holding the record is significant enough for me. (Strangely , although I remember his career and must have seen him bowl I do not have a strong visual memory of him...perhaps I saw him on his off days...)
In contrast I have clear memory of Tom Graveney , a very graceful player to watch. But a notch or so down on some of his England contemporaries (who weren't too bad actually - Hutton/Compton/May/Cowdrey/Barrington) So that would be a No.
Gower also great to watch and had some notable innings and series: he made the then 4th highest England Ashes total in 1985 (732) and made them beautifully ,which might nearly qualify him as a "great performance" - but sadly loses some lustre when we recall the weakness of that Australian attack(McDermott too new , Thomson too old , several others just not very good) Regretfully , a No.
Gooch: Well a Yes from me just on account of his two famous matches: the triple and single hundreds against India , statistically the biggest match total ever and the 154 rated the best innings of all - what more can a man do?
Was he always good for cricket and England? Maybe not but I think this is a hall for great performers rather than secular saints , so a yes it must be.
And Garner who I see is the popular choice : I'm a little less sure, perhaps because I place less weight on ODIs , and because I wonder how many WI fast men we are to include: I rate Marshall, Holding and Roberts ahead of him and would think about Hall and Ambrose ; but I will go along with the general Yes.

Apologies for long-windedness but I have some catching up to do...

Alfie, as it happens, we are waiting on Mike Selig to inform us of his Gibbs vote, so your votes are in time to be considered, thanks very much for getting involved!

Well, we just think that any Hall of Fame should be quite elitist, and only the very best should be inducted. Unfortunately, 606v2 hasn't yet the funds to wine, dine and honour those elected (though we have cricketfan90 ready to give the speeches if such a day does come).

As for criteria, it can be anything that you think justifies their inclusion. Clearly their performance throughout their cricketing career is a big factor, but we also take into account anything that may have had a wider impact outside of cricket i.e. did they do something that transformed the game, did they provide fantastic services to cricket after their playing days were over. It is all objective, but such things can be used to add weight to an argument as you see fit.

Jolly good , Fists ...thanks for that.

I shall now take some time to read over pages 4-9 or whatever and make sure you chaps have done the right thing with the Bs to Fs

Nice post Alfie, your YES vote for Gibbs has made it a very close call, as FoF just said Mike could maybe swing it one way or the other.

for Mike.

Ha, good man. Well, debate has raged back and forth of the inclusion or otherwise of some candidates, so I'd like to think every stone had been overturned in our pursuit to get our own respective ways.

The next set of candidates will be posted within the next few hours, too, so keep an eye out for those.

fists i can give the speeches

lol did my votes influence anything?

It has kept Lance Gibbs in with a fighting chance, with the vote of Mike now proving critical to his inclusion.

Alfie - very shrewd comments from yourself and a fine reply already from Fists.

Whilst I certainly don't wish to change my YES vote on Garner, I am beginning to wonder if we might collectively have over egged him slightly.

I agree that we're not trying to elect ''secular saints'' - I would probably not qualify for a vote if we were! However, I did hold out for a NO and a significant enough minority (just) joined me to exclude Greg Chappell from our Hall of Fame due to ''the under arm bowling'' incident. You obviously go back to that time. Any take on that?

If you are catching up on the Cricket threads now and have a bit of time on your hands, I would also appreciate any feedback on my post on the ''Five best ODI innings of all time'' thread from you and any others, also in your time based on your comments. This seems to have gone benath the radar of most or bored them senseless!

Anyway, welcome back!

I'm very sorry, I completely forgot to vote last night before going to bed. Then I actually did some work this morning and only now switched to 606 to find everyone waiting on me. And now I know that my vote is potentially casting it makes it very hard indeed. In true X-factor/other reality TV style let me build up the tension a little (of course those just wishing to find out the result, unlike when watching live TV can simply scroll down to the bottom of my post):

Garner is a fairly obvious YES.

Gooch, Gower and Graveney are fairly clear NOs, not necessarily for the same reason.

So it comes to Gibbs. Arguments have been given, very well reasoned posts made and all the key points have come accross. "But Dermot, I have to make a decision" (sorry, I'll stop the X-factor comparisons now...). It's been very tough. Arguments for and against have been compelling. But ultimately it has to be my decision. YES to Gibbs.

Thanks Mike, let me tally them up and I'll post the results in the HoF inductees thread.

The next candidates will be up shortly.

Private Message for The Corporal

Secret Mission - Code Name: Selig

Instruct all troops to urgently locate Mike Selig and return with a YES vote for Gibbs signed by him. If the signature is not immediately and voluntarily produced, it should be obtained by any means necessary. It is imperative that Mr Selig be left unable to suggest any force was used. Finally, ensure no one from 606 v2 sees this message.

Corporal - call the search off and delete all messages. Over and out.

Unbelievable.

Garner - sails in with just one no vote.
Gooch, Graveney, Gower - All no's.
Gibbs.....gains 69.23% yes votes, and as such misses out by the NARROWEST of margins, but is eligible for second ballot status.

Wow, closest yet by some distance!

Thanks, Fists.

Bit disappointed about Gibbs but the most important thing by far which was definitely achieved is some good and serious cricket debate with a bit of banter along the way.

extremely dissapointed that Gibbs hasnt got in!

Count me in amongst those that are very disappointed, alas he achieved 9 votes of 13, causing him to just miss out.

Oh well, let's make sure we get him in as second ballot when the time comes!