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.

erm like some of his stuff why?

ignore...

Hoggy,
Ahead of Worrell as a batsman (haven't calibrated a full team - he might be an all-rounding #8 and Captain if there's room) and ahead of Weekes and Walcott.

I rate the young Kanhai, Smith and Sobers (and Wes Hall) as the fore-runners of the great WI teams of the decades following the best of Walcott and Weekes (saw five of the six, Kanhai not playing, in 1957), and will not penalise Kanhai for being overshadowed by Sobers - very different players and roles. Haven't said I'll give Kanhai the HOF nod yet (will eventually) but that's how high I rate him, and it's tough to exclude him when Clive Lloyd is already in.

For followers of Indian cricket, West Indian cricket and reggae music

You might be interested to know that Sunny Gavaskar, Alvin Kallicharran and Bob Marley each named their son after

Rohan Kanhai.

Fists of Fury wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Recount for Greenidge!

Hi Fists,

Apart from Shelsey and Alfie, I thought everyone voted YES to Greenidge. Certainly, both Kwini and Hoggy changed their provisional No's to YES votes.

?

Guildford, I may well have made an error, can you carry out a recount for me please on Greenidge?

Fists - having checked, your counting seems bang on. Apologies for any suggestion otherwise. I now make it 7 YES votes (you, me, Corporal, Mad, Mike, Kwini and Hoggy), 3 NO votes (Alfie, Shelsey and, initially overlooked by me, CF). Gregers only posted ''initial thoughts'' and wrote ''maybe .. leaning towards no''; I suspect you counted that as a definite NO - fair enough, even if that had been ignored, Greenidge still wouldn't have got the required 75%.

Not sure if it makes a difference, but I voted YES for Greenidge too

skyeman wrote:Not sure if it makes a difference, but I voted YES for Greenidge too

Sorry, Skye. Yes, you did. I'll get my coat!

However, by my reckoning and even ignoring Gregers' possible NO vote, Greenidge still just misses out on 75%. More than happy for you or anyone else to check.

Strange how the memory plays tricks. I had thought too that Grimmett was struggling while Greenidge had got in.

Excellent news about Grimmett

I'll need to think carefully about the latest batch - no definite votes yet, but I do think I am almost certain to vote yes for Hutton and quite likely for Kanhai and Knott. Heyhoe Flint for me was the one person who encapsulated women's cricket but having voted no for Clark I'll need to look at the comparisons...

Some initial thoughts:

Heyhoe-Flint: Could well be a Yes but will need to look more closely at women's cricket during that period to make a decision.

Hutton: An almost certain Yes

Kanhai: A close one. My No vote for Greenidge would lead me towards a No but could easily be swayed.

Knott: A No so far on the basis of his low-ish batting average. Will need to see how he compares to other keepers of a similar era and read a lot about him from those who saw him play.

Larwood: A rather confusing selection from the ICC in my opinion. His record in itself is good but not great and over a short career cannot be considered Hall of Fame worthy in my opinion. When you add in involvement in a notorious controversy which cannot have been good for the game it is hard to see how he can be picked.

Some initial thoughts:

Hutton: unless someone makes a compelling argument against it's a near certain yes, which I assume will be quasi-unanimous on here.

Knott: IMO the greatest wicket-keeper since the war (a genius to Underwood for both club and country - and yes I know some rated Bob Taylor higher; based on footage I don't), and a good average (32ish IIRC) for keepers in his era, which included many important knocks. He also had charisma and character in abundance, and was an inventive batsman, in many senses ahead of his time.

Kanhai: I'm struggling to find an outstanding feat which would warrant his inclusion.

Larwood: certainly changed the face of the game for his efforts during the bodyline. But a nagging doubt remains, which I think is an entirely sentimental thought that, well, the tactics he used weren't very nice. Now I know, this flies in the face of everything I've ever said about the top level being tough etc., but this doubt is at the back of my mind, so has to be taken into consideration. I think the point is Larwood could have killed someone. And carried on despite serious injuries (although most of these weren't sustained whilst bodyline was in operation). And I know it was the captain who asked him to bowl at people's heads, but IIRC there was a bowler who refused to bowl bodyline when told to. Am I crazy? Do Larwood's good feats outweigh this? I'm inclined to vote yes, but only just.

Mike Selig wrote:Some initial thoughts:

Kanhai: I'm struggling to find an outstanding feat which would warrant his inclusion.

Mike - I'm reminded of a recent comment by the Corporal on another thread (Top 25 Effective Batsmen in the Last 25 Years):

''And compared with quite a few other posters on the HoF thread I think I attach less weight to the career defining feats of triple centuries and the like than I do to sustained excellence over a significant period.''

For over a decade from the late 1950s to the end of the 1960s Kanhai was undoubtedly one of the world's greatest batsman throughout this period and probably of all time. If that sounds over the top, listen to Sunil Gavaskar: ''To say that he is the greatest batsman that I have ever seen so far is to put it mildly.''

Just for you, Mike, I'll flag that his most outstanding Test innings was his 256 against India at Calcutta. This resulted in India losing by an innings and well over 300 runs, one of the three greatest ever victory margins in Test cricket. More than half a century on, I don't believe anyone has ever score more in an India v West Indies innings.

Kanhai's final international appearance also merits considerable praise. This was in the final of the inaugural World Cup against Australia at Lord's. In his fortieth year and with the Windies in trouble at 50 - 3, Kanhai resisted his natural attacking instincts and played the perfect anchor role to Clive Lloyd as they put on 149 and completely turned the game for the Windies to finally win by less than 20 runs. Lloyd deservedly was awarded the Man of the Match for his 102 but readily acknowledged that no silverware would have gone his way at all had it not been for Kanhai's selfless and invaluable 55.

guildfordbat wrote:For over a decade from the late 1950s to the end of the 1960s Kanhai was probably the world's greatest batsman throughout this period.

Better than Barrington or Sobers. Pollock, Hanif, Cowdrey?

Shelsey93 wrote:Some initial thoughts:

Heyhoe-Flint: Could well be a Yes but will need to look more closely at women's cricket during that period to make a decision.

Hutton: An almost certain Yes

Kanhai: A close one. My No vote for Greenidge would lead me towards a No but could easily be swayed.

Knott: A No so far on the basis of his low-ish batting average. Will need to see how he compares to other keepers of a similar era and read a lot about him from those who saw him play.

Larwood: A rather confusing selection from the ICC in my opinion. His record in itself is good but not great and over a short career cannot be considered Hall of Fame worthy in my opinion. When you add in involvement in a notorious controversy which cannot have been good for the game it is hard to see how he can be picked.

Hi Shelsey. As I alluded to above, I believe the fact that it is was a short career must be assessed alongside just who he was playing against, i.e. the majority of those were against Don Bradman. I'm sure he felt like he had played 200 Tests by the time he had finished!

I don't think that body line was particularly bad for the game, given that it wasn't actually illegal back then. If anything, it showed a bit of tactical nous, and let's face it - something was needed to stop that run machine!! Even then it only made him mortal (just about), averaging in the region of 55 was it? Not bad! In fact, if I was to really try and play devil's advocate, I'd say it was good for the game in that it highlighted a flaw in the laws of the game, allowing it to be altered to the system that works so well today. Had such a tactic been employed against a lesser known side I'm not so sure so much would have been made of it.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Some initial thoughts:

Kanhai: I'm struggling to find an outstanding feat which would warrant his inclusion.

Mike - I'm reminded of a recent comment by the Corporal on another thread (Top 25 Effective Batsmen in the Last 25 Years):

''And compared with quite a few other posters on the HoF thread I think I attach less weight to the career defining feats of triple centuries and the like than I do to sustained excellence over a significant period.''

For over a decade from the late 1950s to the end of the 1960s Kanhai was probably the world's greatest batsman throughout this period. If that sounds over the top, listen to Sunil Gavaskar: ''To say that he is the greatest batsman that I have ever seen so far is to put it mildly.''

Just for you, Mike, I'll flag that his most outstanding Test innings was his 256 against India at Calcutta. This resulted in India losing by an innings and well over 300 runs, one of the three greatest ever victory margins in Test cricket. More than half a century on, I don't believe anyone has ever score more in an India v West Indies innings.

Kanhai's final international appearance also merits considerable praise. This was in the final of the inaugural World Cup against Australia at Lord's. In his fortieth year and with the Windies in trouble at 50 - 3, Kanhai resisted his natural attacking instincts and played the perfect anchor role to Clive Lloyd as they put on 149 and completely turned the game for the Windies to finally win by less than 20 runs. Lloyd deservedly was awarded the Man of the Match for his 102 but readily acknowledged that no silverware would have gone his way at all had it not been for Kanhai's selfless and invaluable 55.

The corporal is correct in his assessment, but just to clarify, I am not looking so much for the best players as those with the biggest impact.

On the other hand I didn't realise Kanhai was rated quite so highly by some. Given he played in a period which included batsmen like Barrington, Sobers and others, that is quite an endorsement from Gavaskar.

I am of course aware of the fantastic supporting role he played in the first (male) WC final (FYI the first women's world cup was played 2 years earlier - hence a trick question at a cricket club can be "when was the first cricket WC played?" and then laugh as everyone says 75), in what almost certainly remains the greatest ever final (from Frederick's 6 before treading on his wicket, Lloyd's innings, Richards's run-outs, then the last wicket pair inching Aus closer, the wicket off a no-ball and subsequent mayhem, all legendary moments of this game). You do love your supporting roles...

To be honest, I have no particularly strong thoughts on Kanhai, he was certainly an excellent player who I'm not sure I know that much about.

By the sounds of Guildford's early charge, Mike, you will know a fair bit by the end!

Fists of Fury wrote:By the sounds of Guildford's early charge, Mike, you will know a fair bit by the end!

I hope so!

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:For over a decade from the late 1950s to the end of the 1960s Kanhai was probably the world's greatest batsman throughout this period.

Better than Barrington or Sobers. Pollock, Hanif, Cowdrey?

Certainly better than Hanif and Cowdrey in my view and apparently Gavaskar's. Barrington and Pollock did not play ''throughout this period''. Sobers is the only challenger of the names you mention and the thousands you don't.

Mike Selig wrote:

You do love your supporting roles...

Yes, I do. A particular enjoyment for me in cricket is the teamwork that goes into a good performance and the way in which a more ordinary cricketer (not that Kanhai was ever ordinary) can support a better player and enable him to accomplish even more than might be expected. Just occasionally, things get confused but even more delightful when the expected roles are reversed and the support act steps out of the shadows as in the case of Collis King and Viv Richards in the second (male ) World Cup final.

Shelsey93 wrote:Some initial thoughts:

Knott: A No so far on the basis of his low-ish batting average. Will need to see how he compares to other keepers of a similar era and read a lot about him from those who saw him play.

I would give Knott a YES in the strongest possible terms. He was a magnificent keeper to a continually varied England bowling attack - eg, the fiery pace of Snow, the slow medium cutters of D'Oliveira and, most difficult but most effective of all, the cunning and guile of Underwood's brisk spin. Hardly ever did he miss a chance and more rarely concede a bye.

As a keeper and batsman, he had a tremenous presence and was an inspiration to both his team mates and the crowd.

A determined and inventive batsmen who reserved his best innings for when England were up against the wall and needed them most. He would have done so well in T20 today.

His batting and his batting average were far better than his international contemporaries. Pakistan's Wasim Bari and our own Bob Taylor (a fine keeper but lacking Knott's presence) both averaged only around 16 in Tests. India's Syed Kirmani had an average of 27 when he was ditched for the inferior glovework but buccaneering batting of Farokh Engineer who still ended his Test career with a batting average of around 2 less than Knott.

I cannot imagine anyone other than Knott being keeper in an England All Time XI. An outstanding Test cricketer of the last fifty years.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:For over a decade from the late 1950s to the end of the 1960s Kanhai was probably the world's greatest batsman throughout this period.

Better than Barrington or Sobers. Pollock, Hanif, Cowdrey?

Certainly better than Hanif and Cowdrey in my view and apparently Gavaskar's. Barrington and Pollock did not play ''throughout this period''. Sobers is the only challenger of the names you mention and the thousands you don't.

Sorry Guildford, but the argument that the likes of Pollock and Barrington don't count because they didn't play EXACTLY the same time period as Kanhai is disingenious IMO. Fact is that, during the period you mentioned, there were a number of batsmen playing who would probably be regarded as being better.
Kanhai may well have been seen as the best batsman in the world at certain points during that period, but not IMO as the best batsman of that period overall.

Incidentally, however, Cowdrey made more runs during the WHOLE of the period you mention, at a better average, as , of course, did Sobers. Tom Graveney averaged more in that time. Indeed, of the 4 batsmen who scored 1000 runs and played the whole period from 1957 (Kanhai's debut) to the end of the 1960s (Cowdrey, Graveney, Sobers, Kanhai), Kanhai averaged the lowest as far as I can tell. As you say, that doesn't prove everything, but it's quite a telling stat IMO.

Likewise for me guilford, Knott is a clear yes. Someone put me right on his batting average in the best keepers thread: I had somehow remembered it was 28ish when actually it is quite a few runs higher, and as you point out compares very favourably with all of his contempories. Knott, of course, was in a different league with his keeping: the only one who comes close (in pure keeping terms) is Ian Healy, who was as much of a genius standing up to Warne as Knott was to Underwood (actually Healy and Knott were in many ways similar - gritty determined batsmen who scored their runs in unusual ways and most often when their team needed them).

IMO only Adam Gilchrist ranks ahead of Knott as far as keeper-batsmen go (and then only just). Certainly many people more knowledgeable than myself would have Knott in their world 11 of all time.

What Shane Warne is to spin bowling (presence, charisma, character and above all a sheer "wow" talent factor), Alan Knott is to wicket-keeping. I can give no higher praise.

Hoggy - my words were chosen carefully and purposely. My point was that of those who played throughout the 1960s, Kanhai was arguably the best of that decade. I accept Sobers challenges him. The others that you mention generally don't in my view come quite close enough. I exclude here the excellent Graeme Pollock who was of a slightly later era and didn't make his Test debut until almost four years into that decade.

You may not think it right for me to concentrate on a particular decade but I chose to do so and considered it declared upfront.

Not trying to start a fight Guildford , but I just don't think that possibly being the 2nd best batsman, (I don't think there's much argument that Sobers was better), of 4 to score 1000+ runs between the dates you specify, is that much of a qualification.

Hoggy - well, it's a lot better qualification than I ever attained but I suppose I'll only ever get into our HoF as the Patron Saint of Lost Causes!

Moving on:

Hutton. Surely must be a YES. Wonderful batsman and under rated captain who overcame physical adversity (serious arm injury in WW2).

Heyhoe-Flint. Some of you won't like this (Skye will - but that is hardly a ringing endorsement! ) but it looks like a NO from me. With a lot of soul searching and genuine unease, I voted NO for Clark a few weeks back. Pros and cons for her were well debated at the time. Mike, in particular, argued with passion and conviction that as well as her playing achievements, Clark had done so much to advance ladies cricket throughout the world. I came mighty close to voting YES as a result. However, leaving aside whether I should have done or not, Heyhoe-Flint comes a very poor second on this front. She was a decent player and captain but I seriously question what she did to meaningfully develop and promote the game for ladies (or others) after her own retirement. If she had not been English, I doubt that she would have been even considered for the ICC Hall of Fame. A female should not be excluded from our HoF on the grounds of her sex. However, she should not be chosen just so we can demonstrate how inclusive we are. Significant contribution to the game - which can be accomplished in many ways - is what matters. Has Heyhoe-Flint contributed enough? I don't think so.

Larwood. I've always liked Larwood since I saw him interviewed on television in his eighties. A quiet, dignified and respectful gentleman. From my readings, he was treated shamefully by England's cricket establishment and merits the posthumous consolation of entry to our HoF. More to follow on him.

As always I hope, more than happy to read the views of others and reconsider.

guildfordbat wrote:

Heyhoe-Flint. Some of you won't like this (Skye will - but that is hardly a ringing endorsement! )

[quote]



= Phew.

guildfordbat wrote:Significant contribution to the game - which can be accomplished in many ways - is what matters. Has Heyhoe-Flint contributed enough? I don't think so.

.

Cricket journalist and broadcaster. One of the first women admitted to the MCC. First woman to sit on the full committee of the MCC. Co-author of history of the women's game. President of the Lady Taveners, member of the ECB board of directors

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Significant contribution to the game - which can be accomplished in many ways - is what matters. Has Heyhoe-Flint contributed enough? I don't think so.

.

Cricket journalist and broadcaster. One of the first women admitted to the MCC. First woman to sit on the full committee of the MCC. Co-author of history of the women's game. President of the Lady Taveners, member of the ECB board of directors

Hoggy - a lot of job titles there but what have they achieved? Are we and cricket better off as a result?

Fair enough Guildford.
I certainly am not aware of waht she may, or may not, have achieved in those various positions, but surely, being the first woman, or among the first women, to have held a number of them is an achievement in itself?

Don't honestly see how you can induct BC and not RH-F; perhaps there would not have been the platform for BC if not for the work and achievements of the lady who by any measure was the pre-eminent cricketing woman in the pre-BC era.

Would have thought inducting one makes induction of the other a pre-requisite (not sure that's the right word, but you know what I mean).

im still very undcided on these players, apart from hutton.

Hoggy - yes, it's an achievement but it doesn't get a free pass from me into our Hall of Fame. I suspect Clark's supporters would also be rather dismissive of these roles in comparison to what Clark has accomplished for the game.

I realise committees have their place and role although I'm generally more impressed by those working selflessly behind the scenes and/or out of the limelight. Take for instance the likes of Daphne at the Oval. She has been selling scorecards and giving out for free with kind words her own jelly babies to supporters at every county game since about 1930 . I would normally vote for her over any ten committee members of either sex every time.

kwinigolfer wrote:Don't honestly see how you can induct BC and not RH-F; perhaps there would not have been the platform for BC if not for the work and achievements of the lady who by any measure was the pre-eminent cricketing woman in the pre-BC era.

Would have thought inducting one makes induction of the other a pre-requisite (not sure that's the right word, but you know what I mean).

BC missed out in the voting, but only just.

skyeman wrote:

BC missed out in the voting, but only just.

And I think Heyhoe-Flint comes second by some distance to Clark. That's why it looks like a NO from me - although always prepared to reconsider.

i said yes to clark however not sure which way to go with any of these except for hutton

Apologies, I thought Clark was in. No to Rachel from me then.

.....

With a NO too from me for R H-F. BC was a couple of points ahead of R H-F for me in her cricket and services to cricket and she recieved a NO vote from me, so rightly or wrongly R H-F must recieve the same vote.

I was a strong advocate on Belinda Clark for her efforts on the field (which IMO transformed the game both on and off the field) and would have to agree with the consensus that Heyhoe-Flint is a notch below.

I tend to agree with Guilford ( ) that sitting on a load of committee's hasn't really achieved much in itself, although being the first woman member of the MCC is I believe a significant achievement worth celebrating and has changed cricket to an extent (although actually the MCC are less conservative than they are given credit for, but that is another story).

To my shame, I don't know nearly as much as I should about Heyhoe-Flint's achievements (in part defence she was before my time), but from what I do know I wouldn't rank her as Clark (or indeed Clare Taylor)'s equal.

Having said that, I am fully prepared to listen to arguments either way: Clark for me was an easy yes (and I am preparing to argue strongly the case for her inclusion second time around), probably one of the easiest I have given so far, so being a notch below her doesn't in itself mean a no vote.

Mike Selig wrote:
I tend to agree with Guilford ( ) ....

Steady on!

guildfordbat wrote: Take for instance the likes of Daphne at the Oval. She has been selling scorecards and giving out for free with kind words her own jelly babies to supporters at every county game since about 1930 . I would normally vote for her over any ten committee members of either sex every time.

I met a very nice female scorecard seller at the Oval last summer - no idea whether it was Daphne. She let me have a free scorecard when neither she nor I had the right change. And she was most effusive in her gratitude when I returned a bit later in the day with the right money - and refused to take it. Maybe not a candidate for 606v2 HoF but perhaps a Surrey version of the same...

Corporal - that would probably be Daphne - slim with short, grey hair and a cheerful, chirpy manner. If not, someone trained by her.

I'm pretty sure Daphne got a special award at the Club's 2010 end of season dinner. Certainly deserved.

PS Don't think your dodge of not having the right change would work in any of the Oval bars!

MY VOTES:

Rachael Heyhoe-Flint: An average of 45 in women's cricket is a phenonmemal achievement. She was a very consistent batsman, and an outstanding captain its a yes from me. YES

Len Hutton: An easy decision has to be a yes, for obivious reasons, dosent really need any explanation. YES

Rohan Kanhai: a very good batsman yes, but a great? no, not for me. its a no from me. NO

Alan Knott: toughest one of the lot for me....one of the best gloveman i have ever seen, however his batting lets him down....i woould love to say yes, just for the keeping however i take all aspects into consideration, and thus its a no from me. NO

Harold Larwood: a geniune quick, invovled in the infamous bodyline series, howevr he isnt a great. Its a no from me NO

so its a yes to Flint and Hutton,

and a no to the other 3.

that concludes CF'S vote

You never saw Knott bat , did you , CF ?

Test average of 32+ and he played against some very good bowlers, on some fairly "sporting" tracks : in 1974/75 in Australia not many English batsmen prospered against Lillee and Thomson , for good reason , and he averaged rather better at 36.4 (he was the second highest scorer). Also averaged over 50 in West Indies...trust me , he could bat.

Vote no if you must but "batting lets him down" nearly caused me to spill my coffee on the keyboard...

I have a firm Yes for Knott , and , of course , Hutton.

Will review the others later.

Vote no if you must but "batting lets him down" nearly caused me to spill my coffee on the keyboard..

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

I've just finished clearing mine up.

you pair have just made me almost spray my coffee all over the screen.

Knott's overall batting average can be a bit misleading, and the points Alfie makes do need to be considered very carefully. I believe his average to be a very decent return given the pitches, opposition and of course the role of the wicket keeper at that time, which lest we forget was different from that of the 'must average 40+' power hitter of today.

He'll be getting a yes from me.

LOL you guys, a big YES from me too for Knott.

well you guys are entitled to your opinon, as i am to mine, and i stick by it.

cricketfan90 wrote:well you guys are entitled to your opinon, as i am to mine, and i stick by it.

The best way, Cricketfan90.

And a BIG YES for Knott for me.

It's naive to compare batting (or bowling, but especially batting) averages now with those of previous eras, particularly the 60's and 70's.
Godfrey Evans' average was 20.4 by comparison.

Alan Knott, apart from the tangibles, was 100% dependable, often brilliant, and more than anyone before (arguably after) brought out the very best of his fellow fielders, not to mention the bowlers.

cricketfan90 wrote:MY VOTES:


Alan Knott: toughest one of the lot for me....one of the best gloveman i have ever seen, however his batting lets him down....i woould love to say yes, just for the keeping however i take all aspects into consideration, and thus its a no from me. NO

Why do 'keepers have to be great batsmen as well as great 'keepers to get into the HoF?
Bowlers don't have to be great batsman.
Batsmen don't have to be great bowlers.
Why do 'keepers have to be exceptional at two things when others don't?
Leaving aside Knott's batting (which was as good, or better, than most other 'keepers in test history), he was one of, if not the, greatest glovemen in test cricket history. Why is that not enough to earn his place in the HoF?