The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

First topic message reminder :

NOTE: This is the second part of the 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame thread. The first part can be found here: https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely, it doesn't matter how fast he was compared to those of the 70's and later? There is exemplary anecdotal evidence that he was the fastest of the early Lindwall era and for thirty years before.

Precisely, and the only thing that really matters. He was undoubtedly faster than anything had been before, at the time, or shortly afterwards. But we should be wary of people who say "I saw Larwood and Thompson bowl, and Larwood was as fast": they are using different frames of reference for comparison.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I've finally decided on Larwood. He has a YES from me. Many fine arguments for and against have been mounted. And I am somewhat going against my normal approach of giving much greater weight to sustained excellence than to a "defining moment." But in the history of cricket the attempt to tame by far the greatest batsman ever really was a defining moment.

So, to my surprise, for the first time I am giving all 5 YES in this round. Plus an additional one to Fists if he manages to keep track of all the votes....

Corporal - and another YES I suspect before the next lot of ballot papers are even issued!

guildfordbat wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I've finally decided on Larwood. He has a YES from me. Many fine arguments for and against have been mounted. And I am somewhat going against my normal approach of giving much greater weight to sustained excellence than to a "defining moment." But in the history of cricket the attempt to tame by far the greatest batsman ever really was a defining moment.

So, to my surprise, for the first time I am giving all 5 YES in this round. Plus an additional one to Fists if he manages to keep track of all the votes....

Corporal - and another YES I suspect before the next lot of ballot papers are even issued!

Voting purely on county lines is something that should be frowned upon IMO.

Hoggy - I think you can keep your powder dry until some Surrey buffoon completely blows our cover and nominates Gareth Batty!

As long as you don't quibble over Rikki Clarke getting a nomination as well, we'll be fine

Hoggy_Bear wrote:As long as you don't quibble over Rikki Clarke getting a nomination as well, we'll be fine

He started off at Guildford Cricket Club so I don't see any issue.

how many people left to vote?

me

Mike and MfC still to vote, Stella, gregers maybe?

knott will defo be in, not sure about kanhai though, i think opinon is split on him.

cricketfan90 wrote:knott will defo be in, not sure about kanhai though, i think opinon is split on him.

Hutton and Knott defs, and the other three all getting above 60% to be given another shot I think Cf.

flint should be in there!!!!!!!!!

cricketfan90 wrote:flint should be in there!!!!!!!!!

CF - still time for you to change your mind on that.

i voted yes for flint.....

she should be there

guildfordbat wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:flint should be in there!!!!!!!!!

CF - still time for you to change your mind on that.

And Larwood and Kanhai too

no chance

cricketfan90 wrote:no chance

You can but try

Larwood and Kanhai hold a much greater claim to the HoF than Flint, in my view. She was great for the womens game, and deserves a place, but when you take in to account the standard and achievements of those two, they simply rank far, far higher.

well each to their own.

right then, after much thought from me, here are my votes:

Hutton - YES. Doesn't need much arguing really.

Knott - YES. Fabulous keeper, possibly the greatest of all-time. Him and Gilchrist are the two who feature in most world XI sides.

Larwood - YES. Tougher call, but ultimately he defined Bodyline as much as Bodyline defined him, and of course Bodyline shaped the future of cricket. Also gains marks for making Bradman look mortal.

Kanhai- NO. Reluctantly, I just can't find it in me to vote Kanhai in after fine players like Gower were excluded. A very fine player, but probably lacks that little bit extra I'm looking for from our HoF.

Flint - NO. Very fine cricketer, but for me did less for evolution of the women's game than Belinda Clark did, and played in an era where the standards were much less high.

Fists of Fury wrote:Larwood and Kanhai hold a much greater claim to the HoF than Flint, in my view. She was great for the womens game, and deserves a place, but when you take in to account the standard and achievements of those two, they simply rank far, far higher.

Fists and all - a quick comment from someone who was around and seriously following cricket throughout the 1970s. It would have been almost inconceiveable to any sports minded person then to have a Cricket Hall of Fame excluding Kanhai. That decision would have been even more inexplicable had Heyhoe-Flint been included. I appreciate that sexist attitudes might have played a part then. However, I do wonder if we are trying too hard now to overcompensate.

As he was also around then, can you please bring us the exclusive thoughts on this matter of Grandad Fists.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Flint - NO. Very fine cricketer, but for me did less for evolution of the women's game than Belinda Clark did, and played in an era where the standards were much less high.

Mad - I totally agree with your vote and, more significantly, your reasoning in respect of Flint. As mentioned recently, I'll be more than happy to reconside Clark when the case is restated for her. As you say, Flint did less for the evolution of the women's game. Unless and until Clark is admitted, I have to keep the door closed on Flint.

opinon still split on kanhai

Hoggy_Bear wrote:As long as you don't quibble over Rikki Clarke getting a nomination as well, we'll be fine

Well he's already had two "defining moments" that many look for in a HofF candidate - world record haul of catches in an innings, plus took part in a 606v2 Q&A session. Two in one season is a good start....

haha lol, so when he retires, rikki clarke will be nonimated

I think I'm giving a tactical "no" to Heyhoe-Flint as I'd like to see her and Ms Clark come up for selection together in the next round (Just hope she doesn't end up with altogether too few votes...)
I actually have a lot of time for her , not least because I am fairly sure it was she who clean bowled an interviewer who was trying as delicately as he could to establish whether the ladies had any gender-specific protective equipment , comparable to the gentlemen's "boxes" - with the cheerful assurance that yes , women cricketers used similar devices , but called them "manhole covers"...

Her contribution to women's cricket was surely on a par with Clark's , and I agree with a few other posters it should be both or neither , so for now , a "No" from me.

i agree that both should be there alfie.....thats why i voted yes for both, but becoming increasingly unlikely that they will make it in

Is the deadline tomorrow? If so I'd better finish my votes , so :

A Yes to Hutton , Knott ... and Larwood (just)

A No as above to Heyhoe-Flint , and (reluctantly) to Kanhai - I have to rank him a rung down from Headley , Sobers and the three W s , so he doesn't quite make it on my current reckoning. Wonderful player though.

damn looks like flint wont make it

cricketfan90 wrote:damn looks like flint wont make it

She just did'nt have that spark needed

NOT FUNNY

Time for some votes:

Hutton - YES: easy.

Knott - YES: easy. Just for wicket-keeping.

Larwodd - YES: as explained at length in my "summing up" (which of course wasn't much of a surmising).

hutton was defo the easiest one to say yes to...didnt even need reasoning IMO.

Heyhoe-Flint - NO, but with great regret. I was very very close to saying YES as I believe she won't make the first cut, but deserves further debate. But that would be entirely dishonest, so I can't (honesty is the one thing I won't go back on, ever). The thing is, her achievements both as a player, and since, haven't transcended the game in the way Belinda Clark's did.

Sure, she has many achievements and sits on a lot of committees, but no one has produced evidence that in doing so she has promoted expansion of the game, and in particular furthered the cause of women's cricket. Simply sitting on committees is not enough, you have to achieve something. Apart from being an excellent cricketer, I am not sure Heyhoe-Flint has achieved that much. And as you know, being an excellent cricketer is not enough for induction in my HoF.

I do vote NO with regret, and hope she gets a chance in the 2nd ballot, as she is as deserving as some who have made it that far, but "wanting to give a second chance" surely is not reason enough for a YES vote.

Sorry FoF, but I wish my vote for Kanhai to be changed to NO, after more thought I feel it is the right decision for me.

Hutton, Larwood and Knott -- YES

Kanhai and Heyhoe-Flint -- NO -- Have edited previous vote with a brief explanation.

Hi Skye,

What's your reasoning on Kanhai? I hope you haven't had a falling out with Grandad Fists.

Aflie - similarly, interested if you have any particular reason for ranking Kanhai below the three Ws. Not a dig, just interested.

I'd like to know your reasoning behind the change to a no vote, too, skye. I'm quite surprised by the negative press many of you lot are giving him!

Kanhai was certainly viewed as a world great throughout the '60s and until his retirement in the mid '70s. I struggle to see what has changed other than the passage of time. I suspect Grandad Fists will be with me on that.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Skye,

What's your reasoning on Kanhai? I hope you haven't had a falling out with Grandad Fists.

Aflie - similarly, interested if you have any particular reason for ranking Kanhai below the three Ws. Not a dig, just interested.

Quite the opposite, Grandapa Fists comments and how highly Gavaskar praised Kanhai are both part of the reason that tipped my long thinking/intended NO vote into a YES. It has just been bugging me that I strayed from my normal criteria and I have given it a lot more thought and have decided to go back to my initial thinking of NO.

A classy and extremely well thought of cricketer, but just comes up a tiny bit short imo.

so all the criticsm i got for voting no to Kanhai, and the people that critcized me are now starting to vote NO.

cricketfan90 wrote:so all the criticsm i got for voting no to Kanhai, and the people that critcized me are now starting to vote NO.

Cf -- Only I have reconsidered my vote. As in my previous YES/NO post, I did state that I was intending to give Kanhai a NO too, so on your NO vote for Kanhai you received no criticism from me.

hmmm ok then.

cricketfan90 wrote:hmmm ok then.

Thanks

skyeman wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:hmmm ok then.

Thanks

?

Cf, it isn't the world vs you, mate.

i never said it was, im just finding it amusing.

cricketfan90 wrote:

skyeman wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:hmmm ok then.

Thanks

?

Just that your hmmm made me think that you do not believe me and the words hmmm ok then being so magnanimous.

na i do believe you skye

cricketfan90 wrote:i never said it was, im just finding it amusing.

Agreed, all good fun

When are the next batch of nominees coming?

Great thread for reminiscing and for researching players you might not have known too much about, and I like the idea of initially failed nominees being put into a second ballot for later on (I could very easily be persuaded that Larwood and Kanhai merit inclusion in a slightly extended HoF, but think there are a few others more worthy who should be there first).