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.

Crikey, the only similarity I have with Glenn McGrath is a tendency for wayward predictions!

Fists - I appreciate we're getting further and further away from a first hand account but I don't suppose Grandad Fists ever spoke to his own dad or grandad about Larwood? Perhaps you could give him a call now ....

Haha! It is many an hour since the old boy took that last sip of Horlicks, removed the slippers and hit the hay, but I can see if he can recall anything when I give him a call tomorrow!

Fists of Fury wrote:Crikey, the only similarity I have with Glenn McGrath is a tendency for wayward predictions!

Don't worry, the similarities end there. Actually when I was 13 I was genuinely quick and beat players for pace. The problem was, when I was 17 I still bowled at exactly the same pace (and had lost a fair amount of accuracy)...

Fists of Fury wrote:Haha! It is many an hour since the old boy took that last sip of Horlicks, removed the slippers and hit the hay, but I can see if he can recall anything when I give him a call tomorrow!

I hope he knows he's getting quite a cult following here!

Ha! I'll let him know...

Mike, I was quite the opposite, bowled very medium up until about 18 years old, then suddenly gained a fair bit of pace (to go with the wayward accuracy).

Gents, on another note, I have just finished updating the '606v2 Hall of Fame Inductees' thread over at the honours board with pictures to match those inducted. Can you take a quick look and a) give any suggestions, b) let me know you are happy with it or not. Thanks.

Way cool, Fists.
Can't wait to see which pic's you use for Richards and Roberts . . . . .

Great work

Don't know if you saw my note about annual inductees - do they elect new worthies every year?

An idea for a future thread might be which five should the ICC elect for 2012. I also noted some surprise that Tate, Hendren, Morris and (coincidentally) Leyland weren't yet honoured - and there must be more we'd each choose, Leslie Ames for instance. Those old-timers just came to my aged mind. South Africa a touch under-represented.

Hadn't seen it Kwini, sorry. I'm not sure, I believe they have elected new members in each year since inception, so I guess that is the case. What their criteria are is another matter altogether!

Fists,
The criteria are itemised on the ICC HOF website (which seems a year out of date!). His and her criteria.

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/events_and_awards/hall_of_fame/voting_process.php

Alan Knott

CMJ's verdict on Knott (No. 69) in his 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "A wonderfully nimble little wicket-keeper with an impish genius and a fetish for fitness"
- "the best of his time, even when measured against outstanding contemporaries who included his two main predecessors, John Murray and Jim Parks, his successor, Bob Taylor, and his Australian rival Rod Marsh"
- "enlivened Kent and England teams throughout a long career that would have produced even better figures but for long breaks, first when he joined several of the world's best players in Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket in 1977, and then when he decided to join an officially disapproved tour of South Africa in 1982, which led to a three-year suspension from the international game"
- took "seven catches in his first Test against Pakistan at Trent Bridge" and went on to surpass "all wicket-keeping records"
- "His batting was quirky but frequently brilliant, and he was invaluable to England at number seven in an order that was too often short of runs"
- "played with discretion or panache according to the situation"
- "he invented his own strokes by swift adjustments of the feet and body"
- "Some of his finest innings were played in adversity. He counterattacked outrageously when Bob Massie was swinging the ball so prodigiously at Lord's in 1972; hit the spinners over the top to contribute much towards England's sporadic success on his two tours of India; and was England's second highest scorer when Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson proved too good for most on lively pitches in 1974-75"
- "According to Derek Underwood, especially on drying pitches when the ball was turning and bouncing alarmingly, he was the perfect complement for county and country, never appearing hurried"
- "His alertness and agility were even more remarkable when he was standing back to the quick and medium-pace bowlers"

Interestingly, he doesn't fill the keeping position in any of Benaud's 3 World XIs in 'My Spin on Cricket' - Gilchrist, Marsh and Healy are preferred

The biography of Knott in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers adds that "He was the first wicket-keeper to score 4000 runs in Tests"


I thought I'd add some statistical comparisons between Knott and other great wicket-keepers (those listed by Benaud as very good and a couple of modern players I've added)

Knott - 95 Tests, 4389 runs @ 32.75, 250 catches and 19 stumpings
Godfrey Evans - 91 Tests, 2439 runs @ 20.49, 173 catches and 46 stumpings
Les Ames - 47 Tests, 2434 runs @ 40.56, 74 catches and 23 stumpings
Jeff Dujon - 81 Tests, 3322 runs @ 31.94, 267 catches and 5 stumpings (an indication of the lack of spinners in the WI sides he played in!)
Wasim Bari - 81 Tests, 1366 runs @ 15.88, 201 catches and 27 stumpings
Rodney Marsh - 96 Tests, 3633 runs @ 26.51, 343 catches and 12 stumpings
Ian Healy - 119 Tests, 4356 runs @ 27.39, 366 catches and 29 stumpings
Adam Gilchrist - 96 Tests, 5570 runs @ 47.60, 379 catches and 37 stumpings
Mark Boucher - 144 Tests, 5407 runs @ 30.20, 521 catches and 23 stumpings
Matt Prior - 47 Tests, 2549 runs @ 44.71, 144 catches and 6 stumpings

Fists of Fury wrote:
Gents, on another note, I have just finished updating the '606v2 Hall of Fame Inductees' thread over at the honours board with pictures to match those inducted. Can you take a quick look and a) give any suggestions, b) let me know you are happy with it or not. Thanks.

Fists - very impressive. Some great pictures which naturally catch the eye so much better than just a list of names.

No issue either way for me but I wonder if 'Sir' should appear before the name where the title has been given; eg, Sir Garfield Sobers.

With regard to your introductory wording, I would suggest you emphasise that the process of electing nominees is currently ongoing. This might just help attract some new poster trade.

Regarding Shelsey's wickie stats:
Interesting how the profiles (aluded to re Dujon) change with the respective bowling "batteries", with Knott having plenty of Underwood to deal with, Marsh often going consecutive Test Matches without any slow bowling.
Must admit, as a casual observer the past few years (and not an observer at all for a decade before that) I'm surprised/astonished by Prior's high batting average.

(Surprised CMJ describes Jim Parks as an "outstanding" contemporary; even Jim Parks himself would surely categorise himself as very much a batsman/wicket-keeper rather than the other way round.)

my final votes:

Rachael Heyhoe-Flint-YES. For reasons given beforehand

Len Hutton-YES, dosent need much explaining

Rohan Kanhai: NO. Tough one but after a lot more research i am saying no

Alan Knott: YES. Have changed my mind, and is now a YES.

Harold Larwood: NO

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:
Gents, on another note, I have just finished updating the '606v2 Hall of Fame Inductees' thread over at the honours board with pictures to match those inducted. Can you take a quick look and a) give any suggestions, b) let me know you are happy with it or not. Thanks.

Fists - very impressive. Some great pictures which naturally catch the eye so much better than just a list of names.

No issue either way for me but I wonder if 'Sir' should appear before the name where the title has been given; eg, Sir Garfield Sobers.

With regard to your introductory wording, I would suggest you emphasise that the process of electing nominees is currently ongoing. This might just help attract some new poster trade.

Thanks very much for the feedback, and I had toyed with the idea of 'Sir' being introduced, too. Now that someone agrees, I'll go ahead and edit it.

Likewise, will re-word the introduction

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Haha! It is many an hour since the old boy took that last sip of Horlicks, removed the slippers and hit the hay, but I can see if he can recall anything when I give him a call tomorrow!

I hope he knows he's getting quite a cult following here!

I'm also wondering whether one of the DIY limericks written some months ago on the 606v2 quiz and games board was inadvertently about Grandad Fists I'm hoping that it is just a coincidence!

"ELDERS AND BETTERS?

My Grandad said ' make mine a double '.
A sure sign we were in for trouble
Left hooks and rights,
He does love his fights ,
The old folks home soon left as rubble....."

lol is everyone ok with my final votes or have i upset someone else :P

Right, I think I've considered for long enough, so it's time for my final votes, with a little explanation added where I think it's neccessary (and in a final, probably futile, effort to influence those who haven't voted yet )

Rachael Heyhoe-Flint: YES.
A very good player, both in Tests and ODIs. Captain of England in 6 consecutive Test series victories. Captain of England's triumphant WC team in 1973 (a tournament she was largely responsible for getting running, 2 years before the men's one). Holder of numerous firsts for women both on and off the field. Respected cricket braodcaster and journalist, and still (to me, at least), one of the most recognised faces of the women's game.

Sir Len Hutton: YES
No real explanation needed

Rohan Kanhai: YES (Just)
Despite my qualms about whether Kanhai was the best batsman of the 60s, there is little doubt that he was a great batsman. Testimony by his colleagues, plus the fact that he is a Warks. legend swung it for me.

Alan Knott: YES
One of the greatest glovemen ever and a very good batsman.

Harold Larwood: NO (Just)
Despite appearences on this thread, this was a tough decision for me. Larwood is a legend of the game and (believe it or not) a personal favourite. However, I can't get over the nagging doubt, based on his performances in test cricket outside of the Bodyline series, that his magnificent performance in that series was due less to the fact that he was, in himself, an all-time great bowler, and more to the fact that he was a very good bowler who proved the perfect vehicle for an all-time great (effective) tactic.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
I'm also wondering whether one of the DIY limericks written some months ago on the 606v2 quiz and games board was inadvertently about Grandad Fists I'm hoping that it is just a coincidence!

"ELDERS AND BETTERS?

My Grandad said ' make mine a double '.
A sure sign we were in for trouble
Left hooks and rights,
He does love his fights ,
The old folks home soon left as rubble....."

Hadn't see that before - wonderful!

cricketfan90 wrote:lol is everyone ok with my final votes or have i upset someone else :P

CF - well, you certainly haven't upset me. Sorry if I exceeded my one short ball per over at you the other day . As you must realise, I just think we shouldn't dive in with final votes when the debate is only starting or still going on. Provisional votes are ok as long as that's made clear. Seem fair?

Not a dig at all - honest! - but what were your main reasons for turning down Kanhai and Larwood? Just interested. I still have to vote. Larwood is on a ''virtually certain YES'' and Kanhai a ''probable YES'' from me at the moment.

yes it is fair guildford i overeacted

Kanhai i feel was a very good batsman, but not a great of the game, and Larwood's test record was modest at best, and to be honest the bodyline works against him IMO.

Au contraire, CF. Bodyline defined him, and given that it was legal there is no reason at all to use it against him negatively, as far as I see.

If it was stipulated (in the namby-pamby world we will no doubt live in in 2020) that toe-crunching yorkers were too dangerous and as such outlawed, would you be willing to remove Waqar from our HoF? I think not!

Difference being of course that Waqar's yorkers are unlikely to ever kill someone. I think CF is perfectly entitled to count Larwood's role in bodyline against him, just like people counted the underarm incident against Chappell.

underarm bowling was legal, yet we used it against Chappell

I'm not sure I agree with CF that it should count against him, but I agree with him that it could. To be honest, I'm still very much hesitating about Larwood. Knott and Hutton will be certain YES votes, and at the moment I'm tending towards a NO vote for Flint. Still undecided on Kanhai, probably edging towards a NO, but need to run through the arguments again. Any defining moments for Kanhai (at test level)?

Mike Selig wrote:Difference being of course that Waqar's yorkers are unlikely to ever kill someone. I think CF is perfectly entitled to count Larwood's role in bodyline against him, just like people counted the underarm incident against Chappell.

Complete difference between underarm and bodyline, and you know that, gentlemen.

The Windies quicks were just as likely to kill someone, yet we see that as fantastic bowling.

An excellent tactic performed excellently in a legal (at the time) manner - very unfair for that to count against anybody, whereas Chappell's was legal but totally unsporting as it prevented a batsman hitting a boundary. Bodyline needed to be bowled to perfection if the ball wasn't to disappear for a four or six at ease. Big, big difference to me.

well each to their own i suppose....but i gave it a lot of thought after the critcism i got...

and its a yes to----Heyhoe-Flint
Hutton
Knott

Fists of Fury wrote:Complete difference between underarm and bodyline, and you know that, gentlemen.

So everyone keeps telling me. The main difference is of course one was implemented against Australia and one by them. :-)

I am merely pointing out that the argument "it was legal" can't be used.

And others have pointed out that Bodyline and the West Indies quartet are somewhat different, in that the intent of the latter was to intimidate, and the former to hurt.

Anyway we are rehashing old ground. I maintain it is perfectly reasonable to hold bodyline against Larwood. I did as well, but it wasn't enough to induce a no vote.

it wasnt the only reason i voted no for larwood though.

cricketfan90 wrote:yes it is fair guildford i overeacted

CF -

Disagree with you about Kanhai a bit and Larwood a lot. However, that doesn't matter. The important thing is everyone comes to their own views having considered matters.

Rachael Heyhoe-Flint

Heyhoe-Flint has a reputation as a pioneer in raising the standards of women's cricket and getting the women's game a voice both at the MCC, ICC and ECB tables. She has been a member of the MCC committee, the President of the Lady Taverners, on the ECB board and more recently been recognised with her appointment as a Conservative peer in the House of Lords. She was also a key influence in the lauch of a Women's World Cup (two years before the men's equivalent).

However, the reasons for her Hall of Fame worthiness do not stop off the field. On the field she ranks as the second highest runscorer ever in Women's Test cricket (second only to Janette Brittin who is rarely spoken about) and ahead of Karen Rolton, Belinda Clark, Charlotte Edwards and Claire Taylor. Her average is also better than the recently retired Taylor who is widely regarded as the most talented female cricketer in history. This average of 45.54 rises to 49.33 against Australia - definitely the toughest opponent that her England side faced and she averaged 60.45 in 12 matches as captain.

The sparsity of women's Test cricket means that ODIs must also be looked at to compare her more closely with Taylor and Clark. Although Heyhoe-Flint only played 23 ODIs (compared to Belinda Clark's 118) she averaged a stunning 58.45 in those games she did play - a higher average than any other female player in one-day cricket.

Therefore, I feel that Heyhoe-Flint should definitely be included in the Hall of Fame and in my opinion has a much stronger all-round case than Clark.

Well, I'm pretty much settled so I think it's time for me to vote:

Heyhoe-Flint - A strong YES with the reasons outlined above

Hutton - Unequivocally a YES for England's leading batsman of the period either side of the War

Kanhai - This was a difficult one and one I don't have a particularly strong opinion on. All of the evidence I have read is very positive and I have the impression of an extremely good player who was an 'unsung hero' for the West Indies and a star for Warwickshire. However, considering my NO vote for Greenidge last time and the large number of WI greats who are a touch above him I've decided on a NO

Knott - As wicket-keepers go his batting is good enough and all the testimony about his keeping suggests he was one of the best, if not THE best gloveman of all time. The lack of keepers (only Gilchrist and Flower sometimes) in the Hall of Fame thus far make it a comfortable YES in the end from me in the end

Larwood - As I said in my detailed post yesterday I feel that 'Bodyline' should be counted against him and that he wasn't quite a good enough player in any case. Therefore, I'm sticking to my NO.

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 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.

Mad - you were earlier today seeking a defining moment for Kanhai at Test level. The 256 referred to above does it for me. The eminent West Indian cricket writer Frank Birbalsigh wrote of this innings: ''Kanhai had brought back the fire''.

I know you were specifically asking about Test level but please allow me to flag again his perfect anchor role to Lloyd in the mens' inaugural World Cup Final of 1975.

Mike also stated his uncertainty the other day and was inclined to place Kanhai on a par with Ian Chappell, Gower and Gooch who have all been turned down. For me, he's a notch above that. For two reasons, I would say he was Greg Chappell without the underarm bowling:

1. It should annoy Mike ; and

2. It's not only my belief but at least that of Sunil Gavaskar and Sir Garfield Sobers. Please see again Gavaskar's quote above. In Sobers' book ''Garry Sobers - My Autobiography'', he writes: ''Rohan Kanhai was a great player.'' He continues: ''He was often described as unorthodox. It is a word that I feel is often abused in cricket. There is a big difference between good players and great players. Great players may look unorthodox to the good player because they are able to improvise, therefore the great player can do what the good player cannot do ... The good player relies on bad balls while the great player takes good balls and turns them into bad balls. He looks for the gaps in the field and gets the ball there without any trouble.To lesser mortals it looks unorthodox but to the great player it is normal.''

One other aspect to mention about Kanhai. I admit this will sound almost treasonable as it involves criticism of one of my, the game's and sport's greatest heroes, the above mentioned Sir Garfield Sobers. However, it needs to be recognised that Sobers was not a particularly good captain. His captaincy reflected his character - adventurous and carefree. This approach suited perfectly his own playing abilities as the world's greatest ever allrounder but not that of a team of lesser mortals. [Comments from any posters welcome and, in particular, those around at the time - Kwini, Corporal, Alfie, etc.] Kanhai took over the captaincy in 1973 with Sobers continuing to respect and play under him. That has to be the credit of both Sobers and Kanhai. A more professional, resolute and determined approach was immediately introduced by Kanhai in keeping with his own character and applied for the three series in which he led the Windies before Clive Lloyd took over. Lloyd continued Kanhai's unifying work which resulted in that West Indies side becoming the world's greatest ever team as we all know.

Finally, Hoggy and Grandad Fists are right to emphasise Kanhai's contribtion to Warwickshire CCC. He was one of the first overseas Test players to regularly play county cricket and was a perfect role model, both on and off the pitch. Never a hint of trouble and over one thousand first class runs for every one of his ten seasons with the Club.

fair enough must have missed that one guildford. And by test level I probably meant "international level" more so you are of course right to point out his role in the WC final. Anyway this clearly deserves further thought, so I shall need some time before making my definitive votes.

I am finding this round particularly hard to decide. But I have now decided (somewhat against my earlier expectations) on a clear YES for Heyoe Flint. Shelsey has provided a valuable reminder of the facts and figures but I'm as much driven by the very subjective consideration that for me the name of Rachel Heyoe Flint is synonymous with women's cricket.

That only leaves Kanhai and Larwood

guildford, All,
Nothing but good things to say from the Green Mountains about Kanhai.

I've taken the highly arbitrary decision to only give a YES on a maximum of three candidates out of the five offered. Rohan Kanhai was a fabulous player, illuminated every stage on which he appeared. But he has to stand out, rather than complement, in the context of his era and, although he was a great player, there are others who take precedence. None of them, Sobers perhaps excepted, will be a more exciting batsman, more able to captivate the crowd, to capture the imagination. But I'm going to try to observe some context.

Given that Hutton, Knott and Larwood are "pre-eminent" players in my judgement, I've voted No for Kanhai, partly also on the premise that Neil Harvey was at least the batsman that Rohan was, at least as important to his team, and has missed the cut. I hope that this aberration for both will be rectified next time around.

My No vote for Rachel is as much an abstention as it is a No. Clark in, Heyhoe in. Can't rightly have one without the other although, for two decades, Rach was Ms/Mrs Cricket.

Mike Selig wrote:

And others have pointed out that Bodyline and the West Indies quartet are somewhat different, in that the intent of the latter was to intimidate, and the former to hurt.

I'm not sure that Grandma Fists would have seen much difference if it had been her little grandson being lined up against Holding, Marshall, Roberts and Garner.

I have now reached a view on Kanhai. For me he he was a superb batsman who sits right on the borderline so my vote could have gone either way. It seems clear enough that he won't get elected outright this round, so I am casting a vote for YES. I think he sits very well alongside others who are going forward to the end of season play offs.... So there is a slight tactical element to my vote - but I give it with a clear conscience.

We didn't have a television when I was young but I have a lot of memories of Kanhai via the radio. Of all the Windies batsmen we wanted to dismiss Kanhai was second only to Sobers.

Corporal,
In the kwini borstal we used to listen to, who? EW Swanton, Arlott, Rex Alston, perhaps Peter West or Johnston directing traffic(?) wax lyrical about Sobers and May, Kanhai and Graveney. Tyson, Statham and the '54/'55 Ashes Series got me interested, Laker and Lock intrigued, Kanhai, Sobers and the 3 x W's hooked!

Corporal / Kwini - slightly off topic but as you're around and it relates a bit to my last post about Kanhai, what do you think of my comments there about Sobers the captain?

Kwini - some names to conjour with... Of those players, I remember commentary on Sobers, Kanhai, Graveney, Statham and Worrell.... Plus I remember all the commentators, tho I think Rex Alston only from reports on county matches.

There is one phrase that I strongly associate with Arlott's commentary. X (a fast bowler) comes in to bowl ...."And he gropes for it". In that rich gravelly voice....

For E W Swanton's close of play summaries the phrase which comes to mind is the way he described the end of a good innings. It always seemed to follow the formula "Then X, who had played most extremely well, ....."

guildford,
Don't feel qualified to comment, either about Sobers' or Kanhai's captaincy. To be totally fair, it would be very difficult for Gary Sobers to be Captain, given that he was really three players in one, plus a splendid fielder. Certain to arouse some indignation, justified or not.
In contrast, Rohan Kanhai clearly knew his batting role and was very much the senior pro.
Impossible though to overstate the respect that Kanhai was accorded by everyone within the game when he was still playing.

Corporal,
When I was still a yute, very wet behind the ears, I wrote to Swanton about something or other, perhaps imploring him to get blogging. He wrote back by return, in his own handwriting, from a Kentish address, Sandwich I think! That 1957 summer was just fabulous, my first glimpse of that West Indies team, then a summer full, like you, of radio commentaries. Compelling stuff!

Guildford - I tend to associate Sobers' captaincy with the remarkably generous declaration that backfired and led to loss of a series against England. But my memory from that time doesn't help a lot - it's more a recollection of good players and poor players, good teams and poor teams, rather than what was the influence of a particular captain. But a quick scan of some references supports the view that he can't really be regarded as an outstanding captain, though his record is reasonable as it should have been with the players at his disposal (ie himself!).

BTW I alerted Carrot earlier this evening to the need for vigilance if Peter May is up next. Though I don't know whether his feeding rotas will permit participation!....

Kwini and Corporal - thanks for your responses about Sobers.

Some great names from the commentary box as well. Much after the times you mention but still more than forty years ago, I remember seeing at Edgbaston the late David Vine, link man for each Sunday John Player League match televised on BBC 2.

Corporal - we need Carrot even if the monkeys have to go hungry! Any chance as well of you getting Chichester to interrupt his indoor winter Subutteo Cricket League for the vote?

PS My votes on the current 5 nominees to follow in the next ten minutes if you want to stick around.

My final votes.

Hehoe-Flint - NO. A tough decision and one I feel more than a little awkward about. However, after a lot of thought I voted NO to Clark a few weeks ago and that is relevant even though I'm still not convinced it was right. I will be more than prepared to reconsider my vote for Clark when Mike, in particular, restates the case for her later in the year. For me, Heyhoe-Flint is Dr Watson to Clark's Sherlock Holmes. Very necessary but never the main star of the story. Unless and until Clark is admitted, I don't believe it would be right for me to vote YES for Heyhoe-Flint. I also have some reservations anyway about Heyhoe-Flint. I remember a little of women's international cricket being televised in the early '70s and was rather unimpressed. Also, I'm not convinced as to how much Heyhoe-Flint has done for women's cricket and the overall game since her retirement from playing; I suspect this contrasts strongly and adversely compared with Clark. I also have suspicions that if Heyoe-Flint had not been English, she would not have been on the ICC List in the first place and thus not one of or nominees. I'm certainly not aware of anyone here giving her name a shout when our inaugural 30 was being drawn up.

Hutton - YES. A truly great batsman who overcame physical adversity in the war to continue his excellent career. Also, a more than decent Test captain. Never in doubt.

Kanhai - YES. My earlier post tonight refers. As an aside, I question whether we are treating greats of the 1960s and 1970s harsher than those of later and earlier eras.

Knott - YES. Wonderful keeper with skill and presence in equal measure. Probably better purely as a keeper than any other of any country then, earlier or since. Also a very fine batsman who played each innings in accordance with what was required for his team. Way ahead then with the bat of all other contemporaries in England and the rest of the world. Guaranteed a place in my England All Time XI. Given I watched his Test performances so much (admittedly mainly on tv), I would say this has been the easist vote for me of all nominations to date.

Larwood - YES. My 4 am post after the airport run refers. Thanks to all - particularly, including Shelsey - for the feedback on that.

guildford,
I think you raise an interesting point about 60's, 70's era players, and I would add 50's. Trouble is, some of the original 30 have been included more on style than substance and that is bound to create an imbalance.
I really feel that, in the knowledge that there would be another round of voting, say in a year's time, a limit on the selections in any given gang of five would be appropriate, creating strata of achievement.

Can't wait for the next five!

PS; Hope you're all following the announcement tomorrow (perhaps today pour vous) of any new inductees to the Baseball Hall Of Fame. Barry Larkin and, just possibly, Jack Morris if you ask me.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
I think you raise an interesting point about 60's, 70's era players, and I would add 50's. Trouble is, some of the original 30 have been included more on style than substance and that is bound to create an imbalance.
I really feel that, in the knowledge that there would be another round of voting, say in a year's time, a limit on the selections in any given gang of five would be appropriate, creating strata of achievement.

Can't wait for the next five!

PS; Hope you're all following the announcement tomorrow (perhaps today pour vous) of any new inductees to the Baseball Hall Of Fame. Barry Larkin and, just possibly, Jack Morris if you ask me.

Thanks, Kwini. You're probably right about the 50's as well.

I have mixed views about putting a limit on the number of YES votes each time. I'm conscious I give a high number of YES votes (before anyone else points it out, I'm even more conscious that doesn't apply to the female nominees! ) However, perhaps, I generally give too many YES's. A limit would stop me doing that.

Cons though, as I see it, are:
* We've started the process so difficult and probably unfair to change things now
* The aim was never to specifically whittle down the ICC List but to check and compare it with our views
* Some deserving nominees will miss out first time round simply due to the random (bad) luck of the draw.

My knowledge of Baseball is exceedingly limited although Field of Dreams is one of my all time favourite films.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
I think you raise an interesting point about 60's, 70's era players, and I would add 50's. Trouble is, some of the original 30 have been included more on style than substance and that is bound to create an imbalance.
I really feel that, in the knowledge that there would be another round of voting, say in a year's time, a limit on the selections in any given gang of five would be appropriate, creating strata of achievement.

Can't wait for the next five!

PS; Hope you're all following the announcement tomorrow (perhaps today pour vous) of any new inductees to the Baseball Hall Of Fame. Barry Larkin and, just possibly, Jack Morris if you ask me.

I used to watch the two live shows per week over here, for about six years. I was a big Indians fan and loved to watch Tomy and Vazquel (spelling), but they do not show it as much now.

Can you remember when Botham came over the pond for a try out.

I will have a wee look

Skye,
Jim Thome and Omar Vizquel. One certain HOF'er, while Omar's a dark horse, great glove but a light hitter and that may weigh against him. Both still playing. In their forties!

guildford,
I strongly recommend dancing with who you all brought to the party. I am late and totally respect that. It will colour my views though, and already has.
More strongly recommend Bull Durham, apart from anything else to enjoy Susan Sarandon somewhat exposed when the surface is water-affected. And not in a Derek Underwood-type way.

kwinigolfer wrote:

guildford,
I strongly recommend dancing with who you all brought to the party. I am late and totally respect that. It will colour my views though, and already has.
More strongly recommend Bull Durham, apart from anything else to enjoy Susan Sarandon somewhat exposed when the surface is water-affected. And not in a Derek Underwood-type way.

[quote]



The last season I saw was the mighty Barry Bonds, must of been 7-8 years, I think he could hit the ball further than Chris Gayle ( a big hitter)

Ah,
But did Chris Gayle use steroids?

Not many cricketers I would like to have watched these past twenty five years than Chris Gayle.

Barry Bonds was a fabulous player before he started juicing himself up, all-time great. As it is he'll be an all-time asterisk.