The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

by Mike Selig Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:47 pm

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.

by Hoggy_Bear Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:42 am

Guildford
Understand what you're saying about Roberts standing out more if he'd played for (for example) New Zealand, but there are advantages in bowling in a good bowling line-up as well as disadvantages.
(Not that I'm opposed to Roberts inclusion as I've already voted for him)

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:03 pm

hi everyone Very Happy

been a while since I contributed, first there was the skiing trip, and then PhD research was going quite well for a change so I've been a little bit busy. I'll be a bit more active in the debate from next week onwards. Anyway my first reaction to this week's candidates was "What an outstanding bunch: Five YES votes" and it hasn't changed.

Richards: YES. How could it be otherwise? Debating whether he should make a list of all-time test openers is one thing, but surely his place in the HoF is beyond doubt. Whoever mentioned how much time he seems to have on the ball is spot on, was re-watching a youtube video the other day and everything seems to be almost happening in slow-motion, until he hits the ball of course! Bradman had him in his world XI, that's good enough for me.

Rhodes: YES. His Test record may not be stellar, but his extraordinary longeveity (including some records which probably will never be broken) and outstanding first class career are more than enough to get him in.

Pollock: YES. As guildford rightfully points out, the fact he's been a unanimous and undebateable choice means we haven't maybe given him the plaudits he deserves. The greatest left-handed bat of all time (probably), his cruelly cut short test careeer showed us what could have been.

Roberts: YES. The one who's caused the most debate, as he seems to be seen as the less glamorous of the WI fast bowling quartet. However, the views of contemporaries such as Imran Khan or Gavaskar must be taken into acount here. Also the fact he arguably missed out on his prime playing the Packer series, while still ending with a very fine test record guarantee him entry into the HoF IMO.

Spofforth: YES. another one we've spent little time debating, so obvious was his inclusion. Arguably did for fast bowling what Grace and Trumper did for batting. Remarkable career, he makes (or at least should make) everyone's Australian second XI, with only Lillee, McGrath, Warne and O'Reilly (all in the original 30 I believe) keeping him out of the first XI.

by Shelsey93 Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:12 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Roberts: YES. The one who's caused the most debate, as he seems to be seen as the less glamorous of the WI fast bowling quartet. However, the views of contemporaries such as Imran Khan or Gavaskar must be taken into acount here. Also the fact he arguably missed out on his prime playing the Packer series, while still ending with a very fine test record guarantee him entry into the HoF IMO.

Well, it was his choice to play WSC (rightly or wrongly is not the debate to be had here) unlike for Richards, where it provided him with a chance to play at a higher level which he didn't have.

by guildfordbat Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:34 pm

Hoggy - agree with you that there are advantages and disadvantages in bowling in a good bowling line-up. However, standing out as an individual is going to be the case much more when you are not bowling with three other All Time World Greats and that was the point I was trying to convey.

The first time I saw Richard Hadlee bowl in a Test match his bowling partners were Richard Collinge, Bruce Taylor and Dayle Hadlee. All decent and hardworking. However, they were never going to prevent Richard Hadlee standing out in the way I believe that Marshall, Holding and Garner would have done

Mad for Chelsea - good to see you back.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:59 pm

Haven't done a detailed count but I expect Roberts is borderline between automatic entry and the play offs. It may depend on how rigorous Fists is in enforcing at 12 noon deadline.... Wink

by guildfordbat Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:04 pm

Shelsey93 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Roberts: YES. The one who's caused the most debate, as he seems to be seen as the less glamorous of the WI fast bowling quartet. However, the views of contemporaries such as Imran Khan or Gavaskar must be taken into acount here. Also the fact he arguably missed out on his prime playing the Packer series, while still ending with a very fine test record guarantee him entry into the HoF IMO.

Well, it was his choice to play WSC (rightly or wrongly is not the debate to be had here) unlike for Richards, where it provided him with a chance to play at a higher level which he didn't have.

Shelsey - you have something of a point here but not, in my opininion, a whole one. I took a harsher view of the Packer Series when I was much younger as you seem to now. A lot of that - for me at the time - was stirred up by the British press who were blatantly anti Packer. Commonly referred to by them as 'the Packer Circus'. Looking back now, so much was incredibly innovative and paved the way for much of the modern game and the generally larger crowds at grounds today.

Yes, Roberts did make his bed and choose to go there. I note and agree the difference you highlight concerning Richards' position. I don't know how early Roberts - compared to other players - chose to join World Series. However, most of the other leading lights of international did choose to go and play there. It would have been quite strange for him not to have joined them at some stage. There was comparatively little money elsewhere in cricket then. I cannot condem the son of an Antiguan fisherman and one of a family of fourteen electing to take the Packer shilling although I wish things had been different.

What cannot be denied is the highly competive nature and top quality cricket played in World Series, as confirmed in the Greg Baum article I posted on this thread a few days ago. Roberts was one of the very best amongst the very best in World Series Cricket. Although his successes there do not get into the official stats, they surely show what a great bowler he was.

by guildfordbat Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:15 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:After much dithering I have decided to award Roberts a NO. The arguments for and against are well rehearsed and so I will not repeat them here, tho' I will say that some telling points have been made by various people in the yes camp which have inched Roberts upwards for me. To my mind he is the nearest candidate to the borderline we have had so far and can well sympathise with Dummy's tactical vote.

Sorry this will not please everyone - but have given a good deal of thought to it.

''Andy Roberts .... was an intelligent cricketer, plotting and planning the downfall of batsmen as if it were a military campaign'' - Mike Selvey.

And you, Corporal, a military man. Shocked

by **ShahenshahG** Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:50 pm

Guildford - Let's drag the Corporal into the nets and hand the ball to Andy. I guarantee a yes vote 30 seconds after that.

by guildfordbat Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:13 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:Guildford - Let's drag the Corporal into the nets and hand the ball to Andy. I guarantee a yes vote 30 seconds after that.

ShahenshahG - yes, even though Andy Roberts is now 61, I'm sure he could encourage a pretty quick tactical reverse from the Corporal!

However, I must not allow this one vote to come between my cyber friendship with the Corporal even though he is utterly wrong on this occasion. Very Happy

Anyway, Shahenshah, pleased to see you bringing some good sense to this thread and hope you'll be contributing here regularly.

by **ShahenshahG** Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:24 pm

I hope to be given the opportunity to do so - Might be moving out to another place of work with no internet although i've had no word on it as of yet Headscratch

Supposed to be starting tommorow i've not been given instructions address, times or contact numbers. I've been out of touch with a lot of cricket lately and only recently started following it again after the spot fixing saga - hopefully i can catch up. Anyway - I met someone who looked like Sylvester Clarke yesterday he was a bricklayer. I responded by tucking my clementine into my pocket Laugh

I don't think he got the reference. Anyway back to work for me - I shall be back for the monday odi or the next set of HOF candidates.

Toodles.

by Guest Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:00 pm

who else is left to vote?

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:36 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:Guildford - Let's drag the Corporal into the nets and hand the ball to Andy. I guarantee a yes vote 30 seconds after that.

Sadly, on that basis HoF would be crammed full of every medium fast bowler who ever graced cricket..... Laugh

by **ShahenshahG** Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:40 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:Guildford - Let's drag the Corporal into the nets and hand the ball to Andy. I guarantee a yes vote 30 seconds after that.
Sadly, on that basis HoF would be crammed full of every medium fast bowler who ever graced cricket.....

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:52 am

Meanwhile....Fists is catching up with his ironing.....and the suspense continues.....

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:28 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:Guildford - Let's drag the Corporal into the nets and hand the ball to Andy. I guarantee a yes vote 30 seconds after that.
Sadly, on that basis HoF would be crammed full of every medium fast bowler who ever graced cricket.....

Corporal - I think you have a point there. An elderly friend of mine had hopes - over ambitious as they turned out - more than fifty years ago of making it as a professional cricketer with Somerset. I've told the story before of how he played 'the best he ever could' in putting on an opening stand of about 120 with Roy Virgin for Somerset under 19s - my pal's contribution was 15 which caused him to rather doubt whether he had quite what it is was going to take.

My friend's doubts were confirmed a few weeks later when he had a session in the nets at Taunton against the late Ken Biddulph. Biddulph was a right arm fast medium bowler for Somerset. A decent county pro who was with the county for six or seven seasons before being released to do well with Durham who were then a Minor County. Put more harshly, a million miles from our Hall of Fame. He was however capable of bowling a useful inswinger and certainly more deceptive, accurate and quick than anything my friend had ever experienced. He claims that,''it was like Biddulph was trying to join up dots on my body as he pinged the ball into me - too bl**dy good for me!''. Very Happy

by kwinigolfer Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:52 pm

I'm wondering who to expect in the next wave of candidates:
Statham?
Sutcliffe?
Shackleton?
Tate?
Underwood?

by Guest Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:09 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Meanwhile....Fists is catching up with his ironing.....and the suspense continues.....

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:07 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Meanwhile....Fists is catching up with his ironing.....and the suspense continues.....

Guess Fists wore a lot of shirts on holiday .... Very Happy

by **ShahenshahG** Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:18 pm

guildfordbat wrote:
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Meanwhile....Fists is catching up with his ironing.....and the suspense continues.....

Guess Fists wore a lot of shirts on holiday ....

Hurtling down a slope at high speeds on a pair of of flimsy boards and a refuse stick in each hand? Methinks fists has fertilised half the grass in bulgaria - Special bacteria cheese indeed.

by **Fists of Fury** Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:19 pm

Noticed I missed the voting deadline that I had personally set, doh! However, as administrator, I surely reserve the right to add them in now? Wink

So:

Pollock - YES
Rhodes - YES
Richards - YES
Roberts - YES
Spofforth - YES

by **Fists of Fury** Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:21 pm

Right then, with the ironing all done, time to inform you of who has made it in this week:

Pollock, Rhodes, Richards and Spofforth all sail in with 100% of the votes cast.

Robert takes his place on the waiting list, achieving 73% of the vote and thus being eligible as a second ballot candidate, narrowly missing out on the 75% mark for first ballot status.

by **Fists of Fury** Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:24 pm

Next list of candidates for the coming fortnight. Deadline a week on Friday at 9am, as usual.

Brian Statham
Herbert Sutcliffe
Fred Trueman
Derek Underwood
Clyde Walcott

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:24 pm

Thanks, Fists.

Net sessions against Roberts being lined up for Shelsey, Corporal, CF and anyone else having the misfortune to have voted NO.

by **Fists of Fury** Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:40 pm

Those are the three suspects, Guildford.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:02 pm

Oh well. Looks like another 5 yes's. It's getting a bit boring now Very Happy

Statham: Half of one (could say two) of the greatest fast-bowling partnerships of all-time. Man who did the donkey work for Tyson and Tryeman, but a magnificent bowler in his own right. Lowest FC average of anyone who's taken 2000+ FC wickets since 1900 IIRC.

Sutcliffe: Half of the greatest Test opening partnnership ever. Average of 60+. Need I go on?

Trueman: Other half of Statham partnership. Best fast bowler ever to draw breath, according to himself. Probably not quite, but not far off.

Underwood: Bowled like a cross between an accountant and an assassin. Businesslike, thorough, inconspicuous, deadly. (That's for you Guildford Very Happy

)

Walcott: Average of 56. Could keep wicket and bowl. One of the greatest ever WIndies administrators.

Can't see where a no could come from. Unless someone can convince me. Very Happy

by **ShahenshahG** Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:23 pm

I'm of the same mind Hoggy. The list immediately brought to mind something Zaheer Abbas said to Underwood - he told him that he liked his bowling! Later explained to a deflated deadly that he was difficult to play and that he made him think. High praise from the greatest player of spin ever (in my mind). I mixed him and Pringle up for some unfathomable reason.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:52 pm

wow, and I thought last week's bunch of candidates were great! much like hoggy, struggling to see where a NO vote could come with this bunch.

by Guest Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:53 pm

i agree, however im sure i will find a no from somewhere Wink

by **Fists of Fury** Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:54 pm

Gentlemen, as the Corporal has rightly pointed out (probably through fear of a net session with Roberts) I did indeed miss Shah's votes out, and as such Mr Roberts makes it in with 75% of the vote dead on.

Many apologies for the mistake, and thanks to corporal for pointing it out.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:55 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:i agree, however im sure i will find a no from somewhere

But not for Sutcliffe... Very Happy

by **ShahenshahG** Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:59 pm

WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Very gracious of you to point that out Corporal.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:04 pm

Perhaps appropriate that it was a marginal decision with Roberts getting in with the help of two late votes (admittedly only 3 minutes past midday Sat in the case of Mad) Very Happy

by Guest Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:05 pm

damn so roberts got in :/

by **ShahenshahG** Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:13 pm

I wonder if Sylvester Clarke gets a look in Laugh

I wouldn't even need to threaten you with a net session - that guy was mean enough to come out of hell to wreak his vengeance.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:15 pm

dummy_half wrote: Roberts ....Having been a little critical of his record earlier, I am going for a tactical YES, to ensure that he at least makes it in to the later consideration list.

The tactical vote may have had a greater impact than Dummy expected Very Happy

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:18 pm

Hoggy - wonderful description of Underwood. I recall drooling over that a few months ago, many thanks.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Deadly Derek is probably the one I'm going to need most reassurance about.

I think Shelsey in giving Greenidge a NO vote commented that ''you probably had to see him''. Perhaps, perhaps not.

However, I would emphasise that seeing a particular player does not always give him an advantage. I saw Underwood quite a few times (the only one of the current nominees that I did 'live' at a ground) and he never really delivered as I hoped and expected. Probably unduly selective and overly harsh but I start the fortnight with a bit of prejudice against him because of that. Trying to be fair in declaring that upfront. His supporters may choose to work on that.

I'll be interested to see how those who turned down Roberts (bitter? you bet! Wink

) vote on Statham.

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:26 pm

guildfordbat wrote:

I'll be interested to see how those who turned down Roberts (bitter? you bet! ) vote on Statham.

But less bitter having just read of the recount for Roberts.

The Corporal is clearly a most honourable poster in drawing matters to Fists' attention. I'm sure the net session with Anderson never came into his reckoning. Very Happy

PS Corporal - came across another poster today going by the name of 'Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake'. Thought you might like to know and invite him to join you for a few snifters in the officers' mess. Wink

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:36 pm

Guildford - you are perhaps recalling this aspect to Underwood's bowling in his latter years? A touch of frustration that on unhelpful pitches, sometimes not a lot happened.....

"Underwood was almost unplayable on damp wickets, but on dry tracks he would often push the ball through a little quicker and flatter, not wanting to risk being hit over his head, which he always hated. Underwood, oddly, rarely completed a whole Test series for England, as a succession of England captains would switch to bigger turners of the ball, such as Norman Gifford".

by kwinigolfer Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:58 pm

Sutcliffe must be a dead cert.
Can't pick Trueman without Statham and reckon they'll both be YES's.

Will have to be convinced about Walcott (and Weekes in the weekes to come), and the Corporal's accurate recollection that Underwood was very seldom an automatic choice for England, especially IN England is spot on and will weigh heavily on my vote.

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:07 pm

Thanks, Corporal.

I think that's certainly part of it. I started following Test cricket as a youngish lad soon after Underwood's success in the Oval Ashes Test of '68. I'm sure you recall the story - the outfield was like a lake until the groundstaff and spectators worked a miracle in making it playable, just. Underwood then came on and mopped up the Aussie middle order and tail to clinch a dramatic win with minutes to go. I wasn't quite so young or naive as to expect that to happen every Test but did expect something more from him than too often seemed to be the case.

I don't dispute that Underwood was brilliant - or 'Deadly' - when the conditions were in his favour. However, I just got the feeling that he wasn't nearly so special when circumstances were different. My perception - in line with the quotation you've supplied - is rather strengthened by personal memories of him sometimes being left out for Norman Gifford, a useful bowler but a very long way off being an all time great.

All early thoughts at this stage. Most definitely not ruling out a YES vote but, unlike others apparently, it's not a given tonight.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:11 pm

Certainly Underwood was a master of bowling on sticky wickets.
But, even after pitches were covered post 1970 his record is up there with the best spinners in the world. He was also the most successful spinner in ODIs in the period in which he bowled and his record in WSC is pretty good too.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:18 pm

Oh and Guildford.
I reckon you're opening up a large can of worms if you start basing your votes on the decision making capabilities of English selectors. Very Happy

by dummy_half Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:40 pm

Corporal
I don't mind Roberts having made it - would have been worse if he's missed out on even the second vote by me voting no. I think he deserves a spot, but perhaps was nominated a bit earlier than he should have been.

First glance at the new nominees, I thing Trueman, Sutcliffe and Underwood (as the three I know most about) are clear yes's, but I don't know as much about the other two (first impressions suggest they are also very strong candidates).

I had (I assume my Dad's, but even then probably 2nd hand) a book by Herbert Sutcliffe titles something like 'How to be a First Class Batsman'. Offered some interesting in-sights into how batting has changes over the years. Wish I knew where it is now.

by Shelsey93 Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:57 pm

First impressions:

Sutcliffe - No real doubt. Should get in as easily as Hammond and Hutton did.

Statham - Research required but I go in thinking he ought to make it

Trueman - T'Greatest Fast Bowler Who Ever Drew Breath. His own words but probably not that far off

Underwood - Regarded highly but not a dead cert for me

Walcott - A very strong case

by guildfordbat Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:19 pm

Shelsey93 wrote:First impressions:

Sutcliffe - No real doubt. Should get in as easily as Hammond and Hutton did.

Statham - Research required but I go in thinking he ought to make it

Trueman - T'Greatest Fast Bowler Who Ever Drew Breath. His own words but probably not that far off

Underwood - Regarded highly but not a dead cert for me

Walcott - A very strong case

Shelsey - slightly to my surprise and probably even more to your's, our first impressions are as one. Shocked

by Shelsey93 Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:02 pm

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey - slightly to my surprise and probably even more to your's, our first impressions are as one.

Yes, we have rather had conflicting opinions thus far

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:08 pm

guildfordbat wrote:PS Corporal - came across another poster today going by the name of 'Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake'. Thought you might like to know and invite him to join you for a few snifters in the officers' mess.

I'll look out for the Group Cpt! Interesting name "Mandrake". Puts me in mind of English A level studying a John Donne poem that beings: "Go and catch a falling star, Get with child a mandrake root..."

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:31 pm

My first impressions are also very similar to those of Shelsey and Guildford.

A great name from history, but I will need to find out a bit more about Walcott to confirm a likely yes.

Underwood - there or thereabouts, but I'm not 100% certain and will be very interested to hear in depth views of others on this, especially if you remove the wet wickets.

Sutcliffe - a true great

Trueman - yes, even though he bottled it against Captain Mainwaring's crack first XI. Very Happy

Statham - I am minded to say YES. A real gentleman who reportedly asked the batsman's permission to bowl a bouncer..... Also apart from his test exploits took well over 2200 first class wickets at an average of just over 16.

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:37 pm

dummy_half wrote:Corporal
I don't mind Roberts having made it - would have been worse if he's missed out on even the second vote by me voting no. I think he deserves a spot, but perhaps was nominated a bit earlier than he should have been.

Dummy - I don't mind Roberts getting voted in either. I said I thought he was the closest candidate we had had to the borderline and the voting figures rather demonstrated that with him getting bang on 75%. You could easily have voted no - but there again I almost voted yes, and probably would have done if I had known Roberts was being lined up to give me a working over in the nets Very Happy

.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:26 pm

Walcott's an absolute shoe-in IMHO coporal
Good enough to keep wicket to the likes of Rahmadin and Valentine (and he averaged over 40 with the bat as 'keeper), a back injury forced him to concentrate soley on his batting, after which he played 29 tests averaging 64.66 (He also took 11 wickets in this time)
This period saw him score 5 centuries (twice two centuries in the match) against Australia in the 1955 series against them, as well as 3 centuries (including a double), against England.
He was a big, hard hitting batsman who was out for a duck only once in his career (LBW to Lindwall)
After retirement he became coach and President of Guyana and the Barbados, helping the careers of Rohan Kanhai and Clive Lloyd among others.
He then managed the WIndies WC winning teams of 1975 and 79 as well as the 87 team. He was also chairman of selectors from 1973 to 1988 and chairman of the WIndies board from 1988-1993.
From the third England v Pakistan Test in Manchester, 1992, he officiated as an International Cricket Council (ICC) match referee. He then became the first non-Briton to chair the ICC (1993-97), and then its cricket committee (1997-2000). He was knighted for services to cricket in 1994.
After Walcott's death Michael Holding, who made his debut when Walcott was manager, said: "Another good man gone - he is not only a West Indies legend but a legend of the world."

by Sponsored content