About v2The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
+15
Biltong
guildfordbat
JDizzle
Mike Selig
Fists of Fury
dummy_half
ShahenshahG
alfie
msp83
Mad for Chelsea
Shelsey93
Corporalhumblebucket
kwinigolfer
Hoggy_Bear
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)
19 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Cricket :: 606v2 Honours Board
Page 7 of 20
Page 7 of 20 • 
1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13 ... 20
The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:34 pm
First topic message reminder :
The thread to debate additions to the v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame
Current members:
https://www.606v2.com/t18388-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-inductees-graphics-included
FoF's original HoF debate summation:
Previous debate:
https://www.606v2.com/t28256-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame
https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1
The thread to debate additions to the v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame
Current members:
https://www.606v2.com/t18388-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-inductees-graphics-included
FoF's original HoF debate summation:
- Spoiler:
- 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. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and no currently active players will be considered.
Once our initial 30 members are agreed upon I suggest that we consider 10 more per month, working our way through the current ICC Hall of Fame and casting our own votes as to whether those names should belong in our own elitist Hall of Fame here at 606v2. Voting for each 10 candidates will run from the 1st of the month, when those names will be posted, until the last day of the month, when the votes will be tallied.
When we have exhaused those names in the current ICC Hall of Fame, there will be an opportunity for our members to decide upon the next group of 10 nominees that aren't currently in the ICC Hall of Fame, but may be worthy to be considered for our own (i.e. those that have recently retired such as Gilchrist etc).
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.
Previous debate:
https://www.606v2.com/t28256-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame
https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1
Last edited by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) on Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)- Posts : 10925
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : London, England
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:00 pm
I am getting closer to a 4 yes and 1 no situation. Clear on Chappell, Gibbs and Clark and also Woolmer. Thinking in terms of a yes on Taylor, but would hold off for now.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:19 pm
Steve Waugh mentions in his autobiography that Bob Simpsom made quite unique contributions as a coach. Waugh regards increased professionalism and promotion of a winning culture as his legacy. And he predated Woolmer.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:36 pm
The case for Woolmer being the first among equals among good coaches is questionable on many grounds.
Steve Waugh again.
"The landscape of professional cricket was changing rappidly and Geoff Marsh wanted to be at the forefront of these modifications. He saw part of his role as being a facilitator to many other specialized people who would eventually form a nucleus around the players. It was a concept that Swamp's successer John Buchanon would expand and streamline. The newest member of the squad was a fulltime fitness advisor".
Now this is something that has not only influenced Buchanon but also almost every other successful coaches since then.
Steve Waugh again.
"The landscape of professional cricket was changing rappidly and Geoff Marsh wanted to be at the forefront of these modifications. He saw part of his role as being a facilitator to many other specialized people who would eventually form a nucleus around the players. It was a concept that Swamp's successer John Buchanon would expand and streamline. The newest member of the squad was a fulltime fitness advisor".
Now this is something that has not only influenced Buchanon but also almost every other successful coaches since then.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:46 pm
Steve Waugh being australian would naturally know more about the Aussies at the forefront of the changes. My experience and those of the coaches I work with is that Woolmer is very much a key influence. Plus his record as a coach is very very good, with a lot of very different sides.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:54 pm
I am not disputing that Woolmer is regarded well by many as a coach. My point is that the case for including him in our HoF on the basis of him being the very best as a coach is rather weak and his purported innovations have be viewed in a larger context of the evolution of technology and so on and that there are other coaches who's legacies are as important if not more so than that of Woolmer. Besides Woolmer's case for me is made weak by his hyper loyalty and failure to act with the kind of responsibility required from a coach in certain critical situations like the 2006 test forfeiture fiasco.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:29 pm
Must admit I'm still not sure which way to vote on Woolmer.
msp raises a number of points that count against Woolmer's candidacy, but I'm not convinced that they are enough to dismiss it.
Certainly it could be argued that other coaches were innovative, but was Woolmer more of an innovator than others? He was at the forefront of introducing video analysis and the use of computers, but was he alone in this, or did he simply utilise the technology more than others?
As for Cronje and match fixing, I agree that he was, perhaps, too loyal to his captain, especially after the event, but don't think that he should be blamed for the fact that no-one came forward to tell him what was going on as it's (A) difficult to create an atmosphere where people will 'rat' on a mate and (B) creating such an atmosphere is probably not what most coaches aim for in any case.
IMHO Woolmer's failure to get the team back onto the pitch at the Oval in 2006 is the greater crime, and one which would cast the greatest doubt on his place in the HoF.
So, all-in-all, Woolmer, while he may not have been the only coach to introduce new techniques, was a highly innovative and successful coach whose overly developed sense of loyalty to the team saw him make a couple of errors of judement which blighted his career.
I do think he was, probably, the most influential modern coach, but was he really much more of an innovator than others, and were his errors of judgement grevious enough to rule him out?
msp raises a number of points that count against Woolmer's candidacy, but I'm not convinced that they are enough to dismiss it.
Certainly it could be argued that other coaches were innovative, but was Woolmer more of an innovator than others? He was at the forefront of introducing video analysis and the use of computers, but was he alone in this, or did he simply utilise the technology more than others?
As for Cronje and match fixing, I agree that he was, perhaps, too loyal to his captain, especially after the event, but don't think that he should be blamed for the fact that no-one came forward to tell him what was going on as it's (A) difficult to create an atmosphere where people will 'rat' on a mate and (B) creating such an atmosphere is probably not what most coaches aim for in any case.
IMHO Woolmer's failure to get the team back onto the pitch at the Oval in 2006 is the greater crime, and one which would cast the greatest doubt on his place in the HoF.
So, all-in-all, Woolmer, while he may not have been the only coach to introduce new techniques, was a highly innovative and successful coach whose overly developed sense of loyalty to the team saw him make a couple of errors of judement which blighted his career.
I do think he was, probably, the most influential modern coach, but was he really much more of an innovator than others, and were his errors of judgement grevious enough to rule him out?
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:39 pm
Hoggy, as I mentioned a couple of times, the Australians were using video analysis as early as 1995 at least. No way could we consider Woolmer as the pioneer. Bob Simpson, the first modern international coach was in charge of Australia in 1995.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:24 am
My votes.
Greg Chappell yes. I have had my doubts on Chappell due to the underarm issue and some of his character problems that even extended beyond his captaincy to his coaching career. But at the end of the day averaging 54 in the era he played with success across conditions has to see him through. The concerns should place him a couple of places below what he deserves in the HoF, but then he has to be in there.
Gibbs yes. The most successful West Indies spinner, the first spinner to 300 test wickets. His overall record would mean for me that his average of 29, still pretty good is not much of a concern.
Clark yes. Good player with a good record, continue to make major contributions to the game as an administrator. Played her part in driving the women's game forward.
Taylor yes. Her overall record was what was giving me some confusing signs, but her big match temprament and her role in greater professionalization of the women's game are enough reasons to give an yes.
Bob Woolmer a clear no. He is a well regarded coach. But then Ponsford was a well regarded batsman, Woolley did wonderful things at the domestic level and was an effective all-rounder at international level. Gordon Greenidge was one of the better openers that the West Indies produced. Woolmer failed to garsp the extend of the horrific posibilities of match fixing, as his 2007 justification of Cronje suggests when he said all that Cronje did was to make some easy mone that he could do from his position. His less than ideal role in the test forfeiture fiasco, his failure to look pass the loyalty network are obvious failures. People used video analysis before him and other coaches have left arguably greater legacies. If a coach has to become part of our HoF, i would say someone like Bob Simpson has a greater chance, as the pioneer of modern coaching. I hold Woolmer's rebel tour participation against him although that on its own, is not good enough to deny him. But there are other far more stronger grounds.
Greg Chappell yes. I have had my doubts on Chappell due to the underarm issue and some of his character problems that even extended beyond his captaincy to his coaching career. But at the end of the day averaging 54 in the era he played with success across conditions has to see him through. The concerns should place him a couple of places below what he deserves in the HoF, but then he has to be in there.
Gibbs yes. The most successful West Indies spinner, the first spinner to 300 test wickets. His overall record would mean for me that his average of 29, still pretty good is not much of a concern.
Clark yes. Good player with a good record, continue to make major contributions to the game as an administrator. Played her part in driving the women's game forward.
Taylor yes. Her overall record was what was giving me some confusing signs, but her big match temprament and her role in greater professionalization of the women's game are enough reasons to give an yes.
Bob Woolmer a clear no. He is a well regarded coach. But then Ponsford was a well regarded batsman, Woolley did wonderful things at the domestic level and was an effective all-rounder at international level. Gordon Greenidge was one of the better openers that the West Indies produced. Woolmer failed to garsp the extend of the horrific posibilities of match fixing, as his 2007 justification of Cronje suggests when he said all that Cronje did was to make some easy mone that he could do from his position. His less than ideal role in the test forfeiture fiasco, his failure to look pass the loyalty network are obvious failures. People used video analysis before him and other coaches have left arguably greater legacies. If a coach has to become part of our HoF, i would say someone like Bob Simpson has a greater chance, as the pioneer of modern coaching. I hold Woolmer's rebel tour participation against him although that on its own, is not good enough to deny him. But there are other far more stronger grounds.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:31 am
Perhaps Woolmer's love for the finer things in life prevented him from looking pass the economic dimensions of fixing. Yes was a bit of a mistake, fine them and get them back.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:27 am
Confirm my votes as:
Gibbs YES
Chappell YES
Clark YES
Taylor YES
Woolmer NO
Gibbs YES
Chappell YES
Clark YES
Taylor YES
Woolmer NO
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:02 am
msp83 wrote:Hoggy, as I mentioned a couple of times, the Australians were using video analysis as early as 1995 at least. No way could we consider Woolmer as the pioneer. Bob Simpson, the first modern international coach was in charge of Australia in 1995.
But Paul Smith talks about Woolmer using video analysis at Warks. in 91/92
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:19 am
Hoggy_Bear wrote:msp83 wrote:Hoggy, as I mentioned a couple of times, the Australians were using video analysis as early as 1995 at least. No way could we consider Woolmer as the pioneer. Bob Simpson, the first modern international coach was in charge of Australia in 1995.
But Paul Smith talks about Woolmer using video analysis at Warks. in 91/92
Hoggy - would that be the same time as Smith was high on drugs?
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mad for Chelsea Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:27 am
some votes from me:
Clark - YES.
Taylor - YES. I think I've made my position on these two pioneers abundantly clear throughout the debating. I do appreciate the concerns that it may be too soon to judge Taylor's legacy, but believe her playing career is enough to get her in anyway.
Gibbs - YES. I think I was one who voted NO first time around, but as Mike says I was guilty of judging by today's standards a bit, so saw a not great average (though very good), dodgy strike rate and though "this guy didn't have the X factor I'd like in the HoF". This was unfair, and is now corrected. Gibbs was a great foil for the WI quick bowlers and didn't get a chance at cheap wickets by bowling at tail-enders. Moreover, in the era he played in his eco rate of under 2 was very important. Basically, I got this vote wrong the first time around, so sorry about that.
Chappell - YES. For much the reasons as first time around, I hold the underarm incident against him, but it's not enough of a black mark in an absolutely stellar career to keep him out of the HoF IMO, and tends to be overplayed at times.
Still undecided on Woolmer: I think coaching is an important aspect of the game, and Woolmer was a very fine coach. Him being (apparently) the first to use video analysis is important too, though perhaps inevitable. The Pakistan incident in 06 I hold against him though, much more strongly than the Cronje incident which was for me an abuse of trust from Cronje more than anything (though Woolmer's failure to subsequently condemn him is troubling). I think I'm leaning towards NO on the basis of those two black marks, but not sure as of yet...
Clark - YES.
Taylor - YES. I think I've made my position on these two pioneers abundantly clear throughout the debating. I do appreciate the concerns that it may be too soon to judge Taylor's legacy, but believe her playing career is enough to get her in anyway.
Gibbs - YES. I think I was one who voted NO first time around, but as Mike says I was guilty of judging by today's standards a bit, so saw a not great average (though very good), dodgy strike rate and though "this guy didn't have the X factor I'd like in the HoF". This was unfair, and is now corrected. Gibbs was a great foil for the WI quick bowlers and didn't get a chance at cheap wickets by bowling at tail-enders. Moreover, in the era he played in his eco rate of under 2 was very important. Basically, I got this vote wrong the first time around, so sorry about that.
Chappell - YES. For much the reasons as first time around, I hold the underarm incident against him, but it's not enough of a black mark in an absolutely stellar career to keep him out of the HoF IMO, and tends to be overplayed at times.
Still undecided on Woolmer: I think coaching is an important aspect of the game, and Woolmer was a very fine coach. Him being (apparently) the first to use video analysis is important too, though perhaps inevitable. The Pakistan incident in 06 I hold against him though, much more strongly than the Cronje incident which was for me an abuse of trust from Cronje more than anything (though Woolmer's failure to subsequently condemn him is troubling). I think I'm leaning towards NO on the basis of those two black marks, but not sure as of yet...
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by alfie Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:38 am
OK , am out a lot tomorrow , better vote ...
YES Chappell , Gibbs , Clark.
Would have been yes for Chappell had I been on at the time he first came up. Was annoyed with him over the underarm , and the outfield catch issue which preceded it , but that would not have put me off voting in the best Australian bat of his generation. Having to wait to round two is punishment enough
Gibbs did enough for me. Three hundred wickets , Test hat trick , lone spinner for West Indies for a long time ...most record holders have been voted in. His turn too.
Clark the first woman in our HOF , fair enough too. Terrific player , plenty of off field work as well ...if we knock her back again , might as well put up a sign saying "Men Only"
NO Woolmer...hard one . An innovative coach , yes , but the One above all others ? Not sure - fancy he'll come round again. Not condemning him for the shenanigans on his watch , though I wish he'd been less supportive of Cronje , even understanding he personally liked the man. Just not totally convinced of his stature.
Finally Taylor. A feeling it could be too early. Also a lot based on a very short period of cricket , and especially on one innings , terrific though it was.
However I have mounted a case for the women's game and feel I'd be slightly hypocritical to vote against her. Marginal , but YES
YES Chappell , Gibbs , Clark.
Would have been yes for Chappell had I been on at the time he first came up. Was annoyed with him over the underarm , and the outfield catch issue which preceded it , but that would not have put me off voting in the best Australian bat of his generation. Having to wait to round two is punishment enough
Gibbs did enough for me. Three hundred wickets , Test hat trick , lone spinner for West Indies for a long time ...most record holders have been voted in. His turn too.
Clark the first woman in our HOF , fair enough too. Terrific player , plenty of off field work as well ...if we knock her back again , might as well put up a sign saying "Men Only"
NO Woolmer...hard one . An innovative coach , yes , but the One above all others ? Not sure - fancy he'll come round again. Not condemning him for the shenanigans on his watch , though I wish he'd been less supportive of Cronje , even understanding he personally liked the man. Just not totally convinced of his stature.
Finally Taylor. A feeling it could be too early. Also a lot based on a very short period of cricket , and especially on one innings , terrific though it was.
However I have mounted a case for the women's game and feel I'd be slightly hypocritical to vote against her. Marginal , but YES
alfie- Posts : 21909
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:54 am
guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy_Bear wrote:msp83 wrote:Hoggy, as I mentioned a couple of times, the Australians were using video analysis as early as 1995 at least. No way could we consider Woolmer as the pioneer. Bob Simpson, the first modern international coach was in charge of Australia in 1995.
But Paul Smith talks about Woolmer using video analysis at Warks. in 91/92
Hoggy - would that be the same time as Smith was high on drugs?
Ooh that's a bit below the belt Guildford
Anyway Smith was a Coke addict, he wasn't into hallucinogens, as far as I'm aware.
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:00 am
Excellent to see the qualities of Sir Lancelot being well recognised in this round. 
Fair to say that it's not just people who changed their vote on him in this round that have learned something, but also those advocating his case have been able to find additional ways of looking at his career and stats that have been able to provide a more demonstrably convincing case.
Fair to say that it's not just people who changed their vote on him in this round that have learned something, but also those advocating his case have been able to find additional ways of looking at his career and stats that have been able to provide a more demonstrably convincing case.
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by alfie Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:20 am
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Excellent to see the qualities of Sir Lancelot being well recognised in this round.
...not least your good self , Cpl ...not that I needed any arm twisting in Gibbs' case. But I am delighted to see yours - and others - efforts appear to have been fruitful : it seems Sir Lancelot is likely to make it this time
alfie- Posts : 21909
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:45 am
MSP - just a footnote on this one. I was one of the lonely few (could have been as few as two) that voted yes for Woolley and I would do so again on the basis of his legendary status and achievements within the game. But I think it's fair to say that his bowling came up a bit short in terms of genuine all rounder status at test level - 83 wickets in 64 tests.msp83 wrote: Woolley did wonderful things at the domestic level and was an effective all-rounder at international level.
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:12 am
Apologies if I've missed it earlier in the debate but can anyone expand on Clark's off field work please.alfie wrote:
Clark the first woman in our HOF , fair enough too. Terrific player , plenty of off field work as well ...if we knock her back again , might as well put up a sign saying "Men Only"
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:17 pm
Right. voting time.
5 YES votes for me.
I voted yes for Chappell and Clark first time around and have seen nothing to change that.
I voted no to Gibbs first time, but have been won over by the arguments of the corporal and Guildford, and by his status as a Warks. legend.
Taylor is ranked as one of, if not the, best female batsman of all-time, has a number of firsts and records to her name, and helped move the women's game forward.
Woolmer, despite the problems with regard to Cronje and Ovalgate, was an innovative coach who was at the forfront of developing the way in which modern coaches operate. And he was pretty succesful at it, especially at Warks., so for me he just scrapes in.
5 YES votes for me.
I voted yes for Chappell and Clark first time around and have seen nothing to change that.
I voted no to Gibbs first time, but have been won over by the arguments of the corporal and Guildford, and by his status as a Warks. legend.
Taylor is ranked as one of, if not the, best female batsman of all-time, has a number of firsts and records to her name, and helped move the women's game forward.
Woolmer, despite the problems with regard to Cronje and Ovalgate, was an innovative coach who was at the forfront of developing the way in which modern coaches operate. And he was pretty succesful at it, especially at Warks., so for me he just scrapes in.
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:27 pm
A reminder that voting closes at 9am tomorrow
Don't expect a prompt count up, as I have a tedious essay to write, and am going to the Albert Hall to see John McEnroe tomorrow afternoon. As ever, votes cast after the deadline but before the count-up will still be counted.
Don't expect a prompt count up, as I have a tedious essay to write, and am going to the Albert Hall to see John McEnroe tomorrow afternoon. As ever, votes cast after the deadline but before the count-up will still be counted.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:56 pm
"See" or hear John McEnroe? I watched Tiriac and Nastase play doubles in faux pyjamas at the RAH many moons ago. Being an elderly dinosaur I wouldn't cross the street to watch McEnroe, brilliant though his tennis could so often be. Only time I saw him, he should have been thrown out, much more interested in intimidating his opponent and officials alike. Defines the "older I get, the better I was" brand of ex-player.
Chappell, Clark and Gibbs: YES!
Taylor and Woolmer: NO!!
Chappell, Clark and Gibbs: YES!
Taylor and Woolmer: NO!!
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:14 pm
See him. He's playing Mats Wilander in the final of a legends tournament. My Mum saw him play Guy Forget on TV the other day and said he still has it!
I must admit I don't like the way his abuse of officials has become a running joke. In these Masters events he is surely putting it on, but it sends out the wrong messages to young players that its fine.
I must admit I don't like the way his abuse of officials has become a running joke. In these Masters events he is surely putting it on, but it sends out the wrong messages to young players that its fine.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:27 pm
Just being facetious Shelsey - much better tennis player than commentator, not a patch on his brother in the booth. Enjoy!
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:28 pm
My votes and all comments in my view.
Greg Chappell The best Australian batsman I have ever seen and the one I always most wanted us to get out. In terms of this Hall of Fame, a tragedy that he was not inducted first time but one entirely of his own making. Whilst that decision was correct, I feel it would be unnecessarily vindictive to continue to deny him admittance. YES.
Bob Woolmer Many positives about his coaching and as a person for whom there is deserved respect. I don't hold failure to win the World Cup against him but, in the absence of such an outstanding triumph, I feel I am being asked to overlook too much that went wrong on his watch. NO.
,
Belinda Clark I understand that JDizzle is currently unable to contribute to this thread due to the demands of college work but that he still tries to read it. Well, JD, if you're looking in, you might remember you called this nomination last time, ''the most difficult to assess''. Spot on then and now. Clark was a very good to exceptionally good batswoman. However, I'm not convinced her record establishes her as an outstanding player and still retain doubts about the quality of too many of her opponents. As Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia, she's certainly helped bring attention to the womens game and ensured that difficult journey has started. I appreciate my view is different from those ''within the bubble'' (per Shelsey) and that I may just be looking from too far away but I'm not convinced that journey has yet advanced far enough, particularly in terms of general cricketing awareness. Alfie suggests that a ''NO'' vote is equivalent to putting up a ''No Women'' sign. That is not my intention but I'm unwilling to personally sanction admittance to our HoF to anyone if I have concerns. I therefore decline Clark even though, as stated previously, it is with some reluctance and no little respect. NO.
Claire Taylor Taylor's record falls short for me, particularly in terms of sustained dominance as previously explained. With no post playing career to provide secondary support for HoF membership, I'm unwilling to champion her cause. NO.
Lance Gibbs Guile and stamina enabled him to take a then world record 309 Test wickets in extremely difficult circumstances and act as a highly effective and economic foil to an array of West Indian pacemen. YES.
Greg Chappell The best Australian batsman I have ever seen and the one I always most wanted us to get out. In terms of this Hall of Fame, a tragedy that he was not inducted first time but one entirely of his own making. Whilst that decision was correct, I feel it would be unnecessarily vindictive to continue to deny him admittance. YES.
Bob Woolmer Many positives about his coaching and as a person for whom there is deserved respect. I don't hold failure to win the World Cup against him but, in the absence of such an outstanding triumph, I feel I am being asked to overlook too much that went wrong on his watch. NO.
,
Belinda Clark I understand that JDizzle is currently unable to contribute to this thread due to the demands of college work but that he still tries to read it. Well, JD, if you're looking in, you might remember you called this nomination last time, ''the most difficult to assess''. Spot on then and now. Clark was a very good to exceptionally good batswoman. However, I'm not convinced her record establishes her as an outstanding player and still retain doubts about the quality of too many of her opponents. As Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia, she's certainly helped bring attention to the womens game and ensured that difficult journey has started. I appreciate my view is different from those ''within the bubble'' (per Shelsey) and that I may just be looking from too far away but I'm not convinced that journey has yet advanced far enough, particularly in terms of general cricketing awareness. Alfie suggests that a ''NO'' vote is equivalent to putting up a ''No Women'' sign. That is not my intention but I'm unwilling to personally sanction admittance to our HoF to anyone if I have concerns. I therefore decline Clark even though, as stated previously, it is with some reluctance and no little respect. NO.
Claire Taylor Taylor's record falls short for me, particularly in terms of sustained dominance as previously explained. With no post playing career to provide secondary support for HoF membership, I'm unwilling to champion her cause. NO.
Lance Gibbs Guile and stamina enabled him to take a then world record 309 Test wickets in extremely difficult circumstances and act as a highly effective and economic foil to an array of West Indian pacemen. YES.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:47 am
Easy for me: 5 YES votes.
Woolmer came up twice during conversations yesterday when I was coaching (neither time raised by me). Simpson, Buchanan and Fletcher, admirable though they are/were, weren't mentioned once. Albeit on a very small scale this illustrates impact.
Woolmer came up twice during conversations yesterday when I was coaching (neither time raised by me). Simpson, Buchanan and Fletcher, admirable though they are/were, weren't mentioned once. Albeit on a very small scale this illustrates impact.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:03 am
A little late from me, but 5 YESes. Hesitated a little over Woolmer but ultimately came around.
I'm also in favour of revisiting some of the previous women candidates. (and where do I nominate Debbie Hockley?)
As an aside, Buchanon would get a no from me right now, purely as he's contributing to the shambles that is NZ cricket.
I'm also in favour of revisiting some of the previous women candidates. (and where do I nominate Debbie Hockley?)
As an aside, Buchanon would get a no from me right now, purely as he's contributing to the shambles that is NZ cricket.
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)- Posts : 10925
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : London, England
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by ShahenshahG Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:05 am
Love sacks I thought I'd done this last night. If I'm not too late I've got 3 yes and clark and Taylor leaning towards no for the same reasons as GB. I will however abstain from those as I really cant get a grip of either of them (Metaphorically not physically - although they arent used to handles as big as mine)
Woolmer's impact is still felt in the innovative and courageous way the saffers play even now. He was quick to embrace new technology and new ideas and helped the south africans eke the most out of their abilities.
Lance Gibbs - I was quite peed when he didn't get in last time - wondering how you could have a HOF without such an excellent wickettaker and pressure bowler. The west indies pace bowlers also owed alot of their wickets to him and his ability to frustrate.
Chappell ought to have been inducted immediately though I could understand why he wasn't we should put him in a brilliant brilliant player not any less than most who've already been inducted. I think he genuinely regretted the incident and that really was all that was keeping him out.
Woolmer's impact is still felt in the innovative and courageous way the saffers play even now. He was quick to embrace new technology and new ideas and helped the south africans eke the most out of their abilities.
Lance Gibbs - I was quite peed when he didn't get in last time - wondering how you could have a HOF without such an excellent wickettaker and pressure bowler. The west indies pace bowlers also owed alot of their wickets to him and his ability to frustrate.
Chappell ought to have been inducted immediately though I could understand why he wasn't we should put him in a brilliant brilliant player not any less than most who've already been inducted. I think he genuinely regretted the incident and that really was all that was keeping him out.
ShahenshahG- Posts : 15725
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 39
Location : The happiest man a morning ever sees -
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:56 am
OK. Voting closed and results counted.
Our repecharge candidates had to get 75% of the vote as there can't be a second repecharge, but that was no problem as they all sailed in:
Greg Chappell - 12 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Belinda Clark - 10 Yes, 1 No = 90.9%
Lance Gibbs - 12 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Our new candidates were more divisive:
Bob Woolmer - 5 Yes, 6 No = 41.7%
Claire Taylor - 8 Yes, 3 No = 72.72%
So, Taylor narrowly missed out on getting into the HoF this time by 1 vote, and Woolmer misses out on the repecharge by 1 vote.
Note: MFC never submitted a final vote on Woolmer, and Shahenshah abstained from Clark and Taylor.
----
On the ballot for the next two weeks, with voting closing on Sunday 23rd December:
Repecharge candidates
Gordon Greenidge
Neil Harvey
Nominated candidates
Anil Kumble (msp83)
Arthur Morris (not nominated by anyone in particular, but broad agreement he should be discussed)
Waqar Younis (Stella)
Our repecharge candidates had to get 75% of the vote as there can't be a second repecharge, but that was no problem as they all sailed in:
Greg Chappell - 12 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Belinda Clark - 10 Yes, 1 No = 90.9%
Lance Gibbs - 12 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Our new candidates were more divisive:
Bob Woolmer - 5 Yes, 6 No = 41.7%
Claire Taylor - 8 Yes, 3 No = 72.72%
So, Taylor narrowly missed out on getting into the HoF this time by 1 vote, and Woolmer misses out on the repecharge by 1 vote.
Note: MFC never submitted a final vote on Woolmer, and Shahenshah abstained from Clark and Taylor.
----
On the ballot for the next two weeks, with voting closing on Sunday 23rd December:
Repecharge candidates
Gordon Greenidge
Neil Harvey
Nominated candidates
Anil Kumble (msp83)
Arthur Morris (not nominated by anyone in particular, but broad agreement he should be discussed)
Waqar Younis (Stella)
Last edited by Shelsey93 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:59 am
Very interesting set of candidates:
Greenidge: I had my doubts last time round, but I'd say the odds are on me coming round to a YES this time as it was the tighest of tight decisions
Harvey: I really liked him, and will try and reiterate the case for him
Kumble: Good record and I expect him to get in
Morris: Need to research
Waqar: Very surprised he's not in the ICC list. But concerns may be raised about never proven links to match-fixing, and his position as coach during the 2010 spot-fixing scandal.
Greenidge: I had my doubts last time round, but I'd say the odds are on me coming round to a YES this time as it was the tighest of tight decisions
Harvey: I really liked him, and will try and reiterate the case for him
Kumble: Good record and I expect him to get in
Morris: Need to research
Waqar: Very surprised he's not in the ICC list. But concerns may be raised about never proven links to match-fixing, and his position as coach during the 2010 spot-fixing scandal.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mad for Chelsea Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:13 am
reasonably happy with that set of results. Delighted in particular that Clark sailed in this time around. A little disappointed Taylor didn't make it, but there are valid concerns about it being too soon to judge her legacy, so I understand the decision. Also, I would at the moment rank Clark's contribution to the game above Taylor's, so it wouldn't quite sit right with me that Taylor get through first time around, but Clark had to wait for the repechage. Having said that, I still think we made a mistake in not inducting Clark first time around (a mistake I acknowledge i was guilty of making with Gibbs).
On the next set of candidates:
I voted YES for Harvey. He was one of the greatest batsmen of his generation undoubtedly, and remember being surprised he didn't make it first time around.
Can't remember which way I voted on Greenidge. He was a very fine player, but benefited IMO from not facing his bowlers, and I'm not quite sure his record is good enough to put him in the HOF.
Kumble: I imagine much of the debate will center around his ordinary record outside the subcontinent. IIRC he was incredibly efffective on sub-continent pitches, where he got loads of "bite" out of the pitches, but struggled in different conditions. Await msp's case, as it would be unfair to start out with too negative a viewpoint.
Morris: another very fine player, I know Bradman rated him extremely highly, and I think he made it to our top ten openers a while back. Need to research a bit more to find out just how good he was.
Waqar: like Shelsey a bit surprised he's not in the ICC HoF. Not going to hold the 2010 scandal against him, pretty sure he had nothing whatsoever to do with it (there was a story that he confronted Amir about the no-balls in the following break, I might try and dig it up).
On the next set of candidates:
I voted YES for Harvey. He was one of the greatest batsmen of his generation undoubtedly, and remember being surprised he didn't make it first time around.
Can't remember which way I voted on Greenidge. He was a very fine player, but benefited IMO from not facing his bowlers, and I'm not quite sure his record is good enough to put him in the HOF.
Kumble: I imagine much of the debate will center around his ordinary record outside the subcontinent. IIRC he was incredibly efffective on sub-continent pitches, where he got loads of "bite" out of the pitches, but struggled in different conditions. Await msp's case, as it would be unfair to start out with too negative a viewpoint.
Morris: another very fine player, I know Bradman rated him extremely highly, and I think he made it to our top ten openers a while back. Need to research a bit more to find out just how good he was.
Waqar: like Shelsey a bit surprised he's not in the ICC HoF. Not going to hold the 2010 scandal against him, pretty sure he had nothing whatsoever to do with it (there was a story that he confronted Amir about the no-balls in the following break, I might try and dig it up).
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by dummy_half Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:26 am
I think Harvey and Greenidge were both nominated and passed over before I got involved, so I will be interested in the discussions for both. My suspicion is that the level of the bar for HoF inclusion is slightly lower than when they were first considered.
Morris I know little about other than the name and a little bit of reputation. Definitely one to research a bit.
Kumble and Waqar we have the advantage of having seen play. For some reason I never really warmed to either of them (big Akram fan, but Waqar not so much). A quick look at their records suggest Waqar was plenty good enough to be HoF, while Kumble is a bit more marginal - probably because his career was largely overshadowed by Warne and Murali. Certainly plenty to get our teeth into in the debate (600+ wickets, 10 in an innings, but at an average of all but 30).
Morris I know little about other than the name and a little bit of reputation. Definitely one to research a bit.
Kumble and Waqar we have the advantage of having seen play. For some reason I never really warmed to either of them (big Akram fan, but Waqar not so much). A quick look at their records suggest Waqar was plenty good enough to be HoF, while Kumble is a bit more marginal - probably because his career was largely overshadowed by Warne and Murali. Certainly plenty to get our teeth into in the debate (600+ wickets, 10 in an innings, but at an average of all but 30).
dummy_half- Posts : 6497
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 52
Location : East Hertfordshire
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:14 am
All very reasonable. Particularly pleased to see Clark sail in this time.
On the candidates up for debate this time:
- Harvey has a strong case based purely on his record and supplemented by his famous knock at Headingley (?). I think if people were to give their top 3 Australian batsmen since Bradman, most would say Chappel, Harvey and Ponting.
- Greenidge's record is slightly less strong, but he does have the remarkable 211* against England on the final day to his name. The concerns are that his record is merely very good rather than great, and that he never faced his own attack. The former has merit, the latter is a bit unfair.
- Kumble I will need a lot of convincing of. His record is more a tribute to his longetivity than anything really outstanding - whilst I admire longetivity, with other candidates like Walsh it hasn't proven a decisive factor. His record outside the subcontinent is fairly poor. Of course there is the 10 wickets in an innings in his favour, but for me at this moment I need more.
- Morris is a similar case to Greenidge and will be interesting to see where this goes.
- Waqar is in some sense the opposite of Kumble. When he was at his best he was amongst the very very best there has ever been, but was his peak too short? I think he's done some good stuff as coach of Pakistan.
On the candidates up for debate this time:
- Harvey has a strong case based purely on his record and supplemented by his famous knock at Headingley (?). I think if people were to give their top 3 Australian batsmen since Bradman, most would say Chappel, Harvey and Ponting.
- Greenidge's record is slightly less strong, but he does have the remarkable 211* against England on the final day to his name. The concerns are that his record is merely very good rather than great, and that he never faced his own attack. The former has merit, the latter is a bit unfair.
- Kumble I will need a lot of convincing of. His record is more a tribute to his longetivity than anything really outstanding - whilst I admire longetivity, with other candidates like Walsh it hasn't proven a decisive factor. His record outside the subcontinent is fairly poor. Of course there is the 10 wickets in an innings in his favour, but for me at this moment I need more.
- Morris is a similar case to Greenidge and will be interesting to see where this goes.
- Waqar is in some sense the opposite of Kumble. When he was at his best he was amongst the very very best there has ever been, but was his peak too short? I think he's done some good stuff as coach of Pakistan.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mad for Chelsea Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:26 am
Mike, my comments about Greenidge not facing his own attack were more along the line that in that case his record should perhaps have been better than it was (for a HoF nominee).
On Waqar, his overall record is still pretty impressive: 373 Test wickets, 416 in ODIs, in both cases at an average of 23-odd. While his "absolute peak" may not have been that long, I'd suggest there's enough sustained excellence there. Maybe you're thinking of the 03 WC where he was pretty ordinary, but that was well in the dying embers of his career.
On Waqar, his overall record is still pretty impressive: 373 Test wickets, 416 in ODIs, in both cases at an average of 23-odd. While his "absolute peak" may not have been that long, I'd suggest there's enough sustained excellence there. Maybe you're thinking of the 03 WC where he was pretty ordinary, but that was well in the dying embers of his career.
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by dummy_half Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:52 am
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Mike, my comments about Greenidge not facing his own attack were more along the line that in that case his record should perhaps have been better than it was (for a HoF nominee).
On Waqar, his overall record is still pretty impressive: 373 Test wickets, 416 in ODIs, in both cases at an average of 23-odd. While his "absolute peak" may not have been that long, I'd suggest there's enough sustained excellence there. Maybe you're thinking of the 03 WC where he was pretty ordinary, but that was well in the dying embers of his career.
Perhaps Greenidge should have opted to play for England rather than the Windies (he moved to London at about 12 years old, so would have been eligible)? Would have faced (and been demolished by) the Windies attack then.
I do kind of agree with MfC's comment, that in the absence of facing the strongest attack in world cricket, Greenidge's record probably should have been better to make his HoF candicacy inarguable.
As for Waqar, he was a genuine fast bowler who spent a lot of his career playing on wickets that were not particularly helpful to fast bowling, so it's not a huge surprise his career was shorter than someone like Courtney Walsh. Over 350 wickets at 23, plus 400+ ODI wickets at a similar average are both stellar performances, so even if his career peak was only 6 or 7 years rather than 15, it was still extremely good. We aren't talking about a Tyson or even a Thomson here, with one or two outstanding series and otherwise fairly mediocre performances. I'm certainly starting from the position of him being good enough for our HoF, so it's a case of whether there are any serious negatives to count against him sufficient to keep him out.
dummy_half- Posts : 6497
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 52
Location : East Hertfordshire
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:08 am
An interesting set of candidates and I shall make my case for Kumble soon.
But just to start, there is a lot more to Kumble than his playing record alone.
But just to start, there is a lot more to Kumble than his playing record alone.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:35 am
Outline of my case for Anil Kumble.
Anil Kumble, the 3rd highest wicket taker in the history of test match cricket has won more test matches than any other bowler did for India. taking 619 tests wickets is a huge achievement, add to that the 337 ODI wickets he took and an overall number of 1146 first class wickets. He has taken 10 wickets in a test 8 times, has taken 35 fifers and 31 4 wicket performances.
For that 'Wow Performance', no need to look beyond that fine day in Delhi where he took all 10 Pakistani wickets. There are many more though, he taking 7 wickets against Australia on the first day of a test match in 2004, his ODI best of 6-12 and many many more.
Facing up to Kumble on a sub-continent track was among the greatest challenges for a modern day batsman. Kumble could make a pitch with with a little bit of help for spin look like a lethal monster.
Kumble wasn't a conventional spinner, but he more than made up for the lack of massive turn with bounce and a wicket taker's mindset.
Another aspect that we have to consider in Kumble the player is his willingness to always remain a student of the game. After reestablishing himself as India's lead spinner in Australia in 2003, Kumble's googly began to turn more there was more sidespin to his bowling and the pace slowed down more at times. He talked to Shane Warne, to Murali and tried to learn more of the game. Kumble took to T-20s with great determination. Although he didn't play international T-20s, he found ways to be successful in the IPL, the IPL of DLF 6s, short boundaries and massive bats.
Kumble was a man of mental strength and determination. Can anyone forget the sight of Anil Kumble walking out, his face all bandaged up, to have a bowl at Brian Lara after being smashed in the face while batting? And he of course got the big wicket!. Kumble played most of his last test with his left palm all stitched up.
Kumble's batting is another aspect that reflects the man's determined character. His first class batting average of 21 with 7 hundreds aren't bad for a bowler, importantly, he scored runs for India in crisis situation. He and Javakal Srinath ones won an ODI against Australia, put on 51 for the 9th wicket. Kumble's 88 against a South African attack led by Donald in 1996 came when India were down and out for the count. Not many Indians can forget the forlorn figure of captain Anil Kumble at the non-striker end, notout on 45 in the Sydney test in 2007 when he almost saved the match for India. His Joy at that hundred against England......
Kumble has been an active mentor for the likes of Harbhajan Singh. Harbhajan hasn't been the same bowler since Kumble left the seen. During Harbhajan's breakthrough series, the historic series against Australia, Kumble wasn't available for selection with an injury. But even then hewas always on the sidelines, offering guidance to the youngster.
Kumble's time as captain wasn't the longest. But in the short period, he did leave his mark. India won a home series against Pakistan after 27 years under his watch. Captain Kumble was always willing to try things when things wouldn't go his way. Remember he getting VVS Laxman to bowl and VVS getting him a breakthrough against Pakistan. More importantly, Kumble held the side together after Sydneygate and led the side to a fine win in the next test.
Even during his playing days, Kumble willingly took up many administrative responsibilities. He studied the BCCI contracts for all players, led the negotiations and did all with great efficiency. After his playing days, he contested and won as the president of his state cricket association. The Karnataka Cricket Association organized the Karnataka Cricket Liegue that offered the much needed exposure to many young players. Kumble has been part of the BCCI technical committee that has made significant changes to the domestic cricket structure. He's now heading the ICC cricket committee.
All in all a fine package, will be a worthy addition to our HoF.
Anil Kumble, the 3rd highest wicket taker in the history of test match cricket has won more test matches than any other bowler did for India. taking 619 tests wickets is a huge achievement, add to that the 337 ODI wickets he took and an overall number of 1146 first class wickets. He has taken 10 wickets in a test 8 times, has taken 35 fifers and 31 4 wicket performances.
For that 'Wow Performance', no need to look beyond that fine day in Delhi where he took all 10 Pakistani wickets. There are many more though, he taking 7 wickets against Australia on the first day of a test match in 2004, his ODI best of 6-12 and many many more.
Facing up to Kumble on a sub-continent track was among the greatest challenges for a modern day batsman. Kumble could make a pitch with with a little bit of help for spin look like a lethal monster.
Kumble wasn't a conventional spinner, but he more than made up for the lack of massive turn with bounce and a wicket taker's mindset.
Another aspect that we have to consider in Kumble the player is his willingness to always remain a student of the game. After reestablishing himself as India's lead spinner in Australia in 2003, Kumble's googly began to turn more there was more sidespin to his bowling and the pace slowed down more at times. He talked to Shane Warne, to Murali and tried to learn more of the game. Kumble took to T-20s with great determination. Although he didn't play international T-20s, he found ways to be successful in the IPL, the IPL of DLF 6s, short boundaries and massive bats.
Kumble was a man of mental strength and determination. Can anyone forget the sight of Anil Kumble walking out, his face all bandaged up, to have a bowl at Brian Lara after being smashed in the face while batting? And he of course got the big wicket!. Kumble played most of his last test with his left palm all stitched up.
Kumble's batting is another aspect that reflects the man's determined character. His first class batting average of 21 with 7 hundreds aren't bad for a bowler, importantly, he scored runs for India in crisis situation. He and Javakal Srinath ones won an ODI against Australia, put on 51 for the 9th wicket. Kumble's 88 against a South African attack led by Donald in 1996 came when India were down and out for the count. Not many Indians can forget the forlorn figure of captain Anil Kumble at the non-striker end, notout on 45 in the Sydney test in 2007 when he almost saved the match for India. His Joy at that hundred against England......
Kumble has been an active mentor for the likes of Harbhajan Singh. Harbhajan hasn't been the same bowler since Kumble left the seen. During Harbhajan's breakthrough series, the historic series against Australia, Kumble wasn't available for selection with an injury. But even then hewas always on the sidelines, offering guidance to the youngster.
Kumble's time as captain wasn't the longest. But in the short period, he did leave his mark. India won a home series against Pakistan after 27 years under his watch. Captain Kumble was always willing to try things when things wouldn't go his way. Remember he getting VVS Laxman to bowl and VVS getting him a breakthrough against Pakistan. More importantly, Kumble held the side together after Sydneygate and led the side to a fine win in the next test.
Even during his playing days, Kumble willingly took up many administrative responsibilities. He studied the BCCI contracts for all players, led the negotiations and did all with great efficiency. After his playing days, he contested and won as the president of his state cricket association. The Karnataka Cricket Association organized the Karnataka Cricket Liegue that offered the much needed exposure to many young players. Kumble has been part of the BCCI technical committee that has made significant changes to the domestic cricket structure. He's now heading the ICC cricket committee.
All in all a fine package, will be a worthy addition to our HoF.
Last edited by msp83 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:51 am
While Kumble's overall figures outside the sub-continent hasn't been exceptional, we have to remember that his away record began to improve after 2000. Beside, he has been at the forefront of most of India's away wins, whether that is Headingley 2002, Adelaide 2003, Multan 2004, Kingston 2006, Trent Bridge 2007.......
We also have to remember that India were terrible travellers in the first half of Kumble's career. He never really had the runs to work with and not much of support beyond Javakal Srinath.
Like Kumble's records in Indian wins overseas, perhaps you can also take a look at his county record. When he went and played county cricket for Northampton in 1995, he finished as the highest wicket taker, taking 105 wickets in the 4 day game. He had good spells with Surrey and Leicestershire as well.
We also have to remember that India were terrible travellers in the first half of Kumble's career. He never really had the runs to work with and not much of support beyond Javakal Srinath.
Like Kumble's records in Indian wins overseas, perhaps you can also take a look at his county record. When he went and played county cricket for Northampton in 1995, he finished as the highest wicket taker, taking 105 wickets in the 4 day game. He had good spells with Surrey and Leicestershire as well.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:03 am
Kumble the administrator, just like Kumble the bowler, is always willing to learn.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/usa/content/story/578964.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/usa/content/story/578964.html
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:21 am
Excellent case put forward msp.
I shall be the first to play a bit of devil's advocate, and pick a couple of possible holes.
Firstly, I have to mention Sydneygate (as you call it). I'm not sure what your views on it are, but my personal opinion is that the Indian team and officials didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over the matter. IN particular I lost a lot of respect I had for Tendulkar over him changin his story n times during the Harbajhan-Symonds affair; I thought the hounding out of Bucknor (an umpire by that time past his best, but who had been a wonderful servant to the game) was disgraceful; and the threat to go home should Harbajhan have been found guilty was... well there you go. I realise that (apart from the Harbajhan-Symonds incident) the fault lies mostly with the board rather than the players (although a few comments didn't help), but as captain, should Kumble not have done more to stand up to the board? The whole thing was very unsavoury, and I wonder if the captain shouldn't take some of the blame at least.
You mention him being a mentor to Harbajhan, and Harbajhan's bowling going downhill significantly after Kumble left. I agree. I think also because of his willingness to learn he would have made a fantastic coach, and I'm disappointed he chose to sit on a committee rather than do so, but I don't think it is reasonable to hold that against him, and besides, of all the committees you can sit on, he has no doubt chosen the one which has the most direct impact in the game.
I do however still have reservations about his overseas record, or more precisely his record on unhelpful pitches. On a helpful pitch he could be unplayable, but on unhelpful pitches he became not only average, but decidedly poor. Now this is not really his fault, it is a product of how he bowls, and I mentioned when we were judging Underwood that we should stop concerning ourselves with what he didn't do and focus on what he did. However I argued for Underwood based on the fact that he was the very best ever on wet pitches which suited his type of bowling. I am not sure Kumble was - Murali probably did better on similar pitches for example, and I wonder whether O'Reilly wasn't a (much?) better exponent of the "fast leg-spin and googly without much turn" type of bowling.
Your case however makes some excellent points, in particular:
- Kumble's willingness to learn and adapt needs to be reiterated. When discussing Thomson one of the concerns was how when he lost his pace, he couldn't adapt, unlike someone like Pollock. I do think ability to adapt to a changing environment is a key part of the very best of very best cricketers (and perhaps something which Waqar fails at - certainly once his pace went from 90 to 80 mph he was never the same bowler again).
- his fighting spirit also.
I shall be the first to play a bit of devil's advocate, and pick a couple of possible holes.
Firstly, I have to mention Sydneygate (as you call it). I'm not sure what your views on it are, but my personal opinion is that the Indian team and officials didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over the matter. IN particular I lost a lot of respect I had for Tendulkar over him changin his story n times during the Harbajhan-Symonds affair; I thought the hounding out of Bucknor (an umpire by that time past his best, but who had been a wonderful servant to the game) was disgraceful; and the threat to go home should Harbajhan have been found guilty was... well there you go. I realise that (apart from the Harbajhan-Symonds incident) the fault lies mostly with the board rather than the players (although a few comments didn't help), but as captain, should Kumble not have done more to stand up to the board? The whole thing was very unsavoury, and I wonder if the captain shouldn't take some of the blame at least.
You mention him being a mentor to Harbajhan, and Harbajhan's bowling going downhill significantly after Kumble left. I agree. I think also because of his willingness to learn he would have made a fantastic coach, and I'm disappointed he chose to sit on a committee rather than do so, but I don't think it is reasonable to hold that against him, and besides, of all the committees you can sit on, he has no doubt chosen the one which has the most direct impact in the game.
I do however still have reservations about his overseas record, or more precisely his record on unhelpful pitches. On a helpful pitch he could be unplayable, but on unhelpful pitches he became not only average, but decidedly poor. Now this is not really his fault, it is a product of how he bowls, and I mentioned when we were judging Underwood that we should stop concerning ourselves with what he didn't do and focus on what he did. However I argued for Underwood based on the fact that he was the very best ever on wet pitches which suited his type of bowling. I am not sure Kumble was - Murali probably did better on similar pitches for example, and I wonder whether O'Reilly wasn't a (much?) better exponent of the "fast leg-spin and googly without much turn" type of bowling.
Your case however makes some excellent points, in particular:
- Kumble's willingness to learn and adapt needs to be reiterated. When discussing Thomson one of the concerns was how when he lost his pace, he couldn't adapt, unlike someone like Pollock. I do think ability to adapt to a changing environment is a key part of the very best of very best cricketers (and perhaps something which Waqar fails at - certainly once his pace went from 90 to 80 mph he was never the same bowler again).
- his fighting spirit also.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:35 am
Thanks Mike.Mike Selig wrote:Excellent case put forward msp.
I shall be the first to play a bit of devil's advocate, and pick a couple of possible holes.
Firstly, I have to mention Sydneygate (as you call it). I'm not sure what your views on it are, but my personal opinion is that the Indian team and officials didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over the matter. IN particular I lost a lot of respect I had for Tendulkar over him changin his story n times during the Harbajhan-Symonds affair; I thought the hounding out of Bucknor (an umpire by that time past his best, but who had been a wonderful servant to the game) was disgraceful; and the threat to go home should Harbajhan have been found guilty was... well there you go. I realise that (apart from the Harbajhan-Symonds incident) the fault lies mostly with the board rather than the players (although a few comments didn't help), but as captain, should Kumble not have done more to stand up to the board? The whole thing was very unsavoury, and I wonder if the captain shouldn't take some of the blame at least.
You mention him being a mentor to Harbajhan, and Harbajhan's bowling going downhill significantly after Kumble left. I agree. I think also because of his willingness to learn he would have made a fantastic coach, and I'm disappointed he chose to sit on a committee rather than do so, but I don't think it is reasonable to hold that against him, and besides, of all the committees you can sit on, he has no doubt chosen the one which has the most direct impact in the game.
I do however still have reservations about his overseas record, or more precisely his record on unhelpful pitches. On a helpful pitch he could be unplayable, but on unhelpful pitches he became not only average, but decidedly poor. Now this is not really his fault, it is a product of how he bowls, and I mentioned when we were judging Underwood that we should stop concerning ourselves with what he didn't do and focus on what he did. However I argued for Underwood based on the fact that he was the very best ever on wet pitches which suited his type of bowling. I am not sure Kumble was - Murali probably did better on similar pitches for example, and I wonder whether O'Reilly wasn't a (much?) better exponent of the "fast leg-spin and googly without much turn" type of bowling.
Your case however makes some excellent points, in particular:
- Kumble's willingness to learn and adapt needs to be reiterated. When discussing Thomson one of the concerns was how when he lost his pace, he couldn't adapt, unlike someone like Pollock. I do think ability to adapt to a changing environment is a key part of the very best of very best cricketers (and perhaps something which Waqar fails at - certainly once his pace went from 90 to 80 mph he was never the same bowler again).
- his fighting spirit also.
Now you have put up some valid concerns.
On the saga in Australia however, I have to disagree. Bucknor and India have some previous, but this is not the place to discuss that. There was a lot of negativity going around that time, obviously the Harbhajan/Simonds issue was the tipping point.
But you have to remember the umpiring in that match was beyond pathetic, the Australians didn't conduct themselves so well on the field, yet, despite all that India could have saved that match and Kumble himself had played his part in that. But then came Clarke and destroied all that. Indian teams previously, would have given up the fight there and then but Kumble kept his cool, his dignity and made the team focus on the job at hand, to play well in the next couple of matches. The team responded, the results are there for everyone to see. Remember it was Kumble who insisted on recalling Virender Sehwag to the squad when Gambhir became unavailable despite his domestic form being patchy and Sehwag played brilliantly in the last couple of matches to provide India with a share of the series.
Lot of the other issues going around at that time were not in his control, but his job of holding the side together was as good as any of his bowling spell.
On his not so good overseas record, I do agree it wasn't the greatest. As you rightly observed, his style of bowling contributed to it a bit, but at same time we have to remember that the batting didn't always provide enough cover, the bowling didn't always have lot of support, and lets not even talk about Indian fielding!. Also remember Kumble was a decent gully catcher.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:40 am
In the Indian condition, I think Kumble's role as the president of an important state association and his roles in the BCCI technical committee and the ICC cricket committee might make more of an impact than had he taken up coaching. Also he just retired from international cricket 4 years ago and played in the IPL for 3 more seasons. Perhaps he'll think of taking up some coaching responsibilities at some point, particularly seeing the sorry state of spin bowling in the country?
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:32 pm
Some interesting candidates here.
I voted yes to both Harvey and Greenidge first time round and am unlikely to change those views unless some compelling argument is brought forth against them.
As for the others Waqar, I think, has a strong case although, as has been pointed out, their are question marks with regard to match fixing. Morris, at first glance, has career stats that are reasonable but not great. However, he had a good record against England, despite being 'Bedser's bunny', and is highly rated, having been chosen by Bradman for his 'Dream Team', the ACB as one of the openers of their team of the 20th century and as one of the shortlisted openers for Richie Benaud's 'Greatest XI' (along with Gordon Greenidge, incidentally), so he has a good case as well.
The one that I have most doubts about, despite msp's eloquent opening argument in his support, is Kumble. To me, he has many of the problems that I initially saw with regard to Gibbs only, possibly, even more so. By that, I mean that he seems to have been an attritional, containing bowler, whose success was more down to longevity than anything else, (although it is possible that I have the wrong impression). Add to that his mediocre record outside of the subcontinent and have my doubts about his credentials. However, as always, I'm willing to listen to argument.
I voted yes to both Harvey and Greenidge first time round and am unlikely to change those views unless some compelling argument is brought forth against them.
As for the others Waqar, I think, has a strong case although, as has been pointed out, their are question marks with regard to match fixing. Morris, at first glance, has career stats that are reasonable but not great. However, he had a good record against England, despite being 'Bedser's bunny', and is highly rated, having been chosen by Bradman for his 'Dream Team', the ACB as one of the openers of their team of the 20th century and as one of the shortlisted openers for Richie Benaud's 'Greatest XI' (along with Gordon Greenidge, incidentally), so he has a good case as well.
The one that I have most doubts about, despite msp's eloquent opening argument in his support, is Kumble. To me, he has many of the problems that I initially saw with regard to Gibbs only, possibly, even more so. By that, I mean that he seems to have been an attritional, containing bowler, whose success was more down to longevity than anything else, (although it is possible that I have the wrong impression). Add to that his mediocre record outside of the subcontinent and have my doubts about his credentials. However, as always, I'm willing to listen to argument.
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:58 pm
While I'm here, I'd like to post a link to this interview with Arthur Morris which contains some nice insights into his career:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2011/01/in_the_company_of_a_legend.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2011/01/in_the_company_of_a_legend.html
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:12 pm
Mad for Chelsea wrote:Mike, my comments about Greenidge not facing his own attack were more along the line that in that case his record should perhaps have been better than it was (for a HoF nominee).
MfC - Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, Derek Underwood, Bob Willis ... all already members of our Hall of Fame and Test bowlers that Cuthbert Gordon Greenidge (ok, Corporal
)came up against and didn't do too badly.Something else, often overlooked - Greenidge was also a very good to excellent slip and took 96 Test catches. For both his batting and catching, I would guess that the West Indian pace quartet weren't too upset that he was on their side.
Posters often bang on about nominees being compared to their peers. I look forward to hearing which Test opening peer was superior to Greenidge. He was readily and publicly acknowleged by his talented and under rated partner Desmond Haynes as being the better batsmen. He was selected (with Conrad Hunte) by a knowledgeable and experienced West Indian cricket panel as an opener for the All Time West Indies Invincibles XI. Greenidge was also classed as one of the top six openers of all time by no less an expert than Richie Benaud.
There's a lot more about him - including a ''must see'' YouTube clip of his 214 not out - on pages 13 to 15 of part one of this thread.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:19 pm
Interesting set of results in the round just finished.
I'm not 100% certain which way I voted when Greenidge and Harvey came up before - but I certainly recall thinking they were both borderline candidates. I could go either way again on them.
There is no doubt that Greenidge had the charisma as a batsman - on his day he was devastating. Set against that is the question of just how often did he fully turn it on... For instance, in only two of his last thirteen test series (covering around 50 test matches) did he average over 50. And both those were against New Zealand. I am open to persuasion but am mindful of the fact that we turned down Gooch, Boycott, Amiss.
I'm not 100% certain which way I voted when Greenidge and Harvey came up before - but I certainly recall thinking they were both borderline candidates. I could go either way again on them.
There is no doubt that Greenidge had the charisma as a batsman - on his day he was devastating. Set against that is the question of just how often did he fully turn it on... For instance, in only two of his last thirteen test series (covering around 50 test matches) did he average over 50. And both those were against New Zealand. I am open to persuasion but am mindful of the fact that we turned down Gooch, Boycott, Amiss.
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:36 pm
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Interesting set of results in the round just finished.
I'm not 100% certain which way I voted when Greenidge and Harvey came up before - but I certainly recall thinking they were both borderline candidates. I could go either way again on them.
There is no doubt that Greenidge had the charisma as a batsman - on his day he was devastating. Set against that is the question of just how often did he fully turn it on... For instance, in only two of his last thirteen test series (covering around 50 test matches) did he average over 50. And both those were against New Zealand. I am open to persuasion but am mindful of the fact that we turned down Gooch, Boycott, Amiss.
Corporal - Greenidge was required as a role model by the West Indies' selectors and was persuaded to stay too long. His last Test was on his fortieth birthday. Generally, his later Tests were less successful (hence my oft repeated bloomin' obvious comment that if judging greatness by Test average a lot will depend on whether the player was ditched early or late by the selectors or chose himself to walk away - cf Cowdrey and May) although he did score a double ton in, I think, his penultimate Test. Further details supplied first time round (details in my post above).
Btw, when did we turn down Amiss?
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:39 pm
Hoggy - you mean playing for Surrey at the Oval?Hoggy_Bear wrote:
The one that I have most doubts about, despite msp's eloquent opening argument in his support, is Kumble ... Add to that his mediocre record outside of the subcontinent ...
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:51 pm
guildfordbat wrote:Mad for Chelsea wrote:Mike, my comments about Greenidge not facing his own attack were more along the line that in that case his record should perhaps have been better than it was (for a HoF nominee).
MfC - Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, Derek Underwood, Bob Willis ... all already members of our Hall of Fame and Test bowlers that Cuthbert Gordon Greenidge (ok, Corporal
Something else, often overlooked - Greenidge was also a very good to excellent slip and took 96 Test catches. For both his batting and catching, I would guess that the West Indian pace quartet weren't too upset that he was on their side.
Posters often bang on about nominees being compared to their peers. I look forward to hearing which Test opening peer was superior to Greenidge. He was readily and publicly acknowleged by his talented and under rated partner Desmond Haynes as being the better batsmen. He was selected (with Conrad Hunte) by a knowledgeable and experienced West Indian cricket panel as an opener for the All Time West Indies Invincibles XI. Greenidge was also classed as one of the top six openers of all time by no less an expert than Richie Benaud.
There's a lot more about him - including a ''must see'' YouTube clip of his 214 not out - on pages 13 to 15 of part one of this thread.
am I allowed Barry Richards?
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:54 pm
guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - you mean playing for Surrey at the Oval?Hoggy_Bear wrote:
The one that I have most doubts about, despite msp's eloquent opening argument in his support, is Kumble ... Add to that his mediocre record outside of the subcontinent ...
Not a raging success then Guildford?
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Sponsored content
Page 7 of 20 • 1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13 ... 20
Similar topics» The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3
» 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3
» 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Cricket :: 606v2 Honours Board
Page 7 of 20
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum