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 13 of 20
Page 13 of 20 • 
1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 16 ... 20
The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:34 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 4:50 pm; 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 Corporalhumblebucket Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:01 pm
Hoggy - having had a quick google, I think you may have a point there. Can certainly see him no lower than second place in my list!
Last edited by Corporalhumblebucket on Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 Jan 19, 2013 6:04 pm
Corporal - I suspect you will need to call in quite a few favours to get enough votes for Solly from even the Surrey boys! 
Yes, a fine post from Kwini about Graveney. I do suspect the bar was generally higher when Long Tom was considered.
As regards overcoming adversity - or, at least deformity - don't forget Sobers who was born with an extra finger on each hand .... [keep watching] ....
Yes, a fine post from Kwini about Graveney. I do suspect the bar was generally higher when Long Tom was considered.
As regards overcoming adversity - or, at least deformity - don't forget Sobers who was born with an extra finger on each hand .... [keep watching] ....
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:26 pm
Right.
As, so I believe, the deadline for this group is tommorow at 9, I going to vote yes for all of them (Again. I'm getting too generous )
Kanhai was one of the top batsmen of the 60s and someone highly rated by friend and foe alike. Also a legendary Bear.
Crowe is, probably, the best batsman his country has produced, had a very good record acheived against very good opponents under intense pressure, and was also an innovative captain. (By the way, has anyone mentioned his ODI record which, while not great, is pretty good?)
Armstrong was very good at test level, exceptional at FC level, a great captain and one of the biggest figures (in more ways than one) in Aussie cricket before WWII.
Pataudi overcame adversity (something I'm a bit of a sucker for), to forge for himself a pretty decent test career. Add to that his status as a captain and his role in unifying Indian cricket and he's a worthy member of our HoF IMO.
Larwood is legend of the game because of his role in the 'Bodyline' series, but his record at test level besides that series is pretty ordinary. However, his great FC record and the praise heaped on him by both teamates and opponents suggests that those figures, perhaps, don't tell the whole story. While I still find it difficult to accept that he was quite as good as is often suggested (ie. one of the best fast bowlers ever), I'm willing to believe that he was a very good bowler who faced the twin difficulties of great batting pitches and superb batsmen on them. A very good bowler and a legend of the game gets in for me, but it hasn't been a straightforward decision.
As, so I believe, the deadline for this group is tommorow at 9, I going to vote yes for all of them (Again. I'm getting too generous
)Kanhai was one of the top batsmen of the 60s and someone highly rated by friend and foe alike. Also a legendary Bear.
Crowe is, probably, the best batsman his country has produced, had a very good record acheived against very good opponents under intense pressure, and was also an innovative captain. (By the way, has anyone mentioned his ODI record which, while not great, is pretty good?)
Armstrong was very good at test level, exceptional at FC level, a great captain and one of the biggest figures (in more ways than one) in Aussie cricket before WWII.
Pataudi overcame adversity (something I'm a bit of a sucker for), to forge for himself a pretty decent test career. Add to that his status as a captain and his role in unifying Indian cricket and he's a worthy member of our HoF IMO.
Larwood is legend of the game because of his role in the 'Bodyline' series, but his record at test level besides that series is pretty ordinary. However, his great FC record and the praise heaped on him by both teamates and opponents suggests that those figures, perhaps, don't tell the whole story. While I still find it difficult to accept that he was quite as good as is often suggested (ie. one of the best fast bowlers ever), I'm willing to believe that he was a very good bowler who faced the twin difficulties of great batting pitches and superb batsmen on them. A very good bowler and a legend of the game gets in for me, but it hasn't been a straightforward decision.
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 Jan 19, 2013 9:04 pm
I'm only completely confident on one candidate:
Kanhai - YES
Reluctantly I have decided:
Pataudi - NO. A good case was made - and I am in awe of his very reasonable batting with only one eye. But I feel his case is perhaps a touch too dependent on the aura that surrounds a dashing Nawab!
I have reached the view that:
Crowe - YES - just scrapes in. By some margin the strongest NZ batsman ought I think to count for something.
Larwood - YES - just. His iconic status just tips a marginal candidate the right side of the line.
Warwick Armstrong - Still undecided. I don't particularly warm to the man...
Kanhai - YES
Reluctantly I have decided:
Pataudi - NO. A good case was made - and I am in awe of his very reasonable batting with only one eye. But I feel his case is perhaps a touch too dependent on the aura that surrounds a dashing Nawab!
I have reached the view that:
Crowe - YES - just scrapes in. By some margin the strongest NZ batsman ought I think to count for something.
Larwood - YES - just. His iconic status just tips a marginal candidate the right side of the line.
Warwick Armstrong - Still undecided. I don't particularly warm to the man...
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 Jan 19, 2013 9:32 pm
A nice little article that might help you warm to him a bit Corporal:
"A bizarre cricket match took place on the Mentone Reserve on Thursday 2 February 1921. A giant of a man, both in reputation and physical size, competed against a group of young boys ranging in age from six to fifteen. Warwick Armstrong, the man involved, was Australia’s Test Cricket captain and seen by some to be the best all round cricketer Australia had ever produced up to that time, and perhaps beyond, yet he was prepared to play cricket with boys some of whom were barely taller than a cricket bat.
Warwick Armstrong, while visiting the home of John Fogarty in Naples Road Mentone received a challenge from two young boys to a game of cricket. He accepted and agreed to play them at a date to be fixed. This gave Fogarty, the president of Victoria’s Wine and Spirits Association, and local resident, time to assemble a team to oppose this cricketing hero. Fifty boys ranging in age from six to fifteen from the recently established Mentone Boys’ Grammar School attended practice matches over a period of a fortnight and from that number eighteen were selected. Two boys were assigned to the Armstrong ‘team’; Bill Tootell was eight years old and his younger brother, Tom, six.
On the day of the match at the Mentone Reserve there were five hundred present including parents of the boys, friends and admirers of Armstrong. The teams assembled and Armstrong tossed his famous American dollar, used successfully in three Test Matches. Billy Godby, the smallest boy in the team, was invited to call. A spectator in the crowd advised Billy to check the coin to see if it had two tails. Cautiously Billy did so, to the delight of the crowd, but he lost the call. Armstrong with his win invited the opposition to bat.
Armstrong did all the bowling, and commensurate with the nature of the opposition, he confined himself to slow breaks and googlies as fast or medium paced deliveries on a concrete and matting wicket had the potential to cause serious injury. With only his two small fielders for assistance his gentle bowling suffered. He gained sixteen wickets for one hundred and forty four runs.
After the refreshment adjournment Armstrong sent in his two young supporters to face the bowling of Billy Godby. It was after the second ball which dismissed one of the Tootell boys that Armstrong walked to the wicket to the excitement of the crowd and a ‘hearty welcome’ by the fieldsmen. A Herald reporter wrote that the crowd expected Armstrong would behave like a perfect gentlemen knocking up a brilliant 144 and then gallantly throwing away his stand to give Mentone a victory by one run. This was not what happened.
Armstrong opened up cautiously driving balls through spaces not monopolised by the eighteen fieldsmen. His first score was a single followed by three smartly struck balls to the boundary. On a score of thirteen, to the excitement and joy of the cricketers and perhaps the disappointment of the spectators who wanted to see more of the great man in action, eleven year old Godby delivered a good length ball which caught Armstrong’s leg stump. On returning to the pavilion Armstrong explained he was going for a single at the end of the over but the ball was a good one and got him. ‘It’s a long time since any man bowled me for so small a score,’ he said. Unstinting in his praise of Godby, Armstrong presented him with a ball as a souvenir, one that was used in a Test Match played at Nottingham. ‘Keep it boy, to remind you of the day you got me cheap.’ With the three runs scored by the Tootell boys the Armstrong team scored a total of 16 runs. At the conclusion of the match the boys presented Armstrong with a pipe. On receiving the gift he said, ‘Thank you boys. I’ll never forget you, or the happy time we have had together today.’ His departure was accompanied by three cheers from the boys and the crowd."
Tugs at the heartstrings, don't it?
"A bizarre cricket match took place on the Mentone Reserve on Thursday 2 February 1921. A giant of a man, both in reputation and physical size, competed against a group of young boys ranging in age from six to fifteen. Warwick Armstrong, the man involved, was Australia’s Test Cricket captain and seen by some to be the best all round cricketer Australia had ever produced up to that time, and perhaps beyond, yet he was prepared to play cricket with boys some of whom were barely taller than a cricket bat.
Warwick Armstrong, while visiting the home of John Fogarty in Naples Road Mentone received a challenge from two young boys to a game of cricket. He accepted and agreed to play them at a date to be fixed. This gave Fogarty, the president of Victoria’s Wine and Spirits Association, and local resident, time to assemble a team to oppose this cricketing hero. Fifty boys ranging in age from six to fifteen from the recently established Mentone Boys’ Grammar School attended practice matches over a period of a fortnight and from that number eighteen were selected. Two boys were assigned to the Armstrong ‘team’; Bill Tootell was eight years old and his younger brother, Tom, six.
On the day of the match at the Mentone Reserve there were five hundred present including parents of the boys, friends and admirers of Armstrong. The teams assembled and Armstrong tossed his famous American dollar, used successfully in three Test Matches. Billy Godby, the smallest boy in the team, was invited to call. A spectator in the crowd advised Billy to check the coin to see if it had two tails. Cautiously Billy did so, to the delight of the crowd, but he lost the call. Armstrong with his win invited the opposition to bat.
Armstrong did all the bowling, and commensurate with the nature of the opposition, he confined himself to slow breaks and googlies as fast or medium paced deliveries on a concrete and matting wicket had the potential to cause serious injury. With only his two small fielders for assistance his gentle bowling suffered. He gained sixteen wickets for one hundred and forty four runs.
After the refreshment adjournment Armstrong sent in his two young supporters to face the bowling of Billy Godby. It was after the second ball which dismissed one of the Tootell boys that Armstrong walked to the wicket to the excitement of the crowd and a ‘hearty welcome’ by the fieldsmen. A Herald reporter wrote that the crowd expected Armstrong would behave like a perfect gentlemen knocking up a brilliant 144 and then gallantly throwing away his stand to give Mentone a victory by one run. This was not what happened.
Armstrong opened up cautiously driving balls through spaces not monopolised by the eighteen fieldsmen. His first score was a single followed by three smartly struck balls to the boundary. On a score of thirteen, to the excitement and joy of the cricketers and perhaps the disappointment of the spectators who wanted to see more of the great man in action, eleven year old Godby delivered a good length ball which caught Armstrong’s leg stump. On returning to the pavilion Armstrong explained he was going for a single at the end of the over but the ball was a good one and got him. ‘It’s a long time since any man bowled me for so small a score,’ he said. Unstinting in his praise of Godby, Armstrong presented him with a ball as a souvenir, one that was used in a Test Match played at Nottingham. ‘Keep it boy, to remind you of the day you got me cheap.’ With the three runs scored by the Tootell boys the Armstrong team scored a total of 16 runs. At the conclusion of the match the boys presented Armstrong with a pipe. On receiving the gift he said, ‘Thank you boys. I’ll never forget you, or the happy time we have had together today.’ His departure was accompanied by three cheers from the boys and the crowd."
Tugs at the heartstrings, don't it?
Last edited by Hoggy_Bear on Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 Jan 19, 2013 9:42 pm
Hoggy_Bear wrote:A nice little article that might help you warm to him a bit Corporal:
"A bizarre cricket match took place on the Mentone Reserve on Thursday 2 February 1921.....
Armstrong did all the bowling....
Hoggy - thanks! Looks as tho' he made a bit of a habit of doing all the bowling. The Wisden obit reports of one test match: "The umpires, also at fault of course, were so muddled that when, after twenty minutes delay, play was resumed, Armstrong himself was allowed to commit an error by bowling the next over -- two in succession."
The Wisden obit also observes: "Of colossal build at 42, Armstrong then weighed about 22 stone and bore himself in a way likely to cause offence,". Not sure what that is referring to. Any thoughts?
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 Jan 19, 2013 9:59 pm
That last quote probably refers to the fact that on that 1921 tour, he was unwilling to compromise his own views in order to make things easy for himself and was confrontational rather than diplomatic in some of his dealings, especially with authority (something he was probably guilty of throughout his career).
It has been said that Armstrong was a bit of a bully who unleashed a bumper barrage on English cricketers still suffering the effects of the war, but I think he was, rather, a professional captain who used the weapons available to him to the best of his ability, and did his best (although, possibly in quite a brusque manner) for his team in terms of insisting on certain playing conditions and the correct application of the Laws.
It has been said that Armstrong was a bit of a bully who unleashed a bumper barrage on English cricketers still suffering the effects of the war, but I think he was, rather, a professional captain who used the weapons available to him to the best of his ability, and did his best (although, possibly in quite a brusque manner) for his team in terms of insisting on certain playing conditions and the correct application of the Laws.
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 Jan 19, 2013 10:06 pm
Sorry I haven't contributed much today (or to this debate really) - quite a lot of uni work.
Some people have probably forgotten that the deadline was tomorrow at 9am, so I'll give it until tomorrow evening (say, 7pm) given the lack of votes so far.
My votes:
The toughest group as an entire set for some time.
Kanhai - YES. I think first time round some of us (me included) might not have quite appreciated that he came before almost all of the other great West Indians. Does comfortably enough to get in this time.
Larwood - NO. Although the arguments for his inclusion were again convincing, I can't look past the fact that if we consider Bodyline immoral (as I do), the rest of his Test figures don't stand up.
Armstrong - YES. Looks like he was an exceptional all-rounder, as well as being a good captain. If he was English I reckon he'd have sailed in...
Pataudi - A reluctant NO. Very much like Titmus, I can appreciate that he was a strong character. He gets closer to entry than Fred (for me) as he did do a lot for his country. Ultimately, however, the bar for entry should remain higher than him in my view.
Crowe - YES, as New Zealand's greatest batsman. Not so much because of Cricket Max, which in my view did nothing to bring about the professional manifestation of T20 - a format played on village greens for decades previously.
Some people have probably forgotten that the deadline was tomorrow at 9am, so I'll give it until tomorrow evening (say, 7pm) given the lack of votes so far.
My votes:
The toughest group as an entire set for some time.
Kanhai - YES. I think first time round some of us (me included) might not have quite appreciated that he came before almost all of the other great West Indians. Does comfortably enough to get in this time.
Larwood - NO. Although the arguments for his inclusion were again convincing, I can't look past the fact that if we consider Bodyline immoral (as I do), the rest of his Test figures don't stand up.
Armstrong - YES. Looks like he was an exceptional all-rounder, as well as being a good captain. If he was English I reckon he'd have sailed in...
Pataudi - A reluctant NO. Very much like Titmus, I can appreciate that he was a strong character. He gets closer to entry than Fred (for me) as he did do a lot for his country. Ultimately, however, the bar for entry should remain higher than him in my view.
Crowe - YES, as New Zealand's greatest batsman. Not so much because of Cricket Max, which in my view did nothing to bring about the professional manifestation of T20 - a format played on village greens for decades previously.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:18 pm
As Churchy (Mark Church, Surrey cricket commentator on Radio London) would say: ''A match within a match'' as Hoggy tries to win the Corporal's vote for Armstrong. Hoggy attempting to lull the Corporal into a false sense of security and out of his crease for a stumping with tales of kind old Uncle Warwick playing kiddy cricket. The Corporal meanwhile suspicious as to what might be afoot and digging in. All still to play for ....
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:19 pm
Shelsey - very apt, in view of the cricket info profile:Shelsey93 wrote:Armstrong - YES. Looks like he was an exceptional all-rounder, as well as being a good captain. If he was English I reckon he'd have sailed in...
"Warwick Windridge Armstrong was a huge figure in Australian cricket, both literally and metaphorically. Known as the "Big Ship" on account of his sheer physical size"
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 Corporalhumblebucket Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:23 pm
guildfordbat wrote:As Churchy (Mark Church, Surrey cricket commentator on Radio London) would say: ''A match within a match'' as Hoggy tries to win the Corporal's vote for Armstrong. Hoggy attempting to lull the Corporal into a false sense of security and out of his crease for a stumping with tales of kind old Uncle Warwick playing kiddy cricket. The Corporal meanwhile suspicious as to what might be afoot and digging in. All still to play for ....
Which reminds me that, unless I have missed it, we haven't had the Cuthert Gordon Greenidge technique deployed yet!
I nearly mistook the name for Warwick Windrush Armstrong!
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 Shelsey93 Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:29 pm
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Shelsey - very apt, in view of the cricket info profile:Shelsey93 wrote:Armstrong - YES. Looks like he was an exceptional all-rounder, as well as being a good captain. If he was English I reckon he'd have sailed in...
"Warwick Windridge Armstrong was a huge figure in Australian cricket, both literally and metaphorically. Known as the "Big Ship" on account of his sheer physical size"
Haha. At this point I should say I meant it...
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:32 pm
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:guildfordbat wrote:As Churchy (Mark Church, Surrey cricket commentator on Radio London) would say: ''A match within a match'' as Hoggy tries to win the Corporal's vote for Armstrong. Hoggy attempting to lull the Corporal into a false sense of security and out of his crease for a stumping with tales of kind old Uncle Warwick playing kiddy cricket. The Corporal meanwhile suspicious as to what might be afoot and digging in. All still to play for ....
Which reminds me that, unless I have missed it, we haven't had the Cuthert Gordon Greenidge technique deployed yet!
Corporal -
Hoggy is a canny player. I'm sure that's still in the locker waiting to be used. Meanwhile, keep your back foot behind the line .... 
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:16 am
I think I've heard enough arguments to get on with voting.
I stand by my YES votes to both Kanhai and Larwood (easy for Kanhai and slightly harder for larwood). I don't think any serious new issues have come up since then. Both were great players in their own right, and have had a lasting impact on the game. In Larwood's case I have judged that this overshadows any negatives.
Armstrong gets an easy YES as well - amongst the top all-rounders of his time, some great achievements as captain, and a tremendous character. Truly bizarre that he isn't in the ICC HoF.
Crowe gets a more marginal, but nevertheless confident YES. I view him as amongst the top 3 players of fast bowling of his time, a tremendous batsman who carried New Zealand for long stretches. Add to that some truly inventive captaincy, and a pioneer for T20, which for all its alleged faults I find a brilliant and interesting game to watch, coach and occasionally play, no harder or easier than test cricket but simply different challenges - Richie Benaud is a big fan incidentily (read his latest autobiography).
Pataudi is a reluctant NO. Whilst I won't exclude anybody purely based on their playing records, for players who don't at least reach the "excellent" standard, there has to be a very strong case based on their impact. Titmus wouldn't have made my cut had I voted on him. Jayasuriya did based mainly on his impact on how ODI cricket (and ultimately test cricket at the top of the order) was played (even allowing for the fact that his record is considerably better than Pataudi's). I'm afraid I'm not convinced Pataudi's impact is big enough to get him into such exclusive company.
I stand by my YES votes to both Kanhai and Larwood (easy for Kanhai and slightly harder for larwood). I don't think any serious new issues have come up since then. Both were great players in their own right, and have had a lasting impact on the game. In Larwood's case I have judged that this overshadows any negatives.
Armstrong gets an easy YES as well - amongst the top all-rounders of his time, some great achievements as captain, and a tremendous character. Truly bizarre that he isn't in the ICC HoF.
Crowe gets a more marginal, but nevertheless confident YES. I view him as amongst the top 3 players of fast bowling of his time, a tremendous batsman who carried New Zealand for long stretches. Add to that some truly inventive captaincy, and a pioneer for T20, which for all its alleged faults I find a brilliant and interesting game to watch, coach and occasionally play, no harder or easier than test cricket but simply different challenges - Richie Benaud is a big fan incidentily (read his latest autobiography).
Pataudi is a reluctant NO. Whilst I won't exclude anybody purely based on their playing records, for players who don't at least reach the "excellent" standard, there has to be a very strong case based on their impact. Titmus wouldn't have made my cut had I voted on him. Jayasuriya did based mainly on his impact on how ODI cricket (and ultimately test cricket at the top of the order) was played (even allowing for the fact that his record is considerably better than Pataudi's). I'm afraid I'm not convinced Pataudi's impact is big enough to get him into such exclusive company.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by alfie Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:03 am
Right then...voting officially
Kanhai. YES. Didn't get in first time around , largely I imagine because he was somewhat overshadowed fore and aft by the three W s and the great Sobers , but a pretty clear choice this time.
Larwood. YES. As I wrote on the previous page.
Crowe. YES. Also as per post above.
Armstrong. YES . Perhaps less enthusiastically , probably due to - like the Corporal - some doubts about his personality. Reading the newspaper on the field may have seemed funny to him but it does sound like a lack of respect for his opponents...but I wasn't there so can't really judge the real circumstances. Indeed we can't really judge him too well as a character at this distance in time , though he sounds like a pretty tough customer...which is hardly unique among Australian captains , nor is it necessarily to his detriment. Like the story of the kids game at Mentone
Ultimately his record , as player and captain , says enough for him .
Pataudi. ... (regretful) NO. An admirable fellow , much to commend him , but I feel his record falls a little short of what we need. Had he had the use of two eyes , who knows what he'd have done ? But looking at his career as it actually happened I can't quite justify a yes.
Kanhai. YES. Didn't get in first time around , largely I imagine because he was somewhat overshadowed fore and aft by the three W s and the great Sobers , but a pretty clear choice this time.
Larwood. YES. As I wrote on the previous page.
Crowe. YES. Also as per post above.
Armstrong. YES . Perhaps less enthusiastically , probably due to - like the Corporal - some doubts about his personality. Reading the newspaper on the field may have seemed funny to him but it does sound like a lack of respect for his opponents...but I wasn't there so can't really judge the real circumstances. Indeed we can't really judge him too well as a character at this distance in time , though he sounds like a pretty tough customer...which is hardly unique among Australian captains , nor is it necessarily to his detriment. Like the story of the kids game at Mentone
Ultimately his record , as player and captain , says enough for him .
Pataudi. ... (regretful) NO. An admirable fellow , much to commend him , but I feel his record falls a little short of what we need. Had he had the use of two eyes , who knows what he'd have done ? But looking at his career as it actually happened I can't quite justify a yes.
alfie- Posts : 21909
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:20 am
Well before voting, a quick word on Pataudi's spin strategy. India did have spinners of high quality like Vinu Mankad and not many seamers of quality.
What Pataudy did different was not to look for what is not there and instead focus on making the best use of available resources. He never went looking for seamers just to make the combination look good. Spin was India's strength, and he backed his emerging spinners, remember Bedi, Venkat, Prasanna and Chandra were just emerging. Pataudi realized if spin has to be used as an attacking option throughout, fielding, particularly close in fielding has to be strong. He particularly set out to provide his spinners with a ring of quality close in fielders. The overall emphasis on fielding during his time was something quite commendable, and although he had sight in only one eye, he led from the very front in this department. Eknath Solkar was the greatest close in fielder in the world, Ajit Wadekar too was pretty sharp. And Pataudi was there at cover, preventing many a boundary and many a single, fielding like a real tiger.
What Pataudy did different was not to look for what is not there and instead focus on making the best use of available resources. He never went looking for seamers just to make the combination look good. Spin was India's strength, and he backed his emerging spinners, remember Bedi, Venkat, Prasanna and Chandra were just emerging. Pataudi realized if spin has to be used as an attacking option throughout, fielding, particularly close in fielding has to be strong. He particularly set out to provide his spinners with a ring of quality close in fielders. The overall emphasis on fielding during his time was something quite commendable, and although he had sight in only one eye, he led from the very front in this department. Eknath Solkar was the greatest close in fielder in the world, Ajit Wadekar too was pretty sharp. And Pataudi was there at cover, preventing many a boundary and many a single, fielding like a real tiger.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:34 am
Votes.
Rohan Kanhai yes. He had a long test career, He was only 2nd to Sobers as far as West Indies batsmanship in the 1960s is concerned. He was a fabulous entertainer as a batsman, but could always play the situational game. Not a bad captain, and a man who is rated the best coach by none other than King Brian Charles.
Harold Larwood no. The hardest decition for me in this set. The way he was mistreated by the English cricket administrators almost prompted a yes, but I am not sure the bodyline series has its legendary status for the right reasons, and outside it, Larwood's record in test matches doesn't suggest a great fast bowler.
Nawab of Pataudi yes. His playing record, rightly is a matter of concern, and in no player's case can we completely look pass that altogether. But I believe there is a case for Pataudi when we consider the overall package.
Armstrong yes. Good all-round test record, brilliant first class record. A real character on the cricket field, and one of the first to understand players have some rights.
Martin Crowe yes. Among the very best if not the best batsman his country produced. During his playing days, he ment to NZ batting what Richard Hadlee ment to their bowling. Has a very good record. Was among the most innovative modern captains.
Rohan Kanhai yes. He had a long test career, He was only 2nd to Sobers as far as West Indies batsmanship in the 1960s is concerned. He was a fabulous entertainer as a batsman, but could always play the situational game. Not a bad captain, and a man who is rated the best coach by none other than King Brian Charles.
Harold Larwood no. The hardest decition for me in this set. The way he was mistreated by the English cricket administrators almost prompted a yes, but I am not sure the bodyline series has its legendary status for the right reasons, and outside it, Larwood's record in test matches doesn't suggest a great fast bowler.
Nawab of Pataudi yes. His playing record, rightly is a matter of concern, and in no player's case can we completely look pass that altogether. But I believe there is a case for Pataudi when we consider the overall package.
Armstrong yes. Good all-round test record, brilliant first class record. A real character on the cricket field, and one of the first to understand players have some rights.
Martin Crowe yes. Among the very best if not the best batsman his country produced. During his playing days, he ment to NZ batting what Richard Hadlee ment to their bowling. Has a very good record. Was among the most innovative modern captains.
msp83- Posts : 16222
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:45 pm
Trueman used to say that if Yorkshire needed a new fast bowler they'd just call down the pit.
Nottinghamshire very similar really and Harold's late father made sure his son answered the call.
So, think I'll vote:
Kanhai Yes!
Larwood Yes!
Armstrong No! Very close there, but one has to be sure.
Pataudi No! Not in the top 300 on record, msp's testimony on value to Indian Cricket very impressive, but not recognised at the time and one just feels there are more deserving candidates not yet considered.
Crowe No! Not convinced he was the best New Zealand bat, probably deserving of repecharge reflection. Certainly many stronger applicants not yet in the v2 Hall.
Nottinghamshire very similar really and Harold's late father made sure his son answered the call.
So, think I'll vote:
Kanhai Yes!
Larwood Yes!
Armstrong No! Very close there, but one has to be sure.
Pataudi No! Not in the top 300 on record, msp's testimony on value to Indian Cricket very impressive, but not recognised at the time and one just feels there are more deserving candidates not yet considered.
Crowe No! Not convinced he was the best New Zealand bat, probably deserving of repecharge reflection. Certainly many stronger applicants not yet in the v2 Hall.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:00 pm
kwinigolfer wrote:Crowe No! Not convinced he was the best New Zealand bat, probably deserving of repecharge reflection. Certainly many stronger applicants not yet in the v2 Hall.
Who would you think were stronger candidates Kwini, Verity, Mead?
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 kwinigolfer Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:08 pm
Neither Hoggy,
Both might have exceptional attributes, but Hall Of Fame worthy? No, don't think so for one moment.
But Boycott, Graveney, Woolley, Gooch certainly have what I would consider unimpeachable credentials and Glenn Turner runs Crowe very close in New Zealand Test record, far exceeds him in overall credentials.
Both might have exceptional attributes, but Hall Of Fame worthy? No, don't think so for one moment.
But Boycott, Graveney, Woolley, Gooch certainly have what I would consider unimpeachable credentials and Glenn Turner runs Crowe very close in New Zealand Test record, far exceeds him in overall credentials.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:20 pm
I suspect there may have been some wobbliness in our collective standards over time. I would have thought Graveney was probably at least as good a candidate as Crowe....
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:55 pm
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I suspect there may have been some wobbliness in our collective standards over time. I would have thought Graveney was probably at least as good a candidate as Crowe....
Not sure about that myself, but if we all agreed on everything there'd be no debate
Must admit though, that while I'm sort of clear on the criteria I'm looking for, I couldn't swear that I've applied them consistently throughout this whole process.
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 Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:15 pm
Evening all. Just checking in from a train station in Devon.
My votes are
Crowe - yes. For me, NZs best batsman, and a comfortably world class one in the middle 7 years of his career
Armstrong yes, well up the ranks of Aussie all rounders
Kanhai yes, simple call
Larwood - I was a solid yes on him a couple of weeks ago, but the debate gave me some doubts about his overall record. On that alone I would say no, however I'm willing to grant credit to his status as the original demon fast bowler so a tentative yes
Pataudi- another I struggled with. Overall record would be a no, but he does have his team building and overcoming adversity credit. After glancing through the votes im going to vote yes, as I think he's at least worthy of a reperchaege for more debate.
My votes are
Crowe - yes. For me, NZs best batsman, and a comfortably world class one in the middle 7 years of his career
Armstrong yes, well up the ranks of Aussie all rounders
Kanhai yes, simple call
Larwood - I was a solid yes on him a couple of weeks ago, but the debate gave me some doubts about his overall record. On that alone I would say no, however I'm willing to grant credit to his status as the original demon fast bowler so a tentative yes
Pataudi- another I struggled with. Overall record would be a no, but he does have his team building and overcoming adversity credit. After glancing through the votes im going to vote yes, as I think he's at least worthy of a reperchaege for more debate.
Last edited by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) on Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:13 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Stupid autocorrect)
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 Corporalhumblebucket Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:22 pm
I will just edge into the YES camp for Armstrong. Marginal decision but he has good credentials as an all rounder. And I suppose I ought to give due weight to his larger than life character in the history of the game.
So that completes the voting from the jury in the snowed in barracks....
Made Hoggy sweat a bit there...
to his larger than life character in the history of the game.So that completes the voting from the jury in the snowed in barracks....
Made Hoggy sweat a bit there...
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:38 pm
Never doubted the outcome for a minute Corporal 
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:42 pm
My votes.
Rohan Kanhai - I did my best to state his case last time and am grateful to Mike for highlighting the key points this time round. Whilst little extra appears to have been added, there seems an increasing view on this thread that he was in fact a West Indian (and yes, Hoggy, a Warks' one as well ) great and I am appreciative of that. A line of the very best of West Indian batting from the Three Ws to Lara would be incomplete without Kanhai and the same applies to our Hall of Fame. YES.
Harold Larwood - I stand fully behind earlier comments from myself and others in support of Larwood. Nothing for me has changed although I did appreciate the additional quotations dug up and supplied by Hoggy. YES.
Martin Crowe- quite early in the process, Shelsey commented that Crowe ''needed a push'' and I agreed with that at the time. For me, he got several helpful nudges but never a big enough shove. As a batsman and even with allowances (starting too soon, going on too long, ordinary playing colleagues alongside him), he comes up a tiny bit short for me. Perhaps innovative as a Test captain but without ever really putting butter on the parsnips. Only 2 wins out of 16 and one of those was against Zimbabwe. Unlike Hanif when captaining Pakistan, he didn't produce enough herculean efforts to turn likely defeats into draws. I accept this is possibly harsh but I still feel that there are better others not in our HoF. NO.
Warwick Armstrong - as ever, an eloquent and entertaining case presented by Hoggy. However, like the Corporal, I can't really warm to the man. As Alfie comments, it's near impossible to judge from this distance but some of his actions do appear disrespectful. Not only to opponents but also to paying spectators whose importance is so important to me - particularly, thinking of him keeping Frank Woolley and the crowd waiting fifteen minutes whilst he chucked down practice deliveries. I certainly applaud his career longevity. I also acknowledge his overall playing record as being very good although I don't consider it to be quite at the height as some others here do. Again possibly harsh but I can't get rid of the feeling that there's not quite enough. NO.
'Tiger' Pataudi - a case made with belief and passion by msp. The determination displayed by Pataudi in striving to overcome his physical disability deserves the greatest respect. I also particularly applaud the improvements to India's fielding that he brought about and the way in which he led that from the front. However, against that are ordinary personal playing stats and, even with improvements being made, a far from spectacular Test captaincy record. Whilst they both suffered disability, I don't consider the comparison with Titmus (introduced by msp) to be particularly appropriate. Whilst Pataudi has other virtues, there is comparatively little of the longevity and downright quirkiness that was so much of the case for Titmus. Msp's comparison with Hanif is far more fitting. However, unlike Hanif but as per my comments about Crowe, I don't see enough evidence of herculean efforts from Pataudi to rescue India from the jaws of defeat. All in all, there are too many negatives and doubts to make the case compelling. NO.
As a footnote, I would emphasise that the three I've declined should all be certainties for their own country's Hall of Fame.
Rohan Kanhai - I did my best to state his case last time and am grateful to Mike for highlighting the key points this time round. Whilst little extra appears to have been added, there seems an increasing view on this thread that he was in fact a West Indian (and yes, Hoggy, a Warks' one as well
) great and I am appreciative of that. A line of the very best of West Indian batting from the Three Ws to Lara would be incomplete without Kanhai and the same applies to our Hall of Fame. YES.Harold Larwood - I stand fully behind earlier comments from myself and others in support of Larwood. Nothing for me has changed although I did appreciate the additional quotations dug up and supplied by Hoggy. YES.
Martin Crowe- quite early in the process, Shelsey commented that Crowe ''needed a push'' and I agreed with that at the time. For me, he got several helpful nudges but never a big enough shove. As a batsman and even with allowances (starting too soon, going on too long, ordinary playing colleagues alongside him), he comes up a tiny bit short for me. Perhaps innovative as a Test captain but without ever really putting butter on the parsnips. Only 2 wins out of 16 and one of those was against Zimbabwe. Unlike Hanif when captaining Pakistan, he didn't produce enough herculean efforts to turn likely defeats into draws. I accept this is possibly harsh but I still feel that there are better others not in our HoF. NO.
Warwick Armstrong - as ever, an eloquent and entertaining case presented by Hoggy. However, like the Corporal, I can't really warm to the man. As Alfie comments, it's near impossible to judge from this distance but some of his actions do appear disrespectful. Not only to opponents but also to paying spectators whose importance is so important to me - particularly, thinking of him keeping Frank Woolley and the crowd waiting fifteen minutes whilst he chucked down practice deliveries. I certainly applaud his career longevity. I also acknowledge his overall playing record as being very good although I don't consider it to be quite at the height as some others here do. Again possibly harsh but I can't get rid of the feeling that there's not quite enough. NO.
'Tiger' Pataudi - a case made with belief and passion by msp. The determination displayed by Pataudi in striving to overcome his physical disability deserves the greatest respect. I also particularly applaud the improvements to India's fielding that he brought about and the way in which he led that from the front. However, against that are ordinary personal playing stats and, even with improvements being made, a far from spectacular Test captaincy record. Whilst they both suffered disability, I don't consider the comparison with Titmus (introduced by msp) to be particularly appropriate. Whilst Pataudi has other virtues, there is comparatively little of the longevity and downright quirkiness that was so much of the case for Titmus. Msp's comparison with Hanif is far more fitting. However, unlike Hanif but as per my comments about Crowe, I don't see enough evidence of herculean efforts from Pataudi to rescue India from the jaws of defeat. All in all, there are too many negatives and doubts to make the case compelling. NO.
As a footnote, I would emphasise that the three I've declined should all be certainties for their own country's Hall of Fame.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:20 pm
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I suspect there may have been some wobbliness in our collective standards over time. I would have thought Graveney was probably at least as good a candidate as Crowe....
As I said in my earlier reply to guildford, I believe Crowe as a test batsman at least was a notch above the likes of Graveney. Gooch and Boycott were turned down in my case for extra-curricular activities you could say.
The point is a more general one though. I am not sure you can (or even should) achieve consistency when going through a process like this. Whilst accepting that certain factors create case precedent, I personally try to judge each case on its merits and not be bound by previous decisions.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:01 pm
Ha!
Maybe Mead and Verity have a chance then!!
Maybe Mead and Verity have a chance then!!
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:10 pm
kwinigolfer wrote:Ha!
Maybe Mead and Verity have a chance then!!
I'd think Verity, at least, would be a very strong candidate.
The 1930s Derek Underwood
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:19 pm
Mead was Arlott's favourite. I suspect Kwini is already looking forward to having a celestial discussion over a good bottle of red!Hoggy_Bear wrote:kwinigolfer wrote:Ha!
Maybe Mead and Verity have a chance then!!
I'd think Verity, at least, would be a very strong candidate.
The 1930s Derek Underwood
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:30 pm
But I hope there's no hurry Kwini!guildfordbat wrote: Mead was Arlott's favourite. I suspect Kwini is already looking forward to having a celestial discussion over a good bottle of red!
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:44 pm
Corporalhumblebucket wrote:But I hope there's no hurry Kwini!guildfordbat wrote: Mead was Arlott's favourite. I suspect Kwini is already looking forward to having a celestial discussion over a good bottle of red!
Kwini knows what I mean even if the Corporal chooses not to!
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:49 pm
Guildford - as Arlott would have appreciated, a good bottle of red needs plenty of time to breath.... Even as we speak he is probably browsing in the vaults to make sure there is a suitable vintage laid down...
Even as we speak he is probably browsing in the vaults to make sure there is a suitable vintage laid down...
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:53 pm
Corporal - sounds like thee, me, Chichester and Carrot at the Guildford Festival!Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Guildford - as Arlott would have appreciated, a good bottle of red needs plenty of time to breath....
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:04 pm
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that Verity quite ticks all the boxes - it's all very well to make allowances for a player who is denied Test cricket but continues to play where he can at the very highest level. But quite another to elect into the Hall someone whose career figures might not cut the mustard, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Comparisons with Underwood valid as both were less than automatic choices for England on the best batting wickets. Plus, it's quite likely his Test career was at an end, regardless of the tragic events which ensued.
Fine record against the Aussies, Bradman included!
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:09 pm
Don't know why you don't think Verity's figures are good enough, at least to debate, Kwini.
144 test wickets at under 25 and almost 2000 FC wickets at under 15 seem pretty good figures to me.
144 test wickets at under 25 and almost 2000 FC wickets at under 15 seem pretty good figures to me.
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 kwinigolfer Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:19 pm
I'm glad to debate, just passing on my first take on it.
Actually think I was among the first to recognize Deadly Hedley's virtues! A legend among my father's generation.
Actually think I was among the first to recognize Deadly Hedley's virtues! A legend among my father's generation.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:36 pm
kwinigolfer wrote:I'm glad to debate, just passing on my first take on it.
Actually think I was among the first to recognize Deadly Hedley's virtues! A legend among my father's generation.
Along with the Don.
"Bradman said of him, “With Hedley I am never sure. You see, there’s no breaking point with him.”"
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 Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:25 pm
kwinigolfer wrote:I'm glad to debate, just passing on my first take on it.
Actually think I was among the first to recognize Deadly Hedley's virtues! A legend among my father's generation.
Think we'll get the chance to discuss him. I'm pretty sure Hedley's on Shelsey's 'to do' list.
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 kwinigolfer Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:55 pm
Yup, Assigned to moi I believe!
Have to see if Neville Cardus attends Arlott's sessions.
Have to see if Neville Cardus attends Arlott's
sessions.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:32 am
Sorry for the suspense, but results are now in:
Repecharge candidates
Rohan Kanhai - 8 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Harold Larwood - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Kanhai gets in easily, but as a repecharge candidate just 1 more no vote would have scuppered Larwood!
First Ballot
Martin Crowe - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Nawab of Pataudi - 2 Yes, 6 No = 25%
Warwick Armstrong - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Armstrong and Crowe in by a vote, and Pataudi misses out.
With the repecharge now exhausted (for this year), we have 5 new candidates:
Kerry Packer (nominated by Stella)
Charlie Macartney (nominated by Hoggy_Bear)
Hedley Verity (nominated by kwinigolfer)
Ricky Ponting (recently retired - general agreement that he should be considered)
Eddie Barlow (nominated by Biltong)
Repecharge candidates
Rohan Kanhai - 8 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Harold Larwood - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Kanhai gets in easily, but as a repecharge candidate just 1 more no vote would have scuppered Larwood!
First Ballot
Martin Crowe - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Nawab of Pataudi - 2 Yes, 6 No = 25%
Warwick Armstrong - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Armstrong and Crowe in by a vote, and Pataudi misses out.
With the repecharge now exhausted (for this year), we have 5 new candidates:
Kerry Packer (nominated by Stella)
Charlie Macartney (nominated by Hoggy_Bear)
Hedley Verity (nominated by kwinigolfer)
Ricky Ponting (recently retired - general agreement that he should be considered)
Eddie Barlow (nominated by Biltong)
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:23 pm
Glad to see that the 'Big Ship' sailed into our HoF. Shame Pataudi missed out but I can understand the reasoning.
Another interesting set of candidates this time around, I could be persuaded to give another 5 yeses, though I'll probably need more convincing on Kerry Packer and Eddie Barlow than the others.
Anyway, I'll get the ball rolling with another of my interminable essays on the candidates I put forward. This time around it's Charles George Macartney.
Charlie Macartney
John Arlott described Charlie Macartney as ‘one of the most commanding, vivid and exciting batsmen’ of the 20th century. Originally a left-arm spinner and a player who went up and down the batting order ('Like a painter on a ladder', as Jack Fingleton put it), he emerged after WWI, according to Arlott, as ‘a major batsman of immense attacking skill, and a sheer destroyer of even the best bowling’.
Macartney’s batting philosophy was aggression personified. He told Fingleton that he liked opening the batting because, ‘If you get on top of an attack early, you are on top for the rest of the innings. And if the first ball of the Test asks to be hit for six, why you just hit it for six.’ Another nugget of wisdom that Macartney imparted to Fingleton was that it is always a good idea ‘to aim the first ball at the bowler’s head’ because ‘They don’t like it. It rattles them.’
As a bowler Macartney was, according to at least one English critic, the best left-hander that Australia sent to England before WWII. He bowled from a long run up, like that of Derek Underwood, and possesed a lethal quicker ball. He was good enough to clean bowl MacLaren (twice), Fry, Hobbs, Hirst, Warner, Rhodes and Chapman in Tests and had best figures of 7/58 against England at Leeds in 1909. He was also reknowned as a brilliant all-round fielder with, according to Fingleton, ‘sure hands and a quick flick of a throw to the keeper.’ Yet it was as a batsman that he is best remembered.
Before WWI his batting prowess was only hinted at, but he did score a century against South Africa in 1911 and 99 against England in 1912, when he was caught behind trying to smash a Frank Foster full toss over the mid-wicket boundary. At this stage of his career, however, he was still regarded as something of an all-rounder. After the war, that is after he was 32 years old, his bowling, perhaps understandably, declined, but his batting blossomed. Despite missing a number of Tests due to injury and ill health, the period 1920-1926 saw him average 69.55 with the bat, and score 6 centuries.
Perhaps the most famous of those centuries was the one he scored at Leeds in 1926. Macartney was concerned that George Macaulay, whom he regarded as the most dangerous of the English bowlers, could cause Australia problems, and asked his captain for permission to ‘murder’ him. Permission was granted, and Macartney’s chance came when Bardsley was out from the first ball of the match. Batting at his now established position of 3, Macartney was dropped by the England captain, Arthur Carr, (off the bowling of Maurice Tate, incidentally), when he had scored just two, but then proceeded to annihilate the bowling, being particularly brutal with the unfortunate Macauley. By lunch Macartney had scored 112, becoming the second man to score a century before lunch on the first day of a Test (Victor Trumper had been the first), on an unprepared pitch that had only been used when the wicket originally intended for the Test had been flooded. His late cuts that day were described as being ‘so late’ they were ‘almost posthumous’, and Pelham Warner called it the best innings he had ever seen. Macartney was finally out for 151. Macauley never played for England against Australia again.
This innings was one of three consecutive centuries, sandwiched by 133* at Lord’s and 109 at Manchester. He also bowled over 80 overs in those three matches. Not bad for a man of 40. But, it is not only for his record that Macartney is remembered , but also for the style of his play. Neville Cardus said of him that ‘there was always chivalry in his cricket, a prancing sort of heroism. The dauntlessness of his play, the brave beauty and the original skill bring tears to my eyes.’ While RC Robertson-Glasgow wrote of him ‘No other Australian batsman, not even Bradman, has approached Macartney for insolence of attack. He made slaves of bowlers. His batting suggested a racket player who hits winners from any position. Length could not curb him, and his defence was lost and included in his attack.’ Meanwhile, Jack Hobbs said of him that ‘I saw him begin his Test career in Australia and we thought him a very unorthodox player, but we soon realised he was brilliant. He hit particularly hard through the covers and frequently cut even fast bowlers off his stumps. He certainly had a wonderful eye. He was a charming fellow and a highly confident cricketer.’
Macartney himself had little regard for records. In answer to a letter from the Australian Who’s Who, he replied that he had ‘no record of figures, nor am I concerned with them. My only interest is the manner in which the runs are compiled and how wickets are taken, and in the good of the game.’ This was an attitude which, according to Fingleton ‘summed up the cricket story of C. G. Macartney’, the brilliant, pugnacious batsman who is known to cricket history as, ‘The Governor General’.
Another interesting set of candidates this time around, I could be persuaded to give another 5 yeses, though I'll probably need more convincing on Kerry Packer and Eddie Barlow than the others.
Anyway, I'll get the ball rolling with another of my interminable essays on the candidates I put forward. This time around it's Charles George Macartney.
Charlie Macartney
John Arlott described Charlie Macartney as ‘one of the most commanding, vivid and exciting batsmen’ of the 20th century. Originally a left-arm spinner and a player who went up and down the batting order ('Like a painter on a ladder', as Jack Fingleton put it), he emerged after WWI, according to Arlott, as ‘a major batsman of immense attacking skill, and a sheer destroyer of even the best bowling’.
Macartney’s batting philosophy was aggression personified. He told Fingleton that he liked opening the batting because, ‘If you get on top of an attack early, you are on top for the rest of the innings. And if the first ball of the Test asks to be hit for six, why you just hit it for six.’ Another nugget of wisdom that Macartney imparted to Fingleton was that it is always a good idea ‘to aim the first ball at the bowler’s head’ because ‘They don’t like it. It rattles them.’
As a bowler Macartney was, according to at least one English critic, the best left-hander that Australia sent to England before WWII. He bowled from a long run up, like that of Derek Underwood, and possesed a lethal quicker ball. He was good enough to clean bowl MacLaren (twice), Fry, Hobbs, Hirst, Warner, Rhodes and Chapman in Tests and had best figures of 7/58 against England at Leeds in 1909. He was also reknowned as a brilliant all-round fielder with, according to Fingleton, ‘sure hands and a quick flick of a throw to the keeper.’ Yet it was as a batsman that he is best remembered.
Before WWI his batting prowess was only hinted at, but he did score a century against South Africa in 1911 and 99 against England in 1912, when he was caught behind trying to smash a Frank Foster full toss over the mid-wicket boundary. At this stage of his career, however, he was still regarded as something of an all-rounder. After the war, that is after he was 32 years old, his bowling, perhaps understandably, declined, but his batting blossomed. Despite missing a number of Tests due to injury and ill health, the period 1920-1926 saw him average 69.55 with the bat, and score 6 centuries.
Perhaps the most famous of those centuries was the one he scored at Leeds in 1926. Macartney was concerned that George Macaulay, whom he regarded as the most dangerous of the English bowlers, could cause Australia problems, and asked his captain for permission to ‘murder’ him. Permission was granted, and Macartney’s chance came when Bardsley was out from the first ball of the match. Batting at his now established position of 3, Macartney was dropped by the England captain, Arthur Carr, (off the bowling of Maurice Tate, incidentally), when he had scored just two, but then proceeded to annihilate the bowling, being particularly brutal with the unfortunate Macauley. By lunch Macartney had scored 112, becoming the second man to score a century before lunch on the first day of a Test (Victor Trumper had been the first), on an unprepared pitch that had only been used when the wicket originally intended for the Test had been flooded. His late cuts that day were described as being ‘so late’ they were ‘almost posthumous’, and Pelham Warner called it the best innings he had ever seen. Macartney was finally out for 151. Macauley never played for England against Australia again.
This innings was one of three consecutive centuries, sandwiched by 133* at Lord’s and 109 at Manchester. He also bowled over 80 overs in those three matches. Not bad for a man of 40. But, it is not only for his record that Macartney is remembered , but also for the style of his play. Neville Cardus said of him that ‘there was always chivalry in his cricket, a prancing sort of heroism. The dauntlessness of his play, the brave beauty and the original skill bring tears to my eyes.’ While RC Robertson-Glasgow wrote of him ‘No other Australian batsman, not even Bradman, has approached Macartney for insolence of attack. He made slaves of bowlers. His batting suggested a racket player who hits winners from any position. Length could not curb him, and his defence was lost and included in his attack.’ Meanwhile, Jack Hobbs said of him that ‘I saw him begin his Test career in Australia and we thought him a very unorthodox player, but we soon realised he was brilliant. He hit particularly hard through the covers and frequently cut even fast bowlers off his stumps. He certainly had a wonderful eye. He was a charming fellow and a highly confident cricketer.’
Macartney himself had little regard for records. In answer to a letter from the Australian Who’s Who, he replied that he had ‘no record of figures, nor am I concerned with them. My only interest is the manner in which the runs are compiled and how wickets are taken, and in the good of the game.’ This was an attitude which, according to Fingleton ‘summed up the cricket story of C. G. Macartney’, the brilliant, pugnacious batsman who is known to cricket history as, ‘The Governor General’.
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 dummy_half Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:06 pm
Missed another vote thanks to my daughter's Christneing (what a day to pick for that...)
Interesting write up on McCartney from Hoggy - sounds like an opener ahead of his time (by nearly a century).
Punter I think should sail through, not least for being the Aussie captain in three Ashes series defeats . Seriously though, in an era of outstanding batsmen, he was clearly in the top 5 and will be remembered as a great, so I think clears the bar for HoF candidates reasonably comfortably.
Debate on Packer will definitely be interesting - a divisive figure at the time, but perhaps one whose contributions to the development of the game look better with the benefit of history. It's interesting that the great West Indian team really came together during their time in World Series cricket.
Barlow I look forward to hearing more of - has been some comments earlier suggesting he was a top bloke and a very fine player.
Verity - Well, as a fellow Yorkshireman perhaps I ought to be giving him a push. Suffice to say that, despite all his excellence as a bowler, he was also the origin of the comment from his captain (possibly Lord Hawke) on being hit for 32 in an over 'You've got him confused now Hedley, he doesn't know whether to hit you for 4 or for 6.'
Interesting write up on McCartney from Hoggy - sounds like an opener ahead of his time (by nearly a century).
Punter I think should sail through, not least for being the Aussie captain in three Ashes series defeats
. Seriously though, in an era of outstanding batsmen, he was clearly in the top 5 and will be remembered as a great, so I think clears the bar for HoF candidates reasonably comfortably.Debate on Packer will definitely be interesting - a divisive figure at the time, but perhaps one whose contributions to the development of the game look better with the benefit of history. It's interesting that the great West Indian team really came together during their time in World Series cricket.
Barlow I look forward to hearing more of - has been some comments earlier suggesting he was a top bloke and a very fine player.
Verity - Well, as a fellow Yorkshireman perhaps I ought to be giving him a push. Suffice to say that, despite all his excellence as a bowler, he was also the origin of the comment from his captain (possibly Lord Hawke) on being hit for 32 in an over 'You've got him confused now Hedley, he doesn't know whether to hit you for 4 or for 6.'
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 Jan 21, 2013 2:55 pm
Pleased to see Kanhai sail in and Larwood scrape in on 2nd ballot. I wonder whether Crowe has got in too easily given players who have had to go through repechage. Armstrong I have said a few times in a strange omission from the ICC list, and am glad to see him through.
Some interesting names up for debate this time.
Macartney is not a name I know of - research required.
Ponting should get in easily, although I expect some negatives to rightly be raised about character; however IMO he improved very much as his career went on in this respect, and a lot of incidents were comparitively overblown (partly I suspect because people had to find something to criticise him for). Interestingly enough Benaud is very complimentary about his captaincy, something he often wrongly (in my opinion, and clearly in Benaud's) got quite a bit of stick for at times. Also with Ponting we have to look a bit towards ODI cricket - 3 times a WC winner (McGrath and Gilchrist are I think the only others) and captain twice undefeated. Whilst I share some people's concerns about looking at players too soon after their retirement, it didn't matter for Dravid, and I don't think it will for Ponting.
Verity will be an interesting debate: the bowler who most challenged the Don. Until Hoggy pointed it out, I hadn't realised how good his record was. On the face of it he should have a strong case, so why is he so consistently and obviously considered below the likes of Underwood, Laker, etc.
Barlow I will need some convincing on. Very good player though he undoubtedly was, and unfortunate to have a test career cut short, I am not sure how he measures up to the great all-rounders Sobers, Kallis, Miller, etc. May need some supporting other factors.
Packer will be lively. I think if we had been having this discussion at the time, he would have gotten very short hearing, but with hindsight, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue his effect on cricket wasn't beneficial. How much of this was down to him being a visionary, and how much was just luck as things worked out (not always as planned) will no doubt constitute a fair proportion of the debate. Can you do the right thing without meaning to, in entirely the wrong way and for the wrong reasons?
Some interesting names up for debate this time.
Macartney is not a name I know of - research required.
Ponting should get in easily, although I expect some negatives to rightly be raised about character; however IMO he improved very much as his career went on in this respect, and a lot of incidents were comparitively overblown (partly I suspect because people had to find something to criticise him for). Interestingly enough Benaud is very complimentary about his captaincy, something he often wrongly (in my opinion, and clearly in Benaud's) got quite a bit of stick for at times. Also with Ponting we have to look a bit towards ODI cricket - 3 times a WC winner (McGrath and Gilchrist are I think the only others) and captain twice undefeated. Whilst I share some people's concerns about looking at players too soon after their retirement, it didn't matter for Dravid, and I don't think it will for Ponting.
Verity will be an interesting debate: the bowler who most challenged the Don. Until Hoggy pointed it out, I hadn't realised how good his record was. On the face of it he should have a strong case, so why is he so consistently and obviously considered below the likes of Underwood, Laker, etc.
Barlow I will need some convincing on. Very good player though he undoubtedly was, and unfortunate to have a test career cut short, I am not sure how he measures up to the great all-rounders Sobers, Kallis, Miller, etc. May need some supporting other factors.
Packer will be lively. I think if we had been having this discussion at the time, he would have gotten very short hearing, but with hindsight, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue his effect on cricket wasn't beneficial. How much of this was down to him being a visionary, and how much was just luck as things worked out (not always as planned) will no doubt constitute a fair proportion of the debate. Can you do the right thing without meaning to, in entirely the wrong way and for the wrong reasons?
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:17 pm
I think the motive is a very good point to pick up on Mike.
I don't believe (and I'm happy to be proved wrong) that Packer had the interests of the poor, underpaid cricketers at heart. He wanted to make money, and that objective led to many of his other so-called innovations.
I don't believe (and I'm happy to be proved wrong) that Packer had the interests of the poor, underpaid cricketers at heart. He wanted to make money, and that objective led to many of his other so-called innovations.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:25 pm
Sailed in??!! The Big Ship was about to go aground on the rocks before you used that kiddy cricket story to tug at the heart strings of the Corporal. I expected the military to be made of sterner stuff!Hoggy_Bear wrote:Glad to see that the 'Big Ship' sailed into our HoF.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:30 pm
guildfordbat wrote:Sailed in??!! The Big Ship was about to go aground on the rocks before you used that kiddy cricket story to tug at the heart strings of the Corporal. I expected the military to be made of sterner stuff!Hoggy_Bear wrote:Glad to see that the 'Big Ship' sailed into our HoF.
All's fair in love and war Guildford.
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 dummy_half Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:46 pm
Shelsey93 wrote:I think the motive is a very good point to pick up on Mike.
I don't believe (and I'm happy to be proved wrong) that Packer had the interests of the poor, underpaid cricketers at heart. He wanted to make money, and that objective led to many of his other so-called innovations.
Of course there's a parallel with the Murdoch Empire's use of the English Premier League football as a Trojan horse to get Sky TV into as many homes as possible - worked for the mutual benefit of the Murdochs and of the players involved in the EPL, in the latter case partly because of the moeny paid directly by Sky but also because it raised the league's profile and has brought in some exceptionally rich benefactors to clubs like Chelsea and City. Now, you can argue whether this has been a 'Good Thing' for the sport overall, but it has certainly moved top pro footballers from the realms of the moderately wealthy to that of the super rich.
It will certainly be interesting to hear the cases for and against Packer over the next couple of weeks. On the positive side, at least he wasn't as dodgy a character as Allen Stanford
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 guildfordbat Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:18 pm
Very pleased that Kanhai and Larwood made it in. Msp's efforts probably deserved better for Pataudi. No issues with Crowe and Armstrong being inducted; my NO votes were always very close ones.
Following up Mike's opening point, I'm not sure there's a better way of doing things but I've been conscious for a while that there's no distinction in our individual YES votes between 'gets in by a country mile' and 'just scrapes in'. Equally, NO votes might mean 'unlucky to miss out' or 'would rather stick pins in my eyes than induct this nominee'!
This time round -
* Know nothing of Macartney besides the name. Look forward to being educated and entertained by Hoggy.
* Know something already about Verity but still need to learn more.
* Ponting appears a bit soon for my liking but it would be churlish to decline him for that.
* Our much missed poster JDizzle was coached by the late Eddie Barlow. I hope JD might return for this debate. I have even more sympathy for Barlow than most other South Africans of his era - I'll explain as the debate kicks off.
* A solid case will need to be built to overcome reservations about Packer which were formed when his name first became known in this country. Shelsey's comments as to the mogul's motives are very relevant whilst Mike raises interesting points along the lines of good from evil.
Following up Mike's opening point, I'm not sure there's a better way of doing things but I've been conscious for a while that there's no distinction in our individual YES votes between 'gets in by a country mile' and 'just scrapes in'. Equally, NO votes might mean 'unlucky to miss out' or 'would rather stick pins in my eyes than induct this nominee'!
This time round -
* Know nothing of Macartney besides the name. Look forward to being educated and entertained by Hoggy.
* Know something already about Verity but still need to learn more.
* Ponting appears a bit soon for my liking but it would be churlish to decline him for that.
* Our much missed poster JDizzle was coached by the late Eddie Barlow. I hope JD might return for this debate. I have even more sympathy for Barlow than most other South Africans of his era - I'll explain as the debate kicks off.
* A solid case will need to be built to overcome reservations about Packer which were formed when his name first became known in this country. Shelsey's comments as to the mogul's motives are very relevant whilst Mike raises interesting points along the lines of good from evil.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16889
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:41 pm
Some notes on Hedley Verity to follow later this week . . . . . .
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Sponsored content
Page 13 of 20 • 1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 16 ... 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 13 of 20
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum