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 20 of 20
Page 20 of 20 • 
1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20
The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 12 Nov 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 03 Apr 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 Hoggy_Bear Sun 24 Feb 2013, 8:35 pm
Just a couple of quick points.
1)Johnston made his debut aged 25, and retired aged 33. Not the longest career, but not the shortest either. If he'd been around today he'd probably have played 70-80 tests in those 8 years. Fact is that, apart from the few tests he missed through injury, he took part in all the matches Australia played during his career, as far as I'm aware.
2)His strike rate may not be up there with the best fast bowlers, but it must be remembered that he was as much a stock as strike bowler and that his figures will reflect those times that he operated as a spinner.
1)Johnston made his debut aged 25, and retired aged 33. Not the longest career, but not the shortest either. If he'd been around today he'd probably have played 70-80 tests in those 8 years. Fact is that, apart from the few tests he missed through injury, he took part in all the matches Australia played during his career, as far as I'm aware.
2)His strike rate may not be up there with the best fast bowlers, but it must be remembered that he was as much a stock as strike bowler and that his figures will reflect those times that he operated as a spinner.
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 Sun 24 Feb 2013, 8:41 pm
Oh, and on Mike's point about picking somene for their batting or fielding, rather than just their bowling, being a modern idea, 'Tich' Freeman was sometimes left out of England teams for spinners who, it was argued, offered more with the bat. So, while it might be a more prevelant practice these days, it certainly wasn't unknown back then.
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 25 Feb 2013, 4:01 pm
Hoggy / Shelsey - grateful to know if CMJ makes any reference in his 'Top 100' book to any of the current candidates.
Would guess that Ntini is too recent. Even if none of the other 3 make the cut, I was wondering if any were on his 'near misses' list. Thanks.
Would guess that Ntini is too recent. Even if none of the other 3 make the cut, I was wondering if any were on his 'near misses' list. Thanks.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon 25 Feb 2013, 4:29 pm
Guildford
Turner is no. 95 on CMJs list."It was skill rather than extreme speed that gave Turner his fearsome reputation".
Both Tayfield and Ntini are mentioned in the 'near misses' list.
Johnston isn't, but that proves nothing
Turner is no. 95 on CMJs list."It was skill rather than extreme speed that gave Turner his fearsome reputation".
Both Tayfield and Ntini are mentioned in the 'near misses' list.
Johnston isn't, but that proves nothing
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 25 Feb 2013, 5:22 pm
Thanks once more, Hoggy.
Particularly surprising (or revealing?) that Johnston doesn't get a mention from CMJ whilst Lindwall enjoyed the lofty heights of being the 31st Best Player of All Time.
Particularly surprising (or revealing?) that Johnston doesn't get a mention from CMJ whilst Lindwall enjoyed the lofty heights of being the 31st Best Player of All Time.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon 25 Feb 2013, 6:45 pm
Surprising from CMJ, yes, I must admit.
However as a (sort of) answer to the doubts about Johnston brought about by CMJs failure to mention him, I'd just like to quote the first paragraph of David Frith's obituary of Johnston published in the Guardian:
"The suffering inflicted on England's batsmen by Australian bowlers in the years following the second world war is always linked to two famous names: Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller. But there was a third bowler of equal skill who caused Hutton, Washbrook, Edrich and Compton just as much anguish. Bill Johnston, who has died aged 85, is often unjustly overlooked in this context: he took 27 wickets in the legendary 1948 Ashes series, the same tally as Lindwall's and over twice as many as the glamorous Miller."
Just emphasised a couple of phrases so that you get my (and Frith's) point.
However as a (sort of) answer to the doubts about Johnston brought about by CMJs failure to mention him, I'd just like to quote the first paragraph of David Frith's obituary of Johnston published in the Guardian:
"The suffering inflicted on England's batsmen by Australian bowlers in the years following the second world war is always linked to two famous names: Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller. But there was a third bowler of equal skill who caused Hutton, Washbrook, Edrich and Compton just as much anguish. Bill Johnston, who has died aged 85, is often unjustly overlooked in this context: he took 27 wickets in the legendary 1948 Ashes series, the same tally as Lindwall's and over twice as many as the glamorous Miller."
Just emphasised a couple of phrases so that you get my (and Frith's) point.
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 Tue 26 Feb 2013, 2:05 pm
In my view, the case for Ntini is a combination of three elements.
First, his record. He has a fine but not outstanding record in test matches, as we discussed. almost 400 test wickets aren't simple, his strike rate of 53 is top stuff, his average of 28.84, while not good enough to be considered great, is very very good nevertheless in the era of big bats and small boundaries.
We had included the likes of Martin Crowe and Gordon Greenidge into our HoF, Their records are very very good rather than truly outstanding. Like Greenidge, Ntini was an impact performer. His 18 fifors as well as 4 10 wicket hauls prove this. Even in ODIs he managed to take 5 or more wickets within a 10 over spell no less than 4 times.
But as the discussions proved so far, the record alone isn't enough. So we have to look at the other factors.
So moving on to the 2nd element.
As discussed, Ntini symbolizes the new inclusive South African cricket, out and away from the horrer days. He was the first Black African cricketer to play for his country. Had he not succeeded the way he did and gained acceptance across different social groups beyond any colour barrier, perhaps the picture of South African cricket would be different today. I strongly believe his success most certainly smoothened the way for the likes of Ashwell Prince, Hashim Amla and Vernon Philander. Ntini is among the most popular sportsmen in South Africa, and again this applies across any colour difference. In a society where differential social attitudes are changing ever so slowly, doesn't it matter? Ntini symbolizes sports' ability to unite and this is particularly significant in a society like South Africa.
The third aspect we have to consider is Ntini's spirit and endurance, qualities we often recognize as crucial for our HoF members. Ntini came from a totally deprived background. Its not relative poverty as its experienced in economically advanced society that we are talking about, its absolute poverty. An a link I posted earlier, captures Ntini's story of bowling with a torn shoe even at the age of 13. He had to keep it together using wire.
After he made his debut for South Africa and began to get used to international cricket, he had to go through the agony of a conviction that was overturned on appeal. A lesser man would have given up, but not Ntini. He came back and established himself as an integral part of the side for the next 10 years with great success. We have to remember Ntini lost almost 20 months of international cricket due to this, and losing that much of time for a quick bowler who depended on his supreme fitness at that young age, would have done some potential damage to his overall record as well.
So Ntini is a man who over came the odds, both social and personal, a combination of all the 3 elements, I believe, should see him through to our HoF.
Have a look at this as well.
http://www.southafrica.info/about/sport/greats/makhaya_ntini.htm
First, his record. He has a fine but not outstanding record in test matches, as we discussed. almost 400 test wickets aren't simple, his strike rate of 53 is top stuff, his average of 28.84, while not good enough to be considered great, is very very good nevertheless in the era of big bats and small boundaries.
We had included the likes of Martin Crowe and Gordon Greenidge into our HoF, Their records are very very good rather than truly outstanding. Like Greenidge, Ntini was an impact performer. His 18 fifors as well as 4 10 wicket hauls prove this. Even in ODIs he managed to take 5 or more wickets within a 10 over spell no less than 4 times.
But as the discussions proved so far, the record alone isn't enough. So we have to look at the other factors.
So moving on to the 2nd element.
As discussed, Ntini symbolizes the new inclusive South African cricket, out and away from the horrer days. He was the first Black African cricketer to play for his country. Had he not succeeded the way he did and gained acceptance across different social groups beyond any colour barrier, perhaps the picture of South African cricket would be different today. I strongly believe his success most certainly smoothened the way for the likes of Ashwell Prince, Hashim Amla and Vernon Philander. Ntini is among the most popular sportsmen in South Africa, and again this applies across any colour difference. In a society where differential social attitudes are changing ever so slowly, doesn't it matter? Ntini symbolizes sports' ability to unite and this is particularly significant in a society like South Africa.
The third aspect we have to consider is Ntini's spirit and endurance, qualities we often recognize as crucial for our HoF members. Ntini came from a totally deprived background. Its not relative poverty as its experienced in economically advanced society that we are talking about, its absolute poverty. An a link I posted earlier, captures Ntini's story of bowling with a torn shoe even at the age of 13. He had to keep it together using wire.
After he made his debut for South Africa and began to get used to international cricket, he had to go through the agony of a conviction that was overturned on appeal. A lesser man would have given up, but not Ntini. He came back and established himself as an integral part of the side for the next 10 years with great success. We have to remember Ntini lost almost 20 months of international cricket due to this, and losing that much of time for a quick bowler who depended on his supreme fitness at that young age, would have done some potential damage to his overall record as well.
So Ntini is a man who over came the odds, both social and personal, a combination of all the 3 elements, I believe, should see him through to our HoF.
Have a look at this as well.
http://www.southafrica.info/about/sport/greats/makhaya_ntini.htm
Last edited by msp83 on Tue 26 Feb 2013, 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Tue 26 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm
On Turner, his stats look absolutely fabulous, and even when taking the era into acount, he did better than most during his times.
But he played only 17 test matches We have held it against Ranji that he played only 15 tests despite him averaging 56 and being among the game's foremost innovators. Any idea as to why did Turner left the game at a relatively young age of 33?
But he played only 17 test matches We have held it against Ranji that he played only 15 tests despite him averaging 56 and being among the game's foremost innovators. Any idea as to why did Turner left the game at a relatively young age of 33?
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Stella Tue 26 Feb 2013, 2:53 pm
Hoggy_Bear wrote:Surprising from CMJ, yes, I must admit.
However as a (sort of) answer to the doubts about Johnston brought about by CMJs failure to mention him, I'd just like to quote the first paragraph of David Frith's obituary of Johnston published in the Guardian:
"The suffering inflicted on England's batsmen by Australian bowlers in the years following the second world war is always linked to two famous names: Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller. But there was a third bowler of equal skill who caused Hutton, Washbrook, Edrich and Compton just as much anguish. Bill Johnston, who has died aged 85, is often unjustly overlooked in this context: he took 27 wickets in the legendary 1948 Ashes series, the same tally as Lindwall's and over twice as many as the glamorous Miller."
Just emphasised a couple of phrases so that you get my (and Frith's) point.
Miller did have back problems, which hindered his bowling.
Stella- Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Tue 26 Feb 2013, 3:42 pm
True enough Stella.
But not only did Johnston take more wickets than Miller in '48, he also took as many as Lindwall, and took more wickets than either Lindwall or Miller in each of Australia's next 4 series. He also took 100 wickets faster than either of his esteemed colleagues, both in terms of time and test matches taken.
To me that suggest far more than a 'support' bowler. Rather, it suggests a top class operator.
But not only did Johnston take more wickets than Miller in '48, he also took as many as Lindwall, and took more wickets than either Lindwall or Miller in each of Australia's next 4 series. He also took 100 wickets faster than either of his esteemed colleagues, both in terms of time and test matches taken.
To me that suggest far more than a 'support' bowler. Rather, it suggests a top class operator.
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 Stella Tue 26 Feb 2013, 3:46 pm
Sounds good to me Hoggy. Must admit, never heard of him until lately.
Stella- Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Tue 26 Feb 2013, 3:48 pm
Oh, and, according to Wiki msp, Turner moved to Queensland in 1897 on business and was unable to continue playing cricket there, possibly because of business commitments, possibly because of the lack of first class cricket in the state at that time, or a combination of both, it isn't really clear.
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 Tue 26 Feb 2013, 10:10 pm
Just read that Hoggy.Hoggy_Bear wrote:Oh, and, according to Wiki msp, Turner moved to Queensland in 1897 on business and was unable to continue playing cricket there, possibly because of business commitments, possibly because of the lack of first class cricket in the state at that time, or a combination of both, it isn't really clear.
Where do we go with that? I really can't make my mind out about him. Terrific record, but has he played enough cricket to make it? Ranji had his political interests, although he wasn't picked in the beginning of his career due to establishment politics, Turner seems to have given up the game due to business interests.......
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Tue 26 Feb 2013, 11:00 pm
msp83 wrote:Just read that Hoggy.Hoggy_Bear wrote:Oh, and, according to Wiki msp, Turner moved to Queensland in 1897 on business and was unable to continue playing cricket there, possibly because of business commitments, possibly because of the lack of first class cricket in the state at that time, or a combination of both, it isn't really clear.
Where do we go with that? I really can't make my mind out about him. Terrific record, but has he played enough cricket to make it? Ranji had his political interests, although he wasn't picked in the beginning of his career due to establishment politics, Turner seems to have given up the game due to business interests.......
Interesting point, and one that needs to be fully considered.
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 02 Mar 2013, 3:31 pm
Do we need to get Nigel Farage to increase interest and votes?
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by alfie Sun 03 Mar 2013, 11:37 am
guildfordbat wrote:Do we need to get Nigel Farage to increase interest and votes?
Feeling slightly guilty about not contributing to this enough lately...pleading work/travel plans/cricket finals etc at the moment and hope to be back soon...
For whatever reason this debate seems to be a bit dormant at the moment : I think we need to stretch the time frame for each group a bit until things start to bubble up again ?
alfie- Posts : 21846
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sun 03 Mar 2013, 12:11 pm
It wasn't really a dig. After all, no one has an obligation to post. Just a shame that there hasn't been more activity in recent times. I've found some of Hoggy's nominations, in particular, fascinating and felt they deserved wider consideration.alfie wrote:guildfordbat wrote:Do we need to get Nigel Farage to increase interest and votes?
Feeling slightly guilty about not contributing to this enough lately...pleading work/travel plans/cricket finals etc at the moment and hope to be back soon...
For whatever reason this debate seems to be a bit dormant at the moment : I think we need to stretch the time frame for each group a bit until things start to bubble up again ?
Not sure about increasing the time frame frame for each group. Fine if there are specific reasons but I suspect it would just spread the inaction over a longer period if we did it as a matter of course.
Anyway, getting nearish to the start of the season when, I guess, the HoF will go into hibernation until October. Would be good to bring some new posters over to this thread then plus a few old favourites we don't see so much of these days (eg, Fists, Mad for Chelsea, JDizzle).
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 3:53 pm
We indeed should strive for some new posters and we certainly need the old regulars back in active and firing. It was in fact guildford who really prompted me to come over here and ever since I have really enjoyed it.
Hopefully some of the old folks from BBC 606 who are not yet a part of the forum would come over and we would also get some new posters as well, and also those active posters who haven't for whatever reasons or no real reasons, haven't taken much interest over this would join us in the coming months.
Think voting on this list has to be extended for a week as people haven't really voted as yet, as always, would go in with shelsey's call on the matter.
Hopefully some of the old folks from BBC 606 who are not yet a part of the forum would come over and we would also get some new posters as well, and also those active posters who haven't for whatever reasons or no real reasons, haven't taken much interest over this would join us in the coming months.
Think voting on this list has to be extended for a week as people haven't really voted as yet, as always, would go in with shelsey's call on the matter.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 3:53 pm
My running of this has been awful of late. I have quite a few essays to write before the 15th March so cricket-writing/ posting has had to take a back seat again. 
Will let this batch have another week (so that a few of us who haven't been around much can have a proper look if we get the time), then probably 1 more batch before the 'summer' break.
Sorry again guys.
Will let this batch have another week (so that a few of us who haven't been around much can have a proper look if we get the time), then probably 1 more batch before the 'summer' break.
Sorry again guys.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon 04 Mar 2013, 10:29 am
Just to flag that Sobers is one of the candidates on today's GOAT thread.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Mon 04 Mar 2013, 9:31 pm
guildfordbat wrote:Just to flag that Sobers is one of the candidates on today's GOAT thread.
And he's doing well so far...
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 Fri 08 Mar 2013, 9:41 am
Sobers once more on the GOAT thread. All support gratefully received.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Fri 08 Mar 2013, 10:11 pm
guildfordbat wrote:Sobers once more on the GOAT thread. All support gratefully received.
Looks like he's in a very tight group....
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 msp83 Sat 09 Mar 2013, 12:11 pm
The thread hasn't moved much in this week, nevertheless, here are my votes.
Turner no. Despite his stats looking impressive, I don't think he has played enough international cricket to make it eventually.
Bill Johnston no. Again, his stats look good, but I am not convinced he's HoF level with only 160 wickets without a great deal of Waw performances to boost his case.
Hugh Tayfield yes. His stats are brillient for a South African spinner, and he has had his fair share of impact performances.
Makhaya Ntini yes. I have already listed out my reasons during the course of the debate.
Turner no. Despite his stats looking impressive, I don't think he has played enough international cricket to make it eventually.
Bill Johnston no. Again, his stats look good, but I am not convinced he's HoF level with only 160 wickets without a great deal of Waw performances to boost his case.
Hugh Tayfield yes. His stats are brillient for a South African spinner, and he has had his fair share of impact performances.
Makhaya Ntini yes. I have already listed out my reasons during the course of the debate.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sun 10 Mar 2013, 12:25 pm
My votes.
Turner - NO. I can't disagree with msp's verdict. Also, whilst Turner's stats are very impressive, they're not on a par with George Lohmann's from that era.
Johnston - NO. Again like msp, just not convinced that there is quite enough there.
Tayfield - YES. Lacked the length of Gibbs' career and therefore his wickets tally but still mightily impressive figures (especially for a South African spinner) and, once more as msp flags, a fair share of impact performances.
Ntini - NO. Better figures than I expected but probably still just a bit short. As to any cultural legacy, I can't commit to that today.
Would emphasise that all NO votes are ''not quite'' rather than a ''strong NO''.
Turner - NO. I can't disagree with msp's verdict. Also, whilst Turner's stats are very impressive, they're not on a par with George Lohmann's from that era.
Johnston - NO. Again like msp, just not convinced that there is quite enough there.
Tayfield - YES. Lacked the length of Gibbs' career and therefore his wickets tally but still mightily impressive figures (especially for a South African spinner) and, once more as msp flags, a fair share of impact performances.
Ntini - NO. Better figures than I expected but probably still just a bit short. As to any cultural legacy, I can't commit to that today.
Would emphasise that all NO votes are ''not quite'' rather than a ''strong NO''.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Mon 11 Mar 2013, 9:56 pm
Apologies for not having contributed much to this slate of candidates.
To be honest, I'm not convinced by the credentials of, or testimonies for, the two I remember, Johnston (vaguely) and Tayfield saw him!), haven't heard/read enough about Turner to suggest he's the most worthy Turner let alone a Yes, and rather feel that, if Ntini's legacy is important to his claim, perhaps we should allow that legacy some time to develop.
No.
No.
No.
No.
What a curmudgeon.
To be honest, I'm not convinced by the credentials of, or testimonies for, the two I remember, Johnston (vaguely) and Tayfield saw him!), haven't heard/read enough about Turner to suggest he's the most worthy Turner let alone a Yes, and rather feel that, if Ntini's legacy is important to his claim, perhaps we should allow that legacy some time to develop.
No.
No.
No.
No.
What a curmudgeon.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Mon 11 Mar 2013, 10:02 pm
I'm feeling a bit guilty too. Maybe Shelsey should do an "Arthur" and demand we all do our homework at pain of dire penalty.... Haven't reached a final view, pending the deadline. But am tending towards YES for Tayfield, but no for the others.
Kwini - I was shocked on looking at the "runners and riders" for Pope on BBC website to find that I was older than one of the suggested candidates.... If you saw Tayfield maybe you are older than several candidate for the Pontificate.
Kwini - I was shocked on looking at the "runners and riders" for Pope on BBC website to find that I was older than one of the suggested candidates.... If you saw Tayfield maybe you are older than several candidate for the Pontificate.
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 kwinigolfer Tue 12 Mar 2013, 1:06 am
Corporal,
Too true; not sure what colour smoke I'll be sending up from the crematorium, hopefully Pompey Blue.
Too true; not sure what colour smoke I'll be sending up from the crematorium, hopefully Pompey Blue.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:47 pm
Hi all,
Have been extraordinarily busy for the last month but should have a lot more time for the next few weeks.
With so few having voted I don't really want to allow the results to stand.
So please note that:
- Discussion is still open
- Voting still open
- Those that have voted can change their votes.
I'll make a contribution later today or tomorrow.
Have been extraordinarily busy for the last month but should have a lot more time for the next few weeks.
With so few having voted I don't really want to allow the results to stand.
So please note that:
- Discussion is still open
- Voting still open
- Those that have voted can change their votes.
I'll make a contribution later today or tomorrow.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Sat 16 Mar 2013, 2:01 pm
As the discussions are to carry on, I would like to urge those who voted no for Ntini to take a careful relook at a few more points.
I think many have realized that Ntini's record is not as bad as it was made out to be at the beginning of the discussions. Now I would like you to look his impact performances. His 13 wicket performance against the West Indies on a pretty flat pitch, his 10 wicket haul at the HQ again on not the most lively track, his 6 wicket haul against Pakistan in a champion's trophy match in India again not on a track that offered him plenty. 18 fifors, 4 10 wicket hauls. Combine his impact performances with very good but not outstanding stats, a terrific spirit of a cricketer to emerge from an environment of poverty, deprivation and discrimination and make the world sit and take note, his symbolic significance to the rainbow nation's inclusive cricket fraternity that otherwise has the burden of enormous historical bagage, the emergence of the likes of Philander and Amla.......
I think it will be a shame if he's not in our HoF.
I think many have realized that Ntini's record is not as bad as it was made out to be at the beginning of the discussions. Now I would like you to look his impact performances. His 13 wicket performance against the West Indies on a pretty flat pitch, his 10 wicket haul at the HQ again on not the most lively track, his 6 wicket haul against Pakistan in a champion's trophy match in India again not on a track that offered him plenty. 18 fifors, 4 10 wicket hauls. Combine his impact performances with very good but not outstanding stats, a terrific spirit of a cricketer to emerge from an environment of poverty, deprivation and discrimination and make the world sit and take note, his symbolic significance to the rainbow nation's inclusive cricket fraternity that otherwise has the burden of enormous historical bagage, the emergence of the likes of Philander and Amla.......
I think it will be a shame if he's not in our HoF.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sat 16 Mar 2013, 9:22 pm
I think the case for Charlie Turner deserves deeper consideration.
On the face of it he is another pre-WWI bowler with God-like figures, but who played v 1 team and on helpful pitches.
But I think the case is actually very strong.
Firstly, we are yet to induct a pre-WWI spinner into the Hall. Whilst I think there may be equally strong candidates (Monty Noble - who I will propose soon (maybe next winter now) and Johnny Briggs), Turner pre-dates Noble and was at the very least equally as good as Briggs.
It should be noted that Turner's average is the 3rd best, ever, for somebody with 100+ Test wickets - behind Hall of Famers Lohmann and SF Barnes.
Finally, it must have been incredibly tough for a spinner to bowl 4-ball overs. Would make it much harder to build pressure.
If you haven't already you should read his Wisden biography (posted by Linebreaker on another thread - link a couple of pages back)
---
On Ntini I remain with the concensus view that its a bit too early to look at him as a cultural icon. Only time will tell on that one.
If we accept that, I don't think the purely cricketing case is HoF-worthy.
On the face of it he is another pre-WWI bowler with God-like figures, but who played v 1 team and on helpful pitches.
But I think the case is actually very strong.
Firstly, we are yet to induct a pre-WWI spinner into the Hall. Whilst I think there may be equally strong candidates (Monty Noble - who I will propose soon (maybe next winter now) and Johnny Briggs), Turner pre-dates Noble and was at the very least equally as good as Briggs.
It should be noted that Turner's average is the 3rd best, ever, for somebody with 100+ Test wickets - behind Hall of Famers Lohmann and SF Barnes.
Finally, it must have been incredibly tough for a spinner to bowl 4-ball overs. Would make it much harder to build pressure.
If you haven't already you should read his Wisden biography (posted by Linebreaker on another thread - link a couple of pages back)
---
On Ntini I remain with the concensus view that its a bit too early to look at him as a cultural icon. Only time will tell on that one.
If we accept that, I don't think the purely cricketing case is HoF-worthy.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sun 17 Mar 2013, 9:06 pm
Bill Johnston is one of those funny candidates - nothing wrong with his case, but just unexciting. My gut feeling is he probably fits just outside.
But, anyway, here is his profile from the 1953 Evening News 'Meet the Australians' pamphlet that some rather incredible friends of ours gave me (many other old sources of mine came from them too):
'Australia's most hard-worked bowler since the war has been Bill Johnston, the long, gangling fellow from Victoria. In 29 Tests he has sent down nearly 1,300 more balls than has Lindwall in four more matches, and both have taken 132 wickets. He was the only Australian to take more than 100 wickets during the 1948 tour of England, and in all first-class cricket he has now taken more than 400.
Johnston is one of the game's most endearing characters, and one of the most entertaining. His joyous participation in the game is obvious to spectators, and the batting antics of this tall fellow with loosely knit limbs compel laughter from the most seriously minded.
At first sight Bill Johnston looks anything but a player of games. His limbs seem to work independently of each other ad to obey no instructions from his mind. Yet, when he starts to bowl everything seems to click into place, and he becomes a splendid fast medium left hander who can also bowl spinners at slow medium. Curiously, when he first moved into Melbourne from the country, he was a baseball pitcher. He came to nothing much at that game, switched to cricket and made rapid progress.
IN A TANGLE AT BRISBANE
As a batsman Johnston fails to bring his unduly limbs under the same control as when he bowls. His strokes are peculiar, he is a menace running between the wickets with arms and bat wildly waving, and he is the sort of fellow certain to be involved in comic situations. None who saw the hilarious tangle he and Iverson produced while at the wicket together in the Brisbane Test of 1950 can ever forget it.
Johnston played the ball almost to the boundary at third man. He was sure it would be four and did not run. Iverson ran down the wicket and turned back. Then Johnston began to have doubts and followed him. So Iverson again begain in his direct, but once more Johnston changed his mind. So it went on. Finally the ball was chased and stopped on the edge of the boundary, and, when it was returned, both batsmen were back where they started. From all their manoeuvres not a single run accrued.
Only a year later he played four Tests against India and headed the Australian bowlers with 16 wickets at an average of 11.37. Then in 1948, beginning with five for 36 at Trent Bridge, he took 27 wickets at 23.3 against England and continued successful until this past Australian season, when for the first time his Test wickets, 21 at 35.05, were expensive. It would, however, be premature to assume that at 31 Johnston is slipping back, and it must be added that Johnston is a bowler better suited to English than Australian pitch conditions.'
In the event that 1953 series was not a success for Johnston. But in 54/55 he returned to form, taking 19 wickets to lead the Australian charts.
The impression I get from that passage is the writer having to prove Johnston's credentials, in contrast to the rightly famous Lindwall and Miller's entries.
His batting is clearly treated as a bit of a joke but he did average 11 and made a high score of 29. And v WI at Melbourne in '51-52 his 7* contributed to a last wicket partnership of 38 with Doug Ring that secured the series for Australia. Of course, Richie Benaud does point out that the running was 'adventurous'.
Benaud also delivers an anecdote about Johnston (apologies if this is duplication - I haven't read the whole discussion). He tells us that ahead of the 1949-50 SA Test series Johnston injured himself in a road accident in SA. This led Miller, who had remarkably been dropped, to be added to the squad. After seeing Miller arrive Johnston made a remarkable recovery taking 23 wickets in the series, whilst Miller also had a good series. Had Miller not been added to that squad it is possible that Miller would have remained on the sidelines and missed out on the 61 wickets and 1064 runs he scored after that point.
However, Benaud only really mentions Johnston is passing, which probably reflects his standing - Lindwall, Miller and Morris share a chapter, and O' Reilly has one of his own.
As somebody who has died in the digital age, there are plenty of interesting articles on Cricinfo. Gideon Haigh's is probably the finest - http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/295893.html. Includes some content not yet covered, and a favourable comparison (at his peak) with Lindwall, Miller, Bedser - and Ramadhin.
I don't know which way I'll go yet, but, like Turner, he's a serious candidate.
Tayfield tomorrow evening, probably.
But, anyway, here is his profile from the 1953 Evening News 'Meet the Australians' pamphlet that some rather incredible friends of ours gave me (many other old sources of mine came from them too):
'Australia's most hard-worked bowler since the war has been Bill Johnston, the long, gangling fellow from Victoria. In 29 Tests he has sent down nearly 1,300 more balls than has Lindwall in four more matches, and both have taken 132 wickets. He was the only Australian to take more than 100 wickets during the 1948 tour of England, and in all first-class cricket he has now taken more than 400.
Johnston is one of the game's most endearing characters, and one of the most entertaining. His joyous participation in the game is obvious to spectators, and the batting antics of this tall fellow with loosely knit limbs compel laughter from the most seriously minded.
At first sight Bill Johnston looks anything but a player of games. His limbs seem to work independently of each other ad to obey no instructions from his mind. Yet, when he starts to bowl everything seems to click into place, and he becomes a splendid fast medium left hander who can also bowl spinners at slow medium. Curiously, when he first moved into Melbourne from the country, he was a baseball pitcher. He came to nothing much at that game, switched to cricket and made rapid progress.
IN A TANGLE AT BRISBANE
As a batsman Johnston fails to bring his unduly limbs under the same control as when he bowls. His strokes are peculiar, he is a menace running between the wickets with arms and bat wildly waving, and he is the sort of fellow certain to be involved in comic situations. None who saw the hilarious tangle he and Iverson produced while at the wicket together in the Brisbane Test of 1950 can ever forget it.
Johnston played the ball almost to the boundary at third man. He was sure it would be four and did not run. Iverson ran down the wicket and turned back. Then Johnston began to have doubts and followed him. So Iverson again begain in his direct, but once more Johnston changed his mind. So it went on. Finally the ball was chased and stopped on the edge of the boundary, and, when it was returned, both batsmen were back where they started. From all their manoeuvres not a single run accrued.
Only a year later he played four Tests against India and headed the Australian bowlers with 16 wickets at an average of 11.37. Then in 1948, beginning with five for 36 at Trent Bridge, he took 27 wickets at 23.3 against England and continued successful until this past Australian season, when for the first time his Test wickets, 21 at 35.05, were expensive. It would, however, be premature to assume that at 31 Johnston is slipping back, and it must be added that Johnston is a bowler better suited to English than Australian pitch conditions.'
In the event that 1953 series was not a success for Johnston. But in 54/55 he returned to form, taking 19 wickets to lead the Australian charts.
The impression I get from that passage is the writer having to prove Johnston's credentials, in contrast to the rightly famous Lindwall and Miller's entries.
His batting is clearly treated as a bit of a joke but he did average 11 and made a high score of 29. And v WI at Melbourne in '51-52 his 7* contributed to a last wicket partnership of 38 with Doug Ring that secured the series for Australia. Of course, Richie Benaud does point out that the running was 'adventurous'.
Benaud also delivers an anecdote about Johnston (apologies if this is duplication - I haven't read the whole discussion). He tells us that ahead of the 1949-50 SA Test series Johnston injured himself in a road accident in SA. This led Miller, who had remarkably been dropped, to be added to the squad. After seeing Miller arrive Johnston made a remarkable recovery taking 23 wickets in the series, whilst Miller also had a good series. Had Miller not been added to that squad it is possible that Miller would have remained on the sidelines and missed out on the 61 wickets and 1064 runs he scored after that point.
However, Benaud only really mentions Johnston is passing, which probably reflects his standing - Lindwall, Miller and Morris share a chapter, and O' Reilly has one of his own.
As somebody who has died in the digital age, there are plenty of interesting articles on Cricinfo. Gideon Haigh's is probably the finest - http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/295893.html. Includes some content not yet covered, and a favourable comparison (at his peak) with Lindwall, Miller, Bedser - and Ramadhin.
I don't know which way I'll go yet, but, like Turner, he's a serious candidate.
Tayfield tomorrow evening, probably.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Tue 19 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm
The thing I just don't get about Johnston and Turner is that, relatively speaking, the Aussies don't seem to rate them; perhaps it's due to the comparitively short careers or something else, but I don't see anything in their records that yells out to me that Benaud, the Aussie HOF, anyone is wildly wrong.
How come Shelsey "has died in the digital age" - is there something we don't know??
How come Shelsey "has died in the digital age" - is there something we don't know??
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Tue 19 Mar 2013, 5:16 pm
All predominantly pre-WWI cricketers apart from WG Grace and, to an extent, SF Barnes seem to be less well treated than their 'golden age' and 1970s/80s counterparts. I'd also say post-WW2 (Johnston's era) get a relatively harsh time as well - probably because they were before the time of most current commentators/ Hall of Fame selectors etc. and their names aren't etched in history like Bradman, Hammond and Hobbs.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Tue 19 Mar 2013, 5:29 pm
There is no question that Turner's stats, even when we consider the differences of the era, are very impressive. However it has to be said that his career has been rather short. For many here, a short career was the reason to vote down one of the greatest innovators the game has seen. From the discussions that we've had, my sense is that Turner left the game to pursue his business interests. Ranji had problems getting selected due to his Indian origin at the beginning of his career, then he had injuries, loss of form and his political interests preventing a longish career. I don't see how we could apply different rules for Ranji and Turner.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Tue 19 Mar 2013, 6:56 pm
msp83 wrote:There is no question that Turner's stats, even when we consider the differences of the era, are very impressive. However it has to be said that his career has been rather short. For many here, a short career was the reason to vote down one of the greatest innovators the game has seen. From the discussions that we've had, my sense is that Turner left the game to pursue his business interests. Ranji had problems getting selected due to his Indian origin at the beginning of his career, then he had injuries, loss of form and his political interests preventing a longish career. I don't see how we could apply different rules for Ranji and Turner.
I think we should judge people on our own criteria, and on that basis if you voted for Ranji the length of Turner's career should be no problem.
Plus, 17 Tests is quite a lot in an era when there were 2 teams...
I don't know if business played a part, but this article (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/603210.html) suggests his Test career ended after being dropped, possibly following a disagreement with George Giffen. The fact that he owed money in England, after the failure of his business, may have contributed to his decision not to return to the fold, but this doesn't seem to have been substantiated anywhere.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Tue 19 Mar 2013, 7:37 pm
If Turner's financial issues played a part in his career getting reduced, there are parallels with Ranji again. Of the attempted character assassination of Ranji that again proved to be one of the reasons behind him getting voted down, the only aspect that was substantiated was his inability to manage his financial situation with any prudence. Again, there isn't a significant difference between 17 and 15 tests.
As far as voting criteria is concerned, each of us are the judges of our own criteria for sure. But the criteria also has to have a rational basis on a thread like this, and although each individual is the judge and decider of their criteria for their calls either way on a candidate, the historical background does play a part in shaping your criteria. It doesn't need to stay constant. So where Ranji cannot go, I think Turner, who's case has many similarities with Ranji, cannot go either.
As far as voting criteria is concerned, each of us are the judges of our own criteria for sure. But the criteria also has to have a rational basis on a thread like this, and although each individual is the judge and decider of their criteria for their calls either way on a candidate, the historical background does play a part in shaping your criteria. It doesn't need to stay constant. So where Ranji cannot go, I think Turner, who's case has many similarities with Ranji, cannot go either.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Tue 19 Mar 2013, 9:40 pm
kwinigolfer wrote: How come Shelsey "has died in the digital age" - is there something we don't know??
Shelsey started a second career as a ghost in 1993.
Probably explains the admirable breadth of his knowledge, not least about some of these older cricketers.
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 kwinigolfer Wed 20 Mar 2013, 12:32 am
Wow, There was always a shadowy figure in the background during my heavenly reminiscences with John Arlott and his never-ending supply of Beaujolais.
I thought it was the dreaded drink and the Alderney air, but now I understand.
I thought it was the dreaded drink and the Alderney air, but now I understand.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Wed 20 Mar 2013, 11:22 am
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
kingraf likes this post
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by alfie Wed 20 Mar 2013, 12:40 pm
OK , I haven't really contributed to this group but have read those who have...Thought I had better vote now as I may not be on much for a few weeks as I will be on holiday. Then again will actually be in England , so if the weather I am reading about continues perhaps I will be posting while staying indoors 
Turner and Johnston haven't quite convinced me. Perhaps unfair but I see Johnston as the third man to Lindwall and Miller and I can't put him in the same category. Turner's shortish career counts against him , though his figures are excellent ... I don't know why these two don't grab me , or the Australian HoF it seems , but a rather wishy washy NO from me.
Tayfield as the South African spinner. Always had the impression he was a bit of a legend in his day . His figures stand up ,and he was certainly a match winner for South Africa on several occasions when their team was not quite as strong as the one they field today. Am I too easy on him ? Maybe , but I think he deserves a spot. YES.
Finally Ntini ...in a nutshell , msp has convinced me. Figures good if not fantastic , certainly a real trier , whose success may eventually have outdone his natural talent , if you know what I mean ... and I can't ignore the role model thing... YES from me.
And hopefully when this resumes from hibernation I will have more time to address the next group...
-------
https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=42592
Turner and Johnston haven't quite convinced me. Perhaps unfair but I see Johnston as the third man to Lindwall and Miller and I can't put him in the same category. Turner's shortish career counts against him , though his figures are excellent ... I don't know why these two don't grab me , or the Australian HoF it seems , but a rather wishy washy NO from me.
Tayfield as the South African spinner. Always had the impression he was a bit of a legend in his day . His figures stand up ,and he was certainly a match winner for South Africa on several occasions when their team was not quite as strong as the one they field today. Am I too easy on him ? Maybe , but I think he deserves a spot. YES.
Finally Ntini ...in a nutshell , msp has convinced me. Figures good if not fantastic , certainly a real trier , whose success may eventually have outdone his natural talent , if you know what I mean ... and I can't ignore the role model thing... YES from me.
And hopefully when this resumes from hibernation I will have more time to address the next group...
-------
https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=42592
alfie- Posts : 21846
Join date : 2011-05-31
Location : Melbourne.
Sponsored content
Page 20 of 20 • 1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20
Similar topics» The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2
» 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2
» 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Cricket :: 606v2 Honours Board
Page 20 of 20
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum