The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread

[Shelsey93]

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:

Spoiler:

Previous debate:
https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1
https://www.606v2.com/t21577-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-2#831213
https://www.606v2.com/t28256-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-3
https://www.606v2.com/t37142-the-v2forum-cricket-hall-of-fame-discussion-thread-part-4#1671498



Right, voting for the current round will close on Sunday - 10am.

Here are my votes:

Charlie Turner - Clearly Australia's stand-out bowler of the pre-World War I era. Yes, he may have had financial issues. But they don't really influence my perception of him as a cricket. He left Tests slightly early but was at an age by which many bowlers of later eras were worn out by. It must also be considered that a tour then consisted of months on a boat so playing international cricket too often was never going to help you financially (amateur game of course). YES

Bill Johnston - I said earlier that he was certainly a serious candidate. But sadly I can't quite find it in me to vote Yes for him. Firstly, he had a few too many poor series. Secondly, he seems very much to have been the third man in a top notch attack. To get in as an unsung hero he probably needed to have played a few more than 40 Tests.

Hugh Tayfield - Very similar sentiments to those I had with Johnston. Of course, it is in Tayfield's favour that he's SA best spinner. But I don't think he was a great - more of an important cog in a decent team. Has probably suffered from not having someone champion his case. NO

Makhaya Ntini - A very good bowler on his day, but it wasn't always his day and he wasn't in the class of a lot of his contemporaries and near contemporaries. His role as an icon is indisputable, but isn't sufficient to get him in the Hall in my view. Only time can tell if he can make a difference. NO

[kwinigolfer]

He won't be in our HOF for anything more than longevity but sad to see Reg Simpson has died at the age of 93.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Sad news indeed Kwini. He was the oldest living England test cricketer.

[kwinigolfer]

Yup, The Bert Williams of cricket!

He faded from the Test scene just as I started to follow it closely, during the 1954/55 Ashes series.

Any idea who his successor as olEtc might be?

Edit: Doug Insole (spelling mistake according to Boycott) is 87 . . . . .

[JDizzle]

Just found this article on Clem Hill from ESPN, not sure if it has been posted already and whilst not really adding anything to the arguments for and against his admission to the Hall, it amused me all the same!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/143363.html

[guildfordbat]

Some excellent posts since this thread restarted but a shame it's been rather stuttery. I hold my hand up there in respect of any criticism. I'll try to give my final comments and, after that, votes tomorrow.

[alfie]

Perhaps a pity this restart sort of coincided with the start of an Ashes series..and an Associates qualifier ...and ODI series etc : trouble is these days there is rarely a break from international cricket...

I will vote YES for Clem Hill . The clincher for me is the run scoring record . Twelve years he held it ? I think that deserves recognition. His overall class is undeniable , and he would probably have walked in earlier were it not for losing something in comparison with the more exciting Trumper...Yes from me now.

Going to turn down Greig . Just . Excellent record , and nearly there but perhaps his Packer involvement just puts me off. Cannot quite get over the fact that he was Captain of England , and still chose to take the money and recruit... I generally say I don't want saints ; and I actually rather liked the man ; but I cannot quite bring myself to give him a tick , though I might be persuaded in a repachage round. NO

Bevan : as previously flagged , will depart from my normal stance of Test Match Snobbism and vote him in. Still don't go to ODIs , mind ; but he entertained me many times on Television back in the day , and swung a few crucial matches for his country in a way no others seemed to do ...he had a special skill. Maybe we should have a separate ODI hall of fame ? Nah...too much work. So that leaves this one , and he gets a YES from me.

[guildfordbat]

... Bevan ... guildford raised the issue of selfishness (although a bit more diplomatically than that). I should respond ... as best I can ...

As to guildford's point, I'm not sure it has that much merit TBH. I can't recall many innings with Australia batting first when Bevan's slow scoring was much of an issue (part of that is undoubtedly that he had a strong bowling attack). I can recall a couple of chases where he proved unable to keep up with the scoring rate, and Australia ending in the end just short (the one most in my mind is the tri-series match in 98/99 against England when England scored 292 I think, and Aus fell just short, with Bevan not out, but criticised for not upping the tempo enough).

However do we attach much importance to a couple of failures against the multitude of successes? Will we count Dhoni's odd failure (he has certainly had a few more than Bevan, either through "leaving it too late", or simply remaining not out whilst everyone collapsed, or a couple of times letting the run-rate get to the stage where only he could win the game, and then getting out - on those occasions he arguably did more harm than good) that strongly when we get around to discussing him? I assume he will (rightly) sail into the HoF when the time comes...

The truth is that Bevan engineered an extraordinary number of run chases, sometimes from astonishingly difficult positions, often marshalling the tail through to victory. Amongst all those, there are bound to be a few times when he gets it wrong, but these were very few and very far between ...

Mike - meant to say thanks earlier for your response. It wasn't a big issue for me but thought it was worth asking as I came across it in reading up on Bevan. It was actually raised and then rather dismissed - see the words in brackets at the end of the quote below - by the Indian writer Harsha Bogle in an article about Dhoni's one-day career. Bogle commented on the high number of not-outs that Dhoni had made in ODIs and flagged that others had pointed out that his average fell to 37 if all innings were taken into account, regardless of whether he was dismissed or not. Bogle compared this ''every ODI innings average''with that of 35 for Bevan and added:
''As an aside, that demand to take away the effect of not-outs comes largely from top-order players, and I have heard it stridently argued by one such Australian cricketer, who thought players like Bevan liked the not-outs rather too much and that therefore players like him were more valuable in the second-innings than in the first, where the desire to stay unbeaten could result in fewer runs for the team. (When you have been around for a while you realise that the genesis of most points of view lies in where a particular player's numbers are strongest.)''

I would have left it there but came across a comment this afternoon in ''CMJ A Cricketing Life''* which certainly suggests others were sacrificed at times for the greater good, namely Bevan. CMJ writes about his son, Robin, bowling at his best against his former county team mate Bevan who was then playing for Leics:
''... it was some recompense for the times when RM-J had been run out for nought or one, unselfishly trying to give the esteemed Bevan the strike late in a Sunday League innings.''

That all said, Bevan won't stand or fall by this for me but found it interesting and worth bringing to the table.

* I was actually reading this initially to take in CMJ's views of Greig. More later.

[guildfordbat]

Some characteristically astute comments about Greig from CMJ in his final book A Cricketing Life. Like many of the comments on this thread, there's a liking and some respect for Greig but also a recognition that the man was not without faults.

Apologies this post is late in the day but I don't expect it to change views and nor is it intended to do so. More perhaps, an interesting confirmation of the conflicting virtues and vices which he presented and which we now need to judge.

Praising but ultimately damning on Greig the commentator: ''To his credit Greig himself has never lost his enthusiasm but he became, and remains, overinclined to hyperbole as a commentator. When 'every game on our hands' is 'marvelous', every ball 'a gem', every shot a 'real beauty', every dropped catch 'atrocious' and every situation 'absolutely sensational', there is not much room for anything prosaic. This is the voice of the salesman, not of the expert. It is better to be honest. '

As for the always thorny subject of Packer, CMJ supports my memory of the time and refers to initial reaction here being 'largely hostile' with Greig being 'seen as the betrayer of a system that had elevated him to the highest honour in the English game.' CMJ concludes this subject with these carefully balanced words:'The great majority of people in his position, presented with the same set of circumstances, would have done the same thing as he did in dancing to Packer's tune, but others, with a different background and upbringing, might have felt compelled to say 'thanks, but no thanks'. I know that I would have been in the latter category, which is not to say that I do not understand why he acted as he did.'

CMJ also draws some attention to Greig's highly controversial 'run out' [the appeal was withdrawn over night] of Kallicharran at Port of Spain after the last ball of the day had been bowled and refers to it as 'beyond the pale in both England and the West Indies'. CMJ later refers to this incident as demonstrating that 'he was an opportunist as well as a pragmatist'.

In contrast to Greig's infamous 'grovel' comments, we should perhaps give him credit for a less known starement that CMJ highlights: ''In my view Indian umpires are the best in the world''. Made at his opening press conference on the morning of the England team's arrival for the 1976/7 series in India. A mix of diplomacy and gamesmanship that was considered by many to play a subsequent part in the large number of successful lbw appeals made by swing bowler John Lever.

CMJ's summing up of Greig is probably spot on, even if perhaps unhelpful for those still deciding which way to vote:
''Eventually, judged against other great all-rounders, his Test averages as a batsman (40) and bowler (32) suggested that he was an even better player than he was but he was the original fighting cricketer and no one in my experience ever made more of his natural ability.''

[Hoggy_Bear]

Some good stuff there Guildford.
I must admit (and it's probably obvious), that I'm a big fan of Greig the player. Think he's underrated as an all-rounder and he was certainly someone who often performed at his best in a pinch. However there were, as you say, problems about his career that need to be addressed.
While I believe that, ultimately, WSC was more beneficial to cricket as a whole than it was detrimental, the WAY in which Greig went about accepting Packer's offer and recruiting others is problematic for his candidature here, at least. Could he not, for example, have gone to the ECB and said 'Look, I've been made this offer, and a number of other players are interested, could you make us an increased offer for next year'. Don't know if any such conversation occurred and it might seem like blackmail, but at least, if he'd done that it would have given the ECB an opportunity to respond that simply accepting Packer's offer and signing up players secretly, didn't.
Of course the ECB may just have rejected such an approach, but were they given the chance?

[guildfordbat]

Some good stuff there Guildford.
I must admit (and it's probably obvious), that I'm a big fan of Greig the player. Think he's underrated as an all-rounder and he was certainly someone who often performed at his best in a pinch. However there were, as you say, problems about his career that need to be addressed.
While I believe that, ultimately, WSC was more beneficial to cricket as a whole than it was detrimental, the WAY in which Greig went about accepting Packer's offer and recruiting others is problematic for his candidature here, at least. Could he not, for example, have gone to the ECB and said 'Look, I've been made this offer, and a number of other players are interested, could you make us an increased offer for next year'. Don't know if any such conversation occurred and it might seem like blackmail, but at least, if he'd done that it would have given the ECB an opportunity to respond that simply accepting Packer's offer and signing up players secretly, didn't.
Of course the ECB may just have rejected such an approach, but were they given the chance?

Thanks, Hoggy. I suspect that Packer had already made clear to Greig that if he tipped off the ECB about what was going on, all bets were off between the two of them and Greig would have to look elsewhere for a job for life. Pure speculation but I would be surprised if Packer hadn't considered and planned for this eventuality.

[msp83]

Greig mentioned in his MCC lecture that one of his regrets about WSC is that he couldn't keep the England chief selector in the loop at the initial stage. This is what he said then.
ket with things such as TV coverage and sponsorships.

"I only have two regrets about World Series Cricket. E W Swanton was very good to me throughout my career and I am saddened that despite numerous attempts
by me, I never had a chance to make peace with him after World Series Cricket. Second, I had a wonderful relationship with the chairman of selectors, Alec
Bedser, which continued through and beyond World Series Cricket. I know Alec understood why, but I dearly would like to have told him of my plans before they became public. However, I promised Kerry I wouldn't."

[msp83]

I hope those haven't voted yet would have a look at this article before taking a final call.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/570263.html

[msp83]

This is what Ian Chappell wrote about Greig after his death. The one standout from there that we haven't covered much is the pitch digging incident of 1976 and the stand that Greig took as England captain.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/598964.html

[guildfordbat]

This is what Ian Chappell wrote about Greig after his death. The one standout from there that we haven't covered much is the pitch digging incident of 1976 and the stand that Greig took as England captain.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/598964.html

Thanks, msp. Found that a moving article from Chappelli - must have been incredibly so for him.

Take your point about the standout being the pitch digging incident. As an aside (it's not meant to detract from what Greig did), it's now generally unknown or forgotten that it ended up raining from before lunch for the rest of the day so neither side would have won anyway.

My eyes also particularly caught these words of whoster in the Cricifo Conversations beneath the article:
'his presence would always make the game more exciting and entertaining'.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I have scrolled through 7 pages of debate, discussion and opinions.

To not find a single mention of Johnson Charles is outrageous. A clear oversight has occured  

[guildfordbat]

I have scrolled through 7 pages of debate, discussion and opinions.

To not find a single mention of Johnson Charles is outrageous. A clear oversight has occured  

Olly - good to see you over here. I assume you're referring to the current West Indian cricketer and not some legend of the past by the same name who played Minor Counties cricket for Norfolk as well as coming on once for Norwich City as a 90th minute sub in the Milk Cup! If the former, have to tell you we only debate players on this thread once they've hung up their boots.

Anyway, feel free to stick around.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I knew there must be some reason for it Guildford

I'll stick around, put my opinion around

[msp83]

I have scrolled through 7 pages of debate, discussion and opinions.

To not find a single mention of Johnson Charles is outrageous. A clear oversight has occured  

Don't worry, he'll walk in the moment he retires. Just an eventuality waiting to happen!!.
Do stick around as Guildford said and add to the fun.

[msp83]

I've come to know from quite reliable sources that Tony Greig has scored more runs than any other number 6 in the history of English cricket!!!!.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Musing about Bevan. Is his case for inclusion somewhat akin to that of Jonty Rhodes - one played important role in improvement of fielding, the other in the skills around milking the bowling, keeping scoreboard ticking over in limited overs cricket.  I think I'm happy to accept that Bevan played a standout role in showing batsmen how to make the transition from first class / test match skills to the kind of approach that could pay off in limited overs matches against defensive bowling and fields.  I'm just not quite convinced that is quite HoF worthy - though I respect views of those who disagree.  I am a NO - unless change my mind before the stumps are drawn.

Feeling indecisive on Grieg - might just be in the NO camp on basis of actions in recruiting for Packer while England captain.

[guildfordbat]

Musing about Bevan. Is his case for inclusion somewhat akin to that of Jonty Rhodes - one played important role in improvement of fielding, the other in the skills around milking the bowling, keeping scoreboard ticking over in limited overs cricket.  I think I'm happy to accept that Bevan played a standout role in showing batsmen how to make the transition from first class / test match skills to the kind of approach that could pay off in limited overs matches against defensive bowling and fields.  I'm just not quite convinced that is quite HoF worthy - though I respect views of those who disagree.  I am a NO - unless change my mind before the stumps are drawn.

Feeling indecisive on Grieg - might just be in the NO camp on basis of actions in recruiting for Packer while England captain.

Corporal - re Bevan, there is a similarity with Jonty Rhodes' nomination and, particularly, the consideration of it as far as my own thinking goes.

I gave Rhodes a YES vote but only after needing to satisfy myself on two counts. Firstly, that the basis of the unique and innovative case was sufficiently strong and worthy for the HoF; AND (important to emphasise that for me there are two components) secondly, that there were no weaknesses in other parts of his game to exclude admittance. I therefore couldn't ignore Rhodes' Test batting record although I did end up concluding it wasn't bad enough to prohibit admittance and that he could enter the HoF for his ''improvement in fielding'' as proposed.

At the time of voting for Rhodes, I did make the throwaway comment - that now comes back to haunt me and perhaps Bevan - that whilst I am a massive fan of Mike Brearley, I couldn't vote for him to join the HoF solely on the strength of his outstanding captaincy but would need to factor into the mix his Test batting record which would regrettably rule him out. Brearley never scored a Test century and has a Test average of 29.  

I'll post separately about Greig.

[guildfordbat]

This is what Ian Chappell wrote about Greig after his death. The one standout from there that we haven't covered much is the pitch digging incident of 1976 and the stand that Greig took as England captain.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/598964.html

...

My eyes also particularly caught these words of whoster in the Cricifo Conversations beneath the article:
'his presence would always make the game more exciting and entertaining'.

The main memory now of Greig for those of us who were around when he was playing is probably his link up with Packer. Whilst that is understandable, it may well mean that earlier memories are too easily forgotten. I feel that would be tough on him and msp's cause as Greig really was an exciting entertainer.

To understand this better, things need to be put in context of the time. When Greig began playing professional cricket in this country for Sussex, county cricket was much loved and more so than today. However, that is not to say the game was without its failings. This is beautifully captured by Michael Simpkins, a self-admitted cricket nerd who spent much of his formative years in the 1960s watching Sussex, in his delightful book, 'The Last Flannelled Fool'. He writes:
'As with any sporting obsession, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Nobody would pretend that watching county cricket was unalloyed pleasure. There were some terrible days as well, of course, there were - freezing to death on splintered benches, huddling under brollies, sitting on piles of damp newspaper surrounded by discarded fruit pie wrappers, listening to fellow enthusiasts slowly boring themselves - and you - to oblivion, waiting for pitch inspections that never arrived and players' autographs that never materialised. I particularly recall one day of watching Leicestershire's Barry Duddleston and Mick Norman put on about thirty  in an entire two-hour session against a trundling Sussex attack, an ordeal of such unutterable bleakness that suicide seemed an attractive option. '

Simpkins contrasts this with the impact of Greig's arrival at Hove, 'Tony Greig had one thing you can't learn in the nets or even out in the middle - he had star quality.' He continues, 'Brash, bumptious and oozing self-belief, he was somehow different to the other cricketers on the county circuit, if only because he seemed entirely at ease with glamour and celebrity in a way that normal county pros weren't back then. I'd watched him with increasing devotion ever since his arrival at Hove back in 1967.'

None of this of course means that posters are wrong to have other concerns about Greig but again I believe it belongs in the mix.

[msp83]

Thanks Guildford for that last post.......
Coming back to my comparison of the treatment of WSC and the rebel tours, I think we are giving too much importance to what people thought at that point. I understand the British government wasn't entirely sincere with regard to dealing with the horrer regime in South Africa, and sections of the English public were more accommodating of the Rebels to South Africa than Greig. But as I tried suggesting through my previous posts, this section's opinion is far from being the representative of a global public opinion, and in India and the West Indies, the priorities were the other way round. Also, saying many people thought at the given time on one particularly line may not always be a good enough reason. There were lot of people who voted for the horrer regime in South Africa who came to admire Nelson Mandela later.

[Guest]

are we still going with this?

[Hoggy_Bear]

are we still going with this?

Would love to.
Think the Ashes got in the way a bit, maybe there's more time for people to join the discussion now.

[kwinigolfer]

I voted last month . . . . or was it the month before?

[Biltong]

SO

Is Kallis in, or do we have to vote on it?

  

[guildfordbat]

SO

Is Kallis in, or do we have to vote on it?

  

Biltong - with memories of your treatment of the late Eddlie Barlow still in mind, I don't believe we should deny you the opportunity to run Kallis' name up the flagpole and then attack it with an axe.   

[Biltong]

SO

Is Kallis in, or do we have to vote on it?

  

Biltong - with memories of your treatment of the late Eddlie Barlow still in mind, I don't believe we should deny you the opportunity to run Kallis' name up the flagpole and then attack it with an axe.   

Will never do that to the King of Kallis mate.

[kingraf]

I will warn you all in advance - my only back up argument for the Kallis nomination is "Greatest cricketer of all time" ad imfinium.

[msp83]

Think Kallis will have to wait, as he's yet to fully retire from international cricket. His should be an automatic entry with a couple of weeks for us to celebrate Kallis the cricketer whenever he calls it a day from limited over cricket as well. But before that we have another automatic entry to be completed, that of Sachin Tendulkar.
But someone will have to take charge of this most interesting thread soon!.

[Guest]

IMO Kallis is the greatest all-rounder of all time....

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Tendulkar shouldn't be in

[guildfordbat]

Tendulkar shouldn't be in

Olly - what's your thinking?

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Tendulkar shouldn't be in

Olly - what's your thinking?

Trying to get the thread going...  

[msp83]

Tendulkar shouldn't be in

Olly - what's your thinking?

Trying to get the thread going...  

Really hope it works!.

[guildfordbat]

Olly - fair enough, just thought there might be some deeper reason.

I doubt that I'll have enough nerve to vote 'No' on Kallis when the time comes but he isn't quite the nailed on certainty for me as he is for other posters. Expect that to cause some fireworks if not death threats! Strange as he splendidly ticks so many of the boxes that I normally look for in a candidate. Anyway, mustn't get ahead of ourselves - more of that another day.

In the meantime, only fair as far as msp goes and the admirable campaign that he has run, to confirm my YES vote for the late Tony Greig. Not without controversy and concern but an earlier quotation carries the day - ''his presence would always make the game more exciting and entertaining''.

[msp83]

For what its worth, 3 yes from me.......

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Can someone explain to me what the point of this is? Are we making a team?

What does the voting entail?

I'm intrigued

[Biltong]

Basically this is the V2 hall of fame, every now and then we nominate retired players that we want in the hall of fame, you can argue for and against, and then we have a vote.

If successful the ex player is then inducted into our hall of fame

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Ah cool cheers Biltong   

So when KP's kicked out by the ECB, we shall debate? That'll be interesting

[Mike Selig]

All,

I think it's time to take this up again. I apologise for being a terrible host this last month, but as others have said the ashes somewhat got in the way. However with them done and dusted, and nobody being too interested in the ODI stuff going on (as far as I can tell), we should have more time on here to get this excellent thread up and running again.

To remind ourselves of where we were, we were debating Clem Hill, Tony Greig and Michael Bevan. Some good points had been put up in favour of all of them, and some reasonable doubts as well. Feel free to read over the last couple of pages for more details, I will try to post a summary sometime later this afternoon.

As to the continuation of the thread, obviously Tendulkar and Kallis will be up for nomination later on.

I suggest we have a closing deadline of Sunday evening for this current bunch - this gives us a few more days to round off any issues.

Apologies once again.

[kwinigolfer]

Just to confirm my position on these:
Hill: Yes
Greig: Never
Bevan: No

More details in my pre-Thanksgiving post from Nov 26th.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Glad to see this thread up and running again.
I'll confirm a YES vote for Hill right now, but I'll have to come back to you with my votes on Greig and Bevan a bit later I'm afraid. More consideration needed.

[Hoggy_Bear]

As a follow up to my previous post, and in an attempt to ignore the ODI result, I would like to add YES votes for both Greig and Bevan.
Greig was an underrated all-rounder who often performed well in a pinch and on the opposition's turf. In addition he was a pretty well respected captain as far as I can tell. His commentary could be over the top at times and didn't really influence my decision one way or another. Of course, his involvement with Packer was a thorny issue to consider and, while I believe that he was wrong to use his position as England captain to help recruit players, I do believe that, in the end, Packer had a beneficial effect on the game.
Bevan meanwhile is undoubtedly, an all-time great in terms of ODIs and, while I personally would give more weight to test cricket performance in the course of this process, I am not averse to inducting the creme de la creme of ODI performers simply on that basis. I don't think there's any doubt that Bevan belongs in that category.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Beven - somewhat reluctant YES. Marginal decision - but he was highly influential in taking the ODI game forward.    
Hill - YES
Greig - NO (marginal decision)

[Mike Selig]

My votes then:

Bevan: YES as per my case. A giant of the ODI game, and influential in moving it forward.
Hill: fairly clear YES as one of the top 2 or 3 batsmen of his age.
Greig: a marginal call for me, but in the end I'm comfortable with a YES vote. I think he has loads of positives, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that cricket isn't ultimately better off for his actions during World Series, for whatever reasons. I think his playing career, captaincy style, performances under adversity, and his roles in cricket once he stopped playing outweigh any residual negatives from the way he went about things.

[guildfordbat]

My votes:

Greig - YES, as above, on careful and delicate balance.

Hill - YES, as previously. History does not seem to have remembered Hill as well as he deserves. Good if we can rectify that in our own small way.

Bevan - NO. A strong case made by Mike based upon his ODI performances and finishing role. I have no problem with that being the central plank of his case. However, his Test batting record is a significant weakness that I cannot overlook. For me, the good and the not so good parts need to go into the mix with any candidate, albeit the weight given to such parts does not have to be the same. To be fair, I said and did the same when judging Jonty Rhodes' nomination. Even with giving the most weight to the factors highlighted by Mike in this latest nomination, I cannot get round Bevan having too substantial an Achilles heel.

[Mike Selig]

Reminder for any stragglers to get their votes in by tomorrow morning please.

[msp83]

Have we got stuck again?

[Sponsored content]