The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1

First topic message reminder :

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, although if they get between 50 and 75% of the vote they will be voted on again at a later date. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and therefore no currently active players will be considered.

Every fortnight 5 candidates are considered. Voting deadlines and forthcoming candidates are listed at the bottom of the the stickied thread in the Honours Board section.

Forum members can nominate candidates by posting in the current thread, which is stickied in the main cricket section.

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.

guildfordbat wrote:
Benaud described Chappell's actions as ''a disgraceful performance'' and ''one of the worst things ever done on a cricket pitch''.

During the time Trevor Chappell was being instructed to bowl underarm and the umpires were being advised accordingly (hence calculated in my book), wicketkeeper Marsh continued to shake his head and repeatedly mouth the word ''No''.

I agree with Richie Benaud. It was certainly disgraceful. But to pretend it was in a different league from other acts on a cricket pitch is just wrong.

Sorry Corporal but you're wrong. From the time the idea spawned in Chappell's head to the delivery being bowled would be about a minute (see youtube video). From the time you claim a bump catch to the batsman leaving the field would be at least the same (considering there would no doubt be a conference between the umpires and some delay).

As I said, under that pressure, at that level things happen fast, and a minute trust me is not a long time to think.

None of this is to defend what Chappell did, but to put it into context. There are very very few international sportsmen who haven't at some stage done something they are ashamed of on the field. For me the key is whether they learn from their mistakes thereafter. Undoubtedly Chappell did.

Mike - it's all about opinion. Benaud also said of the incident at the time that he didn't expect more than fifty per cent of people to agree with him about it being one of the worst things ever done on a cricket pitch. As you know, I'm in the percentage - whatever its size - that sticks by his view.

Indeed it's all about opinion. I respect everyone else's but some of my lesser qualities include subbornness, self-confidence and lack of diplomacy (ask MfC who knows me outside these forums). Thus I'm right, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and that's the end of the matter. (I add a smiley to show I'm not being serious, and reitirate it in these parenthesis)

Obviously one of the good things about online forums is we can have civilised debates and not necessarily agree on everything. I respectfully disagree with yourself and the corporal, for the reasons stated.

I think we've probably ran our race on this one now, unless anyone has anything new to add.

Mike Selig wrote:
I think we've probably ran our race on this one now

Yes, I think we have.

You should feel proud of a respectable third place behind the Corporal and me.

Perhaps but I claim the moral high ground...

Mike Selig wrote: From the time the idea spawned in Chappell's head to the delivery being bowled would be about a minute .... From the time you claim a bump catch to the batsman leaving the field would be at least the same ....

I would flag up agreement that we might well be talking about the same time period - but I think there is an issue as to whether like is being compared to like. But as this is ground that's been trampled on like a wicket on the fifth day of a test match I'm happy to draw stumps on the discussion.

Maybe we should turn our attention to WG Grace..... I don't know how reliable the story is that after the end of a day's play the umpire commented that he was surprised no one appealed for a dismissal on the last ball. At the start of the next day's play, before the first ball was bowled, WG appealed and the batsman was give out. I'm not 100% convinced it's true - but if it's not apocryphal, it would certainly have been a premeditated bit of dodgy behaviour

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Maybe we should turn our attention to WG Grace..... I don't know how reliable the story is that after the end of a day's play the umpire commented that he was surprised no one appealed for a dismissal on the last ball. At the start of the next day's play, before the first ball was bowled, WG appealed and the batsman was give out. I'm not 100% convinced it's true - but if it's not apocryphal, it would certainly have been a premeditated bit of dodgy behaviour

Numerous stories about the Doctor, including the famous line "people have come to watch me bat, not you bowl" when he was clean bowled first ball and just replaced the bails as if nothing had happened.

The one you quote sounds plausible, although technically it's not out as the ball was dead at the end of the day, and an appeal must happen before the ball is dead. Whether this was the case back then I don't know.

I've read about that incident somewhere myself somewhere Mike (though I can't remember where). Pretty sure the dead-ball laws were different then and were changed as a consequence of WGs actions. (Though I might be wrong on that)

Talking of Chappell's. Is Ian in the HOF?

Very good bat, great skipper and one of the best commentators.

I believe, Ian, as a player, was a notch below Greg.

Hi Leff - I think that's a pretty commonly held view about Ian and Greg Chappell which I would also go along with.

However, I believe Tony Greig once stated that he considered Ian not only better but one of the three best batsmen he had ever played against (the other two being Viv Richards and Barry Richards). If that proves anything, it's how much cricketing opinions can differ!

Ian was a tactically brilliant skipper. He had his own gambling instincts and sometimes he managed unexpected wins.

As a batsman, Greg was superior. Greg had textbook style without any major weaknesses. Greg played all strokes with ease. He was one the most elegant batsmen Australia had produced. Ian, in contrast, was aggressive with his pull- and hook-shots, and there were many cross-batted strokes. Ian was generally good against spinners as he did not hesitate to step out of the crease, but he was troubled by Prasanna and Bedi repeatedly. The blackest hole in Ian's personal record was his performance against SA. He played 9 tests, all in SA, all 18 innings, with an average of just 17 runs. He could not handle the bowling of Procter, Goddard, Pollock (Pete), and Barlow. Greg, on the other hand, was never seriously troubled by any particular opposition or in any specific country although his average in England was only about 40.

I suppose if we were to include Ian Chappell in our initial 30, a few others of that era could make their claims (e.g., Redpath, Simpson, Walters, Sheehan, Cowper, Lawry, Stackpole, Cowdrey, Edrich, Amiss, Borde, Sardesai, Zaheer Abbas, etc.).

Chappell for me is a bit like Bedi: he is very good without being great. He was a very good captain, but there have been a few better ones. He was also a very good slip fielder, but again not amongst the best of all time. He has been a fantastic commentator.

Does very good player, captain, commentator merrit inclusion on its own. I would argue that nothing I. Chappell did transcended the sport, so no.

Mike Selig wrote:Chappell for me is a bit like Bedi: he is very good without being great. He was a very good captain, but there have been a few better ones. He was also a very good slip fielder, but again not amongst the best of all time. He has been a fantastic commentator.

Does very good player, captain, commentator merrit inclusion on its own. I would argue that nothing I. Chappell did transcended the sport, so no.

Mike - after our recent bickering (albeit fairly good natured), you may be surprised to know that I completely agree with your assessment of Ian Chappell.

not sure I'd call it "bickering" guildford, that makes you sound like an old married couple frank exchange of views is more like it (with Mike at his diplomatic best )

Anyway I pretty much agree with what you sya on I. Chappell, not sure he has that "bit extra" we're talking about to make it into our hall of fame.

Another negative against Ian Chappell is he lost a fight with Sir Ian. I expect more from our Hall of Famers.

Leff wrote:...I suppose if we were to include Ian Chappell in our initial 30, a few others of that era could make their claims (e.g., Redpath, Simpson, Walters, Sheehan, Cowper, Lawry, Stackpole, Cowdrey, Edrich, Amiss, Borde, Sardesai, Zaheer Abbas, etc.).

Leff - some excellent names there - not least Bobby Simpson, Zaheer Abbas and Cowdrey - who are not a million miles away from the H of F. But all are just a bit short. Pleased to see mention of Edrich (presumably John?) in this company. I remember listening to several Zaheer centuries in my youth on test match special thinking that he would never ever be dismissed...

First test match I ever went to was England v Pakistan at Edgbaston in 1971. Zaheer scored 274 and, as the Corporal suggests, looked for most of that innings as if he would never ever be dismissed.

Pakistan batted the whole of the first two days and then a bit into the third morning. Yes, it ended in a draw. A proper test match ....

So then, the results have been totalled.

Ken Barrington makes it through with only one vote going against him, and is joined by Alec Bedser as a first ballot inductee into our Hall of Fame, as Bedser was voted in unanimously.

The shock of this round of voting is the exclusion of Greg Chappell. He missed out by the narrowest of margins, just falling short of the 75% vote required. It would appear that the late change of heart from the Corporal into a no vote sealed his fate. He does however qualify for second ballot status, so we will be able to discuss his inclusion in 2012.

Bishan Singh Bedi and Geoff Boycott didn't fare anywhere near as well, and were excluded from our Hall of Fame emphatically.

I have set up our inductee thread in the 606v2 Honours Board section.

The next set of candidates will be posted up by Friday.

very good fists look forward to our vote next week.

Fists - what's all this about a ''second ballot status''? It's not The X-Factor, you know!

Anyway, thanks for doing all this, Fists. Good entertainment. Sorry if I've upset any Greg Chappell fans out there - even you, Mike - but I called it as I saw it and remembered it.

Assuming you're following the ICC list, Fists, I think one of the next names will be very interesting ....

Yep, the ICC list is being followed initially.

I was a firm advocate for Chappell being included, but it went to the vote and he just missed out - no arguments on my side. In terms of talent he is a shoe-in, but obviously his extra-curricular activities have counted against him in this instance.

It'll be up to the advocates to put forward a good argument second time round to ensure his inclusion.

Fists of Fury wrote:The shock of this round of voting is the exclusion of Greg Chappell.

Curse you democracy

Fists of Fury wrote:
The shock of this round of voting is the exclusion of Greg Chappell. He missed out by the narrowest of margins, just falling short of the 75% vote required. It would appear that the late change of heart from the Corporal into a no vote sealed his fate. He does however qualify for second ballot status, so we will be able to discuss his inclusion in 2012.

At least the issues were well aired Didn't realise we would have to go through it all again!

Mike vs guildford R2

sit back and enjoy the show

I've just won the equivalent of the Thriller in Manilla (put that in for Fists) on the narrowest of points decision and then get told I've got to do it all again!

Corporal - please get ready to assemble the troops for a three line whip ....

Ha, not for a long while you haven't got to, so plenty of time to revel in your glory for the time being, sir.

I didn't quite understand the process.

One person picked 30 of his favourites and called them 'founding members' and some of these were called 'first ballot' inductees after a few comments asking for their inclusion or exclusion?

It would have more democratic asking all visiting members to list their 30.

No. I listed a possible inaugural 30, a list which was then tweaked after a big discussion (see the first 3 pages of this thread) on who the majority thought should be in there.

After all settling on the inaugural 30 (the founder members), we then began the process of working our way through the current ICC Hall of Fame, to see which of those were voted into our own Hall of Fame. The first round of voting was completed, with 2 people being elected as first ballot inductees to our Hall of Fame. The next round of voting will commence as of tomorrow.

By 'first ballot' it means that they were inducted at the first possible chance. I.e. Barrington is first ballot, but if Greg Chappell were to be inducted when we discuss him again next year then he would be classed as second ballot.

Mike vs Guildford is far better than F90 vs Shanks

Fists of Fury wrote:So then, the results have been totalled.
Ken Barrington makes it through with only one vote going against him, and is joined by Alec Bedser as a first ballot inductee into our Hall of Fame, as Bedser was voted in unanimously.

This reminds me of the time Bush won over Gore, with the help of hanging chad.

I voted against Bedser. The 30 I proposed on the previous page did not include Bedser.

guildfordbat wrote:I've just won the equivalent of the Thriller in Manilla (put that in for Fists) on the narrowest of points decision and then get told I've got to do it all again!

Corporal - please get ready to assemble the troops for a three line whip ....

Twas a robbery, judges were bent, etc. etc.

Revenge will be all the sweeter.

Leff wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:So then, the results have been totalled.
Ken Barrington makes it through with only one vote going against him, and is joined by Alec Bedser as a first ballot inductee into our Hall of Fame, as Bedser was voted in unanimously.

This reminds me of the time Bush won over Gore, with the help of hanging chad.

I voted against Bedser. The 30 I proposed on the previous page did not include Bedser.

I think you misunderstand this process, Leffy. The original 30 were set in stone, and we then vote on groups of 5 in order to decide which to add to that 30 in our HoF.

Fists of Fury wrote:
The original 30 were set in stone, and we then vote on groups of 5 in order to decide which to add to that 30 in our HoF.

So, it wasn't an entirely democratic process then. There was no option for members to disagree with your favourite 30 as chosen by you.

Leff are you following? We had about three pages worth of discussion on the original 30. Fists made his list, we all disagreed, some names were added while others were removed. It was democratic, but you only arrived after we'd all (just about) agreed on the original 30.

Leff, go back and read the first 3 or 4 pages of this thread mate

It would have been more democratic if all members had the opportunity to propose names.

They did...hence why I said go and read the first 3 pages. The majority of names in there were accepted by everyone, and then we kept tweaking it until everyone was generally happy.

So, on that note, I'd suggest you go back and read this entire thread before mentioning a lack of democracy again.

we did Leff, we spent over a day discussing who we thought should be in the list, and who we thought shouldn't be, and eventually arrived at a very good consensus - not perfect, obviously, because there's no way more than 10 people could agree on the exact same thirty, but I think we'd all agree on at least 25 names in there.

It would have been a better process to have all members propose their lists and base the 30 on the ones with the most votes, as was the case with other lists. That's my view after reviewing the entire thread.

That would have taken days upon days, this way was quick and just as democratic - the upshot being that a list of 30 won't always be precisely to everyones tastes, but providing the majority are happy with 90%+ of the list, then that was good enough for everyone.

There is no perfect way of establishing an inaugural 30, so going with an initial list which we then tailor to suit the consensus makes a heck of a lot of sense, and I really don't know what your issue with it is.

I think this way actually caused a better debate rather than having everyone posting a list.

Just out of interest Fists, I get we're going though the original HoF list from the ICC (in alphabetical order) but will we then be allowed to nominate other players that we feel are worthy of a spot who were ignored by the ICC? I think Mike mentioned Bevan for his ODI efforts for instance...

I second what Stella said. The HoF shouldn't just be about posting lists, it should be about convincing others on here that players are worthy of a spot. Plus I'd have found a list of 30 to be very difficult to establish, so was very grateful to Fists for providing us with a starting point.

The 'perfect' method would have been to base the initial 30 on lists proposed by each member. That's just my view.

Precisely, stella.

MFC, you're right, we are working our way through the current ICC list, initially. Once that is done, we will have opportunity to put forward any names we wish to be discussed for inclusion. We will then follow the same protocol, whereby we vote on them in groups of 5. Once that is complete, we will then have the opportunity to revisit anyone that didnt gain the 75% of the vote needed, but that received 50% of the vote i.e. they are eligible to be included as a second ballot inductee.

Hi Leff - I'm very reluctant to disagree with anyone like you who is wise enough to appreciate the immense value of Larry Gomes to the world's greatest test side (I do hope Mike is reading this! ).

However, I have to say that Fists and Mad are correct in their comments about how ''the first thirty'' in our Hall of Fame were chosen. It may not have been perfect but we all thought it was a sensible mix of democracy and practicality. Furthermore, we all had the chance at outset to disagree.

Hope you'll stick around and vote on all the other nominees. Best, Guildford

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:I've just won the equivalent of the Thriller in Manilla (put that in for Fists) on the narrowest of points decision and then get told I've got to do it all again!

Corporal - please get ready to assemble the troops for a three line whip ....

Twas a robbery, judges were bent, etc. etc.

Revenge will be all the sweeter.

Voting was strictly on the merits of case - although the coincidental arrival of Guildford's crate of bubbly for the barracks just before the final voting on Chappell did not go amiss ....

Next set of 5 will be posted tomorrow fellas. Dig the trenches and prepare for battle.