Cricket -- Hall Of Fame

[biased indian]

The International Cricket Council (ICC) named 55 players in its Cricket Hall of Fame,

you can see the details of players here Link ..quiet expectedly dominated by Aussies ,English and WI players

but very surprised that no SL player has been mentioned in the list

 

[wpdavid]

The International Cricket Council (ICC) named 55 players in its Cricket Hall of Fame,

you can see the details of players here Link ..quiet expectedly dominated by Aussies ,English and WI players

but very surprised that no SL player has been mentioned in the list

Who did you have in mind, given that current players can't really be described as 'legends'? I think it would be pushing things to place Ranatunga in that sort of company.

I think it's a shame that they've largely ignored players from the start of the 20th century.

 

[Goughy]

The thing about these things is that they can become far too inclusive and lose any worth.

It should not be the 'Hall of Very Good' but reward excellence.

I dont think I would have any Sri Lankans in there at the moment and I think I conservatively counted 6 names currently included that I wouldnt have in there either.

 

[biased indian]

Ranatunga or dulip mendis .....will have them any day ahead of say gooch...their contribution to SL cricket also has to be considered

 

[Goughy]

Ranatunga or dulip mendis .....will have them any day ahead of say gooch...their contribution to SL cricket also has to be considered

I dont think Gooch should be there but he is lightyears ahead of Ranatunga.

Including Ranatunga in this would completely devalue the whole endevour.

As for contributions to SL cricket, they are not counted otherwise people like Plum Warner would dominate.

 

[biased indian]

I dont think Gooch should be there but he is lightyears ahead of Ranatunga.

Including Ranatunga in this would completely devalue the whole endevour.

As for contributions to SL cricket, they are not counted otherwise people like Plum Warner would dominate.

why ranatunga made SL world beaters in ODI(won world cup cricket) and to a certain extend in Test cricket ...or is it that this list does take into account him just a player what he did individually

 

[zaremba]

Duleep Mendis? You are having a laugh.

I have to agree that England is over-represented. Gower, Gooch and especially Graveney are lucky to make it in. I'm pleased that Statham and Woolley have been included though.

 

[NUFAN]

Are my eyes deceiving me or has Sunil Gavaskar really been excluded?

Edit - The eyes were deceiving me.

 

[biased indian]

Are my eyes deceiving me or has Sunil Gavaskar really been excluded?

Edit - The eyes were deceiving me.

that light blue hat might have been the problem

 

[wpdavid]

I'm astonished that Wasim Akram isn't there.

And from earlier times, Trumper & Armstrong. Maybe Spofforth - wasn't it him who effectively created 'The Ashes'? Sutcliffe has a stonger claim than Gooch, Gower & Graveney imo.

 

[Goughy]

Duleep Mendis? You are having a laugh.

I have to agree that England is over-represented. Gower, Gooch and especially Graveney are lucky to make it in. I'm pleased that Statham and Woolley have been included though.

Yeah too many English players though the more I think about it the more I think Gooch is borderline (previously Id have excluded him).

He is Englands leading Test run scorer, has more runs at first class and list A combined than any player in history, he holds the world record for the most runs in a Test match, had a 20 year Test career and possibly played the greatest innings of all time.

He has a case but it isnt ironclad.

 

[Matt79]

No Shane Warne, Steve Waugh, Glenn McGrath or Adam Gilchrist?

 

[wpdavid]

No Shane Warne, Steve Waugh, Glenn McGrath or Adam Gilchrist?

Probably too recent - ditto Lara, Pollock & Inzy

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, there must be an element of 'sufficient time having past to allow an objective assessment'.

Was Curtly Ambrose NOT on the list?

Either way, ****ing disgrace that Peter Taylor has been left off.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, there must be an element of 'sufficient time having past to allow an objective assessment'.

Was Curtly Ambrose NOT on the list?

Either way, ****ing disgrace that Peter Taylor has been left off.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm astonished that Wasim Akram isn't there.

And from earlier times, Trumper & Armstrong. Maybe Spofforth - wasn't it him who effectively created 'The Ashes'? Sutcliffe has a stonger claim than Gooch, Gower & Graveney imo.

I got the impression looking at the list that it was just players who fall within the centenary years 1909-2009, but then right at the end up pops WG himself.

 

[wpdavid]

I got the impression looking at the list that it was just players who fall within the centenary years 1909-2009, but then right at the end up pops WG himself.

Quite. It's as if they initially only wanted players who played within the ICC's 100 years but thought they'd better include WG otherwise the Hall of fame would look silly. tbh I find their heading 'A century of Cricket' rather unfortunate, as if there wasn't any before 1909. Beyond all that, there must be loads of players pre-WW2 who have been overlooked by inferior players since then.

 

[Migara]

Ranatunga or dulip mendis .....will have them any day ahead of say gooch...their contribution to SL cricket also has to be considered

Gooch was a hell of a player mate. There's no comparison of him with Ranatunga or Mendis. The closest we can get is Aravinda de Silva. I doubt whether he makes it in a list of test legends, but he'll definietly make in to ODI legends, possibly in top 15.

 

[susudear]

What the

Gooch in...

Ambrose out...

Gotta be kidding.

Edit : No Atherton also!

 

[fredfertang]

Amazed and delighted to see Larwood included - perhaps history is now beginning to recognise his greatness