Cricket -- Hall Of Fame

[Xuhaib]

Barry Richards????

Why don't they they just include Hick and Ramps, Mendis aswell if thats the criteria.

 

[Xuhaib]

If Barry is there then what did Mike Procter do wrong to miss out?

 

[fredfertang]

Having been so pleased to see Larwood included closer inspection and the implication that Rod Marsh is at least the second best 'keeper of all time rather shafts the credibility of this Hall of Fame for me

 

[sanga1337]

Thats one dodgy list. How does Ken Barrington and Herbert Sutcliffe miss out when players like Graveny, May and Gower get in? Joel Garner should also be somewhere in there as well.

 

[Xuhaib]

Thats one dodgy list. How does Ken Barrington and Herbert Sutcliffe miss out when players like Graveny, May and Gower get in? Joel Garner should also be somewhere in there as well.

awta.

 

[G.I.Joe]

My guess is they're taking the word 'fame' literally. Barry Richards is more famous than Mike Proctor. Marsh was more famous than many other keepers.

 

[Uppercut]

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

They probably suppose he's too recent, as with the likes of Ambrose. He only retired in 2002, even if it does seem longer ago...

I wonder what their criteria was.

 

[Goughy]

I guessing it is just the original guys inducted in 1999.

New guys will be added soon.

 

[Tapioca]

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.

1909 could be the only reason why Trumper is out. Grimmett has a bigger claim than the other two.

Barry Richards????

Why don't they they just include Hick and Ramps, Mendis aswell if thats the criteria.

Too recent. Hick and Ramps will be in by 2018.

 

[Anil]

Edit : No Atherton also!

you and richard should get together and discuss the injustice of that...seriously how can you even begin to consider atherton for a cricketing hall of fame?

 

[wpdavid]

Having been so pleased to see Larwood included closer inspection and the implication that Rod Marsh is at least the second best 'keeper of all time rather shafts the credibility of this Hall of Fame for me

Possibly 3rd behind Walcott. Point taken though.

 

[Anil]

there should be some minimum stats criteria - no: of tests played, average etc in addition to their impact on the game...barry richards was probably one of the most talented openers in the history of cricket but the problem is he just didn't play enough international cricket to be included in a hall of fame...

 

[zaremba]

there should be some minimum stats criteria - no: of tests played, average etc in addition to their impact on the game...barry richards was probably one of the most talented openers in the history of cricket but the problem is he just didn't play enough international cricket to be included in a hall of fame...

I disagree. It's not all about Test cricket and to exclude Barry Richards on the ground you propose seems arbitrary and unnecessary. WG Grace's Test achievements are relatively modest but he must obviously be one of the very first players inducted into any cricketing hall of fame.

 

[Goughy]

Going through the names, Im probably harsher than most.

I think a Hall of Fame sould be limited to the very greatest. I hate all-inclusive efforts that become meaningless. THe US does HoFs prety well and they are exclusive places.

Of the 55 listed I would include approx 38.

Side exhibits should be included that tell the story of cricket and includes names that otherwise wouldnt be included.
- Early days
- Bodyline
- SA Isolation
- OD Legends
- Great Captains

 

[zaremba]

Going through the names, Im probably harsher than most.

I think a Hall of Fame sould be limited to the very greatest. I hate all-inclusive efforts that become meaningless. THe US does HoFs prety well and they are exclusive places.

Of the 55 listed I would include approx 38.

Side exhibits should be included that tell the story of cricket and includes names that otherwise wouldnt be included.
- Early days
- Bodyline
- SA Isolation
- OD Legends
- Great Captains

I agree with you. Underwood another good example of a very fine player who has no business being anywhere near a Hall of Fame.

Are you disappointed to see Brearley excluded?

 

[Goughy]

Are you disappointed to see Brearley excluded?

haha, Im sure you know I dont mind that.

What is interesting is that I would have to exclude Barry Richards, Gooch and Larwood who are 3 of my favourite cricketers of alltime and who I pretended to be as a kid.

To me its about talent, genius, achievement and sustained impact. Unfortunately my 3 favs all have a hole in their resume

 

[Anil]

I disagree. It's not all about Test cricket and to exclude Barry Richards on the ground you propose seems arbitrary and unnecessary. WG Grace's Test achievements are relatively modest but he must obviously be one of the very first players inducted into any cricketing hall of fame.

but his inclusion is what seems arbitrary and unnecessary...it should at least be about international cricket if not solely about test cricket, what would be the sense in a hall of fame if it looks so strongly at first class stats and figures on unrecognized rebel tours and adjudges someone a hall of famer? that is not an inclusion by any objective or elite enough standards...grace would be an acceptable exception because of his immense contributions to the growth of modern-day cricket and their cases are not really comparable...

 

[zaremba]

but his inclusion is what seems arbitrary and unnecessary...it should at least be about international cricket if not solely about test cricket, what would be the sense in a hall of fame if it looks so strongly at first class stats and figures on unrecognized rebel tours and adjudges someone a hall of famer? that is not an inclusion by any objective or elite enough standards...grace would be an acceptable exception because of his immense contributions to the growth of modern-day cricket and their cases are not really comparable...

Fair points.

But my personal view is that Richards' status in the game, even without Test cricket, is such as to warrant a place in this hall of fame. Without having thought much about it, I'd say he's one of the top 3 or so openers of all time and was in his day the best player in the world.

 

[zaremba]

haha, Im sure you know I dont mind that.

What is interesting is that I would have to exclude Barry Richards, Gooch and Larwood who are 3 of my favourite cricketers of alltime and who I pretended to be as a kid.

To me its about talent, genius, achievement and sustained impact. Unfortunately my 3 favs all have a hole in their resume

The problem with this sort of exercise is that, for the reasons you've given, the merely excellent should probably be excluded. Who, then, merits a place in the Hall of Fame?

We can probably agree on the following:

Grace
Bradman
Hobbs
Hammond
M.W. Tate
Sobers

Who else?

 

[Goughy]

Who else?

Those that combined statistical achievements, a moderate to long career with a sublime genius at the height of their game with some landmark peformances.

So who would that be?

Tough one.

I have a list but Ill not post it as I dont want to have to defend my choices (or exclusions) from irate fans of certain people