And well it should.I think baldness constitutes automatic exclusion.
Good to see you back fella.
I have no real problem with Healy being inducted, but George?George Giffen and Ian Healy will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
I can hear Jono's screams of horror.
Probably more to do with averaging 21 with the ball and almost 30 with the bat in FC cricket. In the context of uncovered pitches, etc., is probably a great of his era rather than an all-time great. They've already inducted all the other greats haven't they?I have no real problem with Healy being inducted, but George?
At the risk of being howled down by any historians on here, George averaged 23 with the bat and 27 with the ball, and only took 100 wickets. C'mon!! For mine, a Hall of Fame denotes greatness- it's not something you stroll into due to the effluxion of time.
If you look at two of the main criteria for the award:I have no real problem with Healy being inducted, but George?
At the risk of being howled down by any historians on here, George averaged 23 with the bat and 27 with the ball, and only took 100 wickets. C'mon!! For mine, a Hall of Fame denotes greatness- it's not something you stroll into due to the effluxion of time.
HahaGeorge Giffen and Ian Healy will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
I can hear Jono's screams of horror.
Basically the reason I believe that giving each individual player a rating for each game they play is the most accurate way of finding the best player for such awards. Obviously that system still has it flaws, but not nearly as many as a 3-2-1 system imo.Big problem with the voting for this is that because it's only for one side, and the voting system is so rigid, you don't earn votes for your effect on the game, but only for what you did compared to your teammates. You see how in AFL, the B&F voting is different to the Brownlow style, to make sure that it's a more accurate reflection of the efforts of the players. Something needs to be done about the system - when you're the third best player in a big loss, chances are that you don't deserve the votes nearly as much as the third best player in a big win.
Excellent points, and well made.Big problem with the voting for this is that because it's only for one side, and the voting system is so rigid, you don't earn votes for your effect on the game, but only for what you did compared to your teammates. You see how in AFL, the B&F voting is different to the Brownlow style, to make sure that it's a more accurate reflection of the efforts of the players. Something needs to be done about the system - when you're the third best player in a big loss, chances are that you don't deserve the votes nearly as much as the third best player in a big win.