Kapil Dev inducted into Hall of Fame

[Richard]

No way was 99 better than 96. The quarterfinals, one semifinal and the final in 96 were top notch.

Whereas, in 1999, almost the entire tournament was top-notch - the only letdowns were the final and the opening ceremony.

No way on Earth was 1995/96 even a patch on 1999. But for 1991/92 that'd be the best (men's, cricket, senior) World Cup history has yet produced.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Whereas, in 1999, almost the entire tournament was top-notch - the only letdowns were the final and the opening ceremony.

No way on Earth was 1995/96 even a patch on 1999. But for 1991/92 that'd be the best (men's, cricket, senior) World Cup history has yet produced.

You havent put enough thought into this for that opinion to be taken seriously.

 

[Sanz]

That's becoming a bit meaningless really Rich. It's either the third worst, or alternatively, second best WC of the four WCs you've seen.

I thought 96 was decent - there were some very good performances, and a bit of an upset in the final. 02/03 was a great tournament in my opinion. 2007 wasn't great, and what I remember of it, '91/92 wasn't really the stuff dreams are made of.

Not to forget, a lot of times these perceptions are based on how did your team do. I don't remember watching much of 1983 WC, but to me it is the best. I thought 1987 was pretty good because I watched almost every match and India did very well in there.

At the end of the day it is a matter of opinion of one over another. I really don't understand how can one say with so much certainty that one WC was worse than the other esp if you have not watched it.

Having watched 1999 and 1996 both World cups, I think both were great tournaments as entertaining as the 1992 one. Although many Pakistani fans will disagree with me and say that 1992 was better, again one reason could be because their team did great.

 

[Migara]

It was sad to see Kapil only introduced now. His contempory Ian Botham was there some time back. So are thry implying Botham > Dev?

 

[Sanz]

It will not hurt to check the history of the ICC HoF.

"The ICC Cricket Hall of Fame was launched on 2 January 2009 in association with the Federation of International Cricketers Associations (FICA), as part of the ICC's centenary year celebrations. The ICC Cricket Hall of Fame recognises the achievements of the legends of the game from cricket's long and illustrious history.

The initial intake of inductees are the 55 players named in the FICA Hall of Fame, which ran between 1999 and 2003. This will be supplemented by a select group of inductions each year, which started in 2009 when five new inductees; Wasim Akram, Clarrie Grimmett, Herbert Sutcliffe, Victor Trumper and Steve Waugh, were announced as new members of the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame at the LG ICC Awards."

I don't think Indian Players are part of of FICA, and that is the reason I believe they were not in FICA HoF.

 

[The Sean]

So we need to add these five players...

This will be supplemented by a select group of inductions each year, which started in 2009 when five new inductees; Wasim Akram, Clarrie Grimmett, Herbert Sutcliffe, Victor Trumper and Steve Waugh, were announced as new members of the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame at the LG ICC Awards."[/I]

To this list?

Akram should be on that list very soon. Was Gower that good to be a Hall of Famer ?

New Zealand (1)
Richard Hadlee

South Africa (2)
Barry Richards , Graeme Pollock

Pakistan (3)
Imran Khan, Hanif Mohammad , Javed Miandad

India (3)
Bishan Bedi , Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar

Australia (11)
Keith Miller, Bill O’Reilly, Rodney Marsh , Dennis Lillee, Ray Lindwall, Neil Harvey , Donald Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud, Allan Border

West Indies (14)
Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes , Frank Woolley , Frank Worrell . Vivian Richards, Andy Roberts, Garfield Sobers , Malcolm Marshall , Rohan Kanhai , Michael Holding , Lance Gibbs , Clive Lloyd , George Headley , Gordon Greenidge

England (21)
Brian Statham, Fred Trueman, Derek Underwood , Wilfred Rhodes , Peter May , Alan Knott, Jim Laker, Harold Larwood , Leonard Hutton , Jack Hobbs , Graham Gooch, David Gower, WG Grace, Tom Graveney , Walter Hammond , Denis Compton, Colin Cowdrey , Ian Botham, Geoffrey Boycott , Alec Bedser , Sydney Barnes ,

 

[Sanz]

To this list?

Here is the list :-

International Cricket Council - ICC Events and Awards - Hall of fame - Hall of Famers

 

[Richard]

You havent put enough thought into this for that opinion to be taken seriously.

I have, I've put in loads TBH.

 

[Richard]

Not to forget, a lot of times these perceptions are based on how did your team do.

Ind33d - though not for me. And in any case, apart from the 1991/92 event, I've no memory at all of England doing remotely well in a WC - and 1991/92 is relatively hazy.

 

[Sanz]

So what is the rationale behine saying 96 WC is not a patch on 1999 ?

 

[Richard]

The fact that 1999 contained a good few exciting, close, live games of cricket; 1995/96 contained mostly dead games (the only live ones were the knockout rounds).

 

[Sanz]

The fact that 1999 contained a good few exciting, close, live games of cricket;

The one like this one ?

Final: Australia v Pakistan at Lord's, Jun 20, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

1995/96 contained mostly dead games (the only live ones were the knockout rounds).

I am not sure how many 1996 games you watched, but 1996 WC had its fair share of exciting, competitive matches in the group round.

 

[Sir Alex]

The one like this one ?

Final: Australia v Pakistan at Lord's, Jun 20, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com



I am not sure how many 1996 games you watched, but 1996 WC had its fair share of exciting, competitive matches in the group round.

Kenya beating West Indies was the pick among those.

 

[Sir Alex]

Kenya beating West Indies was the pick among those.

I think 96 WC had it's share of exciting matches like the following

1st Match: England v New Zealand at Ahmedabad, Feb 14, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com NZ defended a target of 240 despite England cruising at 100/1 at one stage.

19th Match: India v Australia at Mumbai, Feb 27, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

20th Match: Kenya v West Indies at Pune, Feb 29, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

26th Match: Australia v West Indies at Jaipur, Mar 4, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com (WI beat Australia)

Apart from this, almost all the knockout matches (from the QFs) were exciting..

 

[Richard]

The one like this one ?

Final: Australia v Pakistan at Lord's, Jun 20, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

The final was pretty much only the 2nd letdown of the tournament, after the opening ceremony. Almost everything in between was interesting.

I am not sure how many 1996 games you watched, but 1996 WC had its fair share of exciting, competitive matches in the group round.

It did, but none of them had anything much at stake. It really didn't matter a great deal who won them, because the quarter-finalists were as good as a formality. About the only question was whether Zimbabwe might sneak in ahead of someone - and sure enough, they didn't.

The only part of the 1995/96 competition that mattered was the quarters, semis and final.

 

[Sanz]

The final was pretty much only the 2nd letdown of the tournament, after the opening ceremony. Almost everything in between was interesting.
.

All of Super Six in 1999 was Boring and dull. I have not seen a more boring India-Pak encounter.

 

[Sanz]

It did, but none of them had anything much at stake. It really didn't matter a great deal who won them, because the quarter-finalists were as good as a formality. About the only question was whether Zimbabwe might sneak in ahead of someone - and sure enough, they didn't.

If ZIm in QF was so bad then you are defeating your own argument that sneaked in supersix in 1999 WC and ofcourse it mattered who won them, If WI didn't win their game against Australia, they would have been out and Kenya would have been in the Quarters.

 

[Richard]

All of Super Six in 1999 was Boring and dull. I have not seen a more boring India-Pak encounter.

So India-vs-Pakistan was the entire Super Six? Explains what you said earlier about people judging an entire tournament by their team's games.

FTR, out of the 9 Super Six games, only 2 could be said to be relatively uneventful (and that is if you refuse to accept that India-Pakistan is an event regardless of what happens, as I wouldn't) - the other being Australia-India in the Super Six opener. All the others were either fascinating in themselves, utterly vital (right down to the most intimate detail) to what happened vis-a-vis semi-final qualification or both.

 

[Richard]

If ZIm in QF was so bad then you are defeating your own argument that sneaked in supersix in 1999 WC

Eh?

 

[Sanz]

So India-vs-Pakistan was the entire Super Six? Explains what you said earlier about people judging an entire tournament by their team's games.

FTR, out of the 9 Super Six games, only 2 could be said to be relatively uneventful (and that is if you refuse to accept that India-Pakistan is an event regardless of what happens, as I wouldn't) - the other being Australia-India in the Super Six opener. All the others were either fascinating in themselves, utterly vital (right down to the most intimate detail) to what happened vis-a-vis semi-final qualification or both.

Boring is Boring, it doesn't matter who plays in it. The outcome of the matches may have resulted in interesting calculations but it still didn't change the fact that Super Six MATCHES was boring.

3rd Super: New Zealand v Zimbabwe at Leeds, Jun 6-7, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
1st Super: Australia v India at The Oval, Jun 4, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
4th Super: India v Pakistan at Manchester, Jun 8, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
6th Super: New Zealand v South Africa at Birmingham, Jun 10, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
5th Super: Australia v Zimbabwe at Lord's, Jun 9, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com