Cricket -- Hall Of Fame

[fredfertang]

It's more looking at overall stats, I think

ITB, probably more so than anyone else in history, deserves to be judged more by his many match winning contributions rather than any apparent mediocrity that his overall stats might hint at

 

[GIMH]

couldn't agree more, thought this was universally accepted tbh

 

[Goughy]

Any particular reason you didn't pick Border? Not that I'm a particular fan of his who now wants to burn down your house or anything, just curious. I'd consider him to have a similar sort of claim to someone like Gooch, maybe even a little stronger.

I think he has a stronger claim than Gooch as well. I dont think I included Gooch either though (if I did I didnt mean to).

A good argument can be made for Border, he just didnt hit the heights of batting genius for me.

Consistent long term excellence but just falls a shade short when compared to the best ever.

 

[fredfertang]

couldn't agree more, thought this was universally accepted tbh

Happen I'm just not too good yet at recognising trolls but I'm sure I've read a fair few posts on here about ITB that have left me with steam coming out of my ears!

 

[bagapath]

ITB, probably more so than anyone else in history, deserves to be judged more by his many match winning contributions rather than any apparent mediocrity that his overall stats might hint at

botham in england victories

IT Botham (Eng) 1977-1991 33 1951 149* 43.35 8 172 8/34 20.09 15 47

for a bowler 15 fivefers in a career would be considered good enough to be ranked among the greatest. holding had 13, garner had 7, davidson had 14 and roberts took 11. botham took 15 in victories alone. and, this is the best part, he also slammed 8 match winning centuries in these matches. 8 centuries in victories would match hutton and barrington's records. it is better than dravid's, hobbs' and sutcliffe's records in wins. simply put, ITB was the ultimate match winner and his name belongs in the hall of fame. absolutely.

 

[silentstriker]

I dont think Richards should be included in this but the above takes the biscuit.

Richards was considered by many to be the best player in the World during his time and performed across 3 continents. Ramps was never considered anything like that.

Richards scored the same number of Test centuries in 4 Tests as Ramps did in 52.

If Im building a team I take Barry Richards over the vast majority of openers. Sure a HoF selection may be a stretch but the above comparison makes me sad.

Are we basing it on talent or on performances? Yes, talent wise, I am sure he was one of the best, I am not disputing that. Four Tests doesn't tell me anything, you need a body of work - anyone can have really good four Tests, if you go by the first few Tests, Vinod Kambli would be compared to Bradman. The fact is, he never achieved (through no fault of his own) anything of note at the Test level. There are guys with just as good/better domestic records who should get the nod before him. If things were different and he did play Test cricket, I have little doubt he'd be in the reckoning for a HoF position. Right now, it's a joke, and it's fair enough to say that Merchant or Ramprakash should be in if Richards is.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Are we basing it on talent or on performances? Yes, talent wise, I am sure he was one of the best, I am not disputing that. Four Tests doesn't tell me anything, you need a body of work - anyone can have really good four Tests, if you go by the first few Tests, Vinod Kambli would be compared to Bradman. The fact is, he never achieved (through no fault of his own) anything of note at the Test level. There are guys with just as good/better domestic records who should get the nod before him. If things were different and he did play Test cricket, I have little doubt he'd be in the reckoning for a HoF position. Right now, it's a joke, and it's fair enough to say that Merchant or Ramprakash should be in if Richards is.

When did Ramprakash ever have four good Tests.

 

[susudear]

Ashes

When did Ramprakash ever have four good Tests.

Ashes 98-99 perhaps?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ashes 98-99 perhaps?

A few 50's might be great by his standards but hardly qualifies him for immortality.

 

[silentstriker]

Ashes 98-99 perhaps?

A few 50's might be great by his standards but hardly qualifies him for immortality.

Four tests don't tell me anything, one way or another. To me, Barry Richards-never-did-it in Tests, while Mark Ramprakash failed in Tests. It may be a difference when picking a side, but retrospectively, if you didn't do it, you can't assume you would have.

 

[zaremba]

botham in england victories

IT Botham (Eng) 1977-1991 33 1951 149* 43.35 8 172 8/34 20.09 15 47

for a bowler 15 fivefers in a career would be considered good enough to be ranked among the greatest. holding had 13, garner had 7, davidson had 14 and roberts took 11. botham took 15 in victories alone. and, this is the best part, he also slammed 8 match winning centuries in these matches. 8 centuries in victories would match hutton and barrington's records. it is better than dravid's, hobbs' and sutcliffe's records in wins. simply put, ITB was the ultimate match winner and his name belongs in the hall of fame. absolutely.

I hadn't seen those stats - pretty impressive. Has anyone done a similar analysis of other all-rounders' performance in won matches?

 

[JBH001]

Yes, they are impressive. 47 catches too.

I wonder how much of the other 6 centuries and 12 five-fers came in draws and losses?

 

[wpdavid]

Yes, they are impressive. 47 catches too.

I wonder how much of the other 6 centuries and 12 five-fers came in draws and losses?

Only one loss - in the 3rd test in Aus during 1979/80 - but it was a very fine innings.

The other thing about Botham's 100's was the state of England's score when he came in usually batting at number 7. In his pomp - from 1978 to 1981 - it was hardly ever with over 150 on the board, and sometimes less than 100. Thereafter he made 3 'soft' hundreds against India (home & away) in 1982 when the top order had actually provided a start, but prior to that he'd usually had to rescue the innings.

 

[Mahindinho]

mate, i am sure ranatunga is rated the same anywhere outside his house. i cant imagine three serious cricket fans sitting together and agreeing on ranatunga as an all time great. dont tell me there is something wrong with this forum in not seeing his genius the rest of the world is celebrating.

i dont fully agree with this selection to be honest, but leaving arjuna is definitely not a concern for me. ranatunga's contribution to sri lankan cricket is very valuable because of the world cup win. but one tournament win, however big it might be, doesnt make the captain an all time legend. remember, mark taylor was a superior captain in tests and was way way better than arjuna as a batsman and even he has not made it to this selection.

kapil, imran, border and clive lloyd are in not only because they are world cup winning captains. look at their overall records and their key performances in so many memorable instances all around the world; you'll see why ranatunga doesnt belong there.

for what it is worth here is my opinion on sri lankan cricketers.

greatest ever: mutthiah muralitharan
best ever batsman: aravinda de silva
most exciting to watch: sanath jayasuriya
most stylish: roy dias, mahela jayawardane
most intelligent cricketer: kumara sangakkara
one player i wish i had seen: mahadevan sathasivam

murali is certainly an all-time legend and will be inducted into the hall of fame. the next best SL cricketers are aravinda and sanath and they dont deserve to be in the hall of fame.

also, there is no way ranatunga's name can be mentioned in the same breath as gavaskar's and boycott's. two bonafide batting legends with 8000 + runs and more than 20 centuries with 45+ batting averages, match winning knocks in oversees tests, runs against the best bowlers in the world.... ranatunga cant hold a candle to them

Nice post.

Ranatunga might have done a lot for SL cricket, but his talent (and average) alone aren't anywhere near enough. Who's to say that a Waugh or a Cowdrey might not have done the same job if they were born Sri Lankan, and done it better?

I'm really not clear on whether the HoF takes OD into account. If so, I think Aravinda's got a very strong case based on talent and style. If he'd played for one of the bigger countries, his Test record would probably have been enough to get him in.

 

[Anil]

At what? Gobbling Mars bars?

No I don't get your theory at all.

Are you referring to his ODI srike rate, it wasn't even exceptional and I'm fairly sure that the main reason why people got inducted was because of their Test performances, not ODI.

that was sarcasm aimed at haroon because of his propensity to harp on strike-rate and slam-bang cricket to the exclusion of everything else, i thought you'd get it, anyway...

 

[Anil]

Oh, and I wouldn't have Ian Botham or Kapil Dev in there either.

on kapil you have a case although i don't have too much of a problem with him being there, he was a genuine world-class allrounder in both tests and one dayers in a long and durable career but in the case of botham, he is a bonafide hall of famer no questions asked...

 

[Beleg]

wasim
donald
waqar
garner
lara

are the five glaring omissions.

and if miandad and mohammad are in then inzamam definitely deserves to be there.

 

[bagapath]

wasim
donald
waqar
garner
lara

are the five glaring omissions.

and if miandad and mohammad are in then inzamam definitely deserves to be there.

dont forget warne, mcgrath, steve waugh and gilchrist. they belong in the list more than waqar, garner and inzy. wasim and lara are absolute certainties i feel; and ambrose too. havent yet made up my mind on donald. may be they will add more names each year and we might see all of them in it soon.

 

[NUFAN]

Hasn't anyone worked out yet that no one who has retired within the last 10 has made it?

The list will grow..

 

[bagapath]

I hadn't seen those stats - pretty impressive. Has anyone done a similar analysis of other all-rounders' performance in won matches?

Leaving aside wins against Bang and Zim and keeping 3 scores of 50+ and 3 hauls of 4 wickets + as minimum requirement statsguru threw up close to 50 names. i chose genuine all-rounders from that list and came up with this.

1. Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 1974-1990 22 790 99 30.38 0 173 9/52 13.06 17 8
2. IT Botham (Eng) 1977-1991 33 1951 149* 43.35 8 172 8/34 20.09 15 47
3. Imran Khan (Pak) 1976-1992 26 900 117 36.00 1 155 8/58 14.50 11 10
4. R Benaud (Aus) 1952-1963 24 892 121 30.75 2 128 7/72 18.32 10 27
5. Wasim Akram (Pak) 1985-2001 34 1059 100 25.82 1 178 7/119 18.27 10 17
6. MA Noble (Aus) 1898-1909 21 890 65 26.17 0 87 7/17 18.36 8 15
7. SM Pollock (SA) 1996-2008 42 1317 111 32.12 1 193 6/30 18.82 8 34
8. KR Miller (Aus) 1946-1956 31 1779 147 43.39 4 113 7/60 19.60 7 23
9. CL Cairns (NZ) 1996-2004 10 654 158 43.60 1 41 7/27 22.24 4 3
10. AW Greig (Eng) 1972-1977 17 1064 139 53.20 3 59 8/86 20.84 4 27
11. TL Goddard (SA) 1955-1970 11 630 74 31.50 0 47 6/53 19.08 3 14
12. JM Gregory (Aus) 1920-1925 13 682 100 37.88 1 62 7/69 26.48 3 29
13. N Kapil Dev (India) 1979-1994 23 888 109 34.15 1 89 7/56 18.04 3 18
14. Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) 1973-1979 9 728 201 56.00 3 30 5/28 20.96 3 14
15. W Rhodes (Eng) 1902-1930 24 1155 179 38.50 2 45 8/68 21.33 3 30
16. GS Sobers (WI) 1956-1974 31 3097 365* 77.42 12 104 6/73 24.04 3 58
17. FE Woolley (Eng) 1910-1932 26 1356 154 41.09 3 42 5/20 22.33 3 28
18. GA Faulkner (SA) 1906-1911 8 578 123 48.16 2 32 6/87 22.37 2 11
18. JH Kallis (SA) 1996-2008 52 4190 186 58.19 13 123 6/54 25.49 2 77