Kapil Dev inducted into Hall of Fame

[Fusion]

So coming back to the subject of the thread, kudos to Kapil Dev on earning this honor. Well deserved. I've always felt that Cricket needs to give more importance to the concept of a HOF. It's a HUGE deal and a topic that generates great sports debate in the USA. The same can apply to Cricket as well.

 

[Pratters]

So coming back to the subject of the thread, kudos to Kapil Dev on earning this honor. Well deserved. I've always felt that Cricket needs to give more importance to the concept of a HOF. It's a HUGE deal and a topic that generates great sports debate in the USA. The same can apply to Cricket as well.

Well said. I would love a few cricket Hall of Fame debates.

 

[Sanz]

HoF Criteria By ICC :-

• He must have a Test and/or ODI batting average of 50 or above
• He must have scored 8000 Test and/or ODI runs and 20 hundreds in either or both those forms of the game
• He must have taken 200 Test wickets in either or both forms of the game and have a strike-rate of a wicket every 50 balls in Tests and/or 30 balls in ODIs
• A captain must have led his side in at least 25 Tests and/or 100 ODIs with a win percentage of 50 per cent or more in either or both
• A wicketkeeper must have secured 200 dismissals in either or both Tests and ODIs
• A woman, in Tests, must have scored 1000 runs at an average of 50 or more and/or taken 50 wickets
• In ODIs a women must have scored 2000 runs at an average of 35 or better and/or taken 100 wickets
• If a person, team or institution does not fall within any of the above criteria, he, she or it can still be put forward by the Nominations Committee if, in the opinion of its members, he, she or it has had a fundamental effect on the history of the game (this criterion would also allow an eminent journalist, umpire, match referee or administrator to be nominated. It is also a sweep-up criterion if someone regarded as a great of the game does not fit into any of the above criteria)

 

[Richard]

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

Zimbabwe were for a fair time on track to pull-off a sensational run-chase and repeat their 16 years previously (to the day, as a matter of fact) upset victory. If that isn't interesting, I don't know what is. The NZ vs SA game was crucial, as I said, down to every detail, to semi-final qualification - again, fascinating and very watchable. India vs Pakistan is an occasion to me regardless of how one-sided it is, and New Zealand vs Zimbabwe was very interesting and featured some excellent quality cricket until rain ruined things.

As I said, only Australia vs India in the Super Six were what I'd consider not all that interesting. Even that featured some superb bowling from McGrath and Fleming and some real fight from Jadeja and Robin Singh.

 

[Fusion]

HoF Criteria By ICC :-

• He must have a Test and/or ODI batting average of 50 or above
• He must have scored 8000 Test and/or ODI runs and 20 hundreds in either or both those forms of the game
• He must have taken 200 Test wickets in either or both forms of the game and have a strike-rate of a wicket every 50 balls in Tests and/or 30 balls in ODIs
• A captain must have led his side in at least 25 Tests and/or 100 ODIs with a win percentage of 50 per cent or more in either or both
• A wicketkeeper must have secured 200 dismissals in either or both Tests and ODIs
• A woman, in Tests, must have scored 1000 runs at an average of 50 or more and/or taken 50 wickets
• In ODIs a women must have scored 2000 runs at an average of 35 or better and/or taken 100 wickets
• If a person, team or institution does not fall within any of the above criteria, he, she or it can still be put forward by the Nominations Committee if, in the opinion of its members, he, she or it has had a fundamental effect on the history of the game (this criterion would also allow an eminent journalist, umpire, match referee or administrator to be nominated. It is also a sweep-up criterion if someone regarded as a great of the game does not fit into any of the above criteria)

Disagree with defining any minimum criteria. Numbers are almost meaningless across eras or even decades, so varried were the playing conditions. I think the voters should simply decide whether each player is worthy of hall of fame, without the constraints of a minimum criteria.

 

[Migara]

I can't still figure out why Underwood desrves to be in that list when Chandrashekar fails to make it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I have, I've put in loads TBH.

If you had, you wouldn't be holding the opinion you do now.

 

[Sir Alex]

Disagree with defining any minimum criteria. Numbers are almost meaningless across eras or even decades, so varried were the playing conditions. I think the voters should simply decide whether each player is worthy of hall of fame, without the constraints of a minimum criteria.

Yep it would be ridiculous to avoid a player like Gundappa Vishwanath or a Laxman just because some arbitrary criteria is not met.

 

[Anil]

completely deserved!

 

[vcs]

Coming in late on the WC debate, I also thought 1999 was a very lacklustre event compared to '96 and '03. Having said that obviously, these judgements are very subjective and biased, and the tournament for me as a fan lost its appeal after India capitulated to Zimbabwe and it took a huge effort just to get to the Super Six. I was never a fan of the carry-over points idea either. There were a couple of memorable matches of course, the semi was probably the greatest ODI ever and the Australia-Pak and Australia-SA matches were great. Ganguly's 188* and Klusener's efforts in that tournament were fantastic.

I personally enjoyed '96 and '03 much more, partly because I followed them more closely and India did well. '92 holds special memories despite India sucking miserably because it brought me into watching cricket.

 

[Edged&Taken]

where are lara, tendulaker, De silva? also why so many english players up there?

should be retired or dead I reckon

 

[Migara]

should be retired or dead I reckon

Now where is Warne, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar etc? They are retired. Neither Botham nor Kapil are dead.

 

[chicane]

Mangoes > Tendulaker > Sobers

 

[Sanz]

Now where is Warne, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar etc? They are retired. Neither Botham nor Kapil are dead.

Dude world is not ending tomorrow, they can't just have all the retired players in HoF and close the door. It is a process which happens every year, they are new to it and things will smooth out in time. Akram was already included last year. Waqar will find the place soon, I am sure.

Generally it takes few years after the retirement to be considered for HOF.

 

[Sir Alex]

Mangoes > Tendulaker > Sobers

Has taken 93 ten fors the last time I heard.

 

[Richard]

Coming in late on the WC debate, I also thought 1999 was a very lacklustre event compared to '96 and '03.

Wow. Just wow. I honestly had never seriously countenanced the possibility that any cricket fan would consider 1999 < 2002/03. Don't mean that perjoratively, just am genuinely astonished. Just about everything I read about the 2002/03 event in its immediate aftermath concurred with my thoughts that it was a dreadful tournament that paled massively in comparison with 1999.

What exactly was it that was superior about 2002/03 to your mind?

 

[Richard]

I can't still figure out why Underwood desrves to be in that list when Chandrashekar fails to make it.

And that could be said for any number of other players. As I said, presently the concept is not something I have any great time for, it's just a bit of by-the-way.

 

[Cruxdude]

Wow. Just wow. I honestly had never seriously countenanced the possibility that any cricket fan would consider 1999 < 2002/03. Don't mean that perjoratively, just am genuinely astonished. Just about everything I read about the 2002/03 event in its immediate aftermath concurred with my thoughts that it was a dreadful tournament that paled massively in comparison with 1999.

What exactly was it that was superior about 2002/03 to your mind?

Isn't it obvious, in between the two losses to Australia, the Indian team was on a roll. Most of India's matches were really good where some decent teams were made to look ordinary. The match against Pakistan was epic and that alone is enough to make it a great WC for us Indian fans. For me that world cup along with 96 will always be special.

 

[Sanz]

What exactly was it that was superior about 2002/03 to your mind?

India's performance ?

 

[Richard]

Isn't it obvious, in between the two losses to Australia, the Indian team was on a roll. Most of India's matches were really good where some decent teams were made to look ordinary. The match against Pakistan was epic and that alone is enough to make it a great WC for us Indian fans. For me that world cup along with 96 will always be special.

I'd hope Indian fans would be able to celebrate what was good about India's performance and what was good about a tournament though.

A fan of the game is more than just a fan of one team, I always hope.