posted Jan 3, 2009

gower is in the list

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

What a superb ICC idea - to commemorate the obvious. What about ICC legends of Cricket which came out about 7 years ago - what's the point and where's the difference?

The ICC allow sledging, throwing, pressurising of umpires, players to go off in good light when floodlights are available, allow their boards to prepare flat pitches with no result possible to coin in as much revenue but their shiny new image is a hall of fame of the totally obvious - do me a favour!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

Was David Gower really in the same class as Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe, Denis Compton, Wally Hammond, Ranji and Len Hutton? He was good, yes, but truly great?

It is very hard to judge players from different epochs against each other. If you look at the ICC historial ratings, David Gower's top ranking (822 points) puts him only 68th on the list and only just ahead of Ian Botham (811 points, 75th) and a long way behind players like Andy Flower (895, 28th), Michael Vaughan (876, 39th), Alvin Kallicharan (866, 49th), or even Denis Amiss (825, 64th).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

Must say any list that includes Gower and omits Sutcliffe is more than somewhat barking, but that's the ICC.
Where is this Hall of Fame to be? Dubai? Or is it just a conceptual HoF? Basic questions are : what the hell is it for and who do they think will benefit from it ? It smells strongly of something dreamed up at a marketing meeting, and we know how good the ICC are at that - Champions Trophy anyone ?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

On the all-time ICC list, Herbert Sutcliffe comes in 32nd with a highest rating of 888 points. It rather puts David Gower's selection ahead of him into context.

There are only 55 batsmen who have ever gone above 850 points, which is a pretty good criterion for the very best.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

Another name mentioned above: Ken Barrington... 22nd on the all-time list with a peak of 914 points.

I'm a Geoff Boycott fan, but Boycs doesn't make it into the top 100 on the ICC's all-time batting list. His best ever rating puts him just outside the top 100. 100th is Alec Stewart with 779 points.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 3, 2009

Of the top 20 in the ICC's all-time batting list, 6 are current players. Of the 14 eligible for the Hall of Fame list, all bar one are there. The missing one is Dudley Nourse (15th equal with Doug Walters).

Nourse, Barrington and Andy Flower are all in the top 30 of all-time list and long retired, so their exclusion is surprising.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 4, 2009

What about the ommission of Dudley Nourse? Or, as I point out, the surprising inclusions of Gower and Boycott ahead of players like Nourse, Flower, or Barrington?

Of the retired players in the ICC's all time top 50 batsmen, 10 are English and only 9 - including Adam Gilchrist - are Australian. Of bowlers, 11 of the top 50 are English, 14 are Australian (including McGrath and Warne). You might ask why Alan Davidson (13th on the all-time list) and Bill Johnson (19th) are missing and I'd really have no answer.

The point that I am making is that a lot of these names are totally uncontroversial, but there are a number of surprising inclusions and even more surprising omissions. It's jingoistic to look at it as "Poms v Aussies" - look instead at the big names who are missing and the players, such as Boycott and Gower, whose inclusion over then is hard to justify.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2009

Rubbish list.

Whats the point in applying a filter of retiring before 1995?

Most of these names are unheard in the biggest cricketing nations anyway.

The ICC should scroll this list and stuf it up theirs. I'm off to watch next years IPL.

add comment | complain about this comment