Swashbuckler
First Class Captain
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Runs
- 4,672
- Post of the Week
- 3
NOTE:
1. Talking about men's cricket ONLY. Understandable for ladies though that may change in a decades time.
2. ICC criteria is as follows-
If you go through the list many inductees don't fulfill the checklist. That clearly shows the criteria aren't binding, full power to panel discretion especially when it comes to picking old era players. Completely understandable because stats are just one of many tools to judge the worth of a player especially in a fast changing sport.
3. Don't want to insult any of the inductees, let us keep this thread positive and respectful. All the HOFers are legends in their own right and deserve their place, but key question here is shouldn't the list have more representation of Asian players?
Right now these are the HOFers in men's cricket
Final tally is:
England 25 members
Australia 22
West Indies 18
India 6 (Bedi, Kapil, Gavaskar, Dravid, Kumble, Sachin)
Pakistan 5 (Hanif, Imran, Miandad, Wasim, Waqar)
South Africa 3 (Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, Donald)
New Zealand 2 (Hadlee, Crowe)
Sri Lanka 1 (Murali)
England, Australia have maximum members because they have been playing cricket at the highest level for the longest time and were instrumental in development of the sport in the initial stages. Also convenient for them that cricket was for all practical purposes a sport involving just 2 countries till the end of 1st half of 20th century. But difficult to digest England having more inductees than the greatest cricket nation of the planet, the mighty Aussies. WI representation looks fair considering their past greatness.
NZ hasn't produced as many superstars/legends as rest of the world, I can't think of other players from that country who should be on the list. If you want to induct players like Turner, Sutcliffe, Cairns, Fleming, Astle, Vettori, BMac etc the HOF won't be that exclusive, no disrespect intended. Too many Kiwis who were good to very good but fell short of the 'great' category. Bond had too short a career I guess and no big LOI trophies or marquee test wins in his resume to compensate, don't think he should make the list.
South Africans weren't special till the mid/late 60s and then just when they hit the jackpot of otherworldly talent missed a few decades because of the disgusting system of Apartheid. They have Barry, Graeme, Donald. Their golden generation was the 1998-2015 one and I am sure their numbers will swell in a few years time. Many waiting to get their names included like Shaun Pollock, Steyn, Kallis, Graeme Smith, ABDV, Amla, maybe Boucher and Philander as well. Pretty sure they will have more members than Ind/Pak in 4-5 years time. I think ICC is waiting for that 5 years cooling period before the eventual flurry of SA inductees to take them to double digit tally. I would like to see Gary Kirsten on that list as well, so underrated.
That leaves the 3 Asian teams, from Bangladesh only Shakib may make it and eligible perhaps in 2030 !!!!
Do you think the representation is fair? All those Asians who got the honour were true legends but don't you reckon quite a few have been overlooked? If Cowdrey, Graveney, May, Simpson, Ian Chappell, Gower and Gooch could get in why not Zaheer Abbas, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Asif Iqbal, Amarnath, Majid Khan, Mushtaq Mohammad? What about more recent players like Anwar, VVS, Ganguly, Saqlain, MoYo, Vaas, Sanath, Aravinda etc? Stats aren't everything, some of the past selections do show that, a guy like Trumper averaged a mere 38 but his legend went beyond numbers. Doesn't the same apply to magicians/mavericks like Gupte, Qadir, Chandra, Akhtar? Do you think recent retirees like Younis, Sehwag, Mahela, Herath will get the honour? Sanga I am sure will be inducted.
When it comes to some of the old era English players the reasoning was most likely 'instrumental in development of the sport in that era' or 'national treasure'. Can't the same reason apply to SC pioneers who may not have the greatest stats but were the driving force in establishing cricket culture in their respective countries which ultimately enhanced the following of the sport on a global scale? Like Kardar and Fazal Mahmood for Pakistan, Vijay (all 3 being gems but mainly Hazare), Mankad, MAK Pataudi for India, Ranatunga for the islanders. I can't understand how a genius like Aravinda is missing, he was the face of the Lankan team as they transitioned from minnow status to a top team and ultimately his heroics helped a war-torn wounded country lift a WC so soon after initiation into the elite club, a feat that no other nation will likely repeat. Come to think of it 'Mad Max' Silva was the only batsman in the 90s who at his best could make Lara and Sachin look pedestrian.
Not for a moment am I saying that all the Asian names I listed deserve HOF status but don't you think the 3 Asian teams combined should have more than just a dozen names? Has cricket been unable to shake off its imperial past despite nerve centre of the sport moving to the SC? The list first came out in 2009 and an outsider on seeing the names today might think England is the superpower of this sport. Not an accurate reflection IMO even though we are thankful to them for giving us such a beautiful sport. I understand the English (Brits as an extension) do enjoy blowing their trumpets like how we see in international football or the weird big 4 phrase in tennis when the actual big 3 have at various points won as many grand slams in a calendar year as Murray in his lifetime.
Times have changed, I believe Asian cricket must get its due respect and having a relook at this HOF list should be one of the items on the menu. In fact more players from all teams (esp modern era greats like KP, Haydos, Chanders etc) need to get recognition but special emphasis on our desi ones. As BAFTA is embroiled in the diversity row we might as well start our own campaign to get past SC cricketers their due, and I believe we have a strong case backed by factual arguments.
1. Talking about men's cricket ONLY. Understandable for ladies though that may change in a decades time.
2. ICC criteria is as follows-
If you go through the list many inductees don't fulfill the checklist. That clearly shows the criteria aren't binding, full power to panel discretion especially when it comes to picking old era players. Completely understandable because stats are just one of many tools to judge the worth of a player especially in a fast changing sport.
3. Don't want to insult any of the inductees, let us keep this thread positive and respectful. All the HOFers are legends in their own right and deserve their place, but key question here is shouldn't the list have more representation of Asian players?
Right now these are the HOFers in men's cricket
Final tally is:
England 25 members
Australia 22
West Indies 18
India 6 (Bedi, Kapil, Gavaskar, Dravid, Kumble, Sachin)
Pakistan 5 (Hanif, Imran, Miandad, Wasim, Waqar)
South Africa 3 (Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, Donald)
New Zealand 2 (Hadlee, Crowe)
Sri Lanka 1 (Murali)
England, Australia have maximum members because they have been playing cricket at the highest level for the longest time and were instrumental in development of the sport in the initial stages. Also convenient for them that cricket was for all practical purposes a sport involving just 2 countries till the end of 1st half of 20th century. But difficult to digest England having more inductees than the greatest cricket nation of the planet, the mighty Aussies. WI representation looks fair considering their past greatness.
NZ hasn't produced as many superstars/legends as rest of the world, I can't think of other players from that country who should be on the list. If you want to induct players like Turner, Sutcliffe, Cairns, Fleming, Astle, Vettori, BMac etc the HOF won't be that exclusive, no disrespect intended. Too many Kiwis who were good to very good but fell short of the 'great' category. Bond had too short a career I guess and no big LOI trophies or marquee test wins in his resume to compensate, don't think he should make the list.
South Africans weren't special till the mid/late 60s and then just when they hit the jackpot of otherworldly talent missed a few decades because of the disgusting system of Apartheid. They have Barry, Graeme, Donald. Their golden generation was the 1998-2015 one and I am sure their numbers will swell in a few years time. Many waiting to get their names included like Shaun Pollock, Steyn, Kallis, Graeme Smith, ABDV, Amla, maybe Boucher and Philander as well. Pretty sure they will have more members than Ind/Pak in 4-5 years time. I think ICC is waiting for that 5 years cooling period before the eventual flurry of SA inductees to take them to double digit tally. I would like to see Gary Kirsten on that list as well, so underrated.
That leaves the 3 Asian teams, from Bangladesh only Shakib may make it and eligible perhaps in 2030 !!!!
Do you think the representation is fair? All those Asians who got the honour were true legends but don't you reckon quite a few have been overlooked? If Cowdrey, Graveney, May, Simpson, Ian Chappell, Gower and Gooch could get in why not Zaheer Abbas, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Asif Iqbal, Amarnath, Majid Khan, Mushtaq Mohammad? What about more recent players like Anwar, VVS, Ganguly, Saqlain, MoYo, Vaas, Sanath, Aravinda etc? Stats aren't everything, some of the past selections do show that, a guy like Trumper averaged a mere 38 but his legend went beyond numbers. Doesn't the same apply to magicians/mavericks like Gupte, Qadir, Chandra, Akhtar? Do you think recent retirees like Younis, Sehwag, Mahela, Herath will get the honour? Sanga I am sure will be inducted.
When it comes to some of the old era English players the reasoning was most likely 'instrumental in development of the sport in that era' or 'national treasure'. Can't the same reason apply to SC pioneers who may not have the greatest stats but were the driving force in establishing cricket culture in their respective countries which ultimately enhanced the following of the sport on a global scale? Like Kardar and Fazal Mahmood for Pakistan, Vijay (all 3 being gems but mainly Hazare), Mankad, MAK Pataudi for India, Ranatunga for the islanders. I can't understand how a genius like Aravinda is missing, he was the face of the Lankan team as they transitioned from minnow status to a top team and ultimately his heroics helped a war-torn wounded country lift a WC so soon after initiation into the elite club, a feat that no other nation will likely repeat. Come to think of it 'Mad Max' Silva was the only batsman in the 90s who at his best could make Lara and Sachin look pedestrian.
Not for a moment am I saying that all the Asian names I listed deserve HOF status but don't you think the 3 Asian teams combined should have more than just a dozen names? Has cricket been unable to shake off its imperial past despite nerve centre of the sport moving to the SC? The list first came out in 2009 and an outsider on seeing the names today might think England is the superpower of this sport. Not an accurate reflection IMO even though we are thankful to them for giving us such a beautiful sport. I understand the English (Brits as an extension) do enjoy blowing their trumpets like how we see in international football or the weird big 4 phrase in tennis when the actual big 3 have at various points won as many grand slams in a calendar year as Murray in his lifetime.
Times have changed, I believe Asian cricket must get its due respect and having a relook at this HOF list should be one of the items on the menu. In fact more players from all teams (esp modern era greats like KP, Haydos, Chanders etc) need to get recognition but special emphasis on our desi ones. As BAFTA is embroiled in the diversity row we might as well start our own campaign to get past SC cricketers their due, and I believe we have a strong case backed by factual arguments.
