CMS Icons #4

[The Professor]

The original poll got washed away in the forum reboot and I cannae remember who I put in so I will have to reselect.

Apologies for anyone who had a dog in that race. We will see them again in future polls.

[Gingerfinch]

went for Kumar. Never saw Richards bat, sadly.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Sanga or Frank?

Went for Sanga, for the numbers. The appeal for either is quite different. Worrell as a big scorer but that's augmented by being the first black captain of the WI. Which is iconic. Should have gone for Worrell!

[Durhamfootman]

I went Sanga both for the sheer volume of runs scored in all formats, but also for scoring 4 consecutive hundreds in the last World cup, which is pretty phenomenal

[DiligentDefence]

Gone for Worrell because of the social importance of his captaincy as well as his cricket pedigree. I strongly suspect that Barry Richards would have been a shoe-in under different political circumstances.

[sussexpob]

Sanga or Frank? Went for Sanga, for the numbers. The appeal for either is quite different. Worrell as a big scorer but that's augmented by being the first black captain of the WI. Which is iconic. Should have gone for Worrell!

Its almost unbelievable that Worrell was the first black captain, as in the history of test cricket his emergence seems late in the grand scheme of things. I had to give him the nod for that though, however much I think Sangakarra would be the better player.

I strongly suspect that Barry Richards would have been a shoe-in under different political circumstances.

Might seem cruel, but Richards legacy at the top of the game should be completely ignored. He could have been a genius, he could equally have gone on a away tour anywhere and crumbled like a biscuit in tea. I own two books on the best players ever in the history of the game, and both contain a selection of a very small elite in the central pages to be considered the best ever..... he makes the cut in both, and there cant be many more than 15 players alongside. How can anyone consider a player with virtually no record at the top of the game, the best ever? For me, you have to disregard him.

He does have a very short sample of success in tests, but its a very lame example. The 1970 tour of Australia in South Africa came at a very calamitous time for Australia as apartheid took hold. They experienced a very hostile atmosphere, and I believe the tour was arranged hastily and bolted to the end of a very long tour of India. The Saffer board, sensing their exile and the fact they had arguably been in exile already (first series in 3-4 years IIRC), kept pressuring the Aussie board to add tests onto the series, which the Aussie board obliged to, but which had Chappel and Lawry in a state of much anger. Its often seen as the precursor moment to WSC, as the Aussie players were treated appallingly, being asked to take more time off work, and not being thrown any pay for the extra tests they kept adding on. The conditions on Australia's long tour of India had been disastrous. Its claimed that MacKensie (their number one seamer) for instance had contracted Hepatitis, and had lost siginficant weight. Other players had shed stones of weight from bad food and conditions in India, and they were teetering on full out exhaustion and illness having toiled to a narrow win. Mackensie returned figures on 1/450 odd in 4 tests, and for a seamer than once shattered Boycott's forearm in an Ashes test, was reduced to bowling on a spinners run up at slow-medium.

In these conditions, a South African team champing at the bit annihilated the Aussies in 4 tests; but in hindsight, these tests dont really age well at all. The Aussie side was forced through a 7 match Ashes series after, too. They won one test in 16 as the team broke down. It doesnt feel like Richards sole test series, in these conditions, means much at all.

[Alviro Patterson]

Went for Jim Laker since he is the first bowler to take 10 wickets in a test innings and also the greatest Yorkshire born cricketer never to have played for the White Rose

[alfie]

Pretty worthy group ! Laker with the astonishing 1956 performance ; Sanga with a brilliant overall record ; Richards for his undeniable skills ( I read Sussex's attempt to play them down but can't agree , having seen him bat ) sadly restricted to a handful of Tests so somewhat unfulfilled...but I have to go for Worrell. For the same reasons as others : an icon , indeed ; a thorough gentleman and a damn good cricketer as well .
Hearne was a bit before my time

[bigfluffylemon]

As an icon I had to go for Worrell. Sanga might be the better batsman overall, but not a cricket icon to the same degree.

[The Professor]

Tighter one here but Kumar takes this.

Still no English players in the next round.