I feel that ICC should commence an honorary title system for the greatest players in the game. One may coin a suitable title but for the sake of this article I suggest Grandmaster or Cricketmaster. No one except the most passionate cricket fans would know whether a certain player is in the ICC Hall of Fame by hearing his name, but certainly a Cricketmaster/Grandmaster title would make people note that he has been honoured and even later generations with little idea of history would realise a certain player with a Grandmaster Title besides his name would have been special in the past. Wouldn't it be marvellous for instance to address Sachin Tendulkar as Grandmaster Sachin Tendulkar? ICC could take a cue from chess. Here is the chess hierarchy in descending order: Super Grandmaster [SGM], Grandmaster [GM], International Master [IM]. I think if you poll the players they are bound to like the idea of having a title beside their names.
One of the most preposterously stupid ideas I've ever heard.
They are just cricket players. nothing more.
Posted by: YoBro at November 4, 2009 3:20 PM
Dumb. Enuf said.
Posted by: Tyche at November 4, 2009 10:16 PM
I like this idea. Like in chess, cricketers who perform at a certain level consistently over a period of time, say, 1 year, or over a certain number of domestic/international matches can be awarded the appropriate titles by ICC. Looking through the past performances of good, very good, and great cricketers, one might be able to come up with such a scheme. Like in chess, once you are awarded the title you may get to keep it forever.
Posted by: Mahinda Wijesinghe at November 5, 2009 12:49 AM
Yes, why not. It is a good idea.
Posted by: Brendan Layton at November 5, 2009 5:22 AM
Not a bad idea, but it will definitely spark debate again over who would be privy to such titles and who are the truly greatest players in cricket history.
Would Bradman be entitled to Super Grandmaster despite only -playing test cricket against four nations? Does WG Grace rank to that despite what look like modest numbers by today's standards?
It's a difficult arguement, but a worthy ideal. Grandmaster Sachin does have a nice ring to it.
Posted by: Trevor Chesterfield at November 5, 2009 5:54 AM
This idea certainly has merit as there are many players from smaller nations whose names are so often lost these days as the current writers and administrators are not aware of their value as players. This is beacuse they are so often overshadowed by the current trend to look at a particular time frame and forget the input such players had at the time. Recently, CricInfo ran a series selection the best players in the nation's international history, as did England. Two names absent from these lists were Godrey Evans (England) and Frank Mooney (New Zealand). Yet in their time and their era they performed an invaluable role. It is not all about glitz and glamour and basing a player's ability on averages and strikerates, centuries and five or 10 wicket hauls, but also on technique and being a role model at the time. Evans was a great player in his era, as was Mooney. Ask Sir Alec Bedser his opinion of Evans. Sadly the modern trend is inclined to ignore such roles.
Posted by: Aviral at November 5, 2009 8:44 AM
That would be weird. In chess, they get the title based on the specific points that they earn in ELO rating.Doing this in cricket would only spark controversies. How can we compare two players of two differnt eras, of two different countries who played in totally different conditions..
Posted by: RJ at November 5, 2009 12:27 PM
Not a bad idea. True and good cricket players should get the rewards..
In chess it sounds great. I am not certain about cricket but a system of honouring individuals besides an entry in the Hall of Fame at the end of a career must be considered. Maybe, a separate classification for the likes of Bradman and Tendulkar and lesser mortals behind them in descending order.
Posted by: Vijay at November 7, 2009 4:53 PM
Wonderful idea!
And I would say that the recognition must come from their peers i.e. fellow cricketers, umps, and matured commentators. Also inputs from fans can be taken thru surveys and some weight can be assigned to them as well because finally it is the fans that matter.
Step 1:a team comprising the above is organized and this team defines criteria, guidelines for rating against criteria
Step 2:The team/ICC then runs these criteria for all players who retired before today and their titles are assigned
Step 3:the criteria are run on currently active players and their titles are assigned
Criteria must not be simply statistical, they need to include some qualitative features as well. Because if it is purely stat based then you will find many not-so-greats (ex- Hayden, Ganguly, etc) becoming GM/SGM. Also SGM should not be given away to more than 0.05-1% of total international cricketers until now.
Posted by: Gerard at November 9, 2009 9:09 AM
Right...so you could have a scoreboard stating that Grandmaster Sachin Tendulkar was dismissed for a duck by some no-name debutante with figures of 1-250. What would be the criteria anyway? It would be almost impossible to determine who would deserve such a title while they were still playing (case in point: Saqlain Mushtaq), and there really doesn't seem much point after they've retired.
Post your comment
About this blog
'Inbox' will feature submissions from you with us playing gatekeeper as we do with the rest of the site. We will set no rules apart from
ensuring a certain quality that you have come to associate with Cricinfo. You may write on the aspects of the game that you
hold dear; about matters that rile you; about players, teams and trends; you may share your memories and views, and
you may so do so in 100 words or 500. The only tip we will give you is to repeat a line from
our style sheet: Brevity is not just the soul of wit, it is the heart of all writing.
Welcome. (Editor, Cricinfo)
RSS Feed
