Sachin and Steve made Bradman honourees, but where are Garry, Richie and Viv?

Yeah but Kersi, it’s the same names as you see in the hall of fame – I don’t see the point of the award if it’s just reeling off a list of who’s who in cricket history. The criteria seems awfully subjective too. The irony of one of your inaugural Bradman awardees being Keith Miller isn’t lost on me either. Not the greatest of pals those two. If the award is truly going to be about Bradman’s values, it should reward the most stingy, aloof player who the rest of the squad gets annoyed with because he’s brilliant and knows it, and I can’t think of a more deserving nominee than KP. Hopefully he’s got time in between his book launch signings to attend.

Roarers, If you are the sole selector for the Bradman Honouree award, which four cricketers would you pick each year from 2006 to 2014? Going from WW II onwards, my choice is as under: 2006: Sobers, Bedser, Morris, P May & K. Miller 2007: Benaud, Hutton, Lindwall, Worrell & Harvey 2008: Weekes, V. Richards, Hall, A Gilchrist & Gavaskar 2009: Botham, Hadlee, Imran, Greenidge & Lillee 2010: Tendulkar, Warne, Lara, Kapil & S Waugh 2011: Barnes, O'Neill, Trueman, I Chapell & Dravid 2012: Holding, Roberts, Marshall, G Chappell,& Thomson 2013: A. Davidson, McGrath, Muralitharan, Kallis & Bedi 2014: Ponting, B Simpson, G. Pollock, Sangakkara & Prasanna. And for 2015 in advance: M Crowe, G.Smith (SAf), M. Clarke, Hayden & Steyn. Gee, it's so TOUGH! I went from two a year to three, then four and finally five a year and still could not include some truly great ones. Forgive me, Lord Cowdrey, Healy, Boucher, V V S, Chandra, Jayawardene, M Taylor, Lawry, Hanif, Hazare, Gower, Akram...

sheek Sir Don's values wanting to shut down World series cricket and haveing alot of sledging with the chappell brothers when Don was head of the ACB. Yeah what values restricting players wages when Sir Don himself marketed and was the 1st cricketer to earn money out of the sport.

"Self indulgent nonsense" sounds pretty good to me. Just a as Wisden's top five each year only applies to cricketer's who played a test series in England that year. ( Big deal)

Hi Kersi, This is the extract from the Bradman Foundation. "Each year up to two Bradman Honourees are chosen for his/her/their significant contribution to international cricket as exemplified by Sir Donald Bradman. The award is issued specifically with regard to how much he/her/they reflect Sir Donald's expressed values including courage, honour, integrity, humility and determination." Since the preamble covers qualities besides pure cricketing achievement, it is therefore highly subjective in its selection process. Or has the potential to be so. i regret to say I think the Bradman Honourees are a bit of a self-indulgent nonsense. This is not a criticism of those who have been inducted, but of the many outstanding omissions.

Hard to believe with this so called respectable award that "Curtley Ambrose can't make the list but Mark Taylor can. Lol lauaghable. Lance Gibbs misses too as does Abdul Qadir.

It seems like this award or honour has one outcome. To start up a pointless argument. I've never heard of it. We have a HALL of FAME and that serves the same purpose. Noticeably the West Indies destroyed Australia from 1979 to 1986 and none of these great players are mentioned from overseas. Strange and unnecessary honour if there's an inclusion of overseas players. For the record GREENIDGE HAYNES KALLICHARAN ROWE/ GOMES RICHARDS LLOYD MURRAY/DUJON GARNER HOLDING MARSHALL ROBERTS CROFT None of these greats , makes this honour even more ridiculous.

Another meaningless award. Surely it is better to keep this sort of recognition restricted to Australians? Each country has its own set of guidelines for recognition. The organization that really gets me going is the ICC. I've just had a look at their Hall of Fame lists. You would assume that only three countries have ever produced decent cricketers : England 26 Australia 21 WI 17 Pak 5 Ind 3 NZ 2 SA 2. With the new Indian master I am sure within a few years the number of Indian greats will exceed 21 at least. As for SA, why, we may even lose the two we have. I mean, what do we know about playing cricket anyway. It all comes across as corrupt back-slapping. Totally devoid of integrity.

Paul D According to some smug traditionalists yep. And it seems the Bradman foundation like it that way, just like FIFA/UEFA awards.

Does it really matter? Is Sobers a lesser player because the Bradman Foundation haven't handed him a gong? I don't see the point in getting worked up about this stuff, it's so utterly minor. That being said, if I was the Bradman Foundation I'd have kept it to current players - by giving it out to former Aussie greats they've opened up a can of worms where they're now going to have to give it out to every great former player, living or dead. At this rate they'll be giving Len Hutton the award in 2028. And no-one will care then, either.

Another nonsense award filled with bias and politics,like the rugby league version of the immortal,which gets undermined by state politics NSW/QLD rivalry. Sachin was a brad man favourite and a darling and cleanskin of Indian audiences,so of course he would get it. Dravid too on the list no surprises another clean skin. Some that missed out on the list, were anti-establishment and rebels, and individuals. Kevin Peterson won't get any award like this either. The soccer version the Ballon D'ior is another one. And the World cup man of the match, oh that's right everyone except FIFA didn't think Messi deserved the man of the match award at the World cup. Just another bs smoke up your arse award that is filled with bias and politics. No Surprise Sachin gets it, while other more rebellious characters miss out.

Criteria would be a big thing, and the only justification for leaving certain people out, and including certain others. I just had a look on their cite, and the criteria is given as thus: 'Each year up to two Bradman Honourees are chosen for his/her/their significant contribution to international cricket as exemplified by Sir Donald Bradman. The Award is issued specifically with regard to how much his/her/they reflect Sir Donald’s expressed values including courage, honour, integrity, humility and determination.' So supposedly the players are picked with these traits in mind. But how the plays you mentioned, Kersi, don't fit that mould I'll never know.

Please do not misunderstand me, bigvaz. Sam Loxton and Bill Brown were great cricketers and I had the pleasure of meeting both of them. However, my first two choices for the Bradman honouree award which was inaugurated in 2006 would have been Garry Sobers and Richie Benaud. Surprisingly, they have not been honoured till 2014, nine years after the inauguration. ALL the cricketers honoured are great, no doubt; all gold. But Garry and Richie are platinum, as are these year's honourees.

It is an insult to them, that is why. How do yhey justify putting Mark Taylor ahead of those legends?

All in good time.Sam and Bill were Giants of their time and great ambassadors away from the ground, why belittle their honour?

I'm not sure that awards such as these are uppermost in the mind of the average cricket tragic. Nor should they be regarded as competitive _ Norm O'Neill and Sam Loxton are every bit as entitled to be honoured as Shane Warne, for example. The Bradman Foundation (patron: R. Benaud) will surely get around to honouring all the worthies listed here who have missed out so far. It's just a matter of time.