Suggestion: Boards SF Hall of Fame

eagle eye

Just looking at the forum today and these appreciation threads. No doubt some players deserve to be talked about as all-time greats but there are too many of those threads popping up lately. So was just thinking we should start our own Hall of Fame.

We can set up a group of people who act as a committee to decide on who should be in it. You can only spend one year on the committee at a time. We can start out by putting a lot of retired players in it and then every year people can submit names in a thread to be added and the committee for that year will decide if they are worthy in their estimation. This doesn't exclude a player from being put forward the next year again for consideration if he is unsuccessful.

Things that need to be decided if this goes ahead.

Max number of inductees per year.
Max number of inductees per club per year.(Don't think it would be fair to have anymore than one per club per year excluding the first year)
Number of members on the committee.
Percentage of committee that have to agree to allow a player to be inducted.
Date for this to happen every year. It should be a specific date imo.

Anyways just a suggestion. What do people think?

Essien

Sounds good but how far back do you go in terms of retired players? Zidane? Maradona? Pele?

flahavaj

As long as you promise not top be nominating anyone middle of the road, I'm all for this EE.;)

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

As long as you promise not top be nominating anyone middle of the road, I'm all for this EE.;)

You can nominate who you like, thats the idea of having a committee to decide who gets in.

Peyton Manning

Can't wait for the Cantona thread. Should be a treat.

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

You can nominate who you like, thats the idea of having a committee to decide who gets in.

Its a great idea. Selecting the committe may be problematic though? how would one poster be considered more suitable than another?

cson

This forum is quite childish at times tbh regarding this kind of stuff [appreciation threads]; the current Appreciation Thread wave came after one was put up for Jack Wilshere and of course those who disagree can't just reasonable object in the thread [or even just ignore it] the point has to be made by starting a thread of their own taste or start a thread ripping the piss. You see phases of this - the "Are x and y Done?"; "Player A vs Player B"... it really demeans the place imo that some can't contribute in a meaningful way and instead pursue their own petty agenda as a form of protest.

Anyway, I do think it is a concept worth looking at Eagle Eye, a good idea. You'd need another sub forum for it though as far as I'm concerned which would probably be a sticking point.

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

Its a great idea. Selecting the committe may be problematic though? how would one poster be considered more suitable than another?

I suppose people are put forward/put themselves forward and we have a multi option poll and they are selected by the majority.

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

I suppose people are put forward/put themselves forward and we have a multi option poll and they are selected by the majority.

Like any poll though you'll have muppets voting for their buddies or fellow club supporters etc which could bias the result. Its a hard one to call.

eagle eye

cson wrote: »

This forum is quite childish at times tbh regarding this kind of stuff [appreciation threads]; the current Appreciation Thread wave came after one was put up for Jack Wilshere and of course those who disagree can't just reasonable object in the thread [or even just ignore it] the point has to be made by starting a thread of their own taste or start a thread ripping the piss. You see phases of this - the "Are x and y Done?"; "Player A vs Player B"... it really demeans the place imo that some can't contribute in a meaningful way and instead pursue their own petty agenda as a form of protest.

Anyway, I do think it is a concept worth looking at Eagle Eye, a good idea. You'd need another sub forum for it though as far as I'm concerned which would probably be a sticking point.

I think if its done out of season, like between May and August its not a big problem. We should have a period for nominations and then the committee for that year get time to decide on who gets in. Like say it starts on May 30th and the whole process ends on July 31st maybe?

Essien

flahavaj wrote: »

Like any poll though you'll have muppets voting for their buddies or fellow club supporters etc which could bias the result. Its a hard one to call.

No more than 1 supporter of any club then? If it's going to be changed every year it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

Like any poll though you'll have muppets voting for their buddies or fellow club supporters etc which could bias the result. Its a hard one to call.

Well lets say you can only have one person per club as a rule on the committee. Lets say there is a committee of 9 people per year. You will most likely always have one United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal supporter on it but the rest should be fairly open I'd think.

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

Well lets say you can only have one person per club as a rule on the committee. Lets say there is a committee of 9 people per year. You will most likely always have one United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal supporter on it but the rest should be fairly open I'd think.

Thats one solution but even then that could leave some excellent contributors out simplye bacause theres another supporter of their club already on the panel.

Then again no matter what solution you come up with it won't be perfect.

Frisbee

It's a cracking idea eagle eye.

Implementing it may be an issue but if we work out a way of doing it properly and fairly I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work.

Essien

flahavaj wrote: »

Thats one solution but even then that could leave some excellent contributors out simplye bacause theres another supporter of their club already on the panel.

Then again no matter what solution you come up with it won't be perfect.

For arguments sake, lets say there were 4 on the panel, then you would surely have to use no more than one per club.

Now lets say there were six, maybe the first 4 (using the one per club idea) choose the other 2.

Now lets say there were 10, use a maximum of 2 per club, and so on.

In any case, there would surely be a way to keep it fair.

_blank_

Why do we need club quotas? If someone can't be objective when talking about a Kenny Dalglish or a Denis Law for instance, then they shouldn't be on the panel in the first place.

flahavaj

Des wrote: »

Why do we need club quotas? If someone can't be objective when talking about a Kenny Dalglish or a Denis Law for instance, then they shouldn't be on the panel in the first place.

Because the mongs will moan about it.

Bounty Hunter

good idea EE, we did something similar for the first time last year on the PW forum and it worked really well (almost time to start this years actually). no need for another forum at all.

It'l be interesting to see who the inaugural (sp?) SF hall of fame class will be: Pele, Ronaldo, Maradona, Zidane, Roy Keane, Maldini, Cantona or McGrath who knows

good auld mongs make things interesting tho eh

peabutler

One per club and someone will always feel left out, though. I think people put themselves forward and 6 or so get picked at random.

Bodhisopha

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

good idea EE, we did something similar for the first time last year on the PW forum and it worked really well (almost time to start this years actually). no need for another forum at all.

It'l be interesting to see who the inaugural (sp?) SF hall of fame class will be: Pele, Ronaldo, Maradona, Zidane, Roy Keane, Maldini, Cantona or McGrath who knows

good auld mongs make things interesting tho eh

Cantona?

*sniggers*

flahavaj

I could be interesting to have categories as well, such as British and International or even by period, such as 70's, 80's 90's etc. otherwise nominations are going to be a huge mess, with all kinds of names from all kinds of era thrown in without rhyme nor reason.

peabutler

As for the number of inductees I'd say 5 a year is a fair figure, enough for some great debate but not to much so that people get in by default.

I also think 75% is needed for a player to get it.

Peyton Manning

peabutler wrote: »

As for the number of inductees I'd say 5 a year is a fair figure, enough for some great debate but not to much so that people get in by default.

I also think 75% is needed for a player to get it.

If it's only five a year, then it's going to be awfully boring for the first 3, 4 even 5 years with little to no debate.

Pauleta

Tom_Brady wrote: »

If it's only five a year, then it's going to be awfully boring for the first 3, 4 even 5 years with little to no debate.

Usually when a Hall of Fame starts they induct a good few people first then go for have a set amount every year. I would suggest 15-20 at first.

Le King

I think the member of the panel from a single club should be the person with the most nominations from the fans of the same club.

No point in picking someone at random.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

It's simple.
1. Start a Hall of Fame Thread (like the legendary thread in AH), sticky it and lock it.
2. Start another thread, this one for nominations where anyone can comment. Sticky this also.
3. If a player is nominated for the HoF, and most people agree, i.e. >80% (there'll always be a few gobshítes), then induct him.
4. If opinion is split, start a poll thread, and to avoid excess Liverpool and United players getting we'll make so that a 60% or 70% majority is needed.
5. If <30% of people disagree with a nomination, we'll ignore it.

Obviously there should be a few ground rules, like;
1. Berba is not allowed to give his opinion (to avoid unneccessary arguments and excess mock nominations).
2. Only retired players.
3. There should be a certain number of player that are already in the Hall of Fame no questions asked, e.g. Ronaldo, Pele, Maradona, Best, etc..
4. Only a pre-determined poster can start polls over whether or not to induct some one. The poster should be as unbiased as possible. I'd go with SlickRic or Frisbee, or if this is too much work for them (they are also Mods afaik) then some one like flahavaj or everdead.ie, both IMHO, very unbiased posters.
5. No more than one poll a week/fortnight.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure ye'll be able to sort out the finer details.

#15

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Cantona?

*sniggers*

It's a great idea but the above post is an example of the kind of stuff that will make a mess of things.

How about a zero tolerance rule? Any of the above bolloxology would result in permanent exclusion from the Hall Of Fame threads/subforum.

The HoF is a good idea, but the club quota thing is unnecessary. It will lead to good players being excluded simply because they happen to play at a club that has several worthy candidates (e.g. Figo would take years to be inducted, so might Iniesta, etc.)

Any bias in the HoF subforum could be avoided by use of the zero tolerance rule for bolloxologists.

flahavaj

#15 wrote: »

It's a great idea but the above post is an example of the kind of stuff that will make a mess of things.

How about a zero tolerance rule? Any of the above bolloxology would result in permanent exclusion from the Hall Of Fame threads/subforum.

The HoF is a good idea, but the club quota thing is unnecessary. It will lead to good players being excluded simply because they happen to play at a club that has several worthy candidates (e.g. Figo would take years to be inducted, so might Iniesta, etc.)

I thought the club quota being discussed was the amount of posters on the proposed committe. But I may have gotten the entirely wrong end of the stick.

Limiting players' entry by club would be ludicrous IMO.

Bodhisopha

#15 wrote: »

It's a great idea but the above post is an example of the kind of stuff that will make a mess of things.

How about a zero tolerance rule? Any of the above bolloxology would result in permanent exclusion from the Hall Of Fame threads/subforum.

The HoF is a good idea, but the club quota thing is unnecessary. It will lead to good players being excluded simply because they happen to play at a club that has several worthy candidates (e.g. Figo would take years to be inducted, so might Iniesta, etc.)

Any bias in the HoF subforum could be avoided by use of the zero tolerance rule for bolloxologists.

A better idea to avoid bolloxology is Flah's idea of splitting it up into European/World/Premiership HoF's. That would reduce the likelihood of Cantona getting lumped in with the likes of Maradona, Pele, Maldini and Zidane as a poster above did, much to my amusement.

Essien

#15 wrote: »

It's a great idea but the above post is an example of the kind of stuff that will make a mess of things.

How about a zero tolerance rule? Any of the above bolloxology would result in permanent exclusion from the Hall Of Fame threads/subforum.

The HoF is a good idea, but the club quota thing is unnecessary. It will lead to good players being excluded simply because they happen to play at a club that has several worthy candidates (e.g. Figo would take years to be inducted, so might Iniesta, etc.)

Any bias in the HoF subforum could be avoided by use of the zero tolerance rule for bolloxologists.

You've go the bit in bold wrong, there would be no limit on inductees per club, re-read the first few posts about it.

bamboozling

#15 wrote: »

It's a great idea but the above post is an example of the kind of stuff that will make a mess of things.

How about a zero tolerance rule? Any of the above bolloxology would result in permanent exclusion from the Hall Of Fame threads/subforum.

The HoF is a good idea, but the club quota thing is unnecessary. It will lead to good players being excluded simply because they happen to play at a club that has several worthy candidates (e.g. Figo would take years to be inducted, so might Iniesta, etc.)

Any bias in the HoF subforum could be avoided by use of the zero tolerance rule for bolloxologists.

The thing is that opinions on players can vary wildly Cantona being a prime example. For instance I could see the likes of Zola and Bergkamp getting an early nomination because of what they did with their respective clubs and the fact that they were so visible because of English.

I'd say more worthy candidates like Lothar Matthaus and Roberto Baggio wouldn't get nominated as quickly. I know this is all conjecture but quite likely in my opinion, it was witnessed in the Greatest of your Lifetime thread.

Would any attempt to counter players like Cantona, Zola and Bergkamp be treated as bollixology purely because opinions vary so much? I know many United fans wouldn't take kindly to Cantona's achievements being discredited and the same goes for other clubs.

#15

bamboozling wrote: »

Would any attempt to counter players like Cantona, Zola and Bergkamp be treated as bollixology purely because opinions vary so much? I know many United fans wouldn't take kindly to Cantona's achievements being discredited and the same goes for other clubs.

Bolloxology would be:

-Nominating players like Heskey as a response to nominations of Cantona, Zola, Berkgamp, etc.
-Sniggering at the nomination of a player. If you don't agree with a player's nomination, suggest why- without resorting to emotional language.

The panel can then look at both sides of the argument for each player, and make an unbiased judgement call.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

bamboozling wrote: »

The thing is that opinions on players can vary wildly Cantona being a prime example. For instance I could see the likes of Zola and Bergkamp getting an early nomination because of what they did with their respective clubs and the fact that they were so visible because of English.

I'd say more worthy candidates like Lothar Matthaus and Roberto Baggio wouldn't get nominated as quickly. I know this is all conjecture but quite likely in my opinion, it was witnessed in the Greatest of your Lifetime thread.

Would any attempt to counter players like Cantona, Zola and Bergkamp be treated as bollixology purely because opinions vary so much? I know many United fans wouldn't take kindly to Cantona's achievements being discredited and the same goes for other clubs.

I think my proposal pretty much covers all this.

#15

flahavaj wrote: »

I thought the club quota being discussed was the amount of posters on the proposed committe. But I may have gotten the entirely wrong end of the stick.

Limiting players' entry by club would be ludicrous IMO.

Essien wrote: »

You've go the bit in bold wrong, there would be no limit on inductees per club, re-read the first few posts about it.

There would be a limit on inductees according to EE

Max number of inductees per club per year.(Don't think it would be fair to have anymore than one per club per year excluding the first year)

The problem would largely be avoided by having a mass induction of retired players in year 1.

It might pose a problem in future years though, although I suppose the chances of two potential nominees from one club retiring in the same year are slim.

bamboozling

World Soccer's 50 best players of the 20th century just to give people a ball park idea of who'd be getting nominated.

1 Pelé 2 Diego Maradona 3 Johan Cruijff 4 Franz Beckenbauer 5 Michel Platini 6 Alfredo di Stéfano 7 Ferenc Puskás 8 George Best 9 Marco van Basten 10 Eusébio

11 Lev Yashin 12 Bobby Charlton 13 Ronaldo 14 Bobby Moore 15 Gerd Muller 16 Roberto Baggio 17 Stanley Matthews 18 Zico 19 Franco Baresi 20 Garrincha

21 Paolo Maldini 22 Kenny Dalglish 23 Gabriel Batistuta 24 Éric Cantona 25 Gheorghe Hagi 26 Romário 27 Jairzinho 28 Zinedine Zidane 29 Ruud Gullit 30 John Charles

31 Lothar Matthäus 32 Gordon Banks 33 Jürgen Klinsmann 34 Dennis Bergkamp 35 Karl-Heinz Rummenigge 36 Gary Lineker 37 Giuseppe Meazza 38 Rivelino 39 Didi 40 Ian Rush

41 Peter Schmeichel 42 Paolo Rossi 43 George Weah 44 Michael Owen 45 Just Fontaine 46 Duncan Edwards 47 Dino Zoff 48 Hristo Stoichkov 49 David Beckham 50 Tom Finney

#15

Bodhisopha wrote: »

A better idea to avoid bolloxology is Flah's idea of splitting it up into European/World/Premiership HoF's. That would reduce the likelihood of Cantona getting lumped in with the likes of Maradona, Pele, Maldini and Zidane as a poster above did, much to my amusement.

Having a view that Cantona (or any player) is inferior to other players is not the issue.

The problem arises when people's views are ridiculed and sniggered at. That stuff should be left to the main SF, and kept well away from the HoF threads.

Sniggering will only start a bickering session - you never know, if enough people give a rational explanation, the other person may come around to the opposing point of view.

Bodhisopha

#15 wrote: »

Having a view that Cantona (or any player) is inferior to other players is not the issue.

The problem arises when people's views are ridiculed and sniggered at. That stuff should be left to the main SF, and kept well away from the HoF threads.

Sniggering will only start a bickering session - you never know, if enough people give a rational explanation, the other person may come around to the opposing point of view.

Mentioning Cantona in the same breath as Maradona, Pele, Zidane etc was worthy of a LOL. I think you're being overly sensitive.

It's like when someone on here suggested - in all seriousness - that Mourinho leave Madrid and work under Fergie for a couple of seasons. He was LOL'd out of it with no rational explanations as to why he was wrong offered.

Essien

#15 wrote: »

There would be a limit on inductees according to EE.

Apologies, I thought you were referring to the one fan per club per panel thing.

I agree, I don't see how 1 player per club per season would work, at best it would slow it down, say if Giggs and Scholes were to retire in the same season, though having said that it's unlikely to be an issue in too many cases.

#15

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Mentioning Cantona in the same breath as Maradona, Pele, Zidane etc was worthy of a LOL. I think you're being overly sensitive.

Sensitive about what?

flahavaj

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Mentioning Cantona in the same breath as Maradona, Pele, Zidane etc was worthy of a LOL. I think you're being overly sensitive.

It's like when someone on here suggested - in all seriousness - that Mourinho leave Madrid and work under Fergie for a couple of seasons. He was LOL'd out of it with no rational explanations as to why he was wrong offered.

Surely you can see that if people start responding with the usual LOLZ in the case of this process then others will follow suit and it'll soon descend into farce?

Jazzy

i nominate the one, the only - spiritoftheseventies

L'prof

Should nomination be accepted from any era initially or should it start out like:

1. Retired pre 40's (depending on how far back we go obviously)
2. Retired in 50's
3. Retired in 60's
4. Retired in 70's
5. Retired in 80's
6. Retired in 90's
7. Retired in 00's
8. Retired in '10
9. Retired in '11

Bodhisopha

flahavaj wrote: »

Surely you can see that if people start responding with the usual LOLZ in the case of this process then others will follow suit and it'll soon descend into farce?

People should only respond to the LOL's if they strongly disagree with the LOL. It's a reasonable LOL imho.

Jazzy

also ric flair should be inducted on account of him being ric flair

#15

Bodhisopha wrote: »

People should only respond to the LOL's if they strongly disagree with the LOL. It's a reasonable LOL imho.

Or to avoid personal interpretations of what constitutes a reasonable LOL, just leave out the LOLing from the HoF discussion threads?

flahavaj

Bodhisopha wrote: »

People should only respond to the LOL's if they strongly disagree with the LOL. It's a reasonable LOL imho.

Or you could just make your case as to why he shouldn't be in without acting the boll*x.

Bodhisopha

#15 wrote: »

Or to avoid personal interpretations of what constitutes a reasonable LOL, just leave out the LOLing from the HoF discussion threads?

Outlandish statement = reasonable LOL.

If i am elected to the HoF committee i will treat the honour and responsibilty bestowed upon me with the utmost respect and leave all LOL's at the door. You have my word on that.

Perhaps you could try to ignore comments that slightly irk you in future and not drag threads so far off topic. It's really not that important.

Bodhisopha

flahavaj wrote: »

Or you could just make your case as to why he shouldn't be in without acting the boll*x.

The burden of proof lies with the man making the statement. I have to hear his case for the inclusion of Cantona amongst greats like Maradona, Pele, Maldini and Zidane before refuting it.

flahavaj

Bodhisopha wrote: »

The burden of proof lies with the man making the statement. I have to hear his case for the inclusion of Cantona amongst greats like Maradona, Pele, Maldini and Zidane before refuting it.

He wasn't even making a case for him, he was just listing a few names he thought people might suggest. You just couldn't help yourself.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ye think he is bad lads... Wait until a certain some one comes along..

Bodhisopha

flahavaj wrote: »

He wasn't even making a case for him, he was just listing a few names he thought people might suggest. You just couldn't help yourself.

I honestly couldn't help myself. I just had to, i'll work on it. I am not above honest self evaluation, and neither should you be.

I'm leaving it there.

I'm sorry for playing a secondary role in this thread being dragged so far off topic. If anyone wishes to continue this drop me a pm.