ICC awards 2009

[Faisal1985]

^ Stats prove otherwise..............................

 

[Faisal1985]

I disagree, knowing what a player has had to overcome should play a role.


lol Freddy won the Ashes? Not even close. Strauss carried the English batting on his shoulders throughout the series. Flintoff sparked the bowling in one match and Broad did the same to a greater extent in a more important match.


Bashing NZ on roads is hardly that brilliant. Samaraweera played us better.

Before Bond came back, i would have rated NZ's attack lower then Pak's......

 

[Prince EWS]

Flintoff averaged 33 with the bat with only one score above 50 - a 74 - and 52 with the ball in the Ashes. Those bowling stats don't really do his contribution justice as he bowled a match-winning spell in a Test, but to say he won England the Ashes is so ridiculously untrue that it isn't even funny, let alone debatable.

 

[Faisal1985]

Flintoff averaged 33 with the bat with only one score above 50 - a 74 - and 52 with the ball in the Ashes. Those bowling stats don't really do his contribution justice as he bowled a match-winning spell in a Test, but to say he won England the Ashes is so ridiculously untrue that it isn't even funny, let alone debatable.

The spell of 5 wickets he bowled on the last day to take the Ashes test and an advantage in the series was a turning point for me.

You can discuss the over all stats of the man, but he performed when it mattered most...without that win, Ashes could have been an even contest.......Freddie was the "difference" so to say in both sides......

When England 11's performance, is being matched by Australian 11's performance, Freddie was the tie breaker.......had Johnson clicked the way he had in SA, the Ashes scale would have been in OZs favor.

 

[Prince EWS]

The spell of 5 wickets he bowled on the last day to take the Ashes test and an advantage in the series was a turning point for me.

You can discuss the over all stats of the man, but he performed when it mattered most...without that win, Ashes could have been an even contest.......Freddie was the "difference" so to say in both sides......

When England 11's performance, is being matched by Australian 11's performance, Freddie was the tie breaker.......had Johnson clicked the way he had in SA, the Ashes scale would have been in OZs favor.

Certainly wouldn't have been a contest without Strauss's runs either. Or Broad's spell in the fifth Test. Or probably even Anderson and Swann's respective spells in the second Test either. Fact is, while Flintoff contributed to that second Test victory, he had a pretty damn poor series and he clearly wasn't the reason England won.

 

[Faisal1985]

Certainly wouldn't have been a contest without Strauss's runs either. Or Broad's spell in the fifth Test. Or probably even Anderson and Swann's respective spells in the second Test either. Fact is, while Flintoff contributed to that second Test victory, he had a pretty damn poor series and he clearly wasn't the reason England won.

In that case perhaps its just the matter of liking or disliking.....i just admire that spell......with a broken leg from Flintoff

 

[four_or_six]

I do think the Saffas should have some representation in there, certainly in the test player and overall player categories. But you can also see why each of the other players are there.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well lets look at who get the nod ahead of him.
Strauss - won the Ashes so is worthy of getting ahead of him

Definitely disagree with you regarding this, I think Strauss should be considered because he's scored consistently in a variety of conditions against decent attacks (twin hundreds in India is a very big achievment for an English batsmen), the Ashes shouldn't really have much to do with it. At the end of the day it's a bilateral competition, so doing well in it shouldn't give you some sort of advantage over players from sides that don't even compete in it. These awards are in the context of global cricket, and frankly the Ashes aren't that important in that context, certainly not when compared to the test rankings, which South Africa topped. I don't think a batsmen can ask for a better 12-20 months than AB De Villiers has had, his hundred in the record chase at Perth, his big hundred under huge hostility from the crowd at Headingley that led to a series victory, before that his double hundred in India, his one day form has been great too. Never mind JP Duminy's innings of the decade at Sydney (after of course Laxman's 281) that has somehow been forgotten behind 27 year old Graham Onions's wickets against the West Indies and odd contributions against Australia.

Basically I think this comes down to three issues:

- A stupid time frame has been chosen for these awards, far too rigid and ill thought out, they greatly favour England, Australia and to an extent India too.
- Short term memory of the panel and the cricketing world.
- An undue amount of emphasis on the Ashes.

 

[GIMH]

How is a 12 month time period too rigid? The timing is one thing that does make sense as it comes at the end of the English season and before the start of the southern hemisphere seasons, therefore encompassing all cricketing seasons 08-09

Anyway, as the biggest Freddie fan on these forums I have to lol at the assertion that he won us the Ashes. Dare I say it that Jimmeh was a more important bowler than our Fred in the context of that Lord's victory

 

[andyc]

 

[G.I.Joe]

I disagree, knowing what a player has had to overcome should play a role.

haha, disagree vehemently. Otherwise better hand over all awards to subcontinental cricketers who have had to overcome third world obstacles in the form of low per capita income, poor playing and coaching facilities, overwhelming expectations from huge populations, fear of effigy burning, houses getting stoned etc etc...

 

[oitoitoi]

How is a 12 month time period too rigid? The timing is one thing that does make sense as it comes at the end of the English season and before the start of the southern hemisphere seasons, therefore encompassing all cricketing seasons 08-09

Well for a start it isn't really at the end of the English season, I mean it cuts into the SA tour of England and I believe only part the way through this year's ashes series and the Sri Lanka home season. Basically instead of such a rigid time frame they should say from tour A to tour B, keeping it as close to 12 months as possible, they should publish the list of series that have been taken into account, wouldn't be too difficult and would make the stats a more accurate reflection of how a player's been playing.

 

[Athlai]

haha, disagree vehemently. Otherwise better hand over all awards to subcontinental cricketers who have had to overcome third world obstacles in the form of low per capita income, poor playing and coaching facilities, overwhelming expectations from huge populations, fear of effigy burning, houses getting stoned etc etc...

He was shot because his cricketing team was targeted by terrorists while on a cricket tour. See how many times 'cricket' popped up in that explanation.

 

[GIMH]

Well for a start it isn't really at the end of the English season, I mean it cuts into the SA tour of England and I believe only part the way through this year's ashes series and the Sri Lanka home season. Basically instead of such a rigid time frame they should say from tour A to tour B, keeping it as close to 12 months as possible, they should publish the list of series that have been taken into account, wouldn't be too difficult and would make the stats a more accurate reflection of how a player's been playing.

I'm not sure on the start date but the end date was August 24th which was the end of the Ashes.

 

[silentstriker]

He was shot because his cricketing team was targeted by terrorists while on a cricket tour. See how many times 'cricket' popped up in that explanation.

Yea, but as G.I. Joe said, then poorer cricketers who had to overcome more would be more deserving than kids who grew up in sport academies? Or maybe overcoming a severe injury? Very iffy slope you're going down there.

To me, it should be on performance, and performance only.

 

[Briony]

I'm surprised that Duminy didn't get nominated for the emerging category or AB for test or overall. Duminy was influential in their wins in Perth and Melbourne, played some other good innings and was also excellent at times in the ODIs and T20. Additionally he's young and genuinely new to the test arena. Strauss will probably win the overall award.

 

[Prince EWS]

yea, but as g.i. Joe said, then poorer cricketers who had to overcome more would be more deserving than kids who grew up in sport academies? Or maybe overcoming a severe injury? Very iffy slope you're going down there.

To me, it should be on performance, and performance only.

awta.

 

[Athlai]

Hard to say since I can't feel impartial to this. His story just makes the runs more impressive.

And where you grow up and being shot are pretty differents. I know it is a slippery slope but its just how I feel.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hard to say since I can't feel impartial to this. His story just makes the runs more impressive.

And where you grow up and being shot are pretty differents. I know it is a slippery slope but its just how I feel.

Sort of agree with Athers here.

It's not like his is a Monty Python's Four Yorkshireman "Ee we had it tough growing up; bread and butter for pads, a soggy newspaper for a bat and our father would charge in and hurl breeze blocks at our heads" story; he was shot in the line of duty. It's like Eddie Paynter's innings during the 32/33 tour or Dean Jones's double at Madras; they become all the more impressive when you know one was literally dragged from his hospital bed & the other was vomiting on the field.

Has pretty bloody solid cricketing case anyway, tbh.

 

[marc71178]

I'm surprised that Duminy didn't get nominated for the emerging category

Considering he doesn't meet the criteria, I'm not.