ICC awards 2009

[GIMH]

I disagree, on the basis that but for Johnson you could even argue that the crims would have been 2-0 up after the first two. Losing the Ashes also lost them their spot at #1 in the world. AND IT'S ALL HIS FAULT.

I'd have given it to Gambhir but Strauss also has a better case than Johnson.

 

[Uppercut]

They'd be nowhere near number one in the world were it not for his single-handed mauling of South Africa in March tbf. His spell after lunch during the second test still ranks as the best I've ever seen. You're awfully Anglo-centric about the whole thing

Besides, saying Australia would have been 2-0 up after two tests were it not for Johnson is just unadulterated bull****. You could say that, but you'd be talking out your arse. Johnson's only got the blame because he was so damn good before then.

 

[GIMH]

In a way I'm playing devil's advocate with some of my ifs and buts. And yes, his spell against South Africa was good, he got three wickets, bravo Johnson. Don't remember anyone lauding Jimmy Anderson when he destroyed Flynn's mouth.

Regarding them being two up - put it this way. If their seamers had bowled competently at the death at Cardiff they'd have won - as the spearhead he should have done the job. And at Lord's he gave us runs on a plate - of course, someone else might have done, and we deserved the win. But you see where I'm coming from.

i acknowledge that he had been bowling very well up to the Ashes; I'm not being Anglocentric, it's simply a case of him being poor enough in that series to discredit any such awards.

 

[Uppercut]

In a way I'm playing devil's advocate with some of my ifs and buts. And yes, his spell against South Africa was good, he got three wickets, bravo Johnson. Don't remember anyone lauding Jimmy Anderson when he destroyed Flynn's mouth.

Regarding them being two up - put it this way. If their seamers had bowled competently at the death at Cardiff they'd have won - as the spearhead he should have done the job. And at Lord's he gave us runs on a plate - of course, someone else might have done, and we deserved the win. But you see where I'm coming from.

i acknowledge that he had been bowling very well up to the Ashes; I'm not being Anglocentric, it's simply a case of him being poor enough in that series to discredit any such awards.

But that's my point- people expected him to be the one to stand up and win Australia the Ashes in those moments because of what had gone before it. He'd become the spearhead, the man everyone expected to take the final wicket to clinch the match. You're effectively holding him solely responsible for losing Australia the series because he didn't win Australia the series, which he was only expected to do because of his unbelievably good performances against South Africa and New Zealand.

Midge bowled some rancid spells, some excellent spells, and some decent spells. It might have been enough for Australia, but it wasn't in the end. It doesn't mean he "lost" them the series.

 

[GIMH]

No - he was the senior member of the pace attack ahead of Siddle and Hilfenhaus. That's why he's the spearhead.

His bowling in the Ashes was pretty poor regardless of what had came before. As I said, I believe his performance at Edgbaston was actually overrated because it was better than the dross and people got their hopes up that he'd cause mayhem.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Even though Gambhir's average was sensational, I might have given it to De Villiers for the way he played against the Australians home and away last year.

 

[Uppercut]

He took 20 wickets @ 32 overall, and to me that sounds about right. Certainly wasn't bad enough to discount his performances over the rest of the year.

 

[Uppercut]

Even though Gambhir's average was sensational, I might have given it to De Villiers for the way he played against the Australians home and away last year.

De Villiers is unlucky with how the awards cycle has fallen. If the period of time in question went from South Africa's tour of India in Spring '08 to Australia's tour of South Africa in Spring '09 he'd have the award nailed down.

 

[Cricket_God]

They'd be nowhere near number one in the world were it not for his single-handed mauling of South Africa in March tbf. His spell after lunch during the second test still ranks as the best I've ever seen. You're awfully Anglo-centric about the whole thing

Besides, saying Australia would have been 2-0 up after two tests were it not for Johnson is just unadulterated bull****. You could say that, but you'd be talking out your arse. Johnson's only got the blame because he was so damn good before then.

yes he bowled well but they were bowling friendly pitches in sa.I think 3 awards to india
was bit too much so he got the award with out being either the test or odi player of the year which is rare.

 

[Uppercut]

In particular it's strange that he got the overall award while Gambhir got the test player award. It's essentially saying that Johnson was chosen ahead of Gambhir for the overall award on account of his superior ODI/T20 form in the last year, which is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Howsie]

In particular it's strange that he got the overall award while Gambhir got the test player award. It's essentially saying that Johnson was chosen ahead of Gambhir for the overall award on account of his superior ODI/T20 form in the last year, which is beyond ridiculous.

It's right up there with having Chanderpaul nominated as one of three player's in with a chance at winning the best ODI player award, and not picking him in the ODI world XI

 

[zaremba]

It's right up there with having Chanderpaul nominated as one of three player's in with a chance at winning the best ODI player award, and not picking him in the ODI world XI

I hadn't spotted that. Ridiculous.

 

[zaremba]

But that's my point- people expected him to be the one to stand up and win Australia the Ashes in those moments because of what had gone before it. He'd become the spearhead, the man everyone expected to take the final wicket to clinch the match. You're effectively holding him solely responsible for losing Australia the series because he didn't win Australia the series, which he was only expected to do because of his unbelievably good performances against South Africa and New Zealand.

Midge bowled some rancid spells, some excellent spells, and some decent spells. It might have been enough for Australia, but it wasn't in the end. It doesn't mean he "lost" them the series.

Making due allowances for all this, he also was pretty outstandingly bad from time to time. Absolutely all over the place, and a liability to his team.

His saving grace was that he was able to take a few wickets even when bowling terribly, mainly by the shock tactic of bowling an occasional ball in the general vicinity of the stumps or batsman.

 

[Johnners]

Form between what exact dates are they taking the statistics from for these awards? Can't find it anywhere, and I'm not sure if it was July/August 08?

 

[GIMH]

It's 13/8/08 to 24/8/09

 

[Matt79]

Well done to all the award winners. Obviously very pleased for Johnson and Siddle - really do think between the two of them we've got the foundation of our attack sorted for the best part of the next 5 years.

The point made above about Gambhir beating Johnson as Test player, but losing overall when he's a much better LO cricketer than Mitch is a good one and a strange decision, but Johnners has been an excellent player for most of this year, so I'm pleased for him to get the recognition. Shouldn't ever expect too much logic from the ICC.

 

[Chemosit]

His saving grace was that he was able to take a few wickets even when bowling terribly, mainly by the shock tactic of bowling an occasional ball in the general vicinity of the stumps or batsman.

At last I have something in common with someone in the Australian team