ICC awards 2009

[Johnners]

Johnson named cricketer of the year - Cricket - Fox Sports

Mitch!

No doubt Inbox will be delighted he picked up the award

 

[Howsie]

Siddle over Ryder

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I think if The Ashes had been unduly emphasised there's no way Johnson would have won the Cricketer of the Year

 

[pasag]

Love Mitch with all my heart but that's a shocker of a call.

 

[Pothas]

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.

Agree to a certain extent when it come to giving out awards but the circumstances faced by certain players does in my opinion contribute greatly to there achievments as a cricketer. For example Basil D'Oliveira's test career is made far greater by the huge obstacles he had to overcome and that he did not play test cricket until well into his 30's. This sort of thing must surley be taken into account when judging a players achievments?

 

[DingDong]

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...

If a player overcame 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 and also scored the number of runs samaraweera did within the calender year used I would have no objection if he won it at all.

 

[Naumaan]

Dilshan was declared t20 performance of the year, what the hell
Afridi 's performance against South Africa in the semi final was the best one, & what about Gul's 6-5?
These awards sucks

 

[S.P. Fleming]

Dilshan was declared t20 performance of the year, what the hell
Afridi 's performance against South Africa in the semi final was the best one, & what about Gul's 6-5?
These awards sucks

the world doesnt revolve around Pakistan

 

[GIMH]

Johnson named cricketer of the year - Cricket - Fox Sports

Mitch!

No doubt Inbox will be delighted he picked up the award

One of the worst decisions in the history of sport, a complete joke. No other words can describe such an appalling call.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

So couldn't Broad then be also described as the difference for his spell in the last test?

I don't really buy into this 'performed when it mattered most' rubbish. If you perform all the time then it doesn't come down to 'when it mattered most'. I don't see any value in a player only performing once or twice a series. It won't be good enough against a team that are a little more consistent than Australia were in the last Ashes (which wouldn't be difficult).

Even with the effort to win the match in which Freddy took 5 The Ashes were still tied coming into the last match. I think you're being a little selective in choosing the first win of the series as being the one that ultimately saw them ahead at the end.

 

[Son Of Coco]

One of the worst decisions in the history of sport, a complete joke. No other words can describe such an appalling call.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a player a little more consistent over the year myself.

 

[Naumaan]

the world doesnt revolve around Pakistan

they ignored South Africa too

 

[GIMH]

So couldn't Broad then be also described as the difference for his spell in the last test?

I don't really buy into this 'performed when it mattered most' rubbish. If you perform all the time then it doesn't come down to 'when it mattered most'. I don't see any value in a player only performing once or twice a series. It won't be good enough against a team that are a little more consistent than Australia were in the last Ashes (which wouldn't be difficult).

Even with the effort to win the match in which Freddy took 5 The Ashes were still tied coming into the last match. I think you're being a little selective in choosing the first win of the series as being the one that ultimately saw them ahead at the end.

Yeah, agree with all of this

 

[Uppercut]

Tbf, Midge took an awful lot of wickets during the Ashes. He was nowhere near as bad as the general consensus would suggest. Very inconsistent and very inaccurate at times, but still very dangerous.

 

[jondavluc]

One of the worst decisions in the history of sport, a complete joke. No other words can describe such an appalling call.

How is it? I wouldn't pick him myself but it is certainly not the worst(I personeally felt dilshan and De villers should of been in over Mitch).He had some briilent performances like his 8fer and 100.Also the spell where he broke smith's hand and gave kallis stiches for his jaw.Throwing in a few of five/four fors and fifties and he had a very good year.Yeah their was some bad performances during the ashes but not everything revolves around the Ashes mate.

The only guy out of the four nominations lelf that maybe deserved it was Gambhir.

 

[GIMH]

Tbf, Midge took an awful lot of wickets during the Ashes. He was nowhere near as bad as the general consensus would suggest. Very inconsistent and very inaccurate at times, but still very dangerous.

How is it? I wouldn't pick him myself but it is certainly not the worst(I personeally felt dilshan and De villers should of been in over Mitch).He had some briilent performances like his 8fer and 100.Also the spell where he broke smith's hand and gave kallis stiches for his jaw.Throwing in a few of five/four fors and fifties and he had a very good year.Yeah their was some bad performances during the ashes but not everything revolves around the Ashes mate.

The only guy out of the four nominations lelf that maybe deserved it was Gambhir.

I was exaggerating, just for the record, but it was an awful call. Say what you want, the Ashes was the biggest series of his career and he completely choked. His bowling in the first two Tests was worse than Harmison's in the previous Ashes series. Of course everyone has bad series from time to time, but one series as bad as that in a period of a year should automatically disqualify anybody from such an award. Simple as that.

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson was pretty good in the first innings of the first test. Remember the 93mph bouncer that nailed Strauss on the gloves? The slower ball that Bopara spooned to point?

He was useless at Lord's, but even then managed to pick up a few wickets. But he was decent at Edgbaston (got the inswinger going) and really very good at Headingley, and pretty good at the Oval too. When he was bad he was very bad, but don't let that fool you into thinking he was worse than he was. It fools everyone else into thinking England are a worse ODI side than they are, and look where that's got you .

 

[GIMH]

He was decent first dig at Cardiff, nothing more than that. How did he perform at the end when all Australia needed to do to win was get Monty Panesar (batting average>7) & James Anderson (batting average ~13) out? That's right, he started landing them on the adjacent strip.

Yeah, he got some wickets at Lord's. He also gave us runs, runs and runs. It is realistic to suggest that had Johnson bowled competently there, Australia would have won the Test.

At Edgbaston, his performance was, IMO, overrated just because of what it came on the back of. He started finding a decent line, bowled some decent balls. Still got carted about though, we were going for quick runs but none of the other main bowlers were as expensive as him.

He was good at Headingley, particularly in taking out our top order second time round, and he was pretty average at The Oval.

Not the worst series a bowler has ever had, but he's played what, five Test series in the last year? To be the 'cricketer of the year' you can't afford to have a series like he did in the Ashes. It was a Steve Harmison type series.

 

[Johnners]

Out of interest, who would've everyone picked?

I rarely see any series that doesn't involved Australia, so really have nfi about the other candidates apart from that I can take from match reports and statistics....

 

[Uppercut]

He was decent first dig at Cardiff, nothing more than that. How did he perform at the end when all Australia needed to do to win was get Monty Panesar (batting average>7) & James Anderson (batting average ~13) out? That's right, he started landing them on the adjacent strip.

Yeah, he got some wickets at Lord's. He also gave us runs, runs and runs. It is realistic to suggest that had Johnson bowled competently there, Australia would have won the Test.

At Edgbaston, his performance was, IMO, overrated just because of what it came on the back of. He started finding a decent line, bowled some decent balls. Still got carted about though, we were going for quick runs but none of the other main bowlers were as expensive as him.

He was good at Headingley, particularly in taking out our top order second time round, and he was pretty average at The Oval.

Not the worst series a bowler has ever had, but he's played what, five Test series in the last year? To be the 'cricketer of the year' you can't afford to have a series like he did in the Ashes. It was a Steve Harmison type series.

He turned in some seriously good performances last year- against South Africa twice, and New Zealand. Three series out of five he was absolutely incredible, he performed admirably in India when the going was tough, and he was inconsistent (but not really that bad) in England. I propose that his performance in England was only so disappointing because the previous four series had left us expecting so much from him.