Wisden Cricketers of the Year 2008

[superkingdave]

Sangakkara 7 Tests 968 runs at 138.28 should be one of the 5 not Bell.

 

[Richard]

Has Murray Goodwin ever won before?

If not, Id have had him ahead of Bell in 2007 for a number of reasons

I can't remember him doing so - I guess the only years which would've been even remotely likely would've been 2001 and 2004 (and I'll tell you 2 of those from 2001 off the top of my head - Caddick and Martin Bicknell).

 

[Richard]

Is that a hungover Rolleyes?

 

[Indipper]

Derbyshire did have a rather weak record though, despite Katich's great batting. And he was the cap'n.
Wisden Cricketers of the Year by the way, for those who wanna check.

 

[pasag]

Sangakkara 7 Tests 968 runs at 138.28 should be one of the 5 not Bell.

It's only for cricket played in England though.

 

[howardj]

1210 Test runs at 86.42 last year; and 20 wickets at 25.75.

Jacques Kallis - we salute you.

 

[Burgey]

Has Murray Goodwin ever won before?

If not, Id have had him ahead of Bell in 2007 for a number of reasons

Can you win it more than once? I gather from your post that once you've won it once, that's it.

 

[haroon510]

Ryon Sidebottom for me..

 

[Jono]

It's only for cricket played in England though.

Should be in the title IMO, with the game as globalised as it has become.

That fact is not as common knowledge as Wisden would like to think.

 

[GIMH]

Still, the fact that Gibson won it does give it away a little, doesn't it?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Should be in the title IMO, with the game as globalised as it has become.

That fact is not as common knowledge as Wisden would like to think.

They're not going to change the title of something they've been awarding for decades on end.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Should be in the title IMO, with the game as globalised as it has become.

That fact is not as common knowledge as Wisden would like to think.

There's never been much ambiguity on the matter of English cricket as crucial to the award.

 

[Jono]

Its not general knowledge IMO, but its a bit difficult to prove that.

The only evidence I could offer is that on a message board with cricket fanatics such as CW, I reckon a poll of what were the merits of such an award would reveal that there is a decent proportion of individuals unaware as to the English emphasis.

Some are unaware that you can only be awarded it twice in fact.

 

[Jono]

They're not going to change the title of something they've been awarding for decades on end.

Been done before for other awards.

I never said that they would anyway, rather simply that it'd be helpful.

The connotation that Wisden = Anglo-centric, and pretty much English oriented isn't as clear as crystal.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Its not general knowledge IMO, but its a bit difficult to prove that.

Well every article I've read about the awards makes sure to reinforce the "influence on English cricket" aspect of them. I think that's about as general as knowledge needs to be.

 

[Jono]

But the ambiguity occurs where the Wisden 'cricketer of the year' involves their influence on English cricket, yet the 5 Wisden cricketers of the century had no such criteria.

Then you've got:

From 2000 to 2003, inclusive, the award was made based on all cricket around the world, but this ended in 2004 when the Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World award was introduced.

So for three years the award was worldly, and then stopped?

That's ambiguity for me.

 

[Pratters]

Kallis should have graced the cover rather than KP. Makes no sense, giving him Cricketer of the Year, then putting someone else front and center.

KP more appealing I guess.

Wisden remains a book principally geared around English cricket. Since pictoral covers were inaugurated they've featured Vaughan, Waugh+Ponting, England team huddle, Flintoff+Warne, and Warne alone (and now Pietersen). All were either English or Australians who had had notable interaction with England that calender-year.

Kallis, IIRR, played 1 game against England in 2007.

Incidentally, how does cover compare to Leading Cricketer In The World?

2003 (2004 edition) - Ponting; Waugh+Ponting
2004 - Warne; England team huddle
2005 - Flintoff; Flintoff+Warne
2006 - Murali; Warne
2007 - Kallis; Pietersen

Never has a pic of a single player matched-up to the LCITW award.

In his Editor's comments, Scyld Berry mentions how several England cricketers have shown signs of greatness (like Vaughan 2002-03, Harmison 2004, Strauss 2005, KP then and since) but have never gone one to achieve it on a consistent basis. Given that KP hasn't really been amazing of the very top drawer like say Kallis or say top 4 or so cricketers consistently recently, this was not a proper time for KP to adorn the cover imo. It devalues the cover a bit. I would have given it to Bradman for his centenary year without blinking an eye. The Don does have a small action shot covering about 15-20% of the lower half of the back cover but a front cover would have been quite appropriate. It would have added much value to the new tradition of front covers as well.

 

[dongunda]

Chanderpaul should be the man but not sure bout Zaheer though because the dude is half the time injured.

 

[Richard]

But the ambiguity occurs where the Wisden 'cricketer of the year' involves their influence on English cricket, yet the 5 Wisden cricketers of the century had no such criteria.

Then you've got:



So for three years the award was worldly, and then stopped?

That's ambiguity for me.

The Cricketers Of The Century were chosen for reasons explained very clearly - as have the Cricketers Of The Year always been - and anything where Wisden has mentioned them has explained how they were chosen.

It's important with any form of award not purely to read the title, but the subtext as well. You can't expect every award to be fully reflected in its title - that'd mean some absurdly word-heavy award titles.

The Cricketers Of The Year changing policy was far from ideal - it was originally intended to be a perminant shift, but then they found something better. Obviously, it's rather a shame they didn't just think of the Leading Cricketer In The World thing in 2000 and I'm sure everyone involved wishes they had. But you can't change the past.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Chanderpaul should be the man but not sure bout Zaheer though because the dude is half the time injured.

Just to drill this point home further... it's about influence on English cricket. Nothing to do with Zaheer before or after India's tour of England and certainly nothing to do with his career. Zaheer had a fine series in England where he was the best bowler on either side, by a fair margin too.