ICC Awards Thread

angryangy said:
The basic difference there is that Gilchrist is a naturally better batsman. Check the conversion rate: 15 hundreds (and 1 double century) to 20 fifties, to 5 hundreds and 17 fifties.

You could actually argue that they tend to face around the same number of balls, but in say, 120 balls, Gilchrist will have brought up a century, while Flintoff would have got to 80. The flaw is that the more balls that are attacked, the greater the likelyhood of getting out to a good one. This means Gilchrist is generally better at staying in and scoring runs, be it through technique, concentration or shot selection.


I'd say that Gilchrist is more naturally talented than Freddie, but the way Freddie has improved is incredible. One of the best ODI players (baring his Super series bowling) in the world. Averages 40 with the bat and 24 with the ball in last 2 years.
 
I think it was very correct to name Kevin Pietersen has the ODI player of the year. He made an awesome entry into the game, has managed to maintain the momentum since, and already he is being rated as one of the best players around. He surely has dominated the world scene over the past 12 months.
 
Flintoff easily has the bowling figures. Batting is far below Kallis.

Kallis has played the minnows in that period, most of his wickets were took against them and a fair few runs.

Flintoff is an inconsistent batsman. Probably always will be.
ronny_kingsley, your inflammatory remarks are unwarranted.

His batting over the last couple of years has actually been consistent other than the S Africa tour which is surprising considering the over the top workload he has with the ball.

2003 ENG v SAF 52.88
2003-2004 SRL v ENG 23.83
2003-2004 WIN v ENG 50.00
2004 ENG v NZL 54.00
2004 The Wisden Trophy 64.50
2004-2005 SAF v ENG 28.38
2005 The Ashes 40.30
 
I think it's a very fair way for things to go. Kallis has been batting like two batsmen, which makes him the equivalent of an all-rounder. :p
 
ronny_kingsley said:
But if those gentleman played that better(to win ICC awards) thier team must have something to show for thier "great" performances.

So the individual award should take in team performances too? No. It's an award for individual performances strangely, nothing to do with the teams results. Kallis won the award's he did simply because of how well performed himself. In this case, statistics do tell the full story.

nightprowler10 said:
I hope allrounders getting POTY awards doesn't become a trend.

Why not? If they deserve the award then they should win it. Kallis isn't an all-rounder anymore anyway. :p
 
angryangy said:
I think it's a very fair way for things to go. Kallis has been batting like two batsmen, which makes him the equivalent of an all-rounder. :p


So Bradman was 3 dimensional? :cool:
 
Flintoff should not of got TEST POTY. His bowling was good but [email protected] with no hundreds isnt very good considering the amount of talent he has.

He didnt get test poty, other than the S Africa tour when he was suffering a painful injury all the way through he did well with the bat.
 
kallis has lost out on his bowling.. if he carries on he'll retire before he's 30..
 
He doesn't bowl much. He really is concentrating on his batting. It's a bit of a misnomer to call him an all-rounder, but if he does bowl from time to time it's still worth mentioning a little. He can still get decent wickets.
 
stevie said:
On the subject of the teams of the year, the ICC continue to make themselves look like idiots. Why are Naved-ul-Hasan, Inzamam and Marvan Attapatu in the ODI team of the year, but weren't in the super series ODI squad!? Then Shaun Pollock, not even the 12th man in the ODI squad but is CAPTAIN of the super series side!?

Very true.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top