ICC Awards Thread.

[rickyp]

so your argument is, that an average of 32 bowling is better than an average of 58 batting.

And please fill me in on how im biased, there arent many players that just play test you know, and hayden has had a brilliant year, a year far better than panesar, anyone with half a brain can tell that

 

[evertonfan]

so your argument is, that an average of 32 bowling is better than an average of 58 batting.

You do realise that they can't possibly be compared right? Surley you aren't that stupid that you fail to realise that bowling averages can't be compared to batting averages?

And for the record, no i'm not saying anything is better, I am merely justifying Panesar's nomination. I don't think he should be in there, but i'm trying to show thick-headed idiots such as you why he has been included.

And please fill me in on how im biased, there arent many players that just play test you know, and hayden has had a brilliant year, a year far better than panesar, anyone with half a brain can tell that

Because you are always saying that Australia are the best at everything when they are not. In a lot of threads you constantly big up Australia whilst downplaying everyone else. Now i'm not sad enough to go and get some of these posts as evidence, but even you yourself knows that they exist. Simple fact is, you think Australia have some devine right to win everything, and the moment that another player from another nation comes along, you can't handle it.

 

[rickyp]

for the sake of this forum, dont stoop to name calling.

you can easily compare them, its called, team value! hayden provides more value to a team than panesar does.

It isnt biased to call australia the best team, because we are the best team, you cant say we arent, we are ranked number one for a reason, and that reason is that our players have got us there. So you could obviously assume that the players from the best team would be the best players, how else did they get there... hmm.... i wonder?

BTW, what determines best emerging player? because mike hussey couldnt be far off the criteria for that.

 

[evertonfan]

you can easily compare them, its called, team value! hayden provides more value to a team than panesar does.

So your switching to a team value debate because I proved you completley wrong about the averages one?

Fair enough, i'll bite; Monty is irreplacable, Hayden isn't.

And I didn't say Australia weren't the best team in the world, I said they aren't the best at everything, which is exactly what you think.

 

[rickyp]

how do i think that..... in cricket terms, we are the best, we are talking about cricket arent we?

and im not switching arguments coz its the same thing. averages provide a backing for team value - they are effectively the same thing, just provides a level field for all players.

Monty is irreplaceable, im not too sure but there are a fair few players with less than 32- bowling average, not too many with a batting average of 50+, call that irreplaceable if you want but you dont make sense.

 

[evertonfan]

Monty is irreplaceable, im not too sure but there are a fair few players with less than 32- bowling average

You do realise that those figures are twice as good as Warne's were at that stage in his career don't you?

Oh, and Alastair Cook averages 55; I don't see you banging on about his inclusion in there and how he is irreplacable. : Bell is averaging 90 too.

 

[irottev]

I think the conclusion of this is that the selection for these award nominations are puzzling. Can we leave it at that? lol.

 

[evertonfan]

I think the conclusion of this is that the selection for these award nominations are puzzling. Can we leave it at that? lol.

I'll agree with that, not sure our Australian friend will though.

 

[rickyp]

so what..... im pretty sure shane warne wasnt nominated for cricketer of the year after his first 12 matches..... And btw, the nomination criteria doesnt say, "performances compared to the career position of shane warne."

Not once have I said that panesar isnt going to be a great player, because I think he is, but now your just making weird excuses for why he is nominated, like "his figures are twice as good as shane warnes." Coz thats just completely irrelevant and no justification to nomination.

For the record, I think alastair cook is irreplaceable, his batting concentration and control is just exemplary and a crucial part of England's future. For a player his age to bat so slow is remarkable (thats not a bad thing, it shows control and resiliance) Despite this view though, he is only in the beginnings of his career and a batting average of 55 can be distorted quite easily when not many games have been played (take mike hussey and kevin peitersen's averages at the start of their career for example)

 

[evertonfan]

so what..... im pretty sure shane warne wasnt nominated for cricketer of the year after his first 12 matches..... And btw, the nomination criteria doesnt say, "performances compared to the career position of shane warne."

Not once have I said that panesar isnt going to be a great player, because I think he is, but now your just making weird excuses for why he is nominated, like "his figures are twice as good as shane warnes." Coz thats just completely irrelevant and no justification to nomination.

Your the one who brought stats into it, you can't blame me for fighting stats with stats.

I'm going to bed, I suggest you just learn to accept that life is a bitch, your players don't always get picked for what you believe they should and no matter how much you argue against Panesar's 'joke' inclusion, the fact is that he is in there, so deal with it and take a chill pill. Now go and cuddle up to your Australia teddy and suck on your thumb.

 

[andrew_nixon]

You two really need to calm down.

 

[Sureshot]

Why is it called cricketer of the year if it doesnt have anything to do with cricket ability? please dont put your foot in your mouth

@ sureshot, you cant say "he could of got 40 wickets" fact is he didnt. And for the sake of it, ive seen every ball he has bowled this summer.

Then you have wool over your eyes. Montys been our best bowler this Summer, and he has made some brilliant players of spin look foolish.

ugh cmon! as if he hasnt performed better than panesar, they havent even been in the same league

If they both did the same disciplines you could compare the two.

Impossible to compare the effectiveness of a batsman to a spin bowler. Chalk and Cheese.

As for Hayden, he's been brilliant since the 5th Test last summer and should be in there. As should Monty.

 

[langerrox]

I think Monty just scraps into that category however I feel there is not much chance for the young lad to win it.

 

[Sureshot]

I agree with that, I'm a huge fan of Monty, but I wouldn't vote for him to be the best in the world. But he has had blimming good 2 test series.

 

[Dare]

Cricketer of the Year: Muttiah Muralitharan or Jayawardene dude made 374 ina match im suprised that blew ocer that easily and his partnership with kumar
Test Player of the Year: Mohammed Yousuf or Mahela Jayawardene
One-day Player of the Year: Yuvraj Singh or Hussey
Emerging Player of the Year: Mohammed Asif without a doubt
Captain of the Year: Dravid or Jayawardene btw Vaughan doesnt deserve to be there all he did was lead england in the ashes and im not saying that wasnt a great win but he didnt do a damn thing for the rest of the year, Inzamam should be there instead of him.
Umpire of the Year: Simon Taufel

poz