sohum
Executive member
Aah a little bit of confusion there. That is a very interesting criterion. Cough cough. Congrats to all those who won that very respectable award. Cough cough. 
Wisden Cricketer's of the Year
- Thread starter barmyarmy
- Start date
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
What's that supposed to mean? The criteria has always been influence on the English season.sohummisra said:Aah a little bit of confusion there. That is a very interesting criterion. Cough cough. Congrats to all those who won that very respectable award. Cough cough.
DeLonge182
Club Cricketer
sohummisra said:Aah a little bit of confusion there. That is a very interesting criterion. Cough cough. Congrats to all those who won that very respectable award. Cough cough.
Shut up. Even if India did play in England they'd gat hammered. Against our bowlers in our conditions, if you dont move your feet (coughsehwagcoughcough) you dont get runs. Now please forgive me if i'm mistaken, but didnt sehwag have a terrible Natwest challenge............oh wait they all had a terrible Natwest challenge. I'm sorry I keep on forgetting that india suck.
If you dont like who wisden selected then select your own players and write about them.....................
Sehwag only gets runs on flat pitches...........not like lara did today and yesterday.
sohum
Executive member
Aahh right. I forgot what happened in that series when India went to England? That's right...we drew it 1-1 didn't we? "Oh but we didn't have Harmison then..." I sense a little bit of jealousy towards Sehwag's batting. Which English batsman in the last few years has really shone? No one.
If you want my honest and complete opinion, I think the awards are quite useless. That's like CEAT giving awards to the people who have had the most influence on the Indian season and then selecting 5 domestic players. And then calling them the Cricketers of the Year. Perhaps you can call them the English Cricketers of the Year or at least put something in the award name that tells you that the selected are not the BEST players in the world in the international calendar. I think this is a useless debate, anyhow.
If you want my honest and complete opinion, I think the awards are quite useless. That's like CEAT giving awards to the people who have had the most influence on the Indian season and then selecting 5 domestic players. And then calling them the Cricketers of the Year. Perhaps you can call them the English Cricketers of the Year or at least put something in the award name that tells you that the selected are not the BEST players in the world in the international calendar. I think this is a useless debate, anyhow.
DeLonge182
Club Cricketer
sohummisra said:
the reason we drew that series is because we sucked............we had dominick cork in the side for christ sakes!!!!!
harmison hasn't made england who they are.......Its a team effort. Plus you seem to have forgotten strauss!!!!!
sohum
Executive member
Quality opposition, my friend. I will only agree that England have developed into a good team judging by the Ashes performance. With all due respect, West Indies and Zimbabwe and whoever else England played aren't really quality opposition. Compare Sehwag and Strauss, why don't you. And not by just statistics but also by the effect they have on the opposition. Sehwag has become the core of the Indian batting (unfortunately, one believes sometimes). I really don't see why you took the dig at Sehwag. He's obviously better than most of the English batsmen at the moment, at least on form. And there's no need comparing Lara to any other batsman in the world (except maybe Tendulkar) because I'm sure everyone here is aware of his class.
That's like saying "Stephen Harmison bowled so badly today... Wasim Akram could have picked up wickets on that track."
That's like saying "Stephen Harmison bowled so badly today... Wasim Akram could have picked up wickets on that track."
The Champ
International Coach
After his current 100 Lara has proved yet again that he has to be the world record holder
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
The award criteria is quite clear. Influence on the English season. If a touring side comes over and one of their players completely dominates the tour, they're going to get the award. It is not limited to English players.sohummisra said:
sohum
Executive member
Its still not clear to me. What constitutes the English season? How can you influence the English season? And the award is not Wisden Cricketers of the Year Who Influenced the English Season but Wisden Cricketers of the Year. If one looks at that list with no context (that is how it is usually presented), one will immediately be led to believe that those are the best performers in the year, not just regarding the English season. Do you get my point?
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
What constitues the English season? errr...... the English season!sohummisra said:
The fact that it is usually presented without the criteria is the fault of the media, not of Wisden. Wisden always present it with the criteria.
sohum
Executive member
Ahh forget it...this is a useless debate as I've already said. 
DeLonge182
Club Cricketer
sohummisra said:
well you guys only played SA (at home), aus (at hoime) and pak (away) mabey bangladesh as well but im not sure. Pak suck, we beat SA AWAY (not at home like india) and aus hammered you guys 2-1 (and would have been 3-1 bar the weather in the first test).......i dont know what you on about.
As i recall, last time you huys went to the carribean you lost!!!!!!
sohum
Executive member
You don't really watch cricket do you? If the weather had not intervened, the series would have been drawn 2-2. We needed something like 220 runs to score in a day with 10 wickets in hand to win the game. Perhaps England would falter in such situations. Now looking at your other stupid comments. Secondly on this point, I think losing 2-1 is better than getting white-washed every single time.
West Indies actually had a semi-decent team at that time. They had Carl Hooper as captain and a pretty strong team. That was probably their last good team before they ended in their bad stage. England managed to beat Pakistan 1-0 in a 3-test series last time they visited Pakistan. Since you seem to provide no context to your posts, that shows you that the teams were not really playing for wins (they batted 2 innings in 4 days for God's sakes) unlike the India-Pakistan rivalry which was good to watch. And you obviously neglect the human aspect of cricket wherein it's not all statistics. If you watched the India-Pakistan series you would realize it was much more exciting than any England-Australia series of late. Perhaps because there was not a hopelessly large gap in skill between the teams.
And you are proud of beating South Africa away--a team that has been struggling in test cricket for a few years. What are they...like 6th on the table? Yeah I think that's about right. And yet England struggled to beat them. I am not taking any credit away from England--they are a drastically improved team but they are nothing close to world-beaters at the moment. They cannot conquer Australia, their biggest rivals, while most of the subcontinent tours will still prove a challenge to them.
As for the other comments you ignored, no replied with a "I don't know what you on about" (missing verb, by the way, I'll take it as a to) you are missing the perfectly valid things that I am mentioning. Besides you are not discussing the topic at all. The concern I voiced was that the title of Wisden Cricketers of the Year doesn't exactly convey that the criteria relates to the English season. You cannot argue with that.
West Indies actually had a semi-decent team at that time. They had Carl Hooper as captain and a pretty strong team. That was probably their last good team before they ended in their bad stage. England managed to beat Pakistan 1-0 in a 3-test series last time they visited Pakistan. Since you seem to provide no context to your posts, that shows you that the teams were not really playing for wins (they batted 2 innings in 4 days for God's sakes) unlike the India-Pakistan rivalry which was good to watch. And you obviously neglect the human aspect of cricket wherein it's not all statistics. If you watched the India-Pakistan series you would realize it was much more exciting than any England-Australia series of late. Perhaps because there was not a hopelessly large gap in skill between the teams.
And you are proud of beating South Africa away--a team that has been struggling in test cricket for a few years. What are they...like 6th on the table? Yeah I think that's about right. And yet England struggled to beat them. I am not taking any credit away from England--they are a drastically improved team but they are nothing close to world-beaters at the moment. They cannot conquer Australia, their biggest rivals, while most of the subcontinent tours will still prove a challenge to them.
As for the other comments you ignored, no replied with a "I don't know what you on about" (missing verb, by the way, I'll take it as a to) you are missing the perfectly valid things that I am mentioning. Besides you are not discussing the topic at all. The concern I voiced was that the title of Wisden Cricketers of the Year doesn't exactly convey that the criteria relates to the English season. You cannot argue with that.
nik
International Cricketer
nice one! he needs to revise his cricket!
