ICC Awards 2004 / Murali edged by Warne (Merged)

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
1

September 7, 2004

Rahul Dravid picked up both the Test Player of the Year, and the ICC Player of the Year at the ICC inaugural awards ceremony at Alexandra Palace in London. “It was a great honour, totally unexpected”, said Dravid. “I was very surprised because a lot of people here have had a good year. I’m really happy, and honoured, to be selected.”

Earlier, the first award of the night, Umpire of the Year, went to Simon Taufel, the young Australian umpire. He received the award after receiving the most votes from cricket’s Test captains and match referees.

The next award, Emerging Player of the Year, went to Irfan Pathan, the 19-year-old Indian left-arm pace bowler. “I feel really good about this,” said Pathan. “I have the confidence to do well in international cricket, but this award will boost my confidence even more. It will motivate me a lot, but it’s a big motivation to play for India anyway. Every single match is a big challenge.”

Malcolm Speed, the ICC’s chief executive, praised Pathan’s winning of the award, saying: “On behalf of the ICC and the cricket community, we congratulate Irfan Pathan on winning the Emerging Player of the Year award. He is a highly gifted player, and along with the other nominees in this category, all have very bright futures in cricket.”

The New Zealand team won the Spirit of Cricket Award, while Andrew Flintoff, rounding off an excellent summer, scooped the one-day player of the year prize. Flintoff, 26, took 12 wickets at an average of 20.50, and scored 551 runs at an incredible 78.71 during the year-long voting period. Unsurprisingly, Flintoff was also part of the one-day team of the year.

Ehsan Mani, the ICC’s president said: “Andrew Flintoff has certainly had a tremendous year in 2003-04 and we congratulate him on winning this award, as One-Day International Player of the Year.”

Flintoff was his usual self-effacing self, saying: “If somebody had said three years ago that I’d be up here with Ricky [Ponting], and Jacques [Kallis], I probably wouldn’t have believed them,” said Flintoff. “My career over the past 18 months has taken a massive turn-around. I’m in a bit of a purple patch at the moment - not only in my cricket, but in my life.”

“My job’s been made easier by the class players in the [England] side,” he continued. “We’re really just 11 mates who go out and play, and enjoy eachother’s company, and enjoy eachother’s successes.”

World one-day XI
1 Adam Gilchrist (wk), 2 Sachin Tendulkar, 3 Chris Gayle, 4 Ricky Ponting (capt), 5 Brian Lara, 6 Virender Sehwag, 7 Jacques Kallis, 8 Andrew Flintoff, 9 Shaun Pollock, 10 Chaminda Vaas, 11 Jason Gillespie.

World Test XI
1 Matthew Hayden, 2 Herschelle Gibbs, 3 Ricky Ponting (capt), 4 Rahul Dravid, 5 Brian Lara, 6 Jacques Kallis, 7 Adam Gilchrist, 8 Chaminda Vaas, 9 Shane Warne, 10 Jason Gillespie, 11 Stephen Harmison.

Not a single Pakistani player…

2

Biggest surprise is Muralinot finding place in TEST team. I guess they gave the place to Shane Warne. They must be on drugs.

Didnt Ricky Ponting had goo year in Both TEST & ODI. Rahul didnt have as good year ad Ricky in ODI. Player of the year should have gone to Ricky.

3

Clearly another opportunity to promote Indian interests. I mean come on, Sehwag in World XI, give me a break. Dravid great as he is, is not even close to the year some of the Aussies have had. And Gibbs, Gayle, Pollock uhuh … :rolleyes:

4

Not a single Pakistani in the World XIs? :konfused:

5

Do these people know Pakistan plays cricket? How could you ignore Inzamam? These people have something against Pakistan I would say.

6

because,

there was not a single Pakistani on the selection panel :slight_smile:

PCB shoud protest, not on world X1 but on the panel. Whenever it comes to ICC awards , or eliate empire panel or cricket rules panel we dont see any Pakistani serving out there.

7

Murali edged by Warne in dubious decision

Murali edged by Warne in dubious decision

Commentary by Michael Donaldson/AAP

September 8, 2004

The ICC's inaugural awards ceremony confirmed Muttiah Muralitharan's status as a pariah of world cricket. How else can his exclusion from their Test team of the Year be explained?

Naturally Australia dominated the world Test XI, with five players named: Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Jason Gillespie and Shane Warne. There was one Sri Lankan: the ever-deserving Chaminda Vaas. But how the voting panel can justify Warne's inclusion ahead of Muralitharan is beyond comprehension.

**Selection panel chairman Richie Benaud had a go when he said in a statement: "As a group, we deliberated for some time about the balance of the team - it was no easy task. We considered the players' performances and the strength or otherwise of the competition these individuals faced over the course of the year.

"Then we approached the statistical side of things, and again the competitive nature of matches came under scrutiny. The aim was to produce a well-balanced XI able to win matches played on a good pitch.

"As is always the case with only 11 positions to be filled, there will be disappointments. Shane Warne came back and made an immediate impact with 36 wickets in just five games, and deserved his place as the first spinner; leading wicket-taker Muttiah Muralitharan was unlucky."

But a quick look at the statistics reveals the panel shied away from raw statistics and the strength of the opposition. In the qualifying period - August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 - Murali played nine Tests, taking 73 wickets at an average of 18.56. He took his wickets against Australia (28), England (26), South Africa (5) and Zimbabwe (14). Australia and England are the ICC's two top-ranked teams, and not long ago South Africa was challenging Australia for No. 1 status.

Warne, by comparison, missed more half the qualifying period because he was still serving a one-year doping ban. When he came back he played five Tests - all against Sri Lanka. Admittedly he routed the fifth-ranked Lankans, taking 36 wickets at 22.25, but is that enough? In the year under scrutiny, Murali took twice as many wickets at a better average and played much tougher teams than Warne - beating the Aussie in two of the criteria Benaud listed. **

Perhaps the debate over which of the two most successful bowlers was more deserving of a place in a World XI reveals some hard truths about world cricket and its bias. Warne appears to have gained his place by virtue of reputation. The fact he was serving a drug ban during the voting period should have been taken into consideration, but Warne is one of those characters whose flaws and misdemeanours are constantly brushed aside or ignored.

Murali, whose only fault is a wonky arm, endlessly pays the price for his controversial bowling action. During the voting period he was placed under review and his doosra was banned. He played only one Test with the doosra ban in place - the rest of the matches were effectively legal and he cannot be punished retrospectively. But it seems he has been.

Joining Benaud on the selection panel were Ian Botham, Sunil Gavaskar, Michael Holding and Barry Richards. Perhaps someone from New Zealand should have been on the panel. After all, the Kiwis won the inaugural Spirit of Cricket award, and fair play seems to have been missing in this team selection.

© AAP

Shame on Benaud, Shame on Panel and Shame on ICC

8

So in one sentence:

The decision was biased. :rolleyes:

9

get over this victmisation mentality! is Ehsan Mani not a pakistani? is Aleem Dar not a Pakistani?

anyways these awards were based on last years performance - can you tell me one Pakistani player who has performed consistently during the period?

10

They sure are but Aleem Dar was included in the panel LATER. He was not included in the initial panel announced. Same is the case with rules modification committee. Every single country has a representation but Pakistan and now ICC awards panel. Each country should have representation on the panel.

Above all Richie Benaud should not be the head of the committee as he recently has announced his own X1. He has conflict of interest!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bitter: *
get over this victmisation mentality! is Ehsan Mani not a pakistani? is Aleem Dar not a Pakistani?

anyways these awards were based on last years performance - can you tell me one Pakistani player who has performed consistently during the period?
[/QUOTE]

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Decent 6Chora: *

Above all Richie Benaud should not be the head of the committee as he recently has announced his own X1. He has conflict of interest!

[/QUOTE]

That was a all time XI ............

12

Murli is not a happy bunny !

QUOTE- bbc.co.uk
Muttiah Muralitharan claims he was left out of the ICC Test Team of the Year because voting members believe he bowls with an illegal action.
He told BBC Sport: "A few people are not that keen on me because they think I am not bowling properly.
"That's the only reason it can be, but it's disappointing for me."
Murali said: "It happens sometimes that people are not favourable towards me but they do not have to judge that - they have to judge how I have performed during the course of the year.
"I am surprised that someone who didn't play for six months did get into the side.
"If you take [Warne's] total career he should be there but if it's about one year's performance he should not because he did not play for six months of that time.
"I don't need more awards - I already have the world record but I was disappointed on the night.
"The funny part of it is that they nominate me among the best four for the best player of the year but they cannot put me in the team - that's why I think something funny is going on."
END QUOTE.

13

Decent 6Chora,

As bitter said ,stop this victim mentality.
Just tell me which pakistani should be there and on whose place. Mind it selection is based on performance between 1st Aug 2003 & 31st July 2004.

Only Mistake I see is omission of Murali,but then that might be because most of these selector think that he is a cheater .very Sad but that is only explanation I could think of.

14

from 1 aug 2003 to 31 july 2004…

yasir hameed ODIs: 1337 runs at an average of 49.5…
9 fifties and 3 hundreds…

yasir hameed tests: 784 runs with an average of 49…
3 fifties and 2 hunreds…

forget the rest, i’ll just compare ponting with him…

ponting ODIs: 1060 runs at an average of 46…
8 fifties and 2 hundreds…

(anyone can see that hameed was far better than him in the ODIs)

ponting tests: 1230 runs at an average of 72.35…
4 fifties and 3 hundreds (including 2 double hundreds against india)

(ponting is clearly better here so we can be happy that he has deservedly been given a place in the tests)

now why was hameed not in the ODI team???
cuz his skin color aint white… :konfused:

think about sehwag urself who made less than half the runs of hameed at an average of 31 and someone thinks he deserves the place (maybe it was cuz of the 12 wickets he got in the whole year???)

15

im watchin themm now ..

rahul's wife is cryin .. :p .. apnay husband ko dekh ker ..

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
from 1 aug 2003 to 31 july 2004....

yasir hameed ODIs: 1337 runs at an average of 49.5....
9 fifties and 3 hundreds....

[/QUOTE]

Out of these 1337 runs & 3 hundred.. 2 hundreds and some 400 runs were made against BD.
Selectors are smart they look at the quality of opposition too. Moever Openor slot is too crowded. He cannot come in place of either Sachin or Gilli. Thats the point. You cant compare apple with oranges.

17

Over teh last 12 months I dont think any Pakistani player apart from Yasir did any thing special to be part of the ICC awards. Yasir was the only candidate who could have been nominated for the newcomer award but than Pathan was a strong contender and quite rightly the winner of the award. He played a major part in India's win over Pakistan in the series in march.

I am quite hopeful that if our current progress continues our players will be in contention next year.

18

^ there speaketh the wise and a old man!!!

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fair_&_balance: *

Out of these 1337 runs & 3 hundred.. 2 hundreds and some 400 runs were made against BD.
Selectors are smart they look at the quality of opposition too. Moever Openor slot is too crowded. He cannot come in place of either Sachin or Gilli. Thats the point. You cant compare apple with oranges.
[/QUOTE]

yeah yeah yeah.

Yasir score 366 against BD, while rest were against SA, NZ and India. His yearly average was 50+

Take out 366 from Yasir, he still score 900+?

Sehwag score 699 @ 31.7

I see, Sehwag is CLEAR winner, all hands down.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ehsan: *
Over teh last 12 months I dont think any Pakistani player apart from Yasir did any thing special to be part of the ICC awards. Yasir was the only candidate who could have been nominated for the newcomer award but than Pathan was a strong contender and quite rightly the winner of the award. He played a major part in India's win over Pakistan in the series in march.

I am quite hopeful that if our current progress continues our players will be in contention next year.
[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. There must have been very tough competition between Yasir and Irfan on newcomer award. But I guess Irfan's match winning performance in Pak did it for him.