I failed to digest this etreme negligence. I dont know WHAT ICC was thinking ignoring him after he took 72 wickets.
Pakistan Cricket News: PCB object to Saeed Ajmal omission from award shortlist | ESPN Cricinfo
Good action by PCB
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
Ajmal should be The Cricketer of the Year
ICC Sucks
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
Icc is a joke
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
mind-boggling
Ajmal should be one of the first names on the short-list
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
check one name on that list. Vernon Philander! what a joke! 
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
Why not Vernon he took around 50 wickets alot in 6 matches i think
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
**Any logic behind Ajmal’s exclusion?
**One of the better-known and confounding facts about the esteemed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, commonly known as the Oscars, is that Alfred Hitchcock, the most influential filmmaker of the last century was never bestowed with its honour. The exclusion of Saeed Ajmal from the 2012 ICC Player of the Year awards list, while no where near in terms of horror to the Hitchcock tragedy, certainly leaves most cricket followers similarly baffled. Or at least it should.
There is a growing sense amongst Pakistan fans worldwide that their team is not given the importance or consideration it deserves on the global level. The scandals are lapped up with great vigour while the achievements often go unnoticed and are mostly seen through the lens of suspicion. The stability and calm restored in the last two years merits some admiration, they argue.
**While some of this sentiment may be exaggerated, especially as most of Pakistan’s wounds are self inflicted, decisions such as Ajmal’s exclusion from the Player of the Year short-list just adds fuel to that fire.
**
Perhaps the facts will help in judging whether the fans’ ire holds any merit.
Ajmal is the highest wicket taker in Test matches during the time frame (August 5, 2011 to August 4, 2012) which the ICC considered while making its picks. And by some distance, which should alone be enough to warrant him a slot in the Test Player’s short-list, as is the case is with his counterpart, Lasith Malinga, in One Day Internationals (ODIs). The Sri Lankan pacer finds himself in the ODI list just because of the number of wickets he has taken (read matches taken part in) in the format. His average of 28, and an economy of 5.4 is nothing astounding, and dwarfs in comparison to Ajmal’s (third on the list) average of 22, and economy of 4.1.
Why is it that Malinga’s performance was deemed worthy by the selectors in ODIs, but when it came to Tests, Vernon Philander was given the nod on the basis of average?
Undoubtedly, Philander has had a dream start to his Test career, but does he deserve the nomination over Ajmal? Out of the nine Teststhat he has played in the allotted time, five have come against New Zealand and Sri Lanka. The former was easily the poorest Test side last year, and the latter had not won a Test series in over two years at the time of the encounter. His performances against Australia, the one full series against a note-worthy opposition, were no doubt outstanding, but either came on possibly the most helpful seaming track in recent memory, or in a losing cause. The fact is no one nominated (bar Hashim Amla) in the Test and Player of the year categories gave their respective noteworthy performances against the best-ranked side at the time (Philander’s only noteworthy performance against England falls outside the cut off date).
Ajmal took down the behemoth that was England almost single-handedly. Not only did the magician completely bamboozle their star batting line-up with his wizardry, but also mentally disintegrated the Andy Flower-Andrew Strauss think-tank, which had been ruling the roost for the past two years. He had the world number ones on their knees for the entire series, picked up a second consecutive man-of-the-series award, and most importantly silenced the English media’s cribbing with a smile, and a subtle flick of the finger, his “teesras”. England may have handed down their number one ranking to South Africa at Lord’s a few days ago, but it was in the desert winter that they lost it to Ajmal.
Let’s pretend that due to some convoluted logic he doesn’t deserve to be in the rankings for Tests or ODIs alone, but what the case is against his nomination for the Sir Garfield Trophy is beyond comprehension. Surely the Player of the Year award takes into account noteworthy performance in all formats. Granted there must be a weightage factor (Test, ODIs, T20s in decreasing order), but a person that has stood out across all three formats should justifiably be the leading contender for the honour. So how could Saeed Ajmal, who has shone like a beacon in all three versions of the game, lags behind a bowler who hasn’t done any thing of note in ODIs (Philander), and two batsmen that aren’t even in the top-ten run getters list in the shorter formats (Clarke and Amla).
One of the major reason for the founding of the ICC awards was to shift towards a system that rated players according to merit without national bias or prejudice. The Wisden awards, although much older and one of the more respected honors in the game, had always been biased towards their country of origin, England. It was always felt that a more comprehensive and encompassing system was needed.
Unfortunately, the ICC has been found wanting in the regard as well. Pakistan has been notably under-represented in the player awards lists since their inception. The lone category where they have had a consistent run is the umpiring award, which coincidentally is based on a set mathematical formulation, and does not depend upon the whims of an “expert” panel.
It was understandable up until 2010, for Pakistan performances did it no favours, but since the Lord’s debacle the exclusions have crossed the line from mysterious, to ignorance and now to downright inequitable. It is no wonder the supporters of the team feel wronged. It is high time the ICC panel of adjudicators started paying equal attention to performers from the entire set of cricket playing nations, instead of focusing on just the so called elite four. For that purpose is already being well served by the People’s choice award.
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
Only if he was “Saeed Ajmal Singh” 
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
He not only (by far) took most wickets in test in the period under consideration but he actually excelled in all 3 formats which makes him unique among all. If nothing else, he should have been main contender for Cricketer of the Year and Test Cricketer of the year.
Just tell us how serious are these awards. Not better than Pakistan TV’s sabun…i mean LuX awards!
PS: Now I’d like to know the names of those 30 “cricket experts”. May be I can contact them and find out the tricks of playing XBOX circket.
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
and ICC conveniently rules out Ajmal award inclusion.
and the same ICC did the exact opposite in case of Swann in 2010, how racist :hehe:
don’t forget to read the comment by a poster named Michael Dickson 
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
This probably explains it
[QUOTE]
"For all those posting please understand what the award recognizes - TEST player of the year, and period involved - Aug 2011 thru July 2012. Anything else you bring up (ODI, T20, performances outside these dates) is irrelevant. That said you will then understand why Clarke is nominated - 1,355 runs & 5 centuries, 2nd only to Sanga's 1,4444. And Alma had the best average at 65.35. If they were to nominate the best spinner it would have been Ajmal. But they selected just 1 bowler and this is the question we should be asking. If you take into account average and strike rate, Philander is the obvious choice. In fact in this regard, Ajmal's performance compared to all bowlers was quite ordinary."
[/QUOTE]
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
Pakistan could boycott ICC awards over Ajmal omission
PCB chairman Zaka Ashraf has reopened the debate surrounding Saeed Ajmal’s exclusion from the ICC awards shortlists by hinting that Pakistan’s players could boycott the awards function, to be held in Colombo on September 15, as a “robust protest”. The ICC, responding to the PCB’s protest on Monday, had ruled out a rethink and the matter seemed to have ended there.
However, Ashraf’s comments, made during an interview to ESPNcricinfo, suggest the issue is still alive for Pakistan. “We are facing a lot of pressure from the public and from our former players to push for his inclusion,” Ashraf said. "I think the ICC should check whether the independent jury is coming up with the best name and they should not give away the due right of any player in the world.
"If anyone else has more wickets than Ajmal, then we are ready to withdraw our concern and instead we will support their pick. But this isn’t reflecting well of the ICC and they should rectify it.
“Meanwhile we probably have to give a second thought to even boycott the function as a robust protest.”
Ajmal was in the longlist for the Test Player of the Year award but missed out when an independent 32-member jury, which included former Pakistan captain Aamer Sohail and Pakistan journalist Majid Bhatti, nominated Sri Lanka batsman Kumar Sangakkara, South Africa fast bowler Vernon Philander, Australia captain Michael Clarke and South Africa opener Hashim Amla in that category.
Ajmal, 34, took 72 Test wickets between August 4, 2011 and August 6, 2012 - the qualifying period for the award - including 24 at 14.70 as Pakistan swept aside England, the then No. 1 side in the world, 3-0 in January. He has climbed to No. 3 in the ICC Test bowling rankings and is the highest ranked spinner. On Thursday, he was revealed as the top bowler in the ODI rankings.
After the PCB lodged the protest, the ICC refused to reconsider Ajmal’s case, saying it had no authority to change the results of the academy. The process was monitored by the independent auditor Ernst & Young, and the longlist was prepared by a five-member Selection Panel headed by Clive Lloyd and included Clare Connor (England), Tom Moody (Australia), Carl Hooper (West Indies) and Marvan Atapattu (Sri Lanka).
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/581172.html
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
Actually it does:
Saeed Ajmal Aug 2011-July 2012 - 12 tests - 68 wickets at 25.72, Best 7/55 (v England), 5wI/10wM 3/1
HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Series
**Vernon Philander **Aug 2011-July 2012 - 8 tests - **61 **wickets at 14.72, Best 6/44 (v NZ), 5wI/10w/M 7/2
HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Series
PCB w’d be quite wrong to boycott the ICC awards
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
This probably explains it
"For all those posting please understand what the award recognizes - TEST player of the year, and period involved - Aug 2011 thru July 2012. Anything else you bring up (ODI, T20, performances outside these dates) is irrelevant. That said you will then understand why Clarke is nominated - 1,355 runs & 5 centuries, 2nd only to Sanga's 1,4444. And Alma had the best average at 65.35. If they were to nominate the best spinner it would have been Ajmal. But they selected just 1 bowler and this is the question we should be asking. If you take into account average and strike rate, Philander is the obvious choice. In fact in this regard, Ajmal's performance compared to all bowlers was quite ordinary."
I am disappointed more on his exclusion from "Cricketer of the year" award which takes Test, ODI and T20 into consideration
Re: PCB object to Ajmal omission
ICC's historic bias against Pakistan is well-known, some of it is our own fault (article posted above by Rangoli)
But
cricket has always been a batsman's game; 3 of the 4 short-listed players are batsmen
but I dare say that if an Australian or English spinner had done as well as Ajmal, the jury might have then picked two batsmen and two bowlers
It's silly that Ajmal is being excluded from the list, but boycotting the awards ceremony is just plain stupid. PCB again would have to eat it's own words.
