What's new

No PCB official to attend ICC awards

A.Rafay

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
11,400
Reaction score
10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
zakaiccaw670afp.jpg


KARACHI: Pakistan will not boycott the International Cricket Council (ICC) awards despite registering a protest over the omission of off-spinner Saeed Ajmal from the shortlist of candidates.

“We have our strong reservations over Ajmal’s omission from the awards list but have decided not to boycott the ceremony but we will only be sending some squad members to the event,” a spokesman for the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) said on Friday.

The annual ICC ceremony will be held on Saturday in Colombo but Ajmal – the top wicket-taker in tests for the qualifying period – is not shortlisted for test cricketer of the year, ODI player of the year or international cricketer of the year.

He was picked in the ICC test team of the year.

Talk of a potential boycott had even reached Pakistan’s parliament. The PCB spokesman added that no board official would attend the ceremony.
ajmalaus672.jpg
 
.
One can not demand to be given an award, awards are given to the most worthy.
 
. .
One can not demand to be given an award, awards are given to the most worthy.

and how do you think ajmal isnt worthy, he is the highest wicket taker and has been occupying the number one position?
 
.
Its a shame Saeed Ajmal is not on the list. He deserves every bit....
 
.
[:::~Spartacus~:::];3409703 said:
and how do you think ajmal isnt worthy, he is the highest wicket taker and has been occupying the number one position?


Isnt this up to the ICC to determine if he deserves it or not.. And if you think ICC is stupid and can not make the right judgement of the worthiness of a player, then anyway the award is not worth it.. PCB is just acting up.. nothing else...
 
.
[:::~Spartacus~:::];3409703 said:
and how do you think ajmal isnt worthy, he is the highest wicket taker and has been occupying the number one position?

No doubts, he is a great bowler but the competition would have been tough, he does not become a bad one if he is not awarded.
 
.
Isnt this up to the ICC to determine if he deserves it or not.. And if you think ICC is stupid and can not make the right judgement of the worthiness of a player, then anyway the award is not worth it.. PCB is just acting up.. nothing else...

better get your self some information first of what the matter is:

Three of the four names picked for the 2012 Cricketer of the Year shortlist are batsmen, which means that Ajmal's competition for this spot had really only been with Vernon Philander, the talented South African bowler. Given their relative contributions and influence, the preference for Philander over Ajmal sends out a worrisome message. At best, it suggests that the academy members need a refresher in some of the basics. At worst, it affirms the existence of an unspoken caste system in world cricket, well into the 21st century.

During the review period for these awards, Philander played nine Tests to pick up 56 wickets at an average of 16.57 and a strike rate of 33.1 (he also played a solitary ODI, in which he took 1 for 39). Ajmal did far more. His figures over the same stretch include 12 Tests, 23 ODIs, and nine T20Is, for a collective haul of 120 wickets. Although his overall average and strike rate are higher than Philander's, if you pick out Ajmal's best nine Tests, his tally in this parity comparison turns out to be five wickets higher, at an average (20.11) and strike rate (47.98) that are fantastic by spinners' standards.

In terms of opposition quality and impact, Philander picked up three Man-of-the-Match and one Man-of-the-Series awards, while Ajmal collected two match awards and two series awards. Philander's nine Tests included five wins for his side; Ajmal's best nine included six wins. Philander had two victories against the top-ranked Test side; Ajmal had three. It all boils down to this: in contrast to Philander, Ajmal took more wickets, was a force in all three formats, was involved in more wins for his side, and defeated the top-ranked side more often. Ajmal easily holds his own against Philander in Tests; and he did so much more heft besides.

This episode may be an affront to Ajmal and his huge fan support, but its greater significance lies in the opportunity it provides to the ICC. One would be surprised if it doesn't trigger some sort of reform within the voting academy - either a review of its composition, or of the voting mechanism, or a stringent set of fresh guidelines impressed on each member. "Academy" is a hallowed and lofty term, evoking sanctity, precision, and intellectual depth. A few more gaffes like this one and it will begin to sound like a caricature.


Ajmal overlooked because too short - ICC
In what could prove to be a major embarrassment for the ICC, the sport's governing body has admitted that the real reason why diminutive Pakistan spinner Saeed Ajmal was overlooked for a Test Cricketer of the Year nomination was because they couldn't see him. "When we were scanning the room for potential candidates, we unfortunately didn't see him standing there," said ICC CEO Dave Richardson. "Apparently Ajmal was right in front of us but we missed him because he was, well, below our field of vision. All we saw were some of the bigger lads at the back." Richardson agreed that the situation wasn't helped any by the fact that the selections were being made for a shortlist.
R Rajkumar: Ajmal overlooked because too short - ICC | Page 2 | ESPN Cricinfo
 
.
better get your self some information first of what the matter is:

Three of the four names picked for the 2012 Cricketer of the Year shortlist are batsmen, which means that Ajmal's competition for this spot had really only been with Vernon Philander, the talented South African bowler. Given their relative contributions and influence, the preference for Philander over Ajmal sends out a worrisome message. At best, it suggests that the academy members need a refresher in some of the basics. At worst, it affirms the existence of an unspoken caste system in world cricket, well into the 21st century.

During the review period for these awards, Philander played nine Tests to pick up 56 wickets at an average of 16.57 and a strike rate of 33.1 (he also played a solitary ODI, in which he took 1 for 39). Ajmal did far more. His figures over the same stretch include 12 Tests, 23 ODIs, and nine T20Is, for a collective haul of 120 wickets. Although his overall average and strike rate are higher than Philander's, if you pick out Ajmal's best nine Tests, his tally in this parity comparison turns out to be five wickets higher, at an average (20.11) and strike rate (47.98) that are fantastic by spinners' standards.

In terms of opposition quality and impact, Philander picked up three Man-of-the-Match and one Man-of-the-Series awards, while Ajmal collected two match awards and two series awards. Philander's nine Tests included five wins for his side; Ajmal's best nine included six wins. Philander had two victories against the top-ranked Test side; Ajmal had three. It all boils down to this: in contrast to Philander, Ajmal took more wickets, was a force in all three formats, was involved in more wins for his side, and defeated the top-ranked side more often. Ajmal easily holds his own against Philander in Tests; and he did so much more heft besides.

This episode may be an affront to Ajmal and his huge fan support, but its greater significance lies in the opportunity it provides to the ICC. One would be surprised if it doesn't trigger some sort of reform within the voting academy - either a review of its composition, or of the voting mechanism, or a stringent set of fresh guidelines impressed on each member. "Academy" is a hallowed and lofty term, evoking sanctity, precision, and intellectual depth. A few more gaffes like this one and it will begin to sound like a caricature.


Ajmal overlooked because too short - ICC
In what could prove to be a major embarrassment for the ICC, the sport's governing body has admitted that the real reason why diminutive Pakistan spinner Saeed Ajmal was overlooked for a Test Cricketer of the Year nomination was because they couldn't see him. "When we were scanning the room for potential candidates, we unfortunately didn't see him standing there," said ICC CEO Dave Richardson. "Apparently Ajmal was right in front of us but we missed him because he was, well, below our field of vision. All we saw were some of the bigger lads at the back." Richardson agreed that the situation wasn't helped any by the fact that the selections were being made for a shortlist.
R Rajkumar: Ajmal overlooked because too short - ICC | Page 2 | ESPN Cricinfo

Dude, "Page 2" is satirical column. It has been one for a long time - it is not news - just a comedic take on current Cricketing events.

And you can't take the Best 9 performances of a player. You have to see the player's contribution during the entire season. Else, you will only notice the peaks, not the plateaus and the troughs.
 
.
Who are on the list? if they are better than him then PCB chair is acting naive
 
.
Dude, "Page 2" is satirical column. It has been one for a long time - it is not news - just a comedic take on current Cricketing events.

And you can't take the Best 9 performances of a player. You have to see the player's contribution during the entire season. Else, you will only notice the peaks, not the plateaus and the troughs.
yea but it shows some reality that ICC did not have any excuse why they missed Ajmal from rankings. Ohh really we must have missed him because we din't see him lol :lol:

During the whole season, Ajmal has most wickets than any other bowler in the world, doesn't it reflect his performance throughout the duration?
His flattened the NO.1 ranked test side with a clean sweep in 3 match test series, wait!! DID you see his bowling in the Pak vs Eng Tests?
You wont have been asking such questions if you have seen Ajmal bowling recently.
 
.
yea but it shows some reality that ICC did not have any excuse why they missed Ajmal from rankings. Ohh really we must have missed him because we din't see him lol :lol:

During the whole season, Ajmal has most wickets than any other bowler in the world, doesn't it reflect his performance throughout the duration?
His flattened the NO.1 ranked test side with a clean sweep in 3 match test series, wait!! DID you see his bowling in the Pak vs Eng Tests?
You wont have been asking such questions if you have seen Ajmal bowling recently.

I agree with you that he should be in the Top 4 and hence nominated. I think he is the best spinner in the world right now. I am just saying that comparing Top 9 performances is not appropriate. He should have been nominated in place of Michael Clarke who se statistics are skewed by a couple of big innings. Else, he has been just above average.
 
.
better get your self some information first of what the matter is:

Three of the four names picked for the 2012 Cricketer of the Year shortlist are batsmen, which means that Ajmal's competition for this spot had really only been with Vernon Philander, the talented South African bowler. Given their relative contributions and influence, the preference for Philander over Ajmal sends out a worrisome message. At best, it suggests that the academy members need a refresher in some of the basics. At worst, it affirms the existence of an unspoken caste system in world cricket, well into the 21st century.

During the review period for these awards, Philander played nine Tests to pick up 56 wickets at an average of 16.57 and a strike rate of 33.1 (he also played a solitary ODI, in which he took 1 for 39). Ajmal did far more. His figures over the same stretch include 12 Tests, 23 ODIs, and nine T20Is, for a collective haul of 120 wickets. Although his overall average and strike rate are higher than Philander's, if you pick out Ajmal's best nine Tests, his tally in this parity comparison turns out to be five wickets higher, at an average (20.11) and strike rate (47.98) that are fantastic by spinners' standards.

In terms of opposition quality and impact, Philander picked up three Man-of-the-Match and one Man-of-the-Series awards, while Ajmal collected two match awards and two series awards. Philander's nine Tests included five wins for his side; Ajmal's best nine included six wins. Philander had two victories against the top-ranked Test side; Ajmal had three. It all boils down to this: in contrast to Philander, Ajmal took more wickets, was a force in all three formats, was involved in more wins for his side, and defeated the top-ranked side more often. Ajmal easily holds his own against Philander in Tests; and he did so much more heft besides.

This episode may be an affront to Ajmal and his huge fan support, but its greater significance lies in the opportunity it provides to the ICC. One would be surprised if it doesn't trigger some sort of reform within the voting academy - either a review of its composition, or of the voting mechanism, or a stringent set of fresh guidelines impressed on each member. "Academy" is a hallowed and lofty term, evoking sanctity, precision, and intellectual depth. A few more gaffes like this one and it will begin to sound like a caricature.


Ajmal overlooked because too short - ICC
In what could prove to be a major embarrassment for the ICC, the sport's governing body has admitted that the real reason why diminutive Pakistan spinner Saeed Ajmal was overlooked for a Test Cricketer of the Year nomination was because they couldn't see him. "When we were scanning the room for potential candidates, we unfortunately didn't see him standing there," said ICC CEO Dave Richardson. "Apparently Ajmal was right in front of us but we missed him because he was, well, below our field of vision. All we saw were some of the bigger lads at the back." Richardson agreed that the situation wasn't helped any by the fact that the selections were being made for a shortlist.
R Rajkumar: Ajmal overlooked because too short - ICC | Page 2 | ESPN Cricinfo


How does Philander's record compare with Ajmal's in terms of batting ?? maybe he is considered a better all rounder than Ajmal...
 
.
How does Philander's record compare with Ajmal's in terms of batting ?? maybe he is considered a better all rounder than Ajmal...

Not really - he has one test fifty to his credit in his career. Hardly an allrounder.
 
.
There are several points to be considered ..
Icc takes test record seriously compared to other formats .another point is there is a date limit before judging the performance of the player ..recent good performance wont have any effect on this regard ..saeed ajmal has career avg of over 26 runs per wicket ,where as philander has just over 16.. So philander was right choice ..but there should have another spot for bowler ..and ajmal would have sat nicely on that ..
 
.
Back
Top Bottom