Hasnt Shane Warne already recieved the Wisden cricketer of the year award before ?Loony BoB said:Five Englishmen took the five spots. Leading Cricket In The World given to Shane Warne. Your thoughts? Did five Englishmen really deserve the five spots? Shane Warne - better than any other cricketer in 2004, or not?
The point of the Five Cricketers of the Year is to show the top five cricketers in the English First-Class season, so it's unsurprising that there tend to be a fair few Englishmen every year. Given that none of the players from NZ or WI (the only teams to play Tests in England in 2004) performed particularly outstandingly, and that England won every Test, it is fairly reasonable for the five to be Englishmen. I don't really see the point of it though; cricket no longer revolves around the English FC season. The Player of the Year idea is good, but there should really be more than one I think.Loony BoB said:Five Englishmen took the five spots. Leading Cricket In The World given to Shane Warne. Your thoughts? Did five Englishmen really deserve the five spots? Shane Warne - better than any other cricketer in 2004, or not?
No: you can't be named one of the Five Cricketers of the Year award twice. The Player of the Year award is a new one (began last year with Ricky Ponting), so this is obviously the first time Warne's got it.SJS said:Hasnt Shane Warne already recieved the Wisden cricketer of the year award before ?
He got it in 1994. You cant get it twice.
I suppose most cricketers in the world have got it by now and English cricketers are the only ones left on the planet who have never got them before
Ah, I see, I thought it was for the world in general. In that case, 'tis a shame they don't concentrate on the world rather than the English season these days. If they only started the international cricketer of the year last year, then they're well behind the times in my opinion.Adamc said:The point of the Five Cricketers of the Year is to show the top five cricketers in the English First-Class season, so it's unsurprising that there tend to be a fair few Englishmen every year. Given that none of the players from NZ or WI (the only teams to play Tests in England in 2004) performed particularly outstandingly, and that England won every Test, it is fairly reasonable for the five to be Englishmen. I don't really see the point of it though; cricket no longer revolves around the English FC season. The Player of the Year idea is good, but there should really be more than one I think.
I'm also quite sure that you're able to win this award more than once, too... not entirely sure, but I think I read it somewhere. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.No: you can't be named one of the Five Cricketers of the Year award twice. The Player of the Year award is a new one (began last year with Ricky Ponting), so this is obviously the first time Warne's got it.
Don't really have a problem with the five cricketers of the year... I can't think of too many international players who have had that much of an impact on the English FC season.Loony BoB said:Five Englishmen took the five spots. Leading Cricket In The World given to Shane Warne. Your thoughts? Did five Englishmen really deserve the five spots? Shane Warne - better than any other cricketer in 2004, or not?
HUH .Adamc said:No: you can't be named one of the Five Cricketers of the Year award twice.
.
I was agreeing with you on that point. But I was saying that Warne was not one of the Five Cricketers of the Year this year. Rather, he was Player of the Year, which is a separate award altogether.SJS said:HUH .
What did I say ?
Whoops, forgot about the Wisden Forty. I retract my earlier comment: "The Player of the Year idea is good, but there should really be more than one I think." Consider it retracted.FaaipDeOiad said:I really like the Wisden 40. I think it's a fantastic addition to the almanac, as is the number one player that comes as part of it.
AR Caddick, probably.SJS said:QUICK QUESTION :
Which was the last TOURING New Zealander to be one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the Year?
Well, there is still only one player of the year, as he is the best of the Wisden 40.Adamc said:Whoops, forgot about the Wisden Forty. I retract my earlier comment: "The Player of the Year idea is good, but there should really be more than one I think." Consider it retracted.
The award is given based on impact on the English First Class season. Michael Clarke for one had no impact on it.Link said:I dont think bobbie key deserved the prize as much as others like: sarwan, gayle or michael clarke. but hey i am not a selector or maybe they know something i dont. Also bit surprising to see names like martin bicknell and no chanderpaul
Yes I also think Warne is the greatest ever spin bowler.a massive zebra said:Shane Warne is so overrated it beggars belief. Probably the most overrated bowler of all time, he constantly gets so many accolades/awards that he doesn't deserve, purely through a God like reputation galvanised by ill educated media hype. In truth, his career has been highly inconsistent, he has constantly failed against the best and benefited from the opportunity to nail tails after McGrath and co have dismissed the better batsmen, and his overall career figures fall short of the truely great category. Yet he is regularly labelled as the best spinner ever (usually without any supporting evidence), despite O'Reilly's much greater consistency, Laker's much greater form at his peak, and Murali's much better record against almost all teams under almost all circumstances despite playing in a much weaker side, and much greater reliability and peak performance.
Warne had a decent enough year but no better than dozens of other players and was a long way short of the world's best player.
End of rant.