• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
http://www.cricketweb.net/articles/EpVEZFEEVACIXYCPjg.shtml

Wisden names its Five

Matthew Hayden, Adam Hollioake, Nasser Hussain, Shaun Pollock and Michael Vaughan were today named as Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year. But have they got it right?

Right, let's get one thing sorted before I begin. This article isn't a discussion about whether Tim de Lisle was right to do away with a 53-year-old tradition of having a couple of blokes in Victorian garb who aren't wearing sufficient protective equipment and replace them with English cricket's latest saviour. If you want to listen to people venting their respective spleens over that, then read an English broadsheet. So, the five.

No Test Cricket follower - not even the most biased Indian or Australian - will begrudge Michael Vaughan his place amongst the five on the back of some of the most scintillating strokeplay to come from an England batsman since Angus Fraser hit Muralitharan for six at the Oval in 1999. And possibly further ago than that. Similarly, Matthew Hayden spent the majority of the year atop of the PwC Test Rankings and treated the best that the world's bowlers could throw at him with disdain.

Shaun Pollock kept the South African side together in the run-up to the World Cup and guided them to the top of the ICC Test Championship - for however much that's worth - whilst maintaining averages in both disciplines that bettered the great Ian Botham. Were it not for a quite dismal World Cup - for which Pollock was, in many people's opinions, made an undeserving scapegoat for, then I sincerely doubt that his selection would be quibbled by anyone.

Adam Hollioake is next on the list, and this may seem a surprise to many. Not so, I say. To come back from the death of your brother, and then lead your side to another County Championship title, takes something special. And to do it by playing cricket in a positive, aggressive way is better still. And then to maintain personal averages of 67 with the bat in the County Championship, including a career-best 208, and 35 batting coupled to an incredible 15 with the ball in List A matches puts the icing on the cake. His deserved selection ought to prove the catalyst to his selection as England's ODI captain - but I'll broach that subject when the ECB once again display their incompetence and select Vaughan, who has far less experience at captaincy, and is not as strong a one-day player as Hollioake (at present, anyway).

Nasser, however, is a completely different story. His time was two years ago, after the return to winning ways in Summer 2000 and glorious tours to Sri Lanka and Pakistan. But no, Mark Alleyne, Martin Bicknell, Andy Caddick, Justin Langer and Darren Lehmann got the nods - Nasser's batting let him down there. And now, after a year which yielded more Test runs than you thought it did (993 @ 43.17), he's given the accolade for the work that he's done with the England team over the last four years. Excuse me, but I thought it was "Cricketer of the YEAR". Yes, Nasser deserves one. But doesn't an award out of sympathy just devalue the whole idea?

Notwithstanding Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist both averaging above 70 in 2002's Test Matches, there are two words that best sum up the reason that Nasser's selection is flawed. Those words are "Rahul" and "Dravid". In two overseas series, in the Caribbean and England, he held the line-up together more than once. A few aberrations in New Zealand can be forgiven, after all, the other four have been far from perfect. When Ajay Ratra's incompetence led to Dravid's run out on 217 at Headingley, a commentator remarked that it was the only way that England were going to get him. It was the third in his run of four consecutive Test Match centuries, and if that's not good enough for a Cricketer of the Year award, then what on earth is?

Wisden may or may not have got it right with the change of the cover design. But there will be far less complete support for its selection here. Who'll be next, Ajit Agarkar?

Over to you...
 
Last edited:

Langeveldt

Soutie
Hmm I dont agree with many of them! Although it would be hard to chose 5 cricketers when there is so much talent around...

What is Hussain doing in there??????

My five would be

1.Ricky Ponting
2.Adam Gilchrist
3.Adam Hollioake
4.Makhaya Ntini
5.Shane Bond
 

PY

International Coach
No Vaughan :O:O:O that can only be regarded as criminal.

N.B. The nominations are September 2001 to September 2002 supposedly. I just heard the Editor of Wisden saying it is for duties to English cricket. Hussain did get 3 centuries and 6 half-centuries in that time but still.....bit odd
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Neil Pickup said:
Wisden may or may not have got it right with the change of the cover design. But there will be far less complete support for its selection here. Who'll be next, Ajit Agarkar?[/B]
Don't be ridiculous, AA will be the Wisden Greatest Cricketer Ever.:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Langeveldt said:
Hmm I dont agree with many of them! Although it would be hard to chose 5 cricketers when there is so much talent around...

What is Hussain doing in there??????

My five would be

1.Ricky Ponting
2.Adam Gilchrist
3.Adam Hollioake
4.Makhaya Ntini
5.Shane Bond
Bond and Ntini have been sporadic at best, where the heck is Vaughan?

Why Ponting/Gilchrist over Hayden?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What about Chanderpaul? He scored 4 (?) centuries last year to triple his career total. He also did pretty well in the ODI's.
 

Legglancer

State Regular
Wisdon being a symbol of Elite presitege in sports publishing has once again made one simple fact abundantly clear .... That its Edited printed and published in England, Hence the logic for the selections.
 
Last edited:

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Legglancer said:
Wisdon being a symbol of Elite presitege in publishing has once again made one simple fact abundantly clear .... That its Edited printed and published in England, Hence the logic for the selections.
Or, maybe without any Racial undertones whatsoever, the reason is purely their lack of any sort of clue generally?
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
Bond and Ntini have been sporadic at best
thats just stupid, Shane Bond is 1 wicket away in ODI's from becoming the one of the fastest bowlers to take 50 wickets.
He averages 19 at the moment also.

Oh and his test average of 22 ain't half bad either considering two tours he's been on lately to the West Indies & Sri Lanka have hardly been good for pace bowling.
 

The Argonaut

State Vice-Captain
Neil's arguments are well thought out and I agree with most of it. Hussain's selection is a bit of a joke. Surely Dravid, Ponting, Gilchrist and even Chanderpaul were more deserving.

What it also shows is that bowling is hard these days. No bowler made the list. Pollock is a bowling all rounder. In saying that I couldn't think of one that deserved to be on the list. Maybe McGrath but no one else really had a good year.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Up to I think 2 years ago - Wisden's 5 Cricketers of the Year was based solely on performance in the English Season.

Since that rule has changed they've lost their prestige IMO.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
"Or, maybe without any Racial undertones whatsoever, the reason is purely their lack of any sort of clue generally?"


I always considered Wisden to be just another local magazine.

Their five players of the year have never interested me. They should interest any English cricket fan though.

Incidentally, their latest condemnation of ICC was artless...
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
"Or, maybe without any Racial undertones whatsoever, the reason is purely their lack of any sort of clue generally?"
It is probably the most famous annual in any field in the World - and it is a very traditional organisation (until de Lisle took over for one year) - It does cover all world cricket, but there is an emphasis on English Cricket. To accuse it of racism is IMO a bit silly - it has always been based on performances in English seasons up to now, and to me the only really strange selection is possibly Hussain.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
NASSER HUSSAIN :o:o:o i almost had a heart attack thats an absolute joke, the WORST decision ever




1. Michael Vaughan - brilliant batting this year
2. Matt Hayden - as above
3. Ricky Ponting - as above and he also skippered the side in ODI's very well
4. Adam Hollioke - come back and captaincy etc...
5. Shaun Pollock - Good bowling and captaincy
 

masterblaster

International Captain
Shaun Pollock hasnt made a huge mark with his bowling has he?
Im not sure what his exploits in county cricket were, but his International games were not great, just normal, what we basically expect from Shaun as a minimum.
 

Cloete

International Captain
I can't understand the selection of Hollioake and Hussain!! i mean wat the hell r they baseing it on???? Hollioake hasn't even played an international match. there is no way he could possibly be in teh top 5 of the world's best cricketers of 2001-2002!!! i think it's just a load of ****!
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Tim said:
thats just stupid, Shane Bond is 1 wicket away in ODI's from becoming the one of the fastest bowlers to take 50 wickets.
He averages 19 at the moment also.

Oh and his test average of 22 ain't half bad either considering two tours he's been on lately to the West Indies & Sri Lanka have hardly been good for pace bowling.
Taking 50 wickets in ODIs quickly is no indication of ability. Ajit. I am not doubting the fact that he is an excellent player, but cricketer of the year? This year? Nope.

RE: Chanderpaul. Agreed, another very good candidate who IMO is definitely above Hussain, but Dravid impressed me more (probably because I watched it..) :)

RE: Cloete/Hollioake. It's not just 5 International Players, it's 5 that have impressed the Wisden editorial team the most. Take the 2001 selection for example, Mark Alleyne and Martin Bicknell...
 

Cloete

International Captain
o ok. well then it is extremely biased towardws English aint it..... i mean Hollioake did extremely well but there r alot of otehrs who did well in DOmestic Cricket.
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
masterblaster said:
Shaun Pollock hasnt made a huge mark with his bowling has he?
Im not sure what his exploits in county cricket were, but his International games were not great, just normal, what we basically expect from Shaun as a minimum.
He didn't take CC by storm again either, 28 wickets at 26 in 10 games with a batting average of 25. But in the Domestic OD game he took 37 wickets in 20 games at an average of 14.29 and an amazing econ of 3.16 as well as scoring 550 runs batting up the order for Warwickshire at an average of 36.66

This is Cricinfo's explination for their choices:

Hayden
Hollioake
Hussain
Pollock
Vaughan
How They Were Chosen
 
Last edited:

Top