Imma let you finish, but Nathan Lyon had the most Test wickets of all time. Well, in 2017 anyway.
The International Cricket Council has released its Test and ODI teams of the year. And, as usual, they’re an angry comments section waiting to happen.
The 2017 Test team features three Aussies – David Warner, Steve Smith and Mitchell Starc – alongside international stars like Virat Kohli, Kagiso Rabada and mercurial public enemy Ben Stokes.
Warner is the only Australian selected in the ODI team, while Kohli, Stokes and South Africa’s Quinton de Kock are the other dual representatives.
ICC Men’s Test Team of the Year 2017
1. Dean Elgar (South Africa) 2. David Warner (Australia) 3. Virat Kohli (c) (India) 4. Steve Smith (Australia) 5. Cheteshwar Pujara (India) 6. Ben Stokes (England) 7. Quinton de Kock (wk) (South Africa) 8. Ravichandran Ashwin (India) 9. Mitchell Starc (Australia) 10. Kagiso Rabada (South Africa) 11. James Anderson (England)
ICC Men’s ODI Team of the Year 2017
1. David Warner (Australia) 2. Rohit Sharma (India) 3. Virat Kohli (c) (India) 4. Babar Azam (Pakistan) 5. AB de Villiers (South Africa) 6. Quinton de Kock (wk) (South Africa) 7. Ben Stokes (England) 8. Trent Boult (New Zealand) 9. Hasan Ali (Pakistan) 10. Rashid Khan (Afghanistan) 11. Jasprit Bumrah (India)
The unlucky few
On first glance, it looks a strong team. It’s hard to argue with the batting.
Despite his struggles against Australia, Kohli plundered late runs to average 75.64 for the calendar year. Strangely, it’s the Indian captain’s first appearance in the combined Test team. Steve Smith (76.76) and Pujara (67.05) complete a formidable middle order.
It’s the openers who can consider themselves lucky.
The numbers of Elgar (53.71) and Warner (49.85) were good without being astronomical. New Zealand’s Kane Williamson suffered from a lack of cricket. In just 10 innings, he averaged 62.88, notching three 100s and two 50s. Though a lean finish to 2016 cruelled his numbers somewhat. Likewise, Shikhar Dhawan played eight innings for 550 runs at 68.75, with a dashing strike rate of 92.43.
The bowling raised more eyebrows.
Nathan Lyon was overlooked despite taking more Test wickets (63 at 23.55) than any other bowler in 2017. Instead, Ashwin got the nod with 56 at 27.58 – it’s worth mentioning that he didn’t play a single Test outside the subcontinent during the entire 15-month selection period.
There’s an argument that Ashwin wasn’t even India’s most effective spinner last year. Teammate Ravi Jadeja took 54 wickets at 23.05 with a better strike rate and economy. Jadeja also picked up two Man of the Match awards, highlighting his influence, while Ashwin didn’t receive any.
Starc’s inclusion, meanwhile, looks like a vote for variety. His searing left-arm pace gets more headlines than the steady stylings of Josh Hazlewood, but recent stats favour the latter.
During the voting period, Hazlewood took 60 wickets at 24.15, compared to Starc’s 52 at 27.88. To be fair, Starc’s impact was restricted by injuries. When available, he was potent, striking once every eight overs compared to Hazlewood who broke through every 10.
(Photo credit should read WILLIAM WEST/AFP/Getty Images)
Selection criteria
Since the advent of the ICC awards in 2004, it’s never quite been clear how much selections are based on pure numbers versus perception of a player, timing of performances, and/or the balance of the lineup in a hypothetical match.
For example, only twice in 14 years has the Test team included two frontline spinners, despite their frequent domination of wicket-taking charts.
Then you add in factors like recency bias and diplomacy.
Often, line-ball decisions will go in favour of lower ranked nations to make for a more diverse cross-section. And that’s fair enough.
The ICC’s own press release states, “While selecting the sides, the voting panel took into consideration player statistics, as well as key game-changing performances during the voting period.”
The current selection panel is a collection of former players, pundits and journalists from various countries. Mel Jones was Australia’s sole representative. The full panel is as follows:
Javed Hamim, Emal Parsley (both Afghanistan), Mel Jones (Australia), Athar Ali Khan, M.Farid Ahmed (Bangladesh), Lawrence Booth, Julian Guyer, Nasser Hussain (all England), Ian Callender (Ireland), Sunandan Lele, (India), Mark Geenty, Ian Smith (both New Zealand), Mazhar Arshad, Ramiz Raja (both Pakistan), Tristan Holme, Shaun Pollock (South Africa), Russel Arnold, Rex Clementine (both Sri Lanka), Mehluli Sibanda, Mpumelelo Mbangwa (both Zimbabwe), Ian Bishop, Vinode Mamchan and Barry Wilkinson (all Windies).
The voting process was monitored by the ICC’s Head of Internal Audit.
The selections are not always based on a strict a 12-month period either. The latest edition took into account performances between 21 September 2016 and 31 December 2017.
Another arbitrary factor is whether or not a 12th man is selected.
2017 is the first time no 12th man has featured in the Test team, while the ODI lineup has gone without in 2004, 2010 and 2017.
Subjectivity in a stats-driven game
No Team of the Year will ever be perfect.
International cricket doesn’t function as an annual home and away premiership. Teams have uneven schedules and pitches are such a huge variable.
Stats might not lie but they can easily obscure the truth. Take Rashid Khan. The Afghan leggie is a genuine sensation, currently spinning a trail of destruction through the Big Bash.
With 43 wickets at 10.44 and economy below four, Khan’s inclusion in the ODI Team of the Year makes perfect sense. That said, he played 16 matches in 2017 – eight against Ireland, five against Zimbabwe and two against a fading West Indies.
It’s hard to anoint anyone as world class on that sample size. But if you’ve watched him, you know he’s well on the way.
There was a major anomaly in 2016. If you can believe it, Steve Smith only scraped in as 12th man last year. His 1079 runs at 71.93 only good enough to carry the drinks. He was trumped by Joe Root’s 1477 runs at 49.23, despite the England skipper’s mammoth 32 innings (compared to Smith’s 18).
For direct comparison, Kane Williamson also played 18 innings that year, mustering 753 runs at 47.03. The Kiwi maestro made the XI. Yet Smith scored as many hundreds (four) as both men combined.
In that sense, ICC team selections are like the Oscars for cricket. How can you compare one subjective performance with another? How can you quantify a player’s ability to withstand the pressure of each unique moment on the field?
Like the Oscars, some players might not be rewarded for their best performance. Only later, once their reputation is enhanced, will they gain the recognition they deserve.
Some players stand up in the big moments. Others are flat-track bullies. Some are great individuals, while others can drag those around them towards greatness.
It’s hard to read all that in a scorebook. And so we argue.
DavSA
Guest
Although I agree with Bakkies about the Centurion pitch approximating sub-continent conditions as it was clearly doctored to accommodate India in the hope of keeping the series alive ( very generous of the SA management ) , it was still played at altitude and despite it being dubbed a slow wicket ( even Sunil Gavaskar who has been coming to SA since 1994 on a frequent basis said it was the slowest pitch he has ever seen here ) it backfired as the strip became devlishly inconsistent. No batsman including the likes of AB De Villiers and De Kock were ever in . This made Kohli's innings quite remarkable. He only offered as far as I can recall one half chance earlier on . This against an SA attack that were literally chucking missiles at him all day long.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
I couldn't agree more. On day one, i predicted Kohli would score runs on that pitch. He is one of the current great batsmen, and a key wicket for every opposition captain. He has a couple of scores to settle personally, I believe. His series in England this year will be one of redemption, after a very ordinary showing there last time. I also expect he will have a point to prove next summer when he tours here, after he made very few runs against our attack when we toured there last year.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
You did have a dig at Smith for all his home test runs against weak attacks, so my pointing out his Indian tour success remains valid. One can admire Kohli for his versatility across the three formats, but career records in 50 and 20 over formats are much like those matches themselves. Quickly forgotten because they really aren't important. However test records are remembered and remain the measure of greatness in this sport. One thing in test cricket Kohli does better than Smith, Williamson, Root and De Villiers, is convert hundreds to double hundreds. I regard Kohli very highly as a batsman and he may end his career ahead of Smith as a test batsman. I won't be upset if he does. I simply don't give a rats about one day and 20 over performances because they aren't real cricket. Mind you, if pitches continue to be flat and lifeless for test matches, the same will be said of test format.
Marshall
Guest
yes exactly....a performance to be admired; admirable. I think we are agreeing? Lol.
DavSA
Guest
I watched every ball of Kohli's 150 plus score at Centurion in Pretoria. I have been watching cricket for over 50 years and it was one of the best I have seen . Remember on both sides in the India vs SA series no other batsman has even got to a ton . No doubters please . I am not an Indian fan but this dude can bat.
Bakkies
Guest
'Plus Smith plays most of his Test cricket against weak pace attacks on predictable Australian wickets.' Kohli plays most of his Cricket in Asia thought it was cool to agree to one less test in South Africa (was supposed to be a four test series) without warm up matches. Got to fill the boots against Sri Lanka in smog infested conditions at home. He couldn't score runs against Australia at home and missed the last test. Decided to pollute it with his attitude instead. Smith has scored runs in England and India. Kohli couldn't hit it off the square in England, scored runs in Australia on pitches that Pidge would have banged a ton on and scored a ton on sub continental dishwater recently at Centurion. His team still lost all of those series.
anon
Roar Pro
"By the way, Smith scored three test hundreds in India in 2017, against the best spin attack in the world." I said that Smith is a great Test batsmen and the equal of Kohli in that format. In ODI cricket Kohli is simply superior and in T20i cricket Kohli is far superior to Smith. Kohli is indeed the best batsman across the three cricket formats. I just wonder why that’s a big deal, when many fans barely care about 50 and 20 over formats apart from light entertainment purposes.It is purely subjective to suggest that Kohli is the best player in the world when he isn’t the best player in the most important format of the game. Aussies think limited over cricket is light entertainment and that's why the rest of the world have left them for dead in the ODI and T20i formats. ODI and T20i cricket is the only game in town really. Test attendances are awful outside of Australia and England.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Its not like Kohli faces up to Ashwin and Jadeja either, so you should recognise that also. Furthermore, almost all his test cricket in the past three years has been played in familiar conditions on the subcontinent, yet you didn't mention that either. By the way, Smith scored three test hundreds in India in 2017, against the best spin attack in the world. Kohli is a great batsman, averaging 45 in tests away from home, (although tests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are very much like home) while Smith averages nearly 54. Doesn't really support your home track bully inference about Smith, does it? Are you sure you haven't mixed David Warner and Steve Smith up? Kohli is indeed the best batsman across the three cricket formats. I just wonder why that's a big deal, when many fans barely care about 50 and 20 over formats apart from light entertainment purposes.It is purely subjective to suggest that Kohli is the best player in the world when he isn't the best player in the most important format of the game. You should have stopped your comment before your silly dig about Smith's runs at home. For starters, Smith has played more away tests than home tests, so most of his test cricket isn't played on Australian wickets.Secondly, some of the attacks that have toured Australia have been good attacks. South Africa, for example. Even England's attack included two of their most highly rated bowlers of all=time in Anderson and Broad. Kohli enjoys his 'predictable' home pitches, especially against attacks lacking quality spinners. At this point in time, Kholi has had two very impressive years in test cricket, averaging 75 in both 2016 and 2017. Prior to that Kohli averaged less than 45 in 2014 and 2015. Kohli has scored 15 test hundreds in that time. Smith has averaged over 70 for each of those four years and scored 21 test hundreds in that time period. This year will be interesting with both India and Australia playing important series away from home. For India, this current series in South Africa is only the 2nd series of their last 11 that hasn't been played on the subcontinent. The other series was a four test series in the Caribbean against the poorly performing West Indies. For Kohli individually, series in South Africa and England will be important to answer some concerns there are over his greatness. A terrible last tour of England in 2014, and his failures at home against Australia last year, need to be redeemed with an avalanche of runs against quality attacks on pitches very different to those in the subcontinent. 153 in South Africa, in the second test, was a good start.
anon
Roar Pro
Kohli is the best player in the world and it's not even close. Averages over 50 in all forms of the game. Smith is a 5 star Test batsman, decent ODI batsman, ordinary T20i player. Kohli is 5 stars at all three forms of the game. Plus Smith plays most of his Test cricket against weak pace attacks on predictable Australian wickets. It's not like Smith suits up to Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood.
Bakkies
Guest
On Ashwin the ICC does stand for Indian Cricket Council
Bakkies
Guest
Admirably? Lyon was excellent in India and had a good series in Bangladesh.
Marshall
Guest
Ashwin and Anderson cleaned up in favourable conditions at home. Lyon performed admirably overseas and deserves recognition. Agree no reason two spinners couldn't be included and you would think Jadeja would be the pick if an Indian spinner was to be picked. Herath would be another in the mix, but Wagner has had a great year if going for a pacer instead of Anderson.
Marshall
Guest
Oh Haw Haw Haw Spruce your superior intellect has come through to educate us all again. Every day I am so glad to be on the Roar and be enriched by your vast knowledge and humble attitude.
spruce moose
Guest
What is it about Anderson that people hate so much? These constant swipes at him without fact or base. He had statistically a better season than any other fast bowler bar Rabada and yet people still question his place in the side? He took 55 wickets at 17! His position in a test XI this year is not a matter of debate. Though, I do agree with you on Lyon, but considering your other posts, you must only have gotten there by a random guess.
Ouch
Guest
Unfathomable eh? meh. Not particularly fussed about doing any preliminary research or being pedantic. It's Friday arvo and I'm on the train on my way home. So scrub DS. One of the other 5.
spruce moose
Guest
Ouch, It is unfathomable that you would mention Steyn without doing a shred of preliminary research.
Charlie Lawry
Roar Guru
To be fair, Anderson took 55 wickets at 17.58 in 2017. Plus he found some mojo in Australia, albeit often in the second innings. Cummins only 29 wickets at 29.79. Boult and Wagner pretty solid but the Kiwis never seem to play enough cricket. Steyn didn't play a game in 2017, recovering from shoulder surgery. Now he's gone again.
Ouch
Guest
The Ashwin selection is a joke. Anderson and Stokes selections aren't far behind. Lyon in over Ashwin and one of Steyn/Morkel/Hazelwood/Cummins/Boult/Wagner over Anderson. Then Stokes could be dropped and a place could be found for the infinitely better and more deserving, Kane Williamson. A bowling attack of Rabada, Starc, Lyon and one the 6 above would take 20 wickets each and every time.