How can someone who was a liability in the biggest Test series of the year be judged Australia’s best male cricketer of 2019?
The answer, evidently, is by dominating at home against a few out-of-sorts tourists and having a superb World Cup.
Regardless of his achievements last year, David Warner’s Allan Border Medal win last night has drawn attention to the flaws of the award’s voting system.
In the same way you can’t blame a player for being erroneously picked by selectors, this is no criticism of Warner.
His form outside the Ashes last year was imperious. Scoring a triple century is a feat many of Test cricket’s greats never managed, regardless of the opposition – as CricViz’s Ben Jones said late last year, calling David Warner a home-track bully is like saying Jimi Hendrix was only good at guitar.
His white-ball contributions were entirely deserving of an accolade or two, too, but to say he was the player of the year after dismally failing in the most important series just doesn’t sit well.
(AAP Image/Scott Barbour)
For all the dominance of the team at home, retaining the Ashes in England for the first time since 2001 was far and away the biggest achievement of 2019.
That was due to Steve Smith’s superhuman efforts with the bat and the outstanding performance of the bowling attack, Pat Cummins foremost among that group. Warner’s 95 runs in ten innings, 61 of which came in a single knock, were just a little less critical to the series result.
It should not be too difficult a task to adjust the current 3-2-1 voting system so that more important series – against England and India, those played away from home, World Cups – are given extra value.
After all, the current Allan Border Medal poll is already adjusted based on format, with Tests, ODIs and T20s given a weighting of six, three and two respectively. That need only be extended to take into account the series as well.
The Belinda Clark Award, deservingly and unsurprisingly won by Ellyse Perry last night, doesn’t have any weighting at all, meaning the Ashes Test played last year was worth just as much as one of the T20s against Sri Lanka. That, too, should be rectified.
Would we be having this discussion had Cummins or Smith won instead of Warner? Probably not. Am I just frustrated to see Australia’s male bowlers snubbed? It’s entirely possible.
Pat Cummins would have been a more deserving Allan Border Medallist (Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
And yes, in the grand scheme of things which require Cricket Australia’s urgent attention, no one’s going to throw this up the top of the agenda in a summer which has been the most poorly scheduled in recent memory.
That doesn’t, however, mean the Allan Border Medal and Belinda Clark Award shouldn’t receive a quick bit of tinkering to fix their voting systems.
No player or fan would seriously argue a series against what was a woeful Pakistani side, played in familiar and friendly conditions, is as important as the Ashes. Nor would anyone consider a few bilateral ODIs to be as consequential as the World Cup.
If not all matches are equal, then it stands that not all performances are. And that should be reflected in Australian cricket’s highest awards.
Nick
Roar Guru
Yes...so the math does make substantially more sense now. As to why players and media saw fit to reward Warner so substantially in the test arena for just 2 match winning performances out of 10 is another story. But, maths has resolved this.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Ah yes. I think, though, that his legacy was administration.
HR
Roar Rookie
What a mug he is. And he looks weird when he’s batting too. Yuck.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Typical Smith, only gets runs against the rubbish sides like England.
HR
Roar Rookie
He wasn't a historically great player, but Brownlow did captain Geelong to a premiership.
HR
Roar Rookie
I think we should use the ICC test weightings. That's right - Warner's games against Pakistan should be worth more than an Ashes test! :silly:
HR
Roar Rookie
Take all 11 players on the field, and rank them best to worst in the match. The top player gets 5 points, and points decrement by one for each place further down on the ranking, ending up with -5 for the worst-performing player. Hot-and-cold players are knocked points for poor performances, and consistency is more important. It also means that players who play fewer matches (i.e. bowlers that are rested from games) are not discriminated against to the same extent, because a batter who has a bad game doesn’t just not get points, they actively lose points.
HR
Roar Rookie
Chris has this correct – a player can get up to 6 votes in each match (3, 2, 1 or 0 from fellow players; and 3, 2, 1 or 0 from the combined voting of the umpire/match ref and media). Why am I so certain of this? Because Warner could not possibly have polled the number of votes he polled in the T20 player of the year category were this not the case. Warner played 6 matches and polled 19 votes from those matches (as per the CA site: https://www.cricket.com.au/news/david-warner-male-t20-player-of-the-year-australian-cricket-awards-2020/2020-02-10). If he could only receive 3 votes per match, even a best-on-ground performance in every single one of those matches would only yield him 18 votes. As to whether the voting system makes sense? That’s a different question. Maybe votes should be split between both teams like in the Brownlow, so that a standout individual effort from either side can be recognised, and a poor game from a whole team means that no votes are awarded to Australian players. Maybe overseas games should be weighted more heavily (though this could be taken into account in the “both teams get votes” system). Maybe the whole team should ranked best to worst and players awarded or deducted points: 5 points awarded to the best player, reducing by one point each ranking position until the worst-performing player has 5 points deducted from their total (this system would reward consistency, punish poorly-performing players, and would be fairer for bowlers that are rested for player-management reasons, because a bad showing by a batter could reduce their points rather than just meaning that they earned no additional points).
Nick
Roar Guru
Yeah, but the brownlow is at least done over the same yardstick for everyone. One format. 22 games. Not three formats, uneven amounts of matches played according to discipline or internal rotation policy to rest bowlers, thereby all but guaranteeing batsman will win. Also, I guarantee there's no such thing as a brownlow medallist who's form was so deplorable in the middle of the season they should have been dropped. The AB medal to a bowler is what the brownlow is to a back pocket.
HR
Roar Rookie
The Brownlow operates in the same way. If you’re fourth-best on ground every single game, you’re going to end up with zero votes.
HR
Roar Rookie
What do you mean when you say it's "a B&F not a Brownlow"? The Brownlow is literally a B&F.
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
Erudite as usual Jez. Mick... there's a lesson here. Fair point about Faf, and Athers before him. Even Cairns from NZ has been in the corrosive lime-light., albeit for more Cronje-like reasons. He may have been cleared but plenty here have their doubts after Vincent got scuppered And as per Jez, there are plans in place throughout entire teams to accelerate ball deterioration. Wouldn't that alone perhaps make you think about the vilification of a few in the media spot-light? Look, it's immaterial now, to be honest. And I'm glad they're both back playing for their country (and I'm no fan of Warner). Thought the ban was excessive, personally.
Paul
Roar Guru
excellent comment Bunney and it makes a lot of sense. If Cummins for example has a stand out match, but takes 1 or 2 wickets, he should still score more points than say Head who gets 50 but is dropped 5 times. The coach as you suggest is in a very good position to judge the merits of each performance because that's what they do every game. It would also stop the situaiton where one bloke, who is consistently doing his job to a high standard (Cummins) is trumped by a bloke who mostly did his job, but had one monumental meltdown (Warner).
sheek
Roar Guru
Micko, Kiwis have this love-hate relationship with Oz. Little brother vs big brother thing. They pretend they don’t want to be like us, but deep down, they can’t do without us. Except when it comes to rugby. Although that may change. NZ has the talent, but Oz has the market & money. So, a Trans-Tasman comp may eventually happen no matter how much Kiwis hate the idea of Oz dragging down their lofty standards! Apologies, I’m getting my rugby & cricket mixed. You could even have a 9 team TT cricket comp – the 6 Australian states plus North NZ (Auckland/ND), Central NZ (Wellington/CD) & South NZ (Canterbury/Otago).
Nick
Roar Guru
I have
Nick
Roar Guru
Wrong. The voting system has ALWAYS been flawed. I posted why earlier. I've shown no ill will to Warner personally winning it. Even AB says it needs a rethink
Micko
Roar Rookie
Well contact CA and see if they will be transparent and publish the complete breakdown of the votes.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Well Chris has a valid point: the voting system hasn't changed at since the award's inception, it's just that people like you aren't happy with the winner. :silly:
Micko
Roar Rookie
Sheek I was reading comments on a kiwi news website called Stuff during the sandpaper saga, and all the kiwis were screaming; "BAN THEM FOR LIFE!" :shocked: How come it took aussies being involved in it to get kiwis to be so passionately invested in opposing ball tampering? :stoked:
Micko
Roar Rookie
It's not rocket science is it? :silly: