Sangakkara bags ICC hat-trick

2012-09-15 18:15

Colombo - Prolific Sri Lankan batsman Kumar Sangakkara stole the show with a hat-trick of International Cricket Council (ICC) awards in Colombo on Saturday.

The 34-year-old batsman-wicketkeeper bagged the Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy after being named Cricketer of the Year. He also won the Test Cricketer of the Year and People's Choice awards.

Performances over a 12-month period that ended on August 6, 2012 were taken into account.

Sangakkara scored 1 444 runs with five centuries in 14 Tests and 1 457 runs in 37 one-day internationals with three hundreds during the year.

The Sri Lankan fought off stiff competition from South Africans Hashim Amla and Vernon Philander, and Australian Michael Clarke, to win the trophy.

"This is an amazing honour and I've seen the people who have won it before me and the nominees too... to be named alongside them is wonderful," said Sangakkara.

"I admire them greatly and even more so when I looked up at their records on the screen this evening. It's great to be amongst them, but now, to receive this honour this evening, is simply fantastic."

Virat Kohli of India was named the One-day Cricketer of the Year for scoring 1 733 runs in 31 matches with eight centuries.

"I think I have tried to keep things as simple as possible and it's worked for me on the field," said Kohli.

"This year has been a learning curve along the way from the seniors in the team. It's been an all-round effort and I'm very happy to have won this award."

West Indies spinner Sunil Narine, 24, won the Emerging Cricketer of the Year award for taking 12 wickets in three Tests and 28 in 15 one-day internationals.

"This award means a lot for me and it's an encouragement to keep going and continue to improve. I dedicate this award to my father," said Narine.

Ireland's spinner George Dockrell was named Associate and Affiliate Cricketer of the Year ahead of teammates Kevin O'Brien, Ed Joyce and Paul Stirling, and Afghanistan's Dawlat Zadran.

"It's good to be setting high standards and hopefully I will keep performing well for Ireland in the future," said Dockrell, 20.

South African Richard Levi's unbeaten 117 off 51 balls against New Zealand was judged the Best Performance in Twenty20 Internationals.


  • Granville Paulse - 2012-09-15 18:41

    It's a blessing and a curse that we play so few ODI's. if we played more ODI's Hash would have taken that award easy!

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-15 19:59

      Yeah, our lack of matches hurt us in all the categories, even the Tests.

  • gunner.zn.5 - 2012-09-15 21:38

    Forget abt 'IF's'. Well done Sanga

  • mo.ebrahim - 2012-09-15 23:36

    Absolute disgrace..shocking shocking decision.the number one batsman in the world.and can't even make it in the Icc 11 for ODI?this is a sham.I am fuming

  • moses.govender.7 - 2012-09-16 15:39

    Absolute rubbish. Both Vernon and Hashim performed outstandingly against the best teams in home and away series. Sangakara is a sub continent specialist...nothing else. These awards are a joke. First they exclude Ajmal now its Hashim....the decisions reflect anti islam tendencies and just poor judgement. Probably another decision that India had a hand in!!!!!!

      adam.maither - 2012-09-17 06:23

      There was a concerted effort from so called Supersport analysts and India to have Hashim excluded from the T20 side to go to SL. Is it because of his refusal to play in IPL?

  • naeem.february - 2012-09-16 17:39

    Sunil Narine gets an award for taking 12 wickets in 3 matches? What abo0ut Vernons 52 in 4 matches? Haha..and if we had played more matcheS test and odi..amla evan kalliS wuda taken awards easy oveR kumar! Hahahahaha Pathetic man!!!

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-16 18:43

      Do you think the ICC is going to give an award to a bowler who takes 12 wickets? Really? Seriously? Maybe you should read the name of the award again. It always helps to understand what the award was for, before judging the merits of the guy who won it.

      lindy.leroux - 2012-09-17 11:33

      Richard, Emerging is a nice word for newcomer of the year, and Vernon is actually a newcomer in test cricket, so yes, i'll also give it to Vernon rather that Narine!!! " J "

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 12:49

      Vernon debuted for the Proteas five years ago. The award is for "Emerging Player of the Year" not "Guy who has been around a lot but only just started playing Tests". Vern is anything but a rookie.

  • adam.maither - 2012-09-17 06:12

    According to ICC's own rankings Hash been has the no1 batsman from Oct. 2010 including the "assessment". Check out those stats Barnes AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT check out the criteria used to assess a player. The ICC IS CONTROLLED BY INDIA AS BORNE OUT BY THE AWARD to Kohli

      lindy.leroux - 2012-09-17 11:34

      Adam, I agree with your statement, except that Kohli deserved his award, to score 1700Runs in 31 matches is not an easy thing to do! " J "

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 16:16

      Kohli was easily the leading ODI batsman last season. Nobody else's overall figures came close to his.

  • wmathys - 2012-09-17 07:04

    What a joke, Hash has scored more runs all over the world not just in SA, same with Big VernN taken wickets every where he has play, Sangakkara only scored runs in SL, even when they played here he only scored 1 hundred. Come on ICC

  • adam.maither - 2012-09-17 13:02

    The ICC CRITERIA FOR BATSMEN - runs scored -rating of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsmen's innings(in proportion) - batsmrn gain significant credit for rapid scoring. They only get a small amount of credit for being not out( because a not out batsman, is by definition,batting at the end of the innings when the value of his wicket is low) Based on the above, and not some some stats cooked up by Barnes, Hashim was placed first every month for the past two years. How he does not make it into world 1 day side or top one day player!! Only the bookies based in Indiaand Richard Barnes can provide an answer to that

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 14:54

      Those are the criteria for the rankings, not the criteria for the awards. The rankings are done by a computer, there is no human input. The team is selected by ex-Test players, not by a computer. If teams were selected by computer then Morne Steyn would always be picked for the Boks. Because he'd have a much higher career ranking than Lambie or Goosen. In addition, the rankings are a medium to longer-term representation, they are not limited to the assessment period. Vern was nominated this year but Dale wasn't. Dale is above Vern in the rankings. I guess, according to you, it is the work of Indian bookies that Vern got nominated ahead of Dale? You'd have to be blind not to see that Vern had a better year than Dale, despite being behind him in the rankings. It is not about the rankings.

      Avolition - 2012-09-17 20:02

      Barnes shot himself in the foot there nah....If Morne Steyn were to be ranked 1 purely on points then we would not have to factor in altitude, non-adidas balls and a general rubbishness that resides in the mind of said barnes....if sanga and kohli have a better total (even if not average) the nature of the flat tracks they play on should at the very least give them better averages than amla in fact barnsey, lets say this: everyone has access to statsguru and an agenda...but only u show us that the latter is one of a Hutu rebel in Rwanda

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 20:25

      And then Dale and Vern would gain an edge because our tracks are less flat. I don't see anybody claiming that Dale and Vern are only atop the Test rankings because they get to bowl on lively wickets. Why is it that when our bowlers top the rankings, it's on merit but when sub-continent batsmen top the rankings it's because they enjoy flat tracks? What agenda do I have exactly? When the nominations were announced, I picked Hash to win both Test and Cricketer of the Year. But if a panel of ex-Test players thought Sanga was better, I can accept that. Tbh, any of the players nominated would have been fine imo, they all had great seasons. I'm not that small-minded or mean-spirited that I launch into people with a torrent of insults because they hold a different opinion to me. Especially not when said people are actually ex-Test players. Besides, what is it to you (or anybody else) who wins an ICC award? You seem awfully heated about something that has absolutely no impact on your life.

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 20:56

      Anyway, it's all in the history books now. If you wish to approach the ICC and put your case to Dave Richardson for why you should be a selection panelist, I'm sure he will give it due attention. Right after he's sifted through the several thousand applications from enraged Pakistanis claiming that neither Sanga nor Hash should have won it, it should "obviously" have gone to Saeed Ajmal instead. Infuriated nationalism, gotta love it. :D

  • adam.maither - 2012-09-17 16:54

    You talk utter rubbish Barnes. Which idiot panellist would ignore the ICC's own ranking for TWO YEAR'S RUNNING. They messed up but Hashim HATER barnes continues defending the indefensible

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 20:40

      The award only covers one year (Aug - Aug), it's irrelevant what Hash's ranking was in any other period. Besides, as I asked on another thread, if the rankings are that important, then why was Vern nominated when Dale was ahead of him on the rankings all year? Do you think that Dale being ahead of Vern in the rankings means that Dale must have had a better year? I think you need to check their figures for the year. You will see very quickly that Vern had a better year. The rankings aren't everything. They are a longer-term reflection of a player's career, not a single-year summary. Hash was above Kohli this year in the ODI batting rankings. Irrespective of the fact that Kohli scored more than 1300 runs more than Hash during the year, he did so at a higher average and a higher strike rate. Hash was only sixth in averages and way down in terms of strike rate. There was no way that Hash was going to win the ODI award, even if he did stay top of the rankings. Heck, even KP had a better year - and he retired from ODIs halfway through it!

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 21:00

      Oh, and I'll tell you the same thing I told Avolition. If you consider yourself to be a more qualified panelist than Clive Lloyd and his team, I'm sure Dave Richardson would welcome your professional cricketing CV and give it the attention it deserves.

      richard.barnes.3914 - 2012-09-17 22:08

      Oh, and one more thing - in the month by month Test batting rankings from Aug 11 - Aug 12 (inclusive), the following batsmen had a higher ranking than Hash: JK - all 13 months Sanga - all 13 months Shiv Chanderpaul - 11 months AB - 11 months Cook - 10 months Samaraweera, Clarke, Younus Khan - 7 months So that's eight Test batsmen who spent more time above Hash than below him (month on month) in the Test batting rankings. If the panel went according to the rankings, Adam, Hash wouldn't have even been nominated for Test Cricketer of the Year. So do you still think the rankings should be the main thing that the panel looks at? Or have you changed your mind now? As I've said, I don't think the rankings are important. This is why I had no problem with Hash getting the nomination, even though both JK and AB (not to mention the others I listed) had a better overall ranking during the year.

  • adam.maither - 2012-09-18 10:24

    Barnster accepts the flawed outcome from panellists who are bent on rewardding SL & iNDIA. They disregard their own ICC one day criteria and ignore Hashim. Barnster you are not the first to eat their own words. Kepler Wessels,Boycott and many others tried to belittle Hashim but failed, so you Bigot Barnster banging away at your computer have no chance in hell unless if Dave RiCHARDSON AND HIS "TEST" mates reward you for covering up their disgraceful conduct, by making you ICC propagandist.

  • pages:
  • 1