Man of the Match

[Unattainableguy]

I was thinking about it and thought maybe ICC should make a rule where the Man of the Match has to be from the winning team. What do you think?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

No. A MotM should be awarded on the overall impact on a match that a player has wielded. Whether that impact is showcased in entertainment value, impeding the eventual winners or actually swinging it for a side is immaterial - they're all criteria that are equally important in a Test match that ebbs and flows. Questionable to suggest that your efforts don't deserve recognition if your team doesn't get results.

 

[Prince EWS]

I voted yes. IMO the man of the match should go to the player who had the most impact on the result of the match. If a player plays out of his skin and his team loses anyway, he has had 0 impact on the result of the match anyway and hence should not get the award, IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Umm, what if the match is drawn?

Another example - Vaughan MOTS in the 02-03 Ashes in a side which was well beaten.

 

[Days of Grace]

'Ow bout Big Jake's effort against the Aussies at Perth. It that didn't deserve a MOM from a losing side then nothing will.

 

[short shorts]

No.

 

[Perm]

No, I feel it would be a very stupid rule. Say a player scores a double century and takes 10 wickets in an innings, are you going to deny him the award because of the rest of his team are ****?

 

[Fiery]

No, I feel it would be a very stupid rule. Say a player scores a double century and takes 10 wickets in an innings, are you going to deny him the award because of the rest of his team are ****?

Agreed

 

[cover drive man]

No man of the match is more about the player than the team. Example my man of the england-west indies series was chandrapaul.

 

[Swervy]

Man Of The Match is the player who has had the most outstanding performance, given the circumstances in which he performed , no matter what the result.

 

[open365]

Isn't that pretty much what happens in ODIs anyway?

 

[silentstriker]

Yup, we already have something to give to the team that performed better: it's called a win. Man of the match is the individual person who had the most outstanding individual contribution to the match, regardless of the result.

If one team had bunch of bowlers who took 3 wickets each, and the other team had one bowler who had a hat trick and ended up with 12 wickets in the match (and still lost)....it would be ludicrous to just pick one of the 3 wicket bowlers IMO.

 

[Richard]

Agreed

Hell has indeed frozen over. Not merely Dickinson and Pickup, but Perm and Fiery.

 

[Richard]

I voted yes. IMO the man of the match should go to the player who had the most impact on the result of the match. If a player plays out of his skin and his team loses anyway, he has had 0 impact on the result of the match anyway and hence should not get the award, IMO.

IMO it should go to the player whose performance in the match has been the most impressive. I see what you're saying, though, and given how *official* MOTMs are becoming (people even talk about players career judgement based partly on MOTMs, when even just a few years ago one was awarded to the groundstaff - with plenty of merit in it - after a ridiculously rain-affected game) I think there should be some sort of exact definition as to what they're awarded for.

Is it "impact on the match result" or is it "performance in the match"? Right now, it's nothing but on-the-whim-of-the-Match-Referee\TV-viewers.

And when people are arguing that Sachin Tendulkar is a lesser batsman because of a lack of Test MOTM awards, that's cause for concern.

 

[Unattainableguy]

I think I know it's not fair to the player who actually has the best performance in the match, but think about if you're a fan (or even the player himself), and if your team loses you don't even care about who the man of the match is anymore. So it just makes more sense if it goes to someone from the winning team.

And like someone said, even if a player does really well, hes had zero impact on the result if his team lost. But the point is the guy with the best performance from the other team even though it wasn't as good deserves more credit because it had more impact on the result, and that's the only thing that matters in the end.

 

[Richard]

I think I know it's not fair to the player who actually has the best performance in the match, but think about if you're a fan (or even the player himself), and if your team loses you don't even care about who the man of the match is anymore.

I don't agree. Cricket is about so much more than the result of the match, more so than virtually any other team game.

Yes, the result of match (and series\tournament) is the most important thing, but there is much besides that and that's the way it's always been.

Cricket is a team sport played by individuals. Most team sports are played by teams.

 

[Poker Boy]

No it should go to the beat performance. This Test is an example of what I mean :
http://www.cricketweb.net/statsspider/test/272.php
Of course I don't think they had MOTM awards in those days but two centuaries in a test match is a fantastic feat and it is not George Headley's fault that the rest of the Windies batting wasn't up to the mark (sounds familiar?). What shouldn't hapen is what hapened in an other England v Windies Test at Lord's where the adudacator couldn't decide between Greenidge and Botham and gave it to them both. PS - in this Test - http://www.cricketweb.net/statsspider/test/1441.php -in what I'd call the ultimate fudge - the MOTM award went to the SA team!

 

[Richard]

Nah, no MOTMs in those days. Otherwise, Andrew Sandham would've won in in that oldest-XI-ever Test a few years before.

I think the groundstaff winning the MOTM is even better than the SA team doing, TBH - annoyingly, I can't remember which game it was.

 

[Poker Boy]

Richard, this was the Test in question:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/154251.html
Botea Dippenaar might have been unlucky though.....

 

[Engle]

In a local Eng LOI, John Abrahams won MOTM just for captaincy. Did nothing noteworthy with bat or ball.

Another local Eng match had the spectators give a rousing applause to a runner, who ran over a hundred runs in each innings. Not sure if he got MOTM tho.