Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

Thread: Man of the Match

  1. #16
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,023
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Fair enough, but (to use a recent example) what Strauss did broke new ground. Not only did we chase the highest ever 4th innings total to win an Old Trafford test, he became the first player to score a century to win a test in the 4th innings there.

    Can't ask much more of a bloke, surely?!
    Not saying this specific instance wasn't worthy, but in general, the century = MoTM seems to happen way too much for my liking - especially when it involves ignoring a very good bowling performance. As I said, I don't think it should only be decided on the rarity of the feat, but it shouldn't be pretty much automatic either.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  2. #17
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    47,045
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Not saying this specific instance wasn't worthy, but in general, the century = MoTM seems to happen way too much for my liking - especially when it involves ignoring a very good bowling performance. As I said, I don't think it should only be decided on the rarity of the feat, but it shouldn't be pretty much automatic either.
    One gets the impression that if it happens at all it's too often for your taste tho...

    Actually, more seriously, I'd like to know what the bowler/batsmen ratio for MOTM awards is. Given batters are normally in the majority (6/4 in most test teams, with the keeper increasingly a 7th batter nowadays) one would expect batsmen to win roughly 60% if there was an even-handed awarding.
    Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "Ben Stokes, that most unlikely saint, worked the second of the two miracles he needs for his canonisation." - The Guardian's Andy Bell on the England all-rounder's Headingley ton

  3. #18
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,023
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    One gets the impression that if it happens at all it's too often for your taste tho...

    Actually, more seriously, I'd like to know what the bowler/batsmen ratio for MOTM awards is. Given batters are normally in the majority (6/4 in most test teams, with the keeper increasingly a 7th batter nowadays) one would expect batsmen to win roughly 60% if there was an even-handed awarding.
    You know what - that's a pretty good question. I'll see if I can figure out a way to find that out easily.

  4. #19
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,540
    One for the spider, perhaps

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.


  5. #20
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    There's no formula for it - entirely subjective. From my perspective, giving it to the player who contributed most to the win would be my basis for awarding it broadly speaking. But, there's room to recognise a player who does well in a losing side too. An example;

    1994, Fanie De Villiers took 6-fer and bowled South Africa to a tight win against Australia in Sydney (Aussies were chasing just over 100 (117?) and lost by only a few runs). If Marto hadn't played that shot and got out with only a few to get and had led them to victory instead, I'd still have given it to Fanie. The 4 wickets he took the previous evening were absolutely priceless as he ripped the heart out of the Aussie top-order.

    Then again, if not for Jonty Rhodes' 70-odd the previous day, SA wouldn't have even set the Aussies anything resembling a defendable total. And, again, if Shane Warne hadn't taken 12 for the match (and he really did bowl very well too, even for him), the Aussies wouldn't have been in such a strong position to force South Africa to fight so hard. Maybe this particular match was a bad example with so many gutsy performances but it just shows how difficult it is to pick a clear winner.

    EDIT: Damn, how good is my memory? 117 was the target and the Aussies got bowled out for 111;

    http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/stat...tch/63629.html

  6. #21
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    24,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    There's no formula for it - entirely subjective. From my perspective, giving it to the player who contributed most to the win would be my basis for awarding it broadly speaking. But, there's room to recognise a player who does well in a losing side too. An example;

    1994, Fanie De Villiers took 6-fer and bowled South Africa to a tight win against Australia in Sydney (Aussies were chasing just over 100 (117?) and lost by only a few runs). If Marto hadn't played that shot and got out with only a few to get and had led them to victory instead, I'd still have given it to Fanie. The 4 wickets he took the previous evening were absolutely priceless as he ripped the heart out of the Aussie top-order.

    Then again, if not for Jonty Rhodes' 70-odd the previous day, SA wouldn't have even set the Aussies anything resembling a defendable total. And, again, if Shane Warne hadn't taken 12 for the match (and he really did bowl very well too, even for him), the Aussies wouldn't have been in such a strong position to force South Africa to fight so hard. Maybe this particular match was a bad example with so many gutsy performances but it just shows how difficult it is to pick a clear winner.

    EDIT: Damn, how good is my memory? 117 was the target and the Aussies got bowled out for 111;

    http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/stat...tch/63629.html
    That match is a classic. Cannot believe the idiots in ESPN Star can't show replays of this one when they have shown the highlights of some junk games millions of times.....
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  7. #22
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Interesting discussion in the England-NZ thread about the MOTM award.

    The debate mainly seemed to be centred around who deserved it more, Strauss or Panesar?

    Strauss obviously scored the runs that effectively won us the match yet without Panesar would have needed to score a fair few more and, if you don't know, Monty got the award.

    I suggested before the end that Ross Taylor would still be a candidate, his innings was, IMO, the best performance of the match and should this be recognised in spite of his team's implosion in the second dig? I am not entirely sure. I mentioned when we played Pakistan at Headingley in 06, Strauss scored a vital second innings ton that set us up for the win yet I think Younis Khan ended up with MOTM for his effort in the first (I originally said Yousuf, not actually sure which one it was and cbf to look it up).

    So what I want to know is, what you people think?

    - Should the MOTM automatically come from the winning side?
    - If a bowler takes a bagful allowing a batsman to play a great innings for the win, who is more deserving? And, what if the opposite occurs, Kolkatta 2001 being the case in point (thanks Jono )?

    Thoughts?
    The fact of the matter is that there is only ONE Man of the Match and there are rarely more than just one pre-eminent performances in a five day test match.

    The question you need to ask yourself is whether, If Strauss had been awarded the MOM award, would the case for 'poor' Monty not been as strong (if not stronger) than is being made out for 'poor' Strauss today?

  8. #23
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    Its quite ironic that the last two tests have had interesting MOTM selections.

    Monty over Strauss/Ross Taylor and Stuart Clark over Symonds.

    There's 3 questions actually, should it only go to the winning team (Monty over Ross Taylor), and on top of that, does it go to the person who allowed the chance of a win to occur in the first place (eg. Monty and Symonds) or the person who ensured the victory (Strauss and Stuart Clark).

    My gut says that you just look at the best individual performance of the match, regardless of the result. So whilst Harbhajan's performance in Kolkata 2001 actually WON India the match, Laxman was the best player in the match. His individual performance was more remarkable, and hence deserved to win the MOTM award.

    Simple way of looking at it, not saying its necessarily correct, but I think its a good way of doing it.

    Another common example is in Ausie Rules Footy. You have a player who played 4 awesome quarters of football, but then there's a player who, when the match was there to be won, kicked 3 goals in the last 6 minutes and won the game. My gut says that despite the brilliance of the guy that kicked the 3 goals, and despite his performance being 'match winning', the overall performance of the other player was the best individual performance on the ground, and hence wins the Best On Ground award (akin to MOTM).

    And to add some fuel to the fire, what if that person who played awesome throughout the match was on the losing side, thanks to the other guy scoring 3 goals at the end?

    Ohhh the questions, its such a subjective topic. Quite interesting.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  9. #24
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    There's no formula for it - entirely subjective. From my perspective, giving it to the player who contributed most to the win would be my basis for awarding it broadly speaking. But, there's room to recognise a player who does well in a losing side too. An example;

    1994, Fanie De Villiers took 6-fer and bowled South Africa to a tight win against Australia in Sydney (Aussies were chasing just over 100 (117?) and lost by only a few runs). If Marto hadn't played that shot and got out with only a few to get and had led them to victory instead, I'd still have given it to Fanie. The 4 wickets he took the previous evening were absolutely priceless as he ripped the heart out of the Aussie top-order.

    Then again, if not for Jonty Rhodes' 70-odd the previous day, SA wouldn't have even set the Aussies anything resembling a defendable total. And, again, if Shane Warne hadn't taken 12 for the match (and he really did bowl very well too, even for him), the Aussies wouldn't have been in such a strong position to force South Africa to fight so hard. Maybe this particular match was a bad example with so many gutsy performances but it just shows how difficult it is to pick a clear winner.

    EDIT: Damn, how good is my memory? 117 was the target and the Aussies got bowled out for 111;

    http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/stat...tch/63629.html
    Basically, matches are not won without some good batting and some good bowling.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  10. #25
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,761
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    However, the award is man of the match, which I take to mean the player who had the most positive impact in the outcome of the game
    That's how I see it. I'd never award the MOTM to a player from a losing side, no matter how great his performance.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  11. #26
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Its quite ironic that the last two tests have had interesting MOTM selections.

    Monty over Strauss/Ross Taylor and Stuart Clark over Symonds.

    There's 3 questions actually, should it only go to the winning team (Monty over Ross Taylor), and on top of that, does it go to the person who allowed the chance of a win to occur in the first place (eg. Monty and Symonds) or the person who ensured the victory (Strauss and Stuart Clark).

    My gut says that you just look at the best individual performance of the match, regardless of the result. So whilst Harbhajan's performance in Kolkata 2001 actually WON India the match, Laxman was the best player in the match. His individual performance was more remarkable, and hence deserved to win the MOTM award.

    Simple way of looking at it, not saying its necessarily correct, but I think its a good way of doing it.

    Another common example is in Ausie Rules Footy. You have a player who played 4 awesome quarters of football, but then there's a player who, when the match was there to be won, kicked 3 goals in the last 6 minutes and won the game. My gut says that despite the brilliance of the guy that kicked the 3 goals, and despite his performance being 'match winning', the overall performance of the other player was the best individual performance on the ground, and hence wins the Best On Ground award (akin to MOTM).

    And to add some fuel to the fire, what if that person who played awesome throughout the match was on the losing side, thanks to the other guy scoring 3 goals at the end?

    Ohhh the questions, its such a subjective topic. Quite interesting.
    Yeah, I always look at it from an AFL perspective that the BOG should get it, regardless of what side they're on. There does seem to be that differing mentality though between the two sports.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  12. #27
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    Gary Ablett Snr for Geelong vs. Hawthorn in the 1989 Grand Final the ultimate example.

    The Norm Smith Medal for best on ground simply could not have gone to anyone else, because he was so clearly the #1 player on the ground, despite Hawthorn winning.

    To lawyer it up a little, one could argue that the simple text of the term 'best on ground' (used for AFL) requires the best player, no matter what team they are on, to be given the award. Whereas the term 'man of the match' (used for cricket) may imply that the player who had the most influence on the result is the deserving winner of the award, and hence must go to an individual on the winning team.
    Last edited by Jono; 31-05-2008 at 11:25 AM.

  13. #28
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Gary Ablett Snr for Geelong vs. Hawthorn in the 1989 Grand Final the ultimate example.

    The Norm Smith Medal for best on ground simply could not have gone to anyone else, because he was so clearly the #1 player on the ground, despite Hawthorn winning.

    To lawyer it up a little, one could argue that the simple text of the term 'best on ground' (used for AFL) requires the best player, no matter what team they are on, to be given the award. Whereas the term 'man of the match' (used for cricket) may imply that the player who had the most influence on the result is the deserving winner of the award, and hence must go to an individual on the winning team.
    Yeah exactly, was thinking of the same example as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc6118yATwc
    Last edited by pasag; 31-05-2008 at 11:27 AM.

  14. #29
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,324
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Yeah exactly, was thinking of the same example as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc6118yATwc

    No ahora Maud estoy rociando a hombre del alquiler.

  15. #30
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson View Post
    No ahora Maud estoy rociando a hombre del alquiler.
    EPO

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sim a match
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: 31-12-2006, 03:03 PM
  2. Round 7 match team previews and match reports
    By andyc in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 17-09-2006, 06:32 AM
  3. Round 6 match team previews and match reports
    By NZTailender in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 04:14 AM
  4. Your first match?
    By Pothas in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-04-2006, 04:27 PM
  5. 4th Sep, The 99 WC Re-match.
    By Bouncer in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21-08-2004, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •