• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Man of the Match

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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/statsguru/engine/match/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..... :@
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
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?
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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/statsguru/engine/match/63629.html
Basically, matches are not won without some good batting and some good bowling.
 

pasag

RTDAS
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.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
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:

pasag

RTDAS
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:

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Seriously, that goal by Ablett from the boundary throw-in is ridiculously brilliant. Only a genius could pull that off, particularly on such a big stage.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
So if he scored a century in each innings and 5 wicket hauls in each yet his team lost you wouldn't?
Indeed. Scoring a century and taking a five wicket haul in each innings wouldn't have the most positive impact on the result of the match if your team lost.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
What if they turned what was shaping up to be an innings-and-250-run pasting into a one wicket thriller? Don't they deserve a gong for changing the complexion of the match completely, and therefore having the biggest impact on a match? Seems very stiff for a victory and the ebbs and flows of a match to be conflated in that way.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
What if they turned what was shaping up to be an innings-and-250-run pasting into a one wicket thriller? Don't they deserve a gong for changing the complexion of the match completely on their own?
Whilst that would change the complexion of the match, it still wouldn't do much for the result as such.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Yes, but the sole criterion of the MOTM isn't 'greatest effect on a match's result' but 'greatest effect on a match'.

I edited my above post, if that clears anything up.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yes, but the sole criterion of the MOTM isn't 'greatest effect on a match's result' but 'greatest effect on a match'.
Whoever has the greatest effect on the result also has the greatest effect on the match AFAIC. The result is the most important part of the match; the biggest and most defining aspect that actually be changed.

Also, who died and made you in charge of setting award criteria? :p
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Whoever has the greatest effect on the result also has the greatest effect on the match AFAIC. The result is the most important part of the match; the biggest and most defining aspect that actually be changed.

Also, who died and made you in charge of setting award criteria? :p
Well, it has been given to losing players in the past - I only assumed (in a first for this forum :ph34r:).

Let's discuss a stupid hypothetical to test what you're saying. Suppose Team A plays Team B in an ODI. Team A wins the toss and bats. Ten players each score 30 off 30 to make a score of 300 (number 11 is nought not out).

Team B bats, collapses to be 6 for 50, but is lifted by a wagging tail batting around a player who scores 185*. However, the number 11 chokes in the last over and Team B is all out for 299, defeated by a solitary run.

Team A's bowling figures are all fairly uniform, except for 1. Four have taken 10-0-50-2, while the bowler who bowled the decisive last over has taken 10-0-99-1 (no extras in this innings).

Now, your first instinct may well give the MOTM to the bowler who bowled the decisive over and thusly stood out to win the match (considering the uniform bowling and batting of his mates). Only thing is, you're giving a bowler who took 1-99 MOTM over a bloke who scored 185*.

Fair? :p I know there's a trillion intangibles including captaincy and importance of each individual wicket taken by the bowlers, but what would be your criteria for selecting this MOTM?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Well, it has been given to losing players in the past - I only assumed (in a first for this forum :ph34r:).

Let's discuss a stupid hypothetical to test what you're saying. Suppose Team A plays Team B in an ODI. Team A wins the toss and bats. Ten players each score 30 off 30 to make a score of 300 (number 11 is nought not out).

Team B bats, collapses to be 6 for 50, but is lifted by a wagging tail batting around a player who scores 185*. However, the number 11 chokes in the last over and Team B is all out for 299, defeated by a solitary run.

Team A's bowling figures are all fairly uniform, except for 1. Four have taken 10-0-50-2, while the bowler who bowled the decisive last over has taken 10-0-99-1 (no extras in this innings).

Now, your first instinct may well give the MOTM to the bowler who bowled the decisive over and thusly stood out to win the match (considering the uniform bowling and batting of his mates). Only thing is, you're giving a bowler who took 1-99 MOTM over a bloke who scored 185*.

Fair? :p I know there's a trillion intangibles including captaincy and importance of each individual wicket taken by the bowlers, but what would be your criteria for selecting this MOTM?
I don't believe that bowler had the most positive impact on the result though. Doing the last noteworthy thing in the game is a lot different to being the player who had the most influence.

The player with the most positive influence on the result would be the bowler who took the two most highly prized wickets and scored 30 (30) - not the bowler who took that last wicket and went for 99 runs.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
As opposed to the bloke who scored 185*? Let's assume for just a minute that the bowlers are identical in the value of their contributions, implausible as it sounds. If I ventured to say they all took one top-order player and one tailender, would that change your reasoning?
 
Last edited:

Top