Man of the Match

[Prince EWS]

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?

Given the ridiculous statistical nature of this game, I think there'd be a lot more interesting things to talk about than MOTM . I'd still give it to one of the bowlers. The player who scored 185* doesn't factor in to my calculations at all, because his team lost. I don't consider him as he doesn't qualify on the criteria I generally go by.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Given the ridiculous statistical nature of this game, I think there'd be a lot more interesting things to talk about than MOTM . I'd still give it to one of the bowlers. The player who scored 185* doesn't factor in to my calculations at all, because his team lost. I don't consider him as he doesn't qualify on the criteria I generally go by.

Yeah, but see, that's ridiculous in circumstances like these when you have give it to an indistinguishable performer who happened to end up on the winning side against what could be construed as an all-time-great innings in an all-time-great match.

The idea of these fanciful scenarios is that making blanket statements on such an arbitrary concept is pretty ill-advised, becasue an exception to the rule is guaranteed to turn up - especially when you exclude close to half the good performances in cricket. I for one would have given Astle's double ton a gong over Thorpe's in the Astle 222 game, simply because that's what anyone remembers it for. I think raw sentiment has its place when the criteria are so subjective.

 

[shankar]

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.

Every player has an effect on the overall result of the match through his performances. The winner of the match is the sum total of all these 'effects'. So even though one particular player has had the single greatest effect on the overall result, the players from the opposition put together overcame this player's efforts. So even though on the losing side, he had the greatest effect on the result of the match.

 

[Richard]

Every player has an effect on the overall result of the match through his performances.

Even if he bowls the opening ball of the match, falls in a heap and doesn't bowl again, field or bat in either innings?

 

[SJS]

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?

You could further add to that. When his team (team B) was bowling, he also took six wickets.

Of course its not going to help because PEWS has made up his mind and nothing is going to change that

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Interesting. I know a lot of the American sports seem to favour a "Most Valuable Player" rather than an MOTM, which I'd always just assumed was mere semnatics but now wonder (given how litigious they are as a nation) whether your distinction has anything to do with it now.

Anyway, there's a famous occasion over here in rugby league when the man who cost his team victory was given the MOTM award. In the 1968 Challenge Cup final Don Fox was given the Lance Todd trophy for his efforts, depsite missing a converison from right in front of the posts with the last kick of the game to hand victory to Leeds. Here's a link to an article in The Guardian if anyone's interested.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In Australia in the late 70's they used to decide the MOTM award before the match had finished (can't remember why off hand, probably to do with TV) and you occasionally got idiotic awards like this one to Dennis Lillee when it was obvious once the match had finished that Stevenson should have got the award. He took 4 wickets and effected a run out as Australia collapsed from 148-3 to 163 all out, he then came in and scored 28 off 18 balls when the match seemed lost.

 

[Goughy]

I have not read the whole thread so Im sorry if others have said the same thing.

There shouldnt be any hard and fast rule as to what player from which team the MOM goes to. However, it should have to be something amazingly superior for consideration to be given to a player from the losing side.

Im not saying it shouldnt ever happen, Im saying its should hardly ever happen.

The games are played to win and lose. The player that contribues most to his team winning is generally far more important and deserving than a losing player.

It is a team game and the player that contributes most to the team aim of victory deserves it. The game isnt played in a bubble where personal success is more important than the team framework.

 

[PhoenixFire]

In rugby matches, they always announce the MOTM about 10-5 minutes before the end of the game and it is nearly always irrelevant from the result.

 

[NUFAN]

In Australia in the late 70's they used to decide the MOTM award before the match had finished (can't remember why off hand, probably to do with TV) and you occasionally got idiotic awards like this one to Dennis Lillee when it was obvious once the match had finished that Stevenson should have got the award. He took 4 wickets and effected a run out as Australia collapsed from 148-3 to 163 all out, he then came in and scored 28 off 18 balls when the match seemed lost.

Why on earth did Stevenson not play many more matches? Really unlucky player it appears.

 

[shankar]

Even if he bowls the opening ball of the match, falls in a heap and doesn't bowl again, field or bat in either innings?

He did have an effect in a mathematical sense. Just that it's value was zero.