Man of the Match

GIMH · 26-05-2008, 02:39 PM

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?

GIMH · 26-05-2008, 02:41 PM

Another example that comes to mind for me is Headingley 81. Would never dispute Botham's award, yet but for Willis's brilliant bowling, I dare say Both's heroics would have been all in vein. Would he have still got MOTM?

Does the end result actually alter how great an individual performance was?

PhoenixFire · 26-05-2008, 02:42 PM

IMO, it should be the best individual performance, nothing else. That's way Taylor should have won it.

GIMH · 26-05-2008, 02:48 PM

Yeah, I think in theory I agree.

Another situation, though, that makes me doubt this, is Ponting at OT in 05. He obviously deserved the award, played a great dig, but if we had got that tenth wicket...well he wouldn't have done enough and in that way failed. So would MOTM be appropriate?

I know it's just an award but it does interest me.

nightprowler10 · 26-05-2008, 02:58 PM

Sachin thoroughly deserved the MOTM award in the famed Chennai Test too IIRC. In any case I agree with PF on this.

As for your question about Punter at OT, I'd say he would've deserved it even if the Aussies lost.

Having said that, I disagree that Monty maybe didn't deserve it as much as Taylor. NZL had a great opportunity to put a win out of England's reach but Monty made sure that couldn't happen.

silentstriker · 26-05-2008, 03:00 PM

Following a team that often has great individual performances but not team results, I'd say it should go to the best individual performance. 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, so I think it has to come from the winning team unless there is really no individual candidate from that team that sticks out above the rest.

HeathDavisSpeed · 26-05-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

IMO, it should be the best individual performance, nothing else. That's way Taylor should have won it.

Agree with that in many ways, but Strauss was a worthy candidate for best individual performance; scoring nearly as many runs whilst batting 2nd/4th as opposed to Taylor who had the best of the conditions. I'd certainly have preferred Strauss or Taylor getting it than Panesar who only bowled well for one innings.

PhoenixFire · 26-05-2008, 03:32 PM

Yeah fair point that.

I just have an objection when people take the result into account. What would happen, for instance, if a Bangladeshi batsman hit a great 100 against Australia, but Bangladesh ended up getting trounced. In the process Ponting scored a good 100 too, and he wins man of the match because his team won.

I would give it to the Bangladeshi player, for punching above his wieght and scoring against the best attack int he world.

Richard · 26-05-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

Strauss was a worthy candidate for best individual performance; scoring nearly as many runs whilst batting 2nd/4th as opposed to Taylor who had the best of the conditions.

Not strictly relevant, but the pitch played pretty much as well during Strauss' innings as Taylor's. Went from decent to difficult to decent again. One of those odd surfaces.

Richard · 26-05-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

I just have an objection when people take the result into account.

Often think "man of the winning side" would be a more appropriate title TBH.

It's a difficult question to answer, really. MOTMs are never something I like to take with any real seriousness.

BoyBrumby · 26-05-2008, 03:40 PM

In this specific instance I'd have gone Strauss as (as I suggested in the tour thread) but for his knock I doubt Monty's six-for would've been regarded as anything other than a twitch of the England corpse. If we'd been skittled for not many the award would've probably gone to Taylor or possibly (if he'd taken 3 or more wickets second up) Vettori.

More generally I don't think the MOTM award is something that can necessarily be reduced to an equation that can be expressed as a formula or just given to the "best" individual performance. Ultimately it's a subjective call as to whom one thinks has made the crucial contribution to the game. Obviously the best individual performance is often just that, but not always.

stumpski · 26-05-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Yeah fair point that.

I just have an objection when people take the result into account. What would happen, for instance, if a Bangladeshi batsman hit a great 100 against Australia, but Bangladesh ended up getting trounced. In the process Ponting scored a good 100 too, and he wins man of the match because his team won.

I would give it to the Bangladeshi player, for punching above his wieght and scoring against the best attack int he world.

Javed Omar actually got MoM on his debut, for his performances in both innings of this Test. Maybe unique for a player whose team lost by an innings.

I agree that it should be for the best indidual performance - but as there are generally at least two or three deserving candidates, it's not surprising that it usually goes to someone on the winning side.

silentstriker · 26-05-2008, 03:51 PM

Most times, if a batsman has scored a century, he gets it no matter what the bowlers did, unless they did something very very exceptional. It always annoys me tbh. For example, since the start of the century, there have been 165 6-wicket hauls in an innings by a player. In that same amount of time, there have been 791 centuries scored! (No, I didn't know there were that many either).

If you want to say five wicket hauls - even then, there have only been 450 instances of five wicket hauls. Now, I am not suggesting that we should do it based on the rarity of the feat, and I'd be happy if it was on a case by case basis, but too many times the bowlers get ignored in favor of the batsmen, and its unfair in my opinion. And people wonder why I hate the batsmen...

BoyBrumby · 26-05-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Most times, if a batsman has scored a century, he gets it no matter what the bowlers did, unless they did something very very exceptional. It always annoys me tbh. For example, since the start of the century, there have been 165 6-wicket hauls in an innings by a player. In that same amount of time, there have been 791 centuries scored! (No, I didn't know there were that many either).

If you want to say five wicket hauls - even then, there have only been 450 instances of five wicket hauls. Now, I am not suggesting that we should do it based on the rarity of the feat, and I'd be happy if it was on a case by case basis, but too many times the bowlers get ignored in favor of the batsmen, and its unfair in my opinion. And people wonder why I hate the batsmen...

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?!

Richard · 26-05-2008, 03:57 PM

MSP was the first to take a six-for resulting in a run-chase of 294 or more too.

26-05-2008, 02:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,581	Man of the Match 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? __________________ Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

26-05-2008, 02:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
nightprowler10 Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Madhouse on Madison Posts: 13,388	Sachin thoroughly deserved the MOTM award in the famed Chennai Test too IIRC. In any case I agree with PF on this. As for your question about Punter at OT, I'd say he would've deserved it even if the Aussies lost. Having said that, I disagree that Monty maybe didn't deserve it as much as Taylor. NZL had a great opportunity to put a win out of England's reach but Monty made sure that couldn't happen. __________________ Can't decide on a signature? Why not Zoidberg? (\/) (;,,;) (\/) RIP Craigos

26-05-2008, 03:40 PM	#11 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,582	In this specific instance I'd have gone Strauss as (as I suggested in the tour thread) but for his knock I doubt Monty's six-for would've been regarded as anything other than a twitch of the England corpse. If we'd been skittled for not many the award would've probably gone to Taylor or possibly (if he'd taken 3 or more wickets second up) Vettori. More generally I don't think the MOTM award is something that can necessarily be reduced to an equation that can be expressed as a formula or just given to the "best" individual performance. Ultimately it's a subjective call as to whom one thinks has made the crucial contribution to the game. Obviously the best individual performance is often just that, but not always. __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

26-05-2008, 02:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,581	Another example that comes to mind for me is Headingley 81. Would never dispute Botham's award, yet but for Willis's brilliant bowling, I dare say Both's heroics would have been all in vein. Would he have still got MOTM? Does the end result actually alter how great an individual performance was?

26-05-2008, 02:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,581	Yeah, I think in theory I agree. Another situation, though, that makes me doubt this, is Ponting at OT in 05. He obviously deserved the award, played a great dig, but if we had got that tenth wicket...well he wouldn't have done enough and in that way failed. So would MOTM be appropriate? I know it's just an award but it does interest me.

26-05-2008, 03:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
PhoenixFire International Coach Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire Posts: 14,986	Yeah fair point that. I just have an objection when people take the result into account. What would happen, for instance, if a Bangladeshi batsman hit a great 100 against Australia, but Bangladesh ended up getting trounced. In the process Ponting scored a good 100 too, and he wins man of the match because his team won. I would give it to the Bangladeshi player, for punching above his wieght and scoring against the best attack int he world.

26-05-2008, 03:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
silentstriker The Wheel is Forever Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 36,484	Most times, if a batsman has scored a century, he gets it no matter what the bowlers did, unless they did something very very exceptional. It always annoys me tbh. For example, since the start of the century, there have been 165 6-wicket hauls in an innings by a player. In that same amount of time, there have been 791 centuries scored! (No, I didn't know there were that many either). If you want to say five wicket hauls - even then, there have only been 450 instances of five wicket hauls. Now, I am not suggesting that we should do it based on the rarity of the feat, and I'd be happy if it was on a case by case basis, but too many times the bowlers get ignored in favor of the batsmen, and its unfair in my opinion. And people wonder why I hate the batsmen...

26-05-2008, 03:57 PM	#15 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	MSP was the first to take a six-for resulting in a run-chase of 294 or more too.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)