• 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

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
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

Norwood's on Fire
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

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

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
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? :unsure:

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

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
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

The Wheel is Forever
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

International Coach
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
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

Englishman
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

International Captain
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

The Wheel is Forever
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... :p
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
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... :p
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?!
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
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.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
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... :p

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.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
One gets the impression that if it happens at all it's too often for your taste tho... :p

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.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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
 

Top