Cabinet96
Global Moderator
Like when he got man of the series in the series he got his 200* in the ODI's. He made a total of about 1 run, I think, in the other 2 games and wasn't even the top run scorer.
-
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.
Bracewell should have been given the Man of the match
- Thread starter ganeshran
- Start date
That's a really weak argument.
A man of the match is the man who had the most influence on the match, for mine. Basically, the guy who was most influential in his side winning. And that was Bracewell.
Perfect example - Nathan Astle's 222 in 2002 v England, he wasn't the man of the match. Yet that was the standout effort of the Test. Thorpe scored 200 and was rightly given it.
Does it matter? Sure it does. It means something to the players. And to have the Australian public voting on it is ridiculous.
TumTum
Banned
That's what I meant regarding Tendulkar.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Hmm, Where does Tendulkar come into this debate ?Like when he got man of the series in the series he got his 200* in the ODI's. He made a total of about 1 run, I think, in the other 2 games and wasn't even the top run scorer.
As for the question, it is a valid one.
Tricia McMillan
U19 Captain
Call me a biased New Zealand fan in this one, but I would say that had Australia won, I still would have favored Bracewell over Warner, because Bracewell had a solid first innings and fantastic second; Warner had a rubbish first and fantastic second (regardless of any potential win).
Also, had Australia won it, my argument in favor of Bracewell is that at the start of the fourth day and for most of the first session we looked like losing by at least six wickets; Bracewell's breakthrough made a game of it regardless of who was going to win in the end.
Tricia McMillan
U19 Captain
I would use it sparingly. If two players, one on each side, had performances of roughly equal quality, I would err on the side of the player on the winning team generally, though it would probably be more complex than that still.
Also, it just so happens that the player who was the best out of the 22 is usually on the winning team. Not too many matches, I wouldn't think, could a player on the losing team have a case for deserving MotM. Maybe 20% or so, to make up a number based on my intuition.
Spark
Global Moderator
This. Does anyone actually really remember them down the track?
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tests, perhaps, but I reckon it'd be a bit higher in ODI's. How many bloody times do we see a batter cruise his way to a red inks 50 in a small chase and give him the award over the bowler in his team who took 5 or the bloke in the other team who took wickets and made it a close game? Or fail to give it to the bloke who scored 100 in a last-over losing cause because one guy in the winning team scored 80 in the first dig?
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I sympathise and agree that the MOTM doesn't always have to go to a player in the winning team. But in this situation, Bracewell was the only one able to actually end the partnership which was literally the difference between winning and losing.
Had Southee or Boult got the last wicket then of course it's different because they didn't have as much of an impact for the rest of the match. But here you have Bracewell firstly getting them into a winning position, and then when it looked like they were going to lose again, he was the one who won the game.
Had Southee or Boult got the last wicket then of course it's different because they didn't have as much of an impact for the rest of the match. But here you have Bracewell firstly getting them into a winning position, and then when it looked like they were going to lose again, he was the one who won the game.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Ind33d. It was silly, but nothing to get worked up about. Dougeh probably doesn't give a ****. He won NZ a test match. That's what will be remembered, not who one the MOTM.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Honestly I don't disagree and wouldn't have complained had the award gone to Bracewell. I just see the reasons for why Warner got it and, tbh, I do like that it's a bit of a style award.
As for winning positions, take Taylor's knock out of the NZ second dig, especially the way he absorbed the Aussie surge and guided Williamson and Bracewell wouldn't have had a target to bowl at. I'm no great fan and he had a bit of luck but the deck was zipping about all over the place so, although it'll be quickly forgotten, his knock was exactly what was needed.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
There are obviously heaps of contributions to a match which result in a win for the team. You can argue had Martin not gotten out his bunny early on day 4 the door would never have opened for NZ, had Brownlie not scored runs in the first dig NZ would have been out for sub-100 and Australia would have got a first innings lead even with their pathetic score etc. etc.
The only argument for Warner, and its a good one, is the fact he tonned up on a difficult deck. That's fair enough.
The only argument for Warner, and its a good one, is the fact he tonned up on a difficult deck. That's fair enough.
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
Said this in the tour thread, but doesn't much of the voting occur before the conclusion of the match? Warner would have been a deserving winner if he and Haddin had coasted to the victory target, or even if Lyon hit a couple of boundaries instead of losing his middle stump. It very clearly shows up the flaws in this democratic MoM process, but right up until the final ball Warner would have been odds on as the correct choice. How can we be too critical of the public for being required to vote on a projection, if an understandably biased one.
Not defending the process mind you. It's utterly ridiculous, and I was pleased to see Chappelli come out and say as much.
Not defending the process mind you. It's utterly ridiculous, and I was pleased to see Chappelli come out and say as much.
I don't see how anyone can be critical of the Australian public for voting in a biased manner when sporting a view equally biased for their own countrymen.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Well, if Warner had scored those runs faster, they could have won.
I think if you say the award should go to the best performance, then it's totally fine to give it to a player from the losing side. If you're going to say most valuable, and your team lost, regardless of how well you did, it wasn't really valuable because without you, they still would have lost. Clarke said the right thing for the camera vs. SA when he said his century was meaningless because they lost. He might have been the best player on the field that match, but I don't consider the MVP to be an award for the best performance in the match.
Obviously there's no hard and set definition for it, but the way I see it, I would almost never give it out to a player from a losing team, personally (would have to be a very extreme circumstance, at least).