Bracewell should have been given the Man of the match

[ganeshran]

It was a great knock by Warner, but IMO bracewell deserved it more. They should have atleast shared the award

 

[hazsa19]

I know that, you know that, C9 knows that.

 

[Woodster]

It is the problem when the watching Australian public gets to vote for the Man of the Match.

 

[ganeshran]

I bet Cricket Australia wont try that during the India tour. Indian public will make sure we win all 4 MoM awards even if the result is 4-0 to Oz.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It is the problem when the watching Australian public gets to vote for the Man of the Match.

You can say the same for any country.

 

[Turbinator]

It's quite obvious, Australians don't love cricket. Australians love Australian cricket.

 

[sledger]

It's quite obvious, Indians don't love cricket. Indians are infatuated with cricketers who are quite good but aren't as good as those who averaged in the 90s.

Just sayin.

 

[Woodster]

You can say the same for any country.

Yes of course you can, I wasn't having a dig at the Ausse public, I was just being specific to this Test.

 

[ganeshran]

It's quite obvious, Australians don't love cricket. Australians love Australian cricket.

 

[kingkallis]

Totally agree but C9 viewers loved that knock of Warner.

Apply such rule in India and no foreign player would get the MoM award, EVER!

 

[kingkallis]

i bet cricket australia wont try that during the india tour. Indian public will make sure we win all 4 mom awards even if the result is 4-0 to oz.

+1

 

[Uppercut]

I'd have given it to Warner. Lots of bowlers took wickets but only one batsman scored runs.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And quite frankly, the fact the voting was open well before the end of the test with the result possibly going either way is equally to 'blame' for the support for Warner.

Actually agree with Uppercut here too. Making a hundred on that deck was something pretty special from Warner. Only the 6th man to carry his bat in the 4th innings. I don't begrudge him MOTM.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, would rate a bowler getting on a roll below having to bat and change tempo like Warner had to, especially as the rest of the side crashed around him. But for bugger-all runs, it was a match-winning knock.

 

[Woodster]

Don't think anyone disagrees that Warner's knock was an excellent effort on that pitch, but there's only one man that changed the match entirely around and ultimately led his side to victory, Warner couldn't manage that.

 

[Jono]

Australia were paying 1.03 before Bracewell's magic.

One of the few occasions when you can properly say an individual player won their team a match.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha yeah I love the headline on cricinfo: "Bracewell conjures seven-run New Zealand win".

It depends what you're looking for, some people won't give it to someone on the losing side ever. In low-scoring games I tend to go with the batsman that played a great innings and go with the bowlers when they win games on flat decks. It shows a bit more skill, it's succeeding at a more difficult task.

 

[BeeGee]

I'd have given it to Warner. Lots of bowlers took wickets but only one batsman scored runs.

It was a great knock, but the problem I have with it is that you're judging Warner on ONE innings, not the entire match. Warner failed in the first innings. Bracewell took 3 for 20 in the first and 6 for 40 in the second. It's Man of the Match, not man of the innings.

 

[Polo23]

Bracewell should have got it, he single handedly changed the match and won it for NZ. Warner played a brilliant knock, but it was not a match winnings innings.

The issue here is the ridiculous voting system channel 9 have for the MOTM. The general public shouldn't have any say in the outcome of the MOTM, regardless of what country it is, they are going to be biased towards the team they support. After the result of that MOTM award I doubt it's going to be around for long anyway.

 

[TumTum]

Haha pretty sure this happened with Tendulkar heaps of times. Stop crying.