Unattainableguy
State 12th Man
I was thinking about it and thought maybe ICC should make a rule where the Man of the Match has to be from the winning team. What do you think?
AgreedNo, I feel it would be a very stupid rule. Say a player scores a double century and takes 10 wickets in an innings, are you going to deny him the award because of the rest of his team are ****?
Hell has indeed frozen over. Not merely Dickinson and Pickup, but Perm and Fiery.Agreed
IMO it should go to the player whose performance in the match has been the most impressive. I see what you're saying, though, and given how *official* MOTMs are becoming (people even talk about players career judgement based partly on MOTMs, when even just a few years ago one was awarded to the groundstaff - with plenty of merit in it - after a ridiculously rain-affected game) I think there should be some sort of exact definition as to what they're awarded for.I voted yes. IMO the man of the match should go to the player who had the most impact on the result of the match. If a player plays out of his skin and his team loses anyway, he has had 0 impact on the result of the match anyway and hence should not get the award, IMO.
I don't agree. Cricket is about so much more than the result of the match, more so than virtually any other team game.I think I know it's not fair to the player who actually has the best performance in the match, but think about if you're a fan (or even the player himself), and if your team loses you don't even care about who the man of the match is anymore.