Man of the Match: give it to the right guy Print E-mail
Category: Features
Written by Luke Tagg   
Sunday, 07 March 2010 18:04
Call me traditional, call me a company man, call me Ahab if you must, but for the life of me I can't understand a Man of the Match award going to a player on the losing side.

Surely the very definition of a Man of the Match is the guy who did most to win it?

Daniel Vettori was named MotM in the second ODI against Australia on Saturday, despite Australia winning by 12 runs. He took 2/43 and scored 70 off 49 in a losing cause.

At least that was politically motivated - Mitchell Johnson was the best player by a mile on the day with a useful late knock and 4/51, but had he been given the award there would have been no stopping the Kiwi lynch mob. He'd be hanging from a dead tree on Boot Hill by midnight, swinging lazily. Twitching slightly.

His Scott Styris headbutt apparently didn't do much to soothe strained trans-Tasman relations.

Explain this one, though: South Africa lost the second Test in Kolkata against India recently by an innings, yet Hashim Amla was awarded the MotM. He was superb - two centuries - but South Africa lost. Not off the last ball of the match - by a frakkin' innings.

I'd have no problem with Hash winning the Nicest Double Centurion of the Match, Best Beard of the Match or Batter Most Likely to Cause Man-Reactions of the Match. A worthy recipient of all of the above.

I fully understand why he was given an award - it's tough not to award someone who scores a century in each innings. But why not utilise the Pro20 cricket awards system - a "Master Blaster" batsman, a "Some Other Cheesy Term" bowler and a Man of the Match?

No need to give them all interviews, but a schweet little medal or a bar fridge and the respect of their peers would be nice.

For me the Man of the Match is the guy who did most to win it, even if every player on the losing side was better (don't point out how impossible that is - it sounded a lot better in my head and I'd rather go to the trouble of writing this explanation than delete it).

It could be someone who scores 16 off 3 balls or who takes 1/44 in 6 overs - as long as his contribution was the game's biggest deciding factor.

Sometimes it's not immediately clear who it should be awarded to - that was the problem India had in that innings defeat over South Africa, in which they had four centurions in one innings.

How do you determine which of those four centuries was the most valuable? I'd say there are arguments for each of them to win MotM, any of which would be understandable to fans and acceptable.

It just doesn't make sense giving a losing team any sort of reward. They need to get Probst on this - he relishes seeing losers get nothing, and rightly so.
Share
Tags:
 

Add comment

Note: you can skip this entire process - including using the spam protecting Captcha image - by registering. The details of registered members are automatically filled in and there is no security image to deal with. Just a thought.

 


Security code
Refresh

Hot Right Now

Most Popular

Latest Entries

Latest Sledges

I Support

Random Quotes

DC had no answer to any of it and deflated like the last balloon at a sad wedding.

From: Dougie Bollinger destroys Deccan


Popular Taggs

Live Cricket Commentary

Live coverage of English cricket, from the Test Match Sofa.

Cricket Webring

Equator - a cricket webring

Prev

List

Next

hosted by The "Silly Point"

Feed Me Cricket link

Barmy Army

We have 83 guests online