Man of the tournament?

[Naarn]

The all round feats of Shakib may never be repeated. He is a realistic chance of being the leading runscorer (at the end of the round robin stage) in addition to his 11+ wickets. From an allrounder perspective, that's ludicrous. But is he still a chance of winning it even though Bangladesh aren't in the semi finals? Or would Starc and Rohit be more of a chance?

Martin Crowe and Lance Klusener proved that you don't necessarily need to be playing on the day of the final to receive the award. but the last four world cups suggest otherwise.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'd hate to think it wouldn't be Shakib. When you're carrying the fortunes of your team, and you have for years, and you produce that, I think you deserve it.

I hope he performs against Pakistan and they win, to really sew it up for him.

Having said that, Starc and Rohit would have good cases as single-skill players.

 

[mr_mister]

I think when it's such a long group stage and the final and semi are only 2 extra matches it helps Shakibs chances a bit. His awesome efforts won't be a distant memory you know.

But if Starc was to take another five fer in the final or Rohit another ton then maybe yeah it becomes tougher for him

 

[cnerd123]

The man of the tournament is clearly Shakib. Who they decide to give to award to is a different matter.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can't give man of the tournament to a minnow whose side has only won a handful of matches. Need to make runs/take wickets when it matters to lead your team to victories.

 

[bk19xsa]

That's has to be a troll post above. Shakib did perform when it mattered and also won games. His all round performance is hard feat to replace.

Besides Starc and Sharma, Finch might be also in running.

 

[Burgey]

The man of the tournament is clearly Shakib. Who they decide to give to award to is a different matter.

The man of the tournament gets to play KO games, otherwise he hasn't done enough to deserve the moniker.

Shakib's had a great tourney, especially with the bat. But if he was awarded MOTS it would be the biggest travesty in the award's history since Chokedulkar got it in 03.

 

[cnerd123]

That's has to be a troll post above. Shakib did perform when it mattered and also won games. His all round performance is hard feat to replace.

Besides Starc and Sharma, Finch might be also in running.

CW Pro Tip - all posts by Burgey and TJB are troll posts.

 

[Naarn]

Does anyone know who picks it? The only info I could find was that Chappell, Gower and Holding picked it when Klusener won in 99, so I assume it's a panel of former players.

 

[Burgey]

Chappell, Gower and Holding is like a who's who of unctuous former players. One is a terrible selector, another a commentator whose views vary depending on who's giving him a pay cheque, and the third a carefree bon vivant who rarely cared for things such as awards at all.

 

[Naarn]

I'm not sure I get your point, Burgey. Are you saying they made an incorrect choice in Klusener?

 

[SteveNZ]

CW Pro Tip - all posts by Burgey and TJB are troll posts.

It's a very Australian sort of approach. You can't be the best unless you are the best, in this situation. Being the man of the match in a losing effort is 'un-Australian'. That's not a swipe at them, it's just the way they see things.

Whereas a lot of us would say hold on, it's an eleven man team game. One guy, not even Bradman bred with Warne, is going to carry a less recognised nation to the semis. That shouldn't, in my mind, stop Shakib from being man of the series. Shakib has 542 runs at 90, and 11 wickets at a decent average and RPO.

The best player is the best player based on stats and performances in big matches. It might be Starc but it also should be open to being Shakib. We wouldn't consider someone who scores tons in every game against big opposition but his team-mates are custard? Don't see why your team mates struggling is a criteria for player of the tournament.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah it definitely is just a difference in emphasis. I don't think anyone is bagging Shakib's tourney. I mean, you can't. He's been fantastic.

 

[Burgey]

I'm not sure I get your point, Burgey. Are you saying they made an incorrect choice in Klusener?

Absolutely. Gassed up when it mattered most, I'm afraid. Poor old Donald gets the bad wrap for that run out,. but it was Klusener's fault. He was the senior batsman and there were still two more balls to go. I know it seems unfair, but as SteveNZ said, it's purely a question of emphasis. Same in 03 - Tendulkar a great tourney, but when you limply top edge a pull shot in the first over of a chase in the final, then you've basically undone all your good work imo, because sadly you've choked. And he unquestionably did. It was the biggest choke since Mama Cass.

 

[Naarn]

Absolutely. Gassed up when it mattered most, I'm afraid. Poor old Donald gets the bad wrap for that run out,. but it was Klusener's fault. He was the senior batsman and there were still two more balls to go. I know it seems unfair, but as SteveNZ said, it's purely a question of emphasis. Same in 03 - Tendulkar a great tourney, but when you limply top edge a pull shot in the first over of a chase in the final, then you've basically undone all your good work imo, because sadly you've choked. And he unquestionably did. It was the biggest choke since Mama Cass.

Fair enough, but I can't agree. It's an award for consistency, not for who came up with the winning play in the last game. Are you suggesting that the winner absolutely must come from the winning team?

What if you are sublime all tournament and you aren't even given an opportunity to choke, because you aren't in the semis? Let's say Shakib hits a match winning 150 and takes 4 wickets against Pakistan. He'd finish with 700 runs and 15 wickets (probably statistically twice as good as anyone before him), but they'll be one win short of making the finals. Do you think he still shouldn't win the award, because he didn't get his team far enough? Is the absence of his existence in the finals a choke in itself, even if he has won 4 man of the match awards and scored centuries when chasing big totals in losing games?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Shakib should be a shoe-in. But his name certainly should be on the table with Starc and others when they are making their decision.

 

[Borges]

1. Shakib
2. Bairstow
3. Starc, Nohit etc.

 

[Burgey]

Fair enough, but I can't agree. It's an award for consistency, not for who came up with the winning play in the last game. Are you suggesting that the winner absolutely must come from the winning team?

What if you are sublime all tournament and you aren't even given an opportunity to choke, because you aren't in the semis? Let's say Shakib hits a match winning 150 and takes 4 wickets against Pakistan. He'd finish with 700 runs and 15 wickets (probably statistically twice as good as anyone before him), but they'll be one win short of making the finals. Do you think he still shouldn't win the award, because he didn't get his team far enough? Is the absence of his existence in the finals a choke in itself, even if he has won 4 man of the match awards and scored centuries when chasing big totals in losing games?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Shakib should be a shoe-in. But his name certainly should be on the table with Starc and others when they are making their decision.

No worries. I see where you're coming from, simply a question of emphasis.

 

[Burgey]

1. Shakib
2. Bairstow
3. Starc, Nohit etc.

Williamson deserves to be in the argument, especially if he has a big semi final and lifts the Kiwis to a win.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Absolutely. Gassed up when it mattered most, I'm afraid. Poor old Donald gets the bad wrap for that run out,. but it was Klusener's fault. He was the senior batsman and there were still two more balls to go. I know it seems unfair, but as SteveNZ said, it's purely a question of emphasis. Same in 03 - Tendulkar a great tourney, but when you limply top edge a pull shot in the first over of a chase in the final, then you've basically undone all your good work imo, because sadly you've choked. And he unquestionably did. It was the biggest choke since Mama Cass.

It's a very Indian sort of approach. Doesn't matter if your team wins or not as long as you have good individual stats.

see: Tendulkar's international career
also see: Dhoni's last 5 years

 

[stephen]

Shakib has had a fantastic tournament but there are plenty of cases where players have fantastic tournaments and don't get man of the series. Hayden in 07 springs to mind.

Thing is, Shakib does have the most runs but the gap between Starc and the next best bowler those tournament has been, well, stark. Starc is clearly a level above all those around him with the ball whereas Shakib odd not a level above with the bat. He's got 11 wickets as well, which is great but there are 13 bowlers who have taken more wickets than him and another two who have the same number.

All I'm saying is that he's been fantastic but it could be strongly argued that Starc has been better, relatively speaking. And that's before you even consider intangibles like "clutch" performances in finals.