Young Player of the Tournament

[ashley bach]

There's just no way Will Young is the player of the tournament.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

QDK as he is a keeper

I don’t mind QDK or Shami either. Also Kohli despite batting at 3 has nearly scored as much as QDK, who opens. In WCs, the openers are usually always the highest scorers

 

[Sunil1z]

Has this rung true throughout history? I know Jayasuriya got it in '96 despite flopping in the SF and F lol. Aravinda robbed

Let me Try

1999 WC Klusener
Was decent in Semi-final

2003 WC Tendulkar
Was decent in semi-final

2007 WC McGrath
Was excellent in semi-final ( Got MoM ?)

2011 WC Yuvraj
Bowled decently in SF and Final

2015 WC Starc
Was excellent in semi-final and final

2019 WC Williamson
Was decent in semi-final and good captaincy

 

[mr_mister]

So Klusener was the last winner from a team that didn't make the final.

Was it handed out pre 96?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

So Klusener was the last winner from a team that didn't make the final.

Was it handed out pre 96?

I think the first time was 92, when they gave it to Crowe.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think the first time was 92, when they gave it to Crowe.

Correct

 

[SteveNZ]

Last game at Kolkata, his approach was not wrong at all, especially given the start Ind had. You needed a set batter to remain, and the result of the match justified his approach. Kohli’s not played on a track as flat as Bangalore(the only one close was Wankhede, where he didn’t waste balls to get to his hundred). Vs NZ, he’d practically won the Ind the match before he got out, and legit turned down one single only. And vs Bang, he literally accelerated to get to his hundred, thus bettering the NRR. One more reason his SR is low, cause of the Aus game.

I accept I haven't watched enough of him to hold a really valid opinion...I guess the basis of it is the blatant 'my hundred is very important here' vibes of the Bangladesh game, he looked genuinely gutted when he got out v NZ, he scored the last 10 runs of his hundred off 9 balls v SA, he was on 62 off 78 at 2 down with 16 overs to go in that game and ended up with 101 off 121 (that's 39 off 43 in the final overs)...I just don't like the obvious me first vibes.

 

[ma1978]

I accept I haven't watched enough of him to hold a really valid opinion...I guess the basis of it is the blatant 'my hundred is very important here' vibes of the Bangladesh game, he looked genuinely gutted when he got out v NZ, he scored the last 10 runs of his hundred off 9 balls v SA, he was on 62 off 78 at 2 down with 16 overs to go in that game and ended up with 101 off 121 (that's 39 off 43 in the final overs)...I just don't like the obvious me first vibes.

I don’t think the man of the tournament (as seen so far) should be Kohli because it’s the Indian bowling that’s the revelation, but the fact is that in each match it’s obvious he played to the situation. The goal in SA andNZ was to not avoid a collapse and there already was a collapse in Aus.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don’t think the man of the tournament (as seen so far) should be Kohli because it’s the Indian bowling that’s the revelation, but the fact is that in each match it’s obvious he played to the situation. The goal in SA andNZ was to not avoid a collapse and there already was a collapse in Aus.

I'd argue that, and I've seen others argue it as well. To me, if you score less than a run a ball in the last 14 overs, and at a run a ball in the last few, that's not the situation. He clearly slowed down for his hundred v Bangladesh when there should be no other consideration than run rate. The Australian game, I concede no issues there.

Compare his situation in the SA game to Kane in the NZ v Pakistan game. Kane holed out on 95, at 248-1 in the 35th over. Virat was 62 in the 34th over, at 213-2. And he didn't accelerate. Maybe that's a team edict when Shami is at 8, but it just strikes me as Virat's selfness nature v Kane's selfless one.

 

[ma1978]

I'd argue that, and I've seen others argue it as well. To me, if you score less than a run a ball in the last 14 overs, and at a run a ball in the last few, that's not the situation. He clearly slowed down for his hundred v Bangladesh when there should be no other consideration than run rate. The Australian game, I concede no issues there.

Compare his situation in the SA game to Kane in the NZ v Pakistan game. Kane holed out on 95, at 248-1 in the 35th over. Virat was 62 in the 34th over, at 213-2. And he didn't accelerate. Maybe that's a team edict when Shami is at 8, but it just strikes me as Virat's selfness nature v Kane's selfless one.

I dunno. New Zealand didn’t get to a winning total and India did. There are many other extraneous factors (rain, Fakhar, Indi/ bowling) but India’s 325 looked a lot more above par on that pitch that New Zealand’s 401. Maybe had Kane played for a bigger century and hit out later New Zealand would have been at a winning 425-430. Have to look at the result.

 

[SteveNZ]

I dunno. New Zealand didn’t get to a winning total and India did. There are many other extraneous factors (rain, Fakhar, Indi/ bowling) but India’s 325 looked a lot more above par on that pitch that New Zealand’s 401. Maybe had Kane played for a bigger century and hit out later New Zealand would have been at a winning 425-430. Have to look at the result.

Yeah, I'm definitely not presenting my opinion as fact. And Virat may well win player of the tournament, although he should score knockout runs to get that.

 

[ma1978]

Yeah, I'm definitely not presenting my opinion as fact. And Virat may well win player of the tournament, although he should score knockout runs to get that.

it’s all hypothetical (but that’s the point of this board). Right now the batsman of the tournament to me is actually Rachin or De Kock but the player is Shami.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd argue that, and I've seen others argue it as well. To me, if you score less than a run a ball in the last 14 overs, and at a run a ball in the last few, that's not the situation. He clearly slowed down for his hundred v Bangladesh when there should be no other consideration than run rate. The Australian game, I concede no issues there.

Compare his situation in the SA game to Kane in the NZ v Pakistan game. Kane holed out on 95, at 248-1 in the 35th over. Virat was 62 in the 34th over, at 213-2. And he didn't accelerate. Maybe that's a team edict when Shami is at 8, but it just strikes me as Virat's selfness nature v Kane's selfless one.

This is definitely true. The goal batting first should be to get as big a score as possible, Virat definitely didn't do that and played for himself. That India won the game in the end doesn't change that at all.

 

[Kraken]

young player is Ravindra atm - however if they miss the finals its Jansen

player of the tournament so far between those 2, QDK, Shami, Zampa or Kohli for mine

 

[Tom Flint]

Is 24 really a young player

 

[Tom Flint]

*23

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Is 14 really a young player

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I'd argue that, and I've seen others argue it as well. To me, if you score less than a run a ball in the last 14 overs, and at a run a ball in the last few, that's not the situation. He clearly slowed down for his hundred v Bangladesh when there should be no other consideration than run rate. The Australian game, I concede no issues there.

Compare his situation in the SA game to Kane in the NZ v Pakistan game. Kane holed out on 95, at 248-1 in the 35th over. Virat was 62 in the 34th over, at 213-2. And he didn't accelerate. Maybe that's a team edict when Shami is at 8, but it just strikes me as Virat's selfness nature v Kane's selfless one.

I mean he scored 32(19) to get to his hundred. If anything that betters the NRR right? And SA one, Kohli was trying to accelerate, he was just not able to cause his options of his doing that were limited to safer ways cause of the long tail

 

[OverratedSanity]

Has this rung true throughout history? I know Jayasuriya got it in '96 despite flopping in the SF and F lol. Aravinda robbed

Jayasuriya didn't flop at all in those games. He didn't get runs but his bowling was crucial in both the sf and final. Especially vs India where he took 3/12 including the wicket of Tendulkar who was playing brilliantly.

Probably still should've been Aravinda (because he bowled great too in addition to his runs) but jayasuriya played a very vital role too.

 

[ma1978]

This is definitely true. The goal batting first should be to get as big a score as possible, Virat definitely didn't do that and played for himself. That India won the game in the end doesn't change that at all.

yes but that means doing so within the context of the pitch and circumstances and playing the probabilities intelligently. Which a lot of teams (esp England) have failed to do. In this case the calculation was 325 was a good outcome, top outcome was 340 but 290 was a possibility given long tail and difficulty of scoring, better to play the safe odds