• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* New Zealand in Bangladesh 2023/24

ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Oh good, a reasonable MOTM call.

If Nicholls scored 5 more runs, however, I very much doubt Soumya would be chosen.
 
Silver Silva

Silver Silva

International Regular
Prince EWS said:
No it's truly ****ing stupid. If he didn't play the result would have not have changed in any meaningful way.

It would have made more sense to give him MOTM in the first game.
Click to expand...
I quote a statement on google from Wikipedia..
'In the sport of cricket, a Man of the Match or Player of the Match award is given to the outstanding player, almost always the one who makes the most impact, in a match...the term was originally used in cricket before being adopted by other sports..
The award can go to a player from any team.'


This is not a law from ICC rulebook as its subjective, but i think the definition is generally accepted in cricket for Man of the Match awards, its who made the most impact in the match that is supposed to be the biggest factor.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Silver Silva said:
I quote a statement on google from Wikipedia..
'In the sport of cricket, a Man of the Match or Player of the Match award is given to the outstanding player, almost always the one who makes the most impact, in a match...the term was originally used in cricket before being adopted by other sports..
The award can go to a player from any team.'


This is not a law from ICC rulebook as its subjective, but i think the definition is generally accepted in cricket for Man of the Match awards, its who made the most impact in the match that is supposed to be the biggest factor.
Click to expand...
The argument (the premise of which I certainly disagree with) is that Soumya made no impact on the result of the match.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Silver Silva said:
I quote a statement on google from Wikipedia..
'In the sport of cricket, a Man of the Match or Player of the Match award is given to the outstanding player, almost always the one who makes the most impact, in a match...the term was originally used in cricket before being adopted by other sports..
The award can go to a player from any team.'


This is not a law from ICC rulebook as its subjective, but i think the definition is generally accepted in cricket for Man of the Match awards, its who made the most impact in the match that is supposed to be the biggest factor.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think definition is bad and Wikipedia should feel bad.

Not unlike your face.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Silver Silva said:
I quote a statement on google from Wikipedia..
'In the sport of cricket, a Man of the Match or Player of the Match award is given to the outstanding player, almost always the one who makes the most impact, in a match...the term was originally used in cricket before being adopted by other sports..
The award can go to a player from any team.'


This is not a law from ICC rulebook as its subjective, but i think the definition is generally accepted in cricket for Mian of the Match awards, its who made the most impact in the match that is supposed to be the biggest factor.
Click to expand...
Hayden got motm for his 181 in the 2007 CH game with the amazing McMillan innings. It came up in commentary today.

It was right to give it to Soumya.Which NZer would've deserved it anyway? Probably Duffy over Nicholls and Young, but all 3 were pretty close. None were anywhere close to Soumya either. He was the biggest factor in making the game interesting.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Prince EWS said:
No it's truly ****ing stupid. If he didn't play the result would have not have changed in any meaningful way.

It would have made more sense to give him MOTM in the first game.
Click to expand...
To me, MoM is the most outstanding performance in the game, and nothing more/less. If you can lean it towards a performance that ultimately made the difference between victory and defeat - ie Bracewell could've got it at Hobart in 2011 over Warner - then ideal, but I don't reckon it has to be. I reckon Soumya was 100% the MoM. To me it's not relevant that he would've had to score 250 to make up for his spud team mates. His innings was by far and away the best performance of the 22 guys on the field.

Ultimately, who gives a ****, right? I'm just filling in gaps until the next game of cricket.

The Hutt Rec said:
Soumya deserved it for sure.

And so did Ajax for his 10 wickets too!
Click to expand...
Interesting aye...because I remember at the time I didn't feel aggrieved about Ajaz not getting MoM. Agarwal played two huge knocks. His team was so dominant, and it kinda made sense. Dunno if that contradicts what I wrote the first time.
 
The Hutt Rec

The Hutt Rec

International Vice-Captain
SteveNZ said:
To me, MoM is the most outstanding performance in the game, and nothing more/less. If you can lean it towards a performance that ultimately made the difference between victory and defeat - ie Bracewell could've got it at Hobart in 2011 over Warner - then ideal, but I don't reckon it has to be. I reckon Soumya was 100% the MoM. To me it's not relevant that he would've had to score 250 to make up for his spud team mates. His innings was by far and away the best performance of the 22 guys on the field.

Ultimately, who gives a ****, right? I'm just filling in gaps until the next game of cricket.



Interesting aye...because I remember at the time I didn't feel aggrieved about Ajaz not getting MoM. Agarwal played two huge knocks. His team was so dominant, and it kinda made sense. Dunno if that contradicts what I wrote the first time.
Click to expand...
I definitely think Bracewell deserved it at Hobart, but that was decided by a phone in public poll where Australian fans couldn't handle losing a game, so I can sort of accept that one. The methodology was ridiculous and invalidates the whole award, for me.

Ajaz I just think he achieved something only two others have done in the history of the game. Maybe sharing it with Agarwal would have been a good option, I have no problems with that either, and I'm not taking anything away from a great game by him.

I think these work me up a bit because I was at the 2008 league world cup final, and remember all the boos when Lockyer was awarded man of the match, it just seemed so petty by the people deciding the award lol. I've been scarred for life ever since! :laugh:
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
It has to be noted though that Ajaz's achievement was partly reliant on the poor performance of the rest of the bowling attack. He still bowled brilliantly, but India's spinners actually took their wickets a better average iirc. Yes, yes it's easier to take wickets when you're hunting in packs, but the size of the haul overstated the quality of the performance imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top