man of the series?

[Son Of Coco]

Broad has bowled really well on one innings, OKish in another where he was gifted wickets because he was the only Eng bowler to hit the cut surface and rubbish for the most part

By FAR the best performer has been Clarke but Strauss has really stood up for the poms so I'd give it to him when they win

Yeah I agree, Broad's hit form at the right time but if it had happened in reverse and he'd bowled well at the start and then as he has for most of the series up until now I don't think his name would be thrown around for MOTS.

There have been some far more consistent performers in this series. If Broad replicates his form in the last game through the next series then he'd be a worthy winner against SA.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah I agree, Broad's hit form at the right time but if it had happened in reverse and he'd bowled well at the start and then as he has for most of the series up until now I don't think his name would be thrown around for MOTS.

There have been some far more consistent performers in this series. If Broad replicates his form in the last game through the next series then he'd be a worthy winner against SA.

He didn't though. That's the point. He performed when it mattered. Clarke performed when it didn't matter. Performing in 4 inconsequential games<<< performing in one game and winning your side the Ashes.

The most consistent performer has been Ben Hilfenhaus, but for me MOTS isn't about picking who played the best cricket most often throughout the series. I'd pick the player who had the biggest impact on which way the series went. For that reason, it's between Broad and Strauss. And I'd go for Broad.

Even if you want to pick on consistent performances you could go for Broad. For all the Aussie moaning, he's actually got the best all-round figures pretty easily. It's just taken for him to really tear them apart before anyone would admit he was doing pretty decently.

 

[Jamee999]

Strauss

 

[pasag]

No real standout during the series, tbh. Some performed consistently without huge peaks, others performed in bursts but going missing the rest of the time. Has to be Strauss though.

 

[Jamee999]

Strauss*
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
North
Prior+
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Hilfenhaus

MOTM: Broad
English MOTS: Strauss
Aussie MOTS: Clarke
Overall MOTS: Strauss

 

[grecian]

Strauss, has to be really.

Led from the front and no-one else, for us, have been that consistent.

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss*
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
North
Prior+
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Hilfenhaus

MOTM: Broad
English MOTS: Strauss
Aussie MOTS: Clarke
Overall MOTS: Strauss

Flintoff's a bit lucky to make it. I'd pick Trott at 5 instead tbh.

 

[stumpski]

There's a Man of the Series for both sides! As it should be IMO, a nice touch I think.


Strauss and Clarke.

 

[pasag]

There's a Man of the Series for both sides! As it should be IMO, a nice touch I think.


Strauss and Clarke.

I hate it.

 

[Jono]

I hate it.

I agree. Its ****.

 

[Son Of Coco]

He didn't though. That's the point. He performed when it mattered. Clarke performed when it didn't matter. Performing in 4 inconsequential games<<< performing in one game and winning your side the Ashes.

The most consistent performer has been Ben Hilfenhaus, but for me MOTS isn't about picking who played the best cricket most often throughout the series. I'd pick the player who had the biggest impact on which way the series went. For that reason, it's between Broad and Strauss. And I'd go for Broad.

Even if you want to pick on consistent performances you could go for Broad. For all the Aussie moaning, he's actually got the best all-round figures pretty easily. It's just taken for him to really tear them apart before anyone would admit he was doing pretty decently.

Not really, Broad's performed in the deciding match. You could argue other players performed when it mattered too to force a draw or get their team 1 up/1 all in the series. Man of the Series is exactly that, which is why it's not called 'Man of the Game', you'll notice we have Man of the Match awards for that. Why not give it to Trott if we're talking about performances in the deciding game?

If players hadn't performed in earlier games to get England 1 up to start with and then play well enough to keep that lead through the next test Broad's 5 for wouldn't have made a difference. Broad was decidedly mediocre for the first 3 tests with the ball. Two decent games don't mean we should ignore that. For mine there have been better performers who are more worthy of the award. Although given the standard of play for most of the series I certainly wouldn't have Broad at the bottom of the list, and he has moved up it significantly with his last two performances.

And he is clearly the best allrounder in the series...you'll have to remind me who the other all-rounders were again. His performances with the bat have been decent this series I have to admit. If he'd have bowled a bit better in the earlier games I'd have no issue with him being right up at the top of the list for the award.

 

[stumpski]

Not an important award, and a chance for one side to praise a member of the other.


What harm does that do?

 

[Uppercut]

Should have been Hilfenhaus though.

 

[Jono]

Not really, Broad's performed in the deciding match. You could argue other players performed when it mattered too to force a draw or get their team 1 up/1 all in the series. Man of the Series is exactly that, which is why it's not called 'Man of the Game', you'll notice we have Man of the Match awards for that. Why not give it to Trott if we're talking about performances in the deciding game?

If players hadn't performed in earlier games to get England 1 up to start with and then play well enough to keep that lead through the next test Broad's 5 for wouldn't have made a difference. Broad was decidedly mediocre for the first 3 tests with the ball. Two decent games don't mean we should ignore that. For mine there have been better performers who are more worthy of the award. Although given the standard of play for most of the series I certainly wouldn't have Broad at the bottom of the list, and he has moved up it significantly with his last two performances.

And he is clearly the best allrounder in the series...you'll have to remind me who the other all-rounders were again. His performances with the bat have been decent this series I have to admit. If he'd have bowled a bit better in the earlier games I'd have no issue with him being right up at the top of the list for the award.

Yeah agree.

You don't just give MOTS to the guy who wins the 5th test. The other 4 tests aren't irrelevant. Helping the first test draw (ensuring England were never behind in the series) is just as helping England win the last test. You put all 5 tests together for MOTS.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Should have been Hilfenhaus though.

No 5-fors, tbh. Wouldn't seem right to give it to a bloke who hasn't turned in at least one great performance.