Man of the tournament?

[CricAddict]

I think the shortlist would be Shakib, Bairstow, Warner, Finch, Rohit and Starc. From then on, it is purely up to the mindset of the guy choosing the MOS. To me, it is definitely Shakib.

 

[stephen]

Also, 17 batsmen average over 50 this world cup, which imo diminishes everyone's batting efforts.

Three batsmen even average over 90 ffs.

 

[Spark]

I think the shortlist would be Shakib, Bairstow, Warner, Finch, Rohit and Starc. From then on, it is purely up to the mindset of the guy choosing the MOS. To me, it is definitely Shakib.

I mean surely performance in the actual knockout matches should be the tiebreaker. If Rohit hits two hundreds in knockouts or Starc takes 8-10 wickets, then it surely has to absolutely be them, for example.

 

[stephen]

I think the shortlist would be Shakib, Bairstow, Warner, Finch, Rohit and Starc. From then on, it is purely up to the mindset of the guy choosing the MOS. To me, it is definitely Shakib.

Harsh on Root and Williamson.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

That's pretty disingenuous. Shakib is miles ahead of other all rounders this tournament. He's also one of the few spinners who has done a decent job for his team.

 

[Naarn]

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.

Wow. If Shakib hasn't "put a gap" on his opposition in regards to all round performance (in all world cups that have ever been played, not just this one), I don't know what game I'm watching. You cannot expect an allrounder to put a 200 run / 8 wicket gap on his opposition in either category... that's fantasy land.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah I know these player of the tournament awards can sometimes favour all rounders too much, but shakib 11 wickets plus 500 runs is pretty damn crazy

If he gets 2 more wickets and another 50 against Pakistan I'd say he definitely deserves it regardless of what Starc/Rohit do in the semis

 

[mr_mister]

Actually they should have just had a 3-2-1 point system each match to decide things. The blokes who play in the KO games get the advantage of more potential points, but if Shakib had managed to do enough in the group stage then he still hangs on

 

[cnerd123]

Actually they should have just had a 3-2-1 point system each match to decide things. The blokes who play in the KO games get the advantage of more potential points, but if Shakib had managed to do enough in the group stage then he still hangs on

They already have that fantasy cricket points system thing that they keep pulling up during the broadcast. Shakib was wayy ahead of everyone else the last time I saw it.

 

[Burgey]

Should be voted on by the players, and if not by the umpires.

 

[Burgey]

And if an umpire has to speak with you about a disciplinary issue, you can't win it, a la the Brownlow. So if you run on the wicket like Kohli did the other night - hoo roo. Umpire tell you to zip it on the field? Goodbye. Throw a match by not even attempting a chase like India did? Whole side ineligible to win POTS.

 

[stephen]

To put my previous post into perspective.

Currently Starc has 40% more wickets than the next best.

Shakib is the number 2 batsman by a couple of runs, so pretty much tied for the best batsman.

He's also taken 45% of the wickets of the best bowler.

So Starc is a 140% player and Shakib is a 145% player. Not much at all between them at this point.

 

[Borges]

Going by pure stats, Shakib by a couple of country miles.
Bairstow comes into reckoning because of his performance in the two games that his team had to win to stay alive.
At this stage, everyone else is an also ran.

 

[Gob]

Starceh

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Tim Southee

 

[halba]

Starc.

 

[srbhkshk]

Shakib and it's not close unless Rohit or Starc goes on to deliver an ATG performance in the finals.

 

[BSM]

As some people have pointed out, no batsman has really ran away from the rest in terms of runs. There's quite a lot around the 500 mark so far, which is interesting as you could argue batting hasn't been great this tournament; especially when sides are chasing.

Theoretically then, there's every chance that at least one of those batsmen around the 500 run mark might yet break away from the rest in the semis, but certainly I think the pick as of right now will likely be between Starc and Shakib (for his combined contributions). Think a pure batsmen might need to get 650 and even near 700 runs to be in contention, or score runs that end up being massively important. If he scores at least one more match-winning century/high score, I could even see Bairstow being a potential winner. His two centuries have come in do or die situations for England afterall.

 

[Howe_zat]

When looking at all those batsmen with 400+ runs it's interesting how they are all top three players. Batting in the first 30 overs has been so easy that the specialist 5-6s haven't had much chance to play proper innings, and the Buttlers, Maxwells and Jadhavs have only played cameo knocks. They've also been a bit disappointing all round, which is why none of the 'It's going to be 400' starts have actually done it.

Among those in the middle order, Ben Stokes and Alex Carey are well ahead. And aren't doing badly in their second discipline either. So they could be one to make their case in the semis and final too.

I expect there to be a team of the tournament picked at some point that has Virat Kohli at six because people often miss this idea.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Starc will probably get it providing Australia are still in it when they announce who has won it. Shakib has had a great tournament though as has Ben Stokes and an honourable mention for our former poster Jimmy Neesham who has been very very good too.