Man of the tournament?

[Prince EWS]

Extremely wrong decision to award KW player of the tournament when he played 2 more matches and scored less runs than Shakib

Not to mention bowled much worse. Really weird.

 

[Daemon]

Bizarre. They mentioned fair play and leadership, was his captaincy that big a factor?

 

[sunilz]

More like they are trying to buy silence of KW to save their face

 

[Howe_zat]

I was alright with it. I had KW in my team of the tournament for his captaincy and batting. Yeah he scored fewer runs than Shakib but you'd take Williamson's fifty against India over Shakib's hundred against England any day.

 

[Daemon]

Shakib just unlucky he’s from a side that’s not very good I suppose. Otherwise more of his innings would be match winning.

Anyways, couldn’t have gone to a better bloke and he did lead well so I’m not really upset.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, it's not a good call. Shakib, Stokes, Sharma, Starc, Bumrah all ahead of him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I was alright with it. I had KW in my team of the tournament for his captaincy and batting. Yeah he scored fewer runs than Shakib but you'd take Williamson's fifty against India over Shakib's hundred against England any day.

Yeah I did too but that puts him on a shortlist of eleven, and he was one of the last players I picked in it.

 

[Athlai]

It’s the ultimate slap in the face to Kane as well. Didn’t win the tournament, didn’t score the most runs, didn’t hit the most hundreds. Given a consolation prize.

 

[Naarn]

Wow. Speechless.

Kane's last 5 innings in the world cup: 41, 40, 27, 67, 30. And NZ lost 4 of those 5 games.

Great captaincy and sportsmanship though. Please...

If they felt they really needed to give it someone who actually played in the final, give it to Stokes. 465 runs and 7 wickets is a bloody good tournament. Not in the Shakib league, but the guy pretty much single-handedly won the world cup. I would have been comfortable with Stokes winning it, but let's face it - Kane has won it for being a nice bloke.

 

[rythy]

Think Shakib should have got this,

 

[NUFAN]

I try and avoid betting on this type of thing as its clearly subjective.

 

[CricAddict]

Shakib was under pressure every match and he delivered, both with bat and ball. It should absolutely have gone to him. Totally not fair on him at all. He was a nice bloke as well. I don't understand at all on how Kane won over him.

 

[Athlai]

Shakib was under pressure every match and he delivered, both with bat and ball. It should absolutely have gone to him. Totally not fair on him at all. He was a nice bloke as well. I don't understand at all on how Kane won over him.

More boundaries in the final IIRC.

 

[TheBrand]

Half of Stokes' runs came in game he couldn't get England across the line. Although I guess he got them across the line in the most important game...

Also I think KW was surprised to get it as well:
https://twitter.com/jakeheasman/status/1150497778369466368/video/1

 

[mr_mister]

Half of Stokes' runs came in game he couldn't get England across the line. Although I guess he got them across the line in the most important game...

Also I think KW was surprised to get it as well:
https://twitter.com/jakeheasman/status/1150497778369466368/video/1

Stokes got 4 scores in the 80s and a 79....

 

[TheJediBrah]

Half of Stokes' runs came in game he couldn't get England across the line. Although I guess he got them across the line in the most important game...

Or did he get them to the line, rather than across it?

 

[Howsie]

Shakib was under pressure every match and he delivered, both with bat and ball. It should absolutely have gone to him. Totally not fair on him at all. He was a nice bloke as well. I don't understand at all on how Kane won over him.

And Williamson wasn’t?

Without Williamson NZ don’t sniff the semis. Yeah, New Zealand are a better team but even so our bowling attack needs something to bowl at, they’re not complete miracle workers.

 

[Bahnz]

Wow. Speechless.

Kane's last 5 innings in the world cup: 41, 40, 27, 67, 30. And NZ lost 4 of those 5 games.

It’s worth remembering that all pf those games save the England group game were low scoring matches so averaging 40+ is still pretty excellent.

Having said that, it does kinda feel like the decision makers were like “We can’t send NZ home with nothing after THAT. Let’s give Kane player of the tournament.”

 

[Burgey]

KW certainly deserved to be in the top two or three. Al Hasan was great but really had no pressure on him because he was basically in a minnow side which was never making the finals. England sort of shared their heroics around. Stokes was probably their strongest shot at it, but the ICC know he's a violent thug so doesn't deserve it. Roy missed a few games and should have been suspended for the final anyway. Archer was good but not good enough. Root flopped when it mattered in the final, as he basically always does. Sharma and Bumrah tanked in the semis and did nothing, likewise What's Your Emergency, Starc and Warner.

 

[GIMH]

I don’t agree with Kane as MOTS. Has an asterisk next to it. As far as I’m concerned Stokes was MOTS