the Biggest matchwinners of today

[Bapu Rao Swami]

tendulkar has played 114 test matches and got the man of the mattch award 10 times . rate -11.4
lara has played 106 test matches and got the man of the match award 11 times. rate -9.6

ponting has played 78 test matches and got the man of the man of the match award 8 times. rate - 9.75

dravid has played 78 test matches and got the man of the match award 7 times. rate - 11.14

kallis has played 78 test matches and got the man of the match award 12 times. rate - 6.5

hayden has played 53 test matches and got the man of the match award 6 times. rate -8.33

smith has played 24 matches and has the MOM award 4 times. rate - 6

muralitharan has played 88 matches and got the MOM award 13 times. rate -6.79

shane warne has played 110 matches and got the MOM award 15 times. rate -7.3

pollock has played 88 matches and got the MOM award 10 times. rate - 8.8

akhtar has played 32 matches and got the MOM award 3 times. rate - 10.6

kumble has played 84 matches and got the MOM award 5 times. rate - 17.6

mcgrath has played 95 matches and got teh MOM award 9 times. rate - 10.5

the record is 17 MOM by Waseem Akram

 

[luckyeddie]

This one's going to end in tears......

 

[deeps]

waugh has 14...of the steve variety that is..rate of ~9

 

[DJ]

So Graeme Smith heads the table in terms of conversion rate? Very good. I think he'll have a storied career. He better bloody had anyway.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

So Graeme Smith heads the table in terms of conversion rate? Very good. I think he'll have a storied career. He better bloody had anyway.

Yeah Smith has age on his side...he's very good player I think. He's also a fast scoring test batsman, and him and Gibbs are make an awesome opening partnership.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

This one's going to end in tears......

Do let me know when I've posted something silly. I'm new here and not well aware of the kind of threads ppl like to respond to.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

waugh has 14...of the steve variety that is..rate of ~9

in ODI cricket Tendulkar has like 51 MOM awards, like he humbly said "I'm a child of the one day age". Jayasurya follwos second with 33 MOMs in ODIs.

 

[krkode]

Despite the ratings (which could be somewhat misleading for Smith, since he has played so little) I think Muralitharan is the biggest match winner of this era.

Taking this question on a "each man his own team" basis, Muralitharan's presence is priceless to Sri Lanka's success.

Same goes to Lara ever since Ambrose and Walsh retired and their whole batting order was stripped of its experience.

All the rest on there, while magnificent players, don't win as much for their team as these two. By that I mean that their contributions had to ultimately be supported by someone else's good support (the rest of the team) and they just happened to win the MoM because traditionally only one man wins it. Take Dravid's recent 233 against Australia, for example. A wonderful knock, but the knock would not have been "match-winning" if not for Agarkar's 6-41. In this case, it just so happened that Dravid's performance was the better one, hence earning him the MoM.

Lara and Muralitharan on the other hand have some impeccable performances; and they are just all-round instrumental to their respective teams. It's almost as if No them = no success.

Which begs the question: do you have to be winning to claim to have a match-winner? I'm not so sure of that, but it's difficult to put guys like Lara up there when that is an important criteria. Still, almost all Windie victories of recent times are centered around Lara's magnificense.

 

[Sudeep]

Murali in Tests.

Sachin in ODIs.

 

[a massive zebra]

Murali in Tests.

Sachin in ODIs.

Definetly.

 

[DJ]

I find it strange that people play down Smith's achievements by saying that he has 'only played a little.' Don't most people start slow and get better instead of starting great and slowing down? Surely the prediction for Smith should be that he improves with time?

No?

 

[a massive zebra]

I find it strange that people play down Smith's achievements by saying that he has 'only played a little.' Don't most people start slow and get better instead of starting great and slowing down? Surely the prediction for Smith should be that he improves with time?

No?

No. It can go either way. It depends on the player. Steve Waugh started slowly and gradually improved, like Mr Muralitharan. Niel Harvey started brilliantly and then went into decline, similar to Waqar.

 

[krkode]

I find it strange that people play down Smith's achievements by saying that he has 'only played a little.' Don't most people start slow and get better instead of starting great and slowing down? Surely the prediction for Smith should be that he improves with time?

No?

Yeah, things can go either way. And note, if you were referring to my post, no I was not downplaying Smith. I am just hesitant in equating him amongst people who have played a lot more than he has.

I believe he's a truly excellent batsman and his record speaks for it, but calling him a match-winner because of 4 MoM's out of 24 matches is a bit hasty, I think.

 

[marc71178]

Especially if he doesn't sort out his weakness.

 

[Langeveldt]

Only one matchwinner for me...

JH Kallis - bat, ball or in the field...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Andrew Flintoff

 

[Slow Love™]

For some reason, I tend to regard bowlers more as actual matchwinners than batsmen in general, although I've certainly seen some great matchwinning knocks. Perhaps it's because excellent batsmen are a little dime-a-dozen in the current era, and it's the few great bowlers out there that are really providing the differences between the great teams and the good ones.

So I'd go for Warne. Always the guy I'd turn to if the side was in trouble, and very capable of pulling games from the depths, singlehandedly. Murali would be up there, but Warne's been such a factor in so many important victories, and I'm taking the term "matchwinner" fairly literally. The recent Australia/Sri Lankan series is a good illustration.

 

[Slow Love™]

I find it strange that people play down Smith's achievements by saying that he has 'only played a little.' Don't most people start slow and get better instead of starting great and slowing down? Surely the prediction for Smith should be that he improves with time?

No?

I dunno, there's certainly been quite a few shining lights that burnt out very quickly. Maybe somebody should do a study.

 

[krkode]

Kambli comes to mind.

Although it's possible to argue, I guess, that the selectors didn't show him as much devotion as they ought to have.

 

[Loony BoB]

You can only base it on the past, you can't make guesses at the future, so it's pretty harsh to say that after 20 odd matches that they still need to prove themselves. That's roughly six or so series, which isn't bad at all.

The only way a player can truely get an advantage is to play against quite a few weak teams and be playing in a weak team. For example, if someone like Gilchrist was in the Bangladesh side and played ODI's or tests against Zimbabwe, he'd probably get the MOM every time.

But as I said - six series is generally enough to say that they've done their rounds. Particularly in a strong team like South Africa.