Player of the Tournament

[aussie1st]

Depending on how Afridi or Yuvraj go in the final will probably decide player of the tournament. Can't really split the two as Afridi has done some good stuff with bat and ball while Yuvraj hit 6 6s in an over.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I don't see why if a particular team wins or loses should affect who the Player of the Tournament is. It's an absolutely stupid way to go about it.

Nevertheless, I would've gone with Matthew Hayden as his been the leading run-scorer of the tournament by about 100 odd runs and could've easily gotten another 60 or 70 runs if Australia didn't chase in basically all of the matches they played. He really couldn't acchieved that in any harder fashion.

He should've won Player of the Tournament for the 50 over World Cup aswell as he was easily the best player & the stand out player for that tournament but didn't because he didn't get a bat in a match against Ireland and McGrath took 3/17 off 10 in that match and picked up 3 votes and picked up votes against the weak sides of the competition while Hayden scored 3 centuries against 3 Test playing nations.

 

[icyman]

I don't see why if a particular team wins or loses should affect who the Player of the Tournament is. It's an absolutely stupid way to go about it.

He should've won Player of the Tournament for the 50 over World Cup aswell as he was easily the best player.

Well i agree with that.
Sachin Tendulkar won it in 2003.
McGrath,well he won it by virute of some stupid point system started by the ICC !

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

I'm not all that sure about Shahid Afridi on MotM record, I've seen maybe one and a half really big performances from him, so for almost every other game he must have polled 1s.

I can understand if Yuvraj only has scored from a couple of matches, but Hayden scored 4 fifties to get 5 votes. He will probably be top scorer for the tournament and no hope for MotS.

Read this:

They don't decide MOTS by how many runs/wickets a player has scored/taken. It is decided by how many MoM awards a player has received. The 1st MoM gets 3 points, 2nd gets 2 points, and the 3rd gets 1 point. So they add up those points and the one with more points wins the MOTS award.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Be better if common sense was the way in which they selected the Player of the Tournament over a panel of selectors.

A points system totally gives the winner anyway.

 

[sohum]

Any one of the Pakistani bowlers look like they could get it. They have the top two wicket takers of the tournament in Umar Gul (13) and Shahid Afridi (12). Asif is not far behind with 10.

 

[surendar]

So its Afridi finally.. Though i expected Hayden(Like Zulu for 99 WC who neither belonged to the Pak nor Aus). or Gul to get it regardless of those points calculations. Gul was very accurate in bowling and Hayden being a run machine of this tournament.

 

[nightprowler10]

I really expected Umer Gul or Yuvraj to get it. Bit surprised to see Afridi MOTS.

 

[Cricketer2004]

Shahid Afridi dont deserve to be the MAN OF THE TOURNAMENT.....he perform in only one match with bat and his wickets are not that great either......they should give people like Misbah-ul-Haq or Umar Gul and Youraj Singh MAN OF THE TOURNAMENT...these players put all there efforts to entertain us and played under pressure match......

 

[aussie_ben91]

Good to see no one wants to argue that Hayden should've got it.

 

[harishankar]

Good to see no one wants to argue that Hayden should've got it.

It should have been Yuvraj Singh or Misbah Ul Haq. Both players played a pivotal part in the tournament and for Hayden's great innings, he couldn't see Australia through.

Even R.P.Singh or Umar Gul could have got it, but not Hayden. For all his great efforts, Australia couldn't get into the final.

 

[hawkas]

McGrath was great in the WC, he definitely deserved the honour.

As for the T20 WC, Yuvraj Singh was easily the best in my opinion, Hayden was good, but Yuvraj guided India to the win.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I don't really think it matters who makes the finals and who doesn't or it shouldn't be anyway.

It's the Player of the Tournament award not the Player of the Tournament outta whose team makes the final award.

 

[icyman]

McGrath was great in the WC, he definitely deserved the honour.

As for the T20 WC, Yuvraj Singh was easily the best in my opinion, Hayden was good, but Yuvraj guided India to the win.

Infact,I'd have gone for Matty Heyden for the World Cup.Hayden's innings came against quality opposition.
Whereas McGrath got wickets against the minnows.

I don't really think it matters who makes the finals and who doesn't or it shouldn't be anyway.

It's the Player of the Tournament award not the Player of the Tournament outta whose team makes the final award.

I see what you mean.
Lance Klusener got it in 1999 WC only cause there was no one actually from Aus or Pak who had set the tournament on fire in the way Lance had.
Hayden,well being the top-scorer and all,you are boundto feel that he should have got it.
Shahid Afridi,well to me,he wasnt that great.

I would have been happier had it been Yuvraj or Misbah who played a pivotal part in getting their respective teams to the Final and defeating some good teams like Aus and SL on the way.

 

[harishankar]

I don't really think it matters who makes the finals and who doesn't or it shouldn't be anyway.

It's the Player of the Tournament award not the Player of the Tournament outta whose team makes the final award.

Yes, but Hayden should have done something truly spectacular to have deserved the award, like hitting 6 sixes in an over or played like Lance Klusener.

I agree that Hayden played well, but he really didn't stick out from the other stand-out performers like Yuvraj, Misbah, Umar Gul or R.P.Singh. I agree about Afridi. He wasn't as outstanding as some of the other players either.