Player of the Tournament

[smssia0112]

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.

What someone does for their team also has to come into account. If Hayden's innings had guided us to victory, they would become more important.

Re Mcgrath, he took wickets against all countries. Are you saying that his wickets against Scotland, Holland and Ireland were the only things that won him MOS?

 

[Karachi Xpress]

Its all based on points. Its not who got the team to victory. If Umar Gul made some runs, he would have earned more points and earned the MOTS....And same with Misbah. If he took wickets, he would have got the MOTS. Afridi took 12 wickets and made abt 80 runs. So he had more points than any1 else.

 

[harishankar]

Yes, but that points system was retarded. Anyway, Afridi played well, but he wasn't the single stand-out performer in the tournament.

 

[aussie_ben91]

What someone does for their team also has to come into account. If Hayden's innings had guided us to victory, they would become more important.

Re Mcgrath, he took wickets against all countries. Are you saying that his wickets against Scotland, Holland and Ireland were the only things that won him MOS?

Hayden won us games off his own bat against the real International teams while McGrath picked up votes in matches which were seemingly already won and overall he did nothing really spectactular in the Tournament anyway while Hayden hit the fastest WC century ever against the top ranked country in the world & scored a mammoth 158 against the team hosting the Tournament!

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.

He was easily the leading run by a distance & had 3 not outs in the 60's & 70's due to always batting last. If not for that, he could've possibly piled possibly another hundred runs all up & had 3 Twenty20 centuries to his name.

A player shouldn't be awarded best in the tournament for just 1 single thing they did. I suppose Herschelle Gibbs should've gotten the MOTS for the 50over World Cup then?

 

[harishankar]

All of Hayden's runs couldn't win Australia the semi-final. So despite his performances, he wasn't the man of the tournament. His efforts clearly were seen as not good enough in this instance.

Cricket is not an individual sport. Team performance has to count even for player of the tournament. How much the individual helped the team perform in the tournament counts.