Deciding Man of the Match.....

Seems the recent test match has raised yet again the issue of who should win a man of the match award.  In the recent Australia v New Zealand test match the man of the match was from the losing side and on top of that was decided by the viewers.  This itself raises a few questions.  The main one to arise is whether or not the man of the match should come from the winning side.  Generally in my opinion the answer is yes.  How can one justify that a winning team does not contain a match winning performance.  And how can a player on a losing team be counted as the best on field if his team has not won.  If the award is called best on field then I can justify a player from a losing team winning but for me a man of the match performance is underlined by a game changing performance that sets a team up for victory.  Look through the history of all sports and it is very rare for a player on a losing team to win such an award.

Leaving that issue of who should win the award aside, the way it is decided needs more examination in the modern sporting world.  Firstly for cricket to now say that the fans decide who wins the award means the award should be called "The Most Popular Award".  It is bad enough that TV is becoming obsessed with reality TV that is nothing but a popularity contest but to then take that to the sporting stage is fraught with danger.  Once you give the power to the people in such a manner you will not get the results that are deserved.  TV viewers have a short memory so when asking them to decide who is the best player over a five day game, most of the time they will vote for someone that did something in the last 2 days.  Add to that the situation where the option to vote is put out before a game has finished and the process is flawed.  I have seen in other sports especially Rugby League and Union where they announce the man of the match award when there is still ten minutes left in the game and the result could go either way.  Television studios are too concerned about announcing the result before the game is over and the viewer changes the channel.  All this is doing is saying that the award is nothing too special and only for sponsorship plugs for the company paying the prize money.

Go back to the old way of deciding the award, wait for the game to finish, gather a group of "experts" at the game from various sources, TV, Radio, Newspaper Journos and officials and ask them who was the best player on the field that affected the outcome of the game.  See who gets mentioned the most and there is your man of the match.  If this takes twenty minutes, so be it, at least you know you have given the process some thought and not relied on the whim of a fan sitting on the couch and potentially drunk to decide something for you.  This is how most goverments are formed and look how well that is working at the moment.