This 'Man Of The Match' Business In Cricket

In cricket, like in most other sports, one player is adjudged the 'Player Of The Match' at the end of every game. In cricketing parlance he is called the 'Man Of The Match'. This award is meant for person who has had the biggest impact on the match and usually, this player is from winning team. So, basically the award is for the person who has helped his team win the game.

The award is adjudicated by the Match Referee, a person appointed by the ICC: the International Cricket Council, the international governing body of cricket, to oversee the match and to ensure that the game is being played in the right spirit and within the defined Code Of Conduct of cricket.

Now, this blog post has been triggered by the 'Man Of The Match' decision that was made for the one-day match between India and England on the 23rd of November 2008. The game was shortened to 22 overs because of rain, so it literally turned into a 20-20 fixture. Now, the rules of the shorter versions of the game (the 50 over and the 20 over game) are infamous for being too batsmen friendly, because the understanding is that the batsmen create greater entertainment value. This was proven again by the ‘Man Of The Match’ decision as well.

India won this game and the ‘Man Of The Match’ award was given to an Indian batsman called Virender Sehwag. But the fact is, and this I am sure was visible to anyone who follows the game, the man who had the biggest impact on the game was an Indian bowler called Zaheer Khan. Zaheer bowled with great maturity and control during two critical stages of the game and mentored the other junior fast bowlers through the game. He was the difference between India and England; his bowling average for the game, compared to the other five bowlers who were used by India, contributed the 20-odd runs that England lost the game by.

I think it is about time that we changed another rule in cricket. Like in American Football, where the winning coach hands the ‘Game Ball’ to the player of his team who he thinks made the biggest contribution to the team’s win, I think the adjudication of the ‘Man Of The Match’ in cricket should be done by the winning captain. He is in the best position to make a decision of this nature. More importantly, I think this change would do two things: (1) the players and spectators will start respecting this award a little more, because right now everyone sees the post-match ceremony where the award is handed out as another marketing event for the sponsors, and (2) having to make this decision will help the captain in further establishing himself as the leader of the team.

If I were in the team, I would be more proud of this achievement if it was my captain’s decision rather than a match referee’s.

Wikipedia link on Cricket - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket