Tendulkar poised to be Man of the Tournament

[St-KriS]

Sachin Tendulkar will claim an unassailable lead in the Man of the Tournament standings if he claims a fourth Man of the Match award in the semi-final against Kenya on Thursday.

With only three matches of the tournament remaining, the India batsman, who is also the leading runs scorer in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2003, is four points clear of Sri Lanka duo Marvan Atapattu and Chaminda Vaas.

Tendulkar’s 12 points have all been due to his prolific form with the bat. He has picked up three Man of the Match awards, and therefore nine points, for top-scoring with 81 against Zimbabwe, 152 against Namibia and 98 against Pakistan. He accumulated a further two points for top-scoring with 97 against Sri Lanka and one for his half century against Holland.

During the ICC CWC 2003, the India opener has already overtaken Javed Miandad to hold the highest aggregate of ICC CWC runs and has become one of two players along with Mark Waugh to have accumulated four ICC CWC centuries.

Aside from Atapattu and Vaas, the only other players that can catch Tendulkar are India captain Sourav Ganguly and Sri Lanka captain Sanath Jayasuriya who have seven and six points respectively.

The leading Kenyan in the rankings is all-rounder Thomas Odoyo with five points. He shares ninth place in the standings with the top Australians Andy Bichel, Brett Lee and Ricky Ponting.

Lee, who has been placed second twice and third once, is the highest player in the standings not to have been named Man of the Match in the tournament to date.

The Man of the Tournament is based on the cumulative Man of the Match results awarded by the ICC Match Referee.

After every game the ICC Match Referee selects the top three players. As well as being presented with a gold watch worth R12000, the Man of the Match also receives three points towards the Man of the Tournament award.

The second best player on the day receives two points and the third best gets one point.

The Man of the Tournament will be presented by West Indies all-rounder Sir Garfield Sobers at the end of the final.

Man of the Tournament standings:


Sachin Tendulkar (Ind) 12
Marvan Atapattu (SL) 8
Chaminda Vaas (SL) 8
Sourav Ganguly (Ind) 7
Wasim Akram (Pak) 6
James Anderson (Eng) 6
John Davison (Can) 6
Sanath Jayasuriya (SL) 6
Andy Bichel (Aus) 5
Andy Blignaut (Zim) 5
Vasbert Drakes (WI) 5
Herschelle Gibbs (SA) 5
Lance Klusener (SA) 5
Brett Lee (Aus) 5
Thomas Odoyo (Ken) 5
Ricky Ponting (Aus) 5
Heath Streak (Zim) 5

http://cricketworldcup.com/media/med109.htm

Just on this...I'd perfer to see a MVP type thing where a few people just decide who's been the best all tournament instead of this brownlow system.

[Darky]

Originally posted by St-KriS

Man of the Tournament standings:


Sachin Tendulkar (Ind) 12
Marvan Atapattu (SL) 8
Chaminda Vaas (SL) 8
Sourav Ganguly (Ind) 7
Wasim Akram (Pak) 6
James Anderson (Eng) 6
John Davison (Can) 6
Sanath Jayasuriya (SL) 6
Andy Bichel (Aus) 5
Andy Blignaut (Zim) 5
Vasbert Drakes (WI) 5
Herschelle Gibbs (SA) 5
Lance Klusener (SA) 5
Brett Lee (Aus) 5
Thomas Odoyo (Ken) 5
Ricky Ponting (Aus) 5
Heath Streak (Zim) 5

http://cricketworldcup.com/media/med109.htm

Just on this...I'd perfer to see a MVP type thing where a few people just decide who's been the best all tournament instead of this brownlow system.

But wouldn't you say the above list is a reasonably accurate summation of how players have fared?

Tendulkar has been by far the best player of the series, in a series dominated by big batting performances by the established teams.

[St-KriS]

Yes I agree that Tendulkar is easily the man of the tournament, but we've seen on many occasions with the brownlow that the year's best player, doesnt necessarly win it.

[Darky]

Originally posted by St-KriS
Yes I agree that Tendulkar is easily the man of the tournament, but we've seen on many occasions with the brownlow that the year's best player, doesnt necessarly win it.

I think the system's limitations in football aren't necessarily the same in cricket.

For starters, there are only 11 per side instead of 22, which means that there are less players likely to have very good games, and therefore get votes. Quite often in footy, you'll have a game where BOG might be pretty clear but any of 8 players can make up the remaining votes. Not as likely in an 11 per side game.

Also, it's not too often that "man of the match" awards go to the wrong bloke. In a one-day game they are usually not too hard to pick. A lot more likely to be a disputed call in the Brownlow though!

Maybe cricket's judges are just better than AFL umpires at giving votes. I just think that less players, there is less margin for error, and because the contest itself is concentrated in an area of about 20 metres x 5 metres (instead of 170 x140), there is not going to be as much subjective judgement. Everyone sees basically the same thing, and the same amount of the game.

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by Darky
I think the system's limitations in football aren't necessarily the same in cricket.

For starters, there are only 11 per side instead of 22, which means that there are less players likely to have very good games, and therefore get votes. Quite often in footy, you'll have a game where BOG might be pretty clear but any of 8 players can make up the remaining votes. Not as likely in an 11 per side game.

Also, it's not too often that "man of the match" awards go to the wrong bloke. In a one-day game they are usually not too hard to pick. A lot more likely to be a disputed call in the Brownlow though!

Maybe cricket's judges are just better than AFL umpires at giving votes. I just think that less players, there is less margin for error, and because the contest itself is concentrated in an area of about 20 metres x 5 metres (instead of 170 x140), there is not going to be as much subjective judgement. Everyone sees basically the same thing, and the same amount of the game.

Agree wholeheartedly, Darky ... and cricket seems a lot more quantifiable.

100 runs will just about always beat 75 runs, and 5 wickets will beat 3.

The only dilemma is whether a century is better than 5 wickets with the ball, especially if they're both on the winning team.

As for Tendulkar, he's been brilliant to watch ... and he generally scores at around a run a ball.

[harry_hawka]

As long as Russell Tiffin doesn't judge it, I'm sure cricket umpires/ officials are better voters than AFL umpires!