View Full Version : Man of the Series...
NICK THE PIE MAN
6 Jan 2001, 15:08
Who would you guys nominate as the man of the series?
I would pick Steve Waugh. There has only been four centuries during the series. Brina Lara and Mark Waugh each scored one. And Steve getting two centuries.
If i had to pick a bowler...it would be very tough! Bowling scalps have been shared through the series. Umm probably Jason Gillespie.
Does anybody know who has taken the most wickets this series?
------------------
"Collingwood forever"
Man of the seies.
STEVE WAUGH.
Runner up
JASON GILLESPIE.
McGrath,Gillespie and Miller have all take between 15-20 wickets.
Best West Indies player.
RIDLEY JACOBS or MARLON SAMUELS.
------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure"
gocatsgo
6 Jan 2001, 16:43
It's a tough one isn't it.
Steve Waugh would get my nod though, Mark Waugh has been consistent throughout and the bowlers are too difficult to seperate, Gillespie has been the most consitent however.
A special mention should also go to Adam Gilchrist, 3 or 4 half centuries batting at 7. He has got Australia out of a lot of trouble in at least 3 of the 5 tests.
gocatsgo
7 Jan 2001, 10:19
Since when have 2 tests made a series of 5.
Is there a written law that says, McGrath has to get man of the series if he takes one 10for every five matches?
Steve Waugh was ROBBED
Gocatsgo
I agree.Gillespie and Miller got 1 less wicket than 'Sooky'McGrath and played 1 and 2 less tests.
McGrath got 1 wicket in 2 tests.
Steve Waugh was more consistent.
At least they didn't do something stupid like giving it to Brian Lara.
------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure"
NICK THE PIE MAN
7 Jan 2001, 10:55
I can't understand how McGrath could get it. Don't get me wrong, he is a awesome bowler. But it was unfair to single out one particular bowler when the bowling scalps were shared. Quite unfair to Gillespie and Miller who bowled just as good. I still think Steve Waugh should of got it.
------------------
"Collingwood forever"
Steve Waugh should have got it even if he didn't get a run. His captaincy and control of his team was outstanding. If he plays for two or so more years (until he's 37,38) he will go down as one of this country's best ever leaders.
Mcgrath would have been dissappointed with the bulk of his series.
I think it was a real tough decision because no one stood out consistently for the 5 tests. Steve Waugh's centuries, while superb efforts, it could be argued that they were achieved when the series was decided. The bulk of the series was over and decided by the time he started performing, captaincy notwithstanding.
Mark Waugh got a hundred and a 60 at crucial times, but didn't do much else, however his catching at slip was to his usual high standard.
Gillespie missed the first test, got 4 wickets in the second, 5 top order wickets at Adelaide and 9 at the MCG. 3 very good tests for him in the series.
McGrath got the majority of his 21 wickets for the series in the first two tests, and while he bowled tightly for last three matches, I don't believe he did enough to get man of the series.
Gilchrist is interesting. He scored 50 plus crucial runs in Brisbane and Sydney (innings which turned the game), while he also contributed quick runs in Perth and Melbourne. This is in addition to his fine work behind the stumps. He only really missed out at Adelaide where he captained the team to victory. Quite consistent I'd say, almost consistent enough to be ajudged man of the series.
In conclusion, any number of players could have won it but I think it may have been a case where the ajudicators looked purely at the statistics (21 wickets at 17) and made a decision from there. Otherwise Gilchrist, S. Waugh or Gillespie would have been worthy winners.
GoEagles
8 Jan 2001, 07:13
ant - I think the fact that McGrath got a hat-trick in the 2nd test looked fairly attractive along with his statistics when they were deciding the award.
Its coz he brang up 300 wickets too!