Bangladeshi Match Winner Player(s) - myth or reality?

[Ashfaq]

Originally Posted by Fazal

But then again you explained who is a match winner in our POV. See three lies the problem, your definition is too vague and subjest to interpretation and will be different based on individual. And there where we get statements from fans that "he is our true match winner and he is not". It cannot be backup by stat, and there lies the problem.

NO, my idea is that stats cannot prove who is a match winner. Stats will show a 14 ball 27. It's importance is moot in terms of stats, unless you weigh the runs with SR, but then again some times slowpokes innings are as important. So I'd say measuring a match winning capability should not be a criteria of selection or judgement.

It's rather like Ash's eid innings dillemma.

I'd rather wash my hands off all that 'Atlami'. If we have players that can consistantly perform upto international level,(i.e. avaraging in atleast thirties with reguler fifties and occassional big innings), then automatically one of them will step up. Just look at south africa. They have players that play methodically, and should the time ask for it, they are capable of going berserk.

IMO, focussing on matchwinners is futile and fool's business.Build up a team first.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by cricman
Fazal Using Your Criteria of (PMOMR)

Murali, Andy Flower, Kapil Dev are Either Equal or Worth Less than Ash

Lara < Shahriar Nafees

Numbers can be skewed to favor anyones argument

Not necccerily. PMOMR is not for comparing between two players of two different teams. Actually its more for compaing players within same team. But a low PMOMR is also not necessarily means he is a bad player or less contributer in the team. His Average gives more info about that. For example In a very good team with really good players, a player may not get that many MOM.

PMOMR is not complete or perfect for judging a players 'match winning' capability, but atleast its backed up by stat and its measuarable, not based on vague criteria that some fans use to think that their superstar is a 'match winner;.

[Murad]

Both Mash and Ash won 10 MoM each.

Ash's Stat
Mash's Stat

Don't know how Fazal got only 6 for Ashraful.

[cricman]

Originally Posted by muradnyc
Don't know how Fazal got only 6 for Ashraful.

ODI's

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by muradnyc
Both Mash and Ash won 10 MoM each.

Ash's Stat
Mash's Stat

Don't know how Fazal got only 6 for Ashraful.

Muradnyc,

You mixed up all TEST, ODI, T20 MOm all together. I was breaking up by TEST and then planning to break up by ODI in my initial commants. Gopal Da was providing the ODI stat. Thats where that 6 MOM for Ash came up.

[Murad]

Originally Posted by cricman
ODI's

Originally Posted by Fazal
Muradnyc,

You mixed up all TEST, ODI, T20 MOm all together. I was breaking up by TEST and then planning to break up by ODI in my initial commants. Gopal Da was providing the ODI stat. Thats where that 6 MOM for Ash came up.

Thanks.
Now that make sense

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Siraji
NO, my idea is that stats cannot prove who is a match winner. Stats will show a 14 ball 27. It's importance is moot in terms of stats, unless you weigh the runs with SR, but then again some times slowpokes innings are as important. So I'd say measuring a match winning capability should not be a criteria of selection or judgement.

I agree that stats cannot prove who is a match winner. However, when a MOm is awarded, its awarded based on everything that the judge see on the game. not only the score card. if you don't believe the concept of 'match maker' I salute you.

But I don;t agree with people who says stat cannot judge a match winnerand then in the next thread say that he or she is a match winner without showing any measurable criteria.

Originally Posted by Siraji
IMO, focussing on matchwinners is futile and fool's business.Build up a team first.

I also don't believe in match winner. thats why I opened this thread. I wanted to make sure no body should get a free ride in the team in the name of "match winner" as we don't have any in out TEST team .

[Ashfaq]

Originally Posted by Fazal
I agree that stats cannot prove who is a match winner. However, when a MOm is awarded, its awarded based on everything that the judge see on the game. not only the score card. if you don't believe the concept of 'match maker' I salute you.

But I don;t agree with people who says stat cannot judge a match winnerand then in the next thread say that he or she is a match winner without showing any measurable criteria.




I also don't believe in match winner. thats why I opened this thread.

For BD, where NO player ever carried his good form for more than a series or at best 3~5 matches, MOM awards of one match can not affect the next matc.

I know who you're talking about. Yeah, that's a good escape clause in their rulebook.
Players deserve their due credit for great performance(like Ash's 100, 87,158*) butif we allow them to consider one great innings to be a promised free rides for the next year, naturally they won't perform. This is one mentality that no one is prepared to shed, lest their little escape clause is busted. But what massege does this take to the players, or the young ones?

No wonder Chappel called us spineless.

[Rifat]

there is no match winner: it is Allah's Rahmah! if you do not believe me, it doesn't hurt me one bit

[Imteaz]

Match Winner means whose single performance sometimes helps to win a match. It is a virtual word.
Example: Brian Lara was a Match Winner. Because he played some innings where WI might lose but for that particular innings, WI won the match. Like: In 1998/99 Australia’s tour of WI Brian Lara played 2 innings of 217 & 153 in 2^nd & 3^rd Test and WI made the series drawn. Therefore, we can call Brian Lara as a Match Winner because his two innings helped WI to win two tests. Nevertheless, it does not mean WI will win every match when Lara is playing.

The concept Match Winner is a complete virtual thing like Sex Appeal/Honesty etc. You cannot define a player Match Winner by statistics. Like in ODI Sachin Tendulkar got maximum times the award “Man of the Match” (58 times). But lots of people says that Tendulkar is a good batter but not a Match Winner. Sometimes one single performance boosts up the team members morality that help players to play well. The most significant example is Ashraful 87 (83) against South Africa in 2007 ODI WC. It just helped our player’s morality to boost up and they played good cricket. There were other reasons like the weakness of SA batters against spin.

In case of Bangladesh Ashraful’s innings (The example I given), Mashrafe’s Bowling, Like 4/38 against India in 2007 ODI WC helped Bangladeshi players to be spirited and play better cricket. So, we have some match winners.

Finally, cricket is a team game. Every time a team wins, is a combination of team effort. If we try to find who is our match winner it will be wrong. Up to now we won matches for Ashraful, Mashrafe, Shakib or whoever else made them our Match Winner but cannot ever ensure they will help to win every matches. Just like WI had Brian Lara, A complete Match Winner but they couldn’t win a WC.

Match Winner is a Virtual thing; It cannot be defined with statistics.

[PoorFan]

Match Winner : The player who contributed MOST in a winning match ... should be as simple as that.

And Ash did contributed MOST in few of our winning matches ( ZIM, AUS, SA, WI ), unlike anyone rest yet to conted. So why its so hard to accept if anyone wish to call him a match winner for BD? Unless the argument is ... is it fair to call him so, since we have very few wins compare to international standard, or Ash played too many matches compare to rest of the morons. Then again none can guaranty that the rest of morons will provide as much as Ash did [playing same amount of matches or more].

So the bottom line is, in BD standard and at this moment Ashrafoolers have right to enjoy the tag 'Match Winner', and feel good. And for the rest, better not waste energy and time on this meaningless [worthless] argument since its matter next to none to at the level of world cricket.

Originally Posted by Siraji
I know who you're talking about. Yeah, that's a good escape clause in their rulebook.
Players deserve their due credit for great performance(like Ash's 100, 87,158*) butif we allow them to consider one great innings to be a promised free rides for the next year, naturally they won't perform. This is one mentality that no one is prepared to shed, lest their little escape clause is busted. But what massege does this take to the players, or the young ones?

No wonder Chappel called us spineless.

Well said.

[tiger_club]

why not open another thread about match loser?

[PoorFan]

He will hit the top there too.

Originally Posted by tiger_club
why not open another thread about match loser?

[Akib]

No point really look at match winners in tests, since we've only won once....

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Akib
No point really look at match winners in tests, since we've only won once....

So in other words, you agree with me that in TEST we still don't have any match winner yet.

[Baundule]

I did not read the Ashraful appreciation thread; but IMO, a sane Ashraful is the first choice to win a match for us. Sakib and Mashrafe have the ability in some extent. Sometimes I wonder what a batsman he could be, only if he had some common sense.

Now a days, some people would tag Tamim also a match-winner. I never found anyone in BC demanding to axe him from the team, though most often he wastes his ability.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
Match Winner : The player who contributed MOST in a winning match ... should be as simple as that.

And Ash did contributed MOST in few of our winning matches ( ZIM, AUS, SA, WI ), unlike anyone rest yet to conted. So why its so hard to accept if anyone wish to call him a match winner for BD? Unless the argument is ...

Well said.

So far we placed the TEST data and making our conclusion .

Based on your own criteria, we had one one win in TEST and the MOM ion that match was Enamul Jr. So I guess You would agree with me that We in TEST matches, we don't have any Match winner yet. If nay is front runner, its have to be Enamul Jr. not Ashraful, Mashrefee or even Shakib at this point.

I haven't put forward detailed data of ODI yet and I didn't made any comment about who are our Mtach winners in ODI (if any) yet.

So your comment "And Ash did contributed MOST in few of our winning matches ( ZIM, AUS, SA, WI ), unlike anyone rest yet to conted. So why its so hard to accept if anyone wish to call him a match winner for BD?" in this thread is premature in my opinion. Lets put the ODI data first and start analysing that and build our opinion.

May be in ODI, we may have one or multiple candidates, who knows? May be in ODI we will see Ash is the front runner may be someone esle. What's so rush, prematurely saying that Ash is the only match winner that we have?

[Akib]

Originally Posted by Fazal
So in other words, you agree with me that in TEST we still don't have any match winner yet.

Of course not. We've won only one test. Not enough data.


Really, we can only look at ODIs.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Warfaze

The concept Match Winner is a complete virtual thing like Sex Appeal/Honesty etc. You cannot define a player Match Winner by statistics.

Sex Appeal? I like that comparison. When people fall in love, they see no evil in the preson they fall love with. thats what is happening when fans start using this term so vaguely.

Originally Posted by Warfaze
The most significant example is Ashraful 87 (83) against South Africa in 2007 ODI WC. It just helped our player’s morality to boost up and they played good cricket. There were other reasons like the weakness of SA batters against spin.

yes they can do the moral boosting even that player doesn;t get the MOM. If it can be done by any hard working players also, and the contribution doesn;t need to be batting or bowling, it can be a particular catch, or effort in fielding also, it can be a talent wise handicapped player giving his 110%, or a genuine bowler scoring signgke digit but hold the other end as night watchman batsman and help the team to recover its batting collapse.

Originally Posted by Warfaze
Match Winner is a Virtual thing; It cannot be defined with statistics

I guess in other word you are saying its a bhua thing used by fans to pretect their under achieving suoperstart by just saying he or she is a match winner as its virtual thing, they don't have to back up any stat.



btw when some one is judged a MOM, usually they consider not only score card, but also their evaluation how that player contributed other aspect of the game (not captured in scorecard) , and the importance of his contribution to team's need, and how it effected the result.

[revolver]

Originally Posted by cricman
Khaled Mashud and Mashrafe as Well

wow u got some nice avater lol

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Akib
Of course not. We've won only one test. Not enough data.

There is enough data. But not enough contributer. we played 58 TEST Matches. I wounn't consider that not enough sample size.

Its enough in my opinion to make a judgement that we don;t have any match winner in TEST cricket yet.

[Akib]

Originally Posted by Fazal
There is enough data. But not enough contributer. we played 58 TEST Matches. I wounn't consider that not enough sample size.

Its enough in my opinion to make a judgement that we don;t have any match winner in TEST cricket yet.

We have only one test where we WON. No point looking at matches we did not win to find a match WINNER.

I do agree with the last point. We havn't won enough for a potential match winner to arise.

[yaseer]

Match Winner: The player who can win a match.

In Cricket, a significant bowling spell, a significant innings from a bowler or batsman can win you a match. The player with the potential of delivering that is a match winner.

In Australian team you can lebel almost all...Ponting, Clark, Symonds a match winner as they can play such innings to win you a match. Tendulkar, Yuvraj, Gayle, Smith and many others are example of that.

Match winner can't be defined only with Satistics and counting the MoM performances. Yes, these can give you an idea but can't describe everything. As statistics of a match winner can be poor if he is not consistently sroring runs. But not being able to do that consistently does not make you not being a match winner.

[wiseshah]

great job fazal .

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by yaseer
Match winner can't be defined only with Satistics and counting the MoM performances. Yes, these can give you an idea but can't describe everything. As statistics of a match winner can be poor if he is not consistently sroring runs. But not being able to do that consistently does not make you not being a match winner.

Agree. MOM doesn;t give the whole picture. Thats you also need to see his average to complement with MOM for batsman to evaluate.

Regarding "Match winner can't be defined only with Satistics", I agree its better than nothing. Its batter than fans claimimg he is our next tendulker and she is our next Imran Khan, and he is our ONLY match winner tag without any concrete evidence to back up.

And As I said in my last comment, MOM may be incomplete way to judge a Match Winner, but its not true that MOM is only decided purely based on score card. Judges consider other aspect of the player's contribution and effect on game also. Thats why not always the higest scorer get the MOM award.