• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Cricket - NZ v AUS, 2nd Test. Hobart.

Status
Not open for further replies.

AngrySeahorse

Peter Sullivan (51)
Great win from NZ. Bracewell bowled very well but poor shot selections & a very bowler friendly pitch I think flatters his figures.

Warner was excellent, hopefully he'll be shedding that "20/20 player" label he's had to carry. Deserved MOTM getting that kind of score on that kind of pitch. I feel sorry for Lyon he did very well & looked quite down naturally afterwards but he shouldnt have even been put in that situation thanks to another Aus batting collapse.

Warner has earned another go. Hughes keeps making the same mistake - he needs to sort out his issues & afterwards should come back well. I have loved Ponting & Hussey but one of them will need to be dropped. Tough call. I wouldnt get rid of Haddin. Marsh to come in.

Not the result I wanted but how great is test cricket when its tight like that? Beats any other form of the game.
 

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Deserved MOTM getting that kind of score on that kind of pitch. I feel sorry for Lyon he did very well & looked quite down naturally afterwards but he shouldnt have even been put in that situation thanks to another Aus batting collapse..

Can't agree.

Bracewelll .9-60 match figures and six for in the second innings which won his team the match.
Warner - lovely ton to almost win his team the match.

Winning is everything, isn't it? I would argue that 9-60 > 1xx anyway. Reverse the situations, Shane Warne doing his spinning wizard to win the match there wouldn have been daylight beteween MOTM and everybody else & nothing else even discussed/mentioned at all anywhere, by anyone.

Decison stinks. I don't really care though, will take a victory! Actually, I'll just take some sport at the mo!
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Jeez wouldn't be a Kiwi victory without a few things to whinge about, wouldn't it? ;)

Meh, who cares about MoTM anyway? You won the match FFS, that is far more important. Especially considering the MoTM is now voted on by the Vodafone 'fans' most of whom are probably fucktard bogans who know nothing about cricket.

There is a case for Warner though, but it depends on your philosophy for MoTM. If you award it to the player who had the biggest impact on the match (regardless of result), then you would say Warner as he scored almost double that of the next best batsman. Bracewell did well for nine wickets, but Pattinson had eight and Siddle had six, so he wasn't exactly streets ahead. I liken this to giving the MoTM to Dusatoir in the RWC final.

But if you see MoTM as the player who did the most to influence the end result then you could say Bracewell as he stepped up when the pressure was on to grab the game for NZ.

Both are valid viewpoints, and both would be deserving winners. I would probably say Bracewell, but by a nose. So why the outrage it went the other way?
 

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
Was just about to say the same thing Barbar,

In a game that was dominated by the ball, both Bracewesll and Pattnson getting 5fors, for a bloke to score 123 and the next closes was 56 is a massive effort.
 

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Take a breath barbarian - no outrage from me, just an opposing point of view.

Surely when 2 people had such an impact on the game, you'd expect it to go to the candidate on the winning side wouldn't you? If Aussie had won, it would have been a no brainer for Warner, right? Or would it still have been extremely close?
 

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
I never liked the idea that the MOM has to come from the winning side it should be just that the "Man of the Match" not the YWBPWT "you where the best player in a winning team".

Not to say Bracewell fits in that category but I think Warner was a deserved winner.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Take a breath barbarian - no outrage from me, just an opposing point of view.

Surely when 2 people had such an impact on the game, you'd expect it to go to the candidate on the winning side wouldn't you? If Aussie had won, it would have been a no brainer for Warner, right? Or would it still have been extremely close?

I'm breathing, I'm breathing!!! Just...

No problem with an opposing point of view, I just don't think the decision was quite as stinky as you suggested. As for the hypotheticals, they are just that. I'd would have gone with Warner yes, for the same reason I went for Bracewell by a nose now. But it still would have been by a nose as both put in enormous efforts under pressure.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
As opposed to an internet forum poster who may think he knows everythig about cricket?

Was the quoted statement really called for?

???

It was just a throwaway line, who gives a rats? Judging by the way they vote on the polls they put up every hour I believe I have every right to question their intelligence. They are always hugely biased towards Australia despite little justification for this perspective.
 

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
I'm breathing, I'm breathing!!! Just...

No problem with an opposing point of view, I just don't think the decision was quite as stinky as you suggested. As for the hypotheticals, they are just that. I'd would have gone with Warner yes, for the same reason I went for Bracewell by a nose now. But it still would have been by a nose as both put in enormous efforts under pressure.

Ok, it doesn't stink. It's not like Warner stunk, his innings was superb.

I can't prove it but I think he won because he's Australian. And if it's voted for by fans in Aus.. well then that's hardly surprising. That is what I think stinks.

Anyway... gotta cheer TFU! We won for goodness sakes.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I can't prove it but I think he won because he's Australian. And if it's voted for by fans in Aus.. well then that's hardly surprising. That is what I think stinks.

No MR, you can't. And I want the proof! Phone records, voting information broken down by location and demographic. You can't just throw around these OUTRAGEOUS allegations on a site that prides itself on level-headed, evidence-based analysis and discussion!

How dare you suggest the Vodafone Fans would be anything less than 100% unbiased and honourable when they texted in their verdict...

;)
 

spectator

Bob Davidson (42)
Outstanding innings from Warner but even his heroics could not stop NZ winning their first test in Australia in what...twenty years? And Bracewell was the guy who was mainly responsible for delivery of the result. Bracewell definitely deserved to be MOTM.
 

mark_s

Chilla Wilson (44)
Bracewell would have gotten my MOM vote. The C9 system this year is crazy, it will be a popularity contest each time - Kim Kardashian would have been MoM if she was an option.

Well done to NZ, after quite a few near misses you finally got another victory on Aus soil. I was watching the highlights of the 1987 test that C9 had on yesterday during the rain delay and I commented to my wife how significant that test was (and Whitney's survival of the last over) because it marked the end of the lean years for Aus cricket in the mid 80s. Significant changes are required for the current Aus lean run to end in the near future but I will save my thoughts on Aus for another thread.
 

AngrySeahorse

Peter Sullivan (51)
Can't agree.

Bracewelll .9-60 match figures and six for in the second innings which won his team the match.
Warner - lovely ton to almost win his team the match.

Winning is everything, isn't it? I would argue that 9-60 > 1xx anyway. Reverse the situations, Shane Warne doing his spinning wizard to win the match there wouldn have been daylight beteween MOTM and everybody else & nothing else even discussed/mentioned at all anywhere, by anyone.

Decison stinks. I don't really care though, will take a victory! Actually, I'll just take some sport at the mo!

Fair enough thats your opinion & you're entitled to it by all means. Warner gets 123 on a bowler friendly pitch & Bracewell gets a heap on wickets on a bowler friendly pitch. Warner FTW for mine when I compare situations. If Bracewell had of got those wickets on a batter friendly pitch then he would be MOTM for mine by some margin.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Test cricket is the best, by a far distance! Congrats to the Black Caps, may i dare say a historical win. Interesting series now for the Proteas in NZ and hopefull the same excitement.

Barbs just to let you ease Boet, your hockey lot was awesome, like per usual.
 

spectator

Bob Davidson (42)
I read today that Warner got 58% of the MOTM votes and Bracewell got 27%. Who the hell got the other 15%?

Ridiculous way to determine the Man of the Match if you ask me.

To add to previous comments, IMO the Man of the match is the player who has the most influence on the outcome. Warner very nearly did...Bracewell actually did.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
7% of the vote was for Warney
4% of the vote was for Krystal from Zoo Magazine
3% of the votes were MMS pictures of penises
1% of the votes were actually from Warney, and just read 'wanna root?'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top