New Zealand in Australia 2011-12 December 14, 2011

Cricket Australia backs down on Man of the Match

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 118

Doug Bracewell's snubbing as Man of the Match in Hobart has forced Cricket Australia to back down on its controversial viewer-voting system. The decision on who should be the Man of the Match will revert to an expert panel after David Warner was given the award for his century at Bellerive Oval, despite Bracewell's match-winning fourth-day spell.

Cricket Australia used the New Zealand series to trial a system in which the public could vote for the official Man of the Match using a mobile phone application. James Pattinson's win in Brisbane was not contentious, but the overwhelming support for Warner - he polled 58% in Hobart to Bracewell's 27% - left the New Zealanders rightly affronted.

"We were always running a bit of a trial for these two Tests with those Man of the Match awards but we will definitely revert back to an expert's choice for that decision about man of the match," Sutherland said on the Melbourne radio station 3AW. However, he was keen to see the continuation of the viewer's choice application, which he called "ahead of its time", in other ways

Bracewell finished with match figures of 9 for 60 and clearly altered the course of the match on the fourth day, when he collected three wickets in nine balls to demolish Australia's middle order and set New Zealand on the path to their first Test win in Australia in 26 years. The New Zealand assistant coach, Trent Woodhill, said the decision was obviously wrong.

"It's embarrassing. David Warner had a fantastic innings. He batted all the way through the innings," Woodhill told Radio Sport. "Doug Bracewell was the player of that match. He took nine wickets for 60, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have won the match. To me that's who the player of the match should be."

It was not surprising that the public-voting system was controversial - there was always the risk that Australian fans would vote overwhelmingly for Australian players regardless of the result of the game. The traditional method of selecting the Man of the Match, via expert opinion, will resume for the upcoming Test series against India.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY on | December 16, 2011, 9:59 GMT

    We have had a similar system in new zealand in recently. however it is not voted untill after the game. I saw sri lanker players winning motm voted by new zealanders

  • POSTED BY timmyw on | December 16, 2011, 0:20 GMT

    @Neil Rankin - They didn't score those 8 runs though did they? Because Doug Bracewell won the match for New Zealand. Which is the whole point of this article and all the outrage.

  • POSTED BY gracegift on | December 15, 2011, 9:45 GMT

    Does it really matter!!! Such a good Test match, unnecessary controversy.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 7:18 GMT

    Call it biased if you like, but had Australia scored 8 more runs, then no one word be saying a word......

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 6:51 GMT

    indeed Warner cntury was rmarkble one cz it was bcz of his innings Kangaroos remained in d hunt of d target till d end..bt tht shldnt take credit away frm Bracewell's mtch turning spell..Warner's inn was nt game chngng..aussies wre gng nicely till 150..bt it was Bracewel who swung d momentum in Kiwi's fvour..even when 10th wkt partnrshp ws takng d game away 4m nzealandrs he was d bwler who uprooted d last man...

    CA did one of d cheapest posble thngs to dfame d award dcidng...it z obvious fact dt home crowd wil vote for their countrymen..

  • POSTED BY Itchy on | December 15, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    Don't know why this approach was ever considered - always likely to get the wrong person picked. Warner was the batsman of the match but Bracewell should always have been the Man of the Match.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 4:31 GMT

    I'm an Aussie who was dumbfounded that Bracewell didn't win MotM. Thanks for explaining the unreported mystery of why this inequity happened. If Australia won, Warner wins MotM - when NZ won, Bracewell was the Man who got the job done. I'm one of Dave Warner's biggest fans - even before he played for Australia, we'd go to the SCG merely to see Dave Warner bat for NSW, leaving the SCG when he got out. We saw some genius batting in those good old days. My fave cricket players of all time are: 1. Warner 2. Bradman 3. Sobers - but Bracewell was definitely Man of that amazing Match.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 4:15 GMT

    To be honest I think that it should have been a joint man of the match. bracewell was magnificent and so was warner. watching it at home in sydney was just amazing those last few hours. an incredible test match.

    I was hoping for a tied test. but alas new zealand got those wickets and congratulations to them.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 3:34 GMT

    LOL, "ahead of its time" indeed. What's next, Mr. Sutherland? DRS replaced by a public voting system to decide if the ball pitched outside leg stump? Then maybe, a public poll to decide bowling changes, field settings, and batting order for the home team? Just so that you know, "ahead of its time" doesn't mean "I can make money out of this thing."

  • POSTED BY timmyw on | December 15, 2011, 2:40 GMT

    I think the system was retarded myself. I agree with some of the thoughts saying that MotM shouldn't even exist. But that's beside the point really, because it DOES exist. The reason I think so many people voted for Warner is because the stupid system they had in place was asking people to vote for the award before the match was over. I was watching it thinking oh god this is a recipe for disaster. Of course all the Australian voters are gonna vote for a guy who has almost won the match for Australia. The game came down to the wire really, and the voting should have taken place AFTER the game was finished. I like to think Doug Bracewell would have gotten it then. Really embarrassing he wasn't awarded the MotM, but asking viewers (or anyone) to vote for the award before the game ends? What bright spark thought that up? You can't blame the biased Australian public fully for this silliness as it was a stupid money spinner and the decision should have come after the game had ended.

  • POSTED BY on | December 16, 2011, 9:59 GMT

    We have had a similar system in new zealand in recently. however it is not voted untill after the game. I saw sri lanker players winning motm voted by new zealanders

  • POSTED BY timmyw on | December 16, 2011, 0:20 GMT

    @Neil Rankin - They didn't score those 8 runs though did they? Because Doug Bracewell won the match for New Zealand. Which is the whole point of this article and all the outrage.

  • POSTED BY gracegift on | December 15, 2011, 9:45 GMT

    Does it really matter!!! Such a good Test match, unnecessary controversy.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 7:18 GMT

    Call it biased if you like, but had Australia scored 8 more runs, then no one word be saying a word......

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 6:51 GMT

    indeed Warner cntury was rmarkble one cz it was bcz of his innings Kangaroos remained in d hunt of d target till d end..bt tht shldnt take credit away frm Bracewell's mtch turning spell..Warner's inn was nt game chngng..aussies wre gng nicely till 150..bt it was Bracewel who swung d momentum in Kiwi's fvour..even when 10th wkt partnrshp ws takng d game away 4m nzealandrs he was d bwler who uprooted d last man...

    CA did one of d cheapest posble thngs to dfame d award dcidng...it z obvious fact dt home crowd wil vote for their countrymen..

  • POSTED BY Itchy on | December 15, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    Don't know why this approach was ever considered - always likely to get the wrong person picked. Warner was the batsman of the match but Bracewell should always have been the Man of the Match.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 4:31 GMT

    I'm an Aussie who was dumbfounded that Bracewell didn't win MotM. Thanks for explaining the unreported mystery of why this inequity happened. If Australia won, Warner wins MotM - when NZ won, Bracewell was the Man who got the job done. I'm one of Dave Warner's biggest fans - even before he played for Australia, we'd go to the SCG merely to see Dave Warner bat for NSW, leaving the SCG when he got out. We saw some genius batting in those good old days. My fave cricket players of all time are: 1. Warner 2. Bradman 3. Sobers - but Bracewell was definitely Man of that amazing Match.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 4:15 GMT

    To be honest I think that it should have been a joint man of the match. bracewell was magnificent and so was warner. watching it at home in sydney was just amazing those last few hours. an incredible test match.

    I was hoping for a tied test. but alas new zealand got those wickets and congratulations to them.

  • POSTED BY on | December 15, 2011, 3:34 GMT

    LOL, "ahead of its time" indeed. What's next, Mr. Sutherland? DRS replaced by a public voting system to decide if the ball pitched outside leg stump? Then maybe, a public poll to decide bowling changes, field settings, and batting order for the home team? Just so that you know, "ahead of its time" doesn't mean "I can make money out of this thing."

  • POSTED BY timmyw on | December 15, 2011, 2:40 GMT

    I think the system was retarded myself. I agree with some of the thoughts saying that MotM shouldn't even exist. But that's beside the point really, because it DOES exist. The reason I think so many people voted for Warner is because the stupid system they had in place was asking people to vote for the award before the match was over. I was watching it thinking oh god this is a recipe for disaster. Of course all the Australian voters are gonna vote for a guy who has almost won the match for Australia. The game came down to the wire really, and the voting should have taken place AFTER the game was finished. I like to think Doug Bracewell would have gotten it then. Really embarrassing he wasn't awarded the MotM, but asking viewers (or anyone) to vote for the award before the game ends? What bright spark thought that up? You can't blame the biased Australian public fully for this silliness as it was a stupid money spinner and the decision should have come after the game had ended.

  • POSTED BY SL_kamal on | December 15, 2011, 1:49 GMT

    In some cases, even the decision of an expert panel would lead to similar controversy. But may not lead to such discussion cos it's the traditional way. I am not a supporter of either the viewer-voting system or AUS team. But in the context of the match and the pitch conditions, even though Bracewell won the match for NZ, MOM should go to Warner. Conditions helped bowlers. Bracewell took 9 wickets but don't forget Pattinson took 8 and Siddle took 6 as well. But talk about batsmen. Warner made 123* (almost the team totals in the first two innings of the match) in a match that no other batsman scored even half of it (highest was 56), that too in the fourth innings of the match. So I would still think MOM should go to Warner and this controversy is merely showcase for experts' dislike towards the experimented method.

  • POSTED BY CantFindMyScreenName on | December 15, 2011, 1:11 GMT

    The other main problem with it was viewers were asked to vote before the game was decided - at which point Australia could easily have won the game.

    This of course was done to fit in with TV requiring to name the MotM immediately at the close of play. But obviously in a game where it's going down to the wire can make the result ridiculous.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | December 14, 2011, 21:52 GMT

    I'm sure at the end of the day Warner would have preferred his inns to have won the match and not got the award and DB will be more pleased to have won the match than disappointed by not getting the MOM.

  • POSTED BY OhhhMattyMatty on | December 14, 2011, 20:25 GMT

    Do the right thing and publicly award Bracewell the MOTM and strip it from Warner.

  • POSTED BY Mitcher on | December 14, 2011, 19:07 GMT

    @fifthman: according to what definition? Where is this sacred guideline for MoM (a manufactured award anyway)? Is it under lock and key in a bank vault somewhere. So tired of these forums being a point scoring battle for ppl with a grudge against Australians/Indians/Englishman etc. Take your pick.

  • POSTED BY 2929paul on | December 14, 2011, 17:04 GMT

    MoM is only a made up award anyway. A few weeks down the line nobody can remember who won it and it doesn't go down in the records as a benchmark of how good you were. What CA had here was a money spinner for the sponsors, getting the viewers to vote via a specific app. There are countless opportunities for "in game" votes via text or app which are easy money for the sponsors or tv or board, most of which would not be allowed in the UK by the various regulators here but I'm sure they're probably used elsewhere already. CA were just using the opportunity to try out MoM voting to get Vodafone some money.

  • POSTED BY AlanHarrison on | December 14, 2011, 16:33 GMT

    Interesting range of theories advance in these comments as to what comrpises what Fifthman calls the "man of the match" concept. Some say it should be awarded to a stand-out performance (in which case Warner might get it), others that it should go to the individuals whose efforts went furthest to determine the result (in which case it would go to Bracewell). However, it seems idle to search in this way for some ideal definition of what comprises the man of the match. There are many examples in cricket of the award being given on both of these grounds and others, e.g., awards being given to the winning captain, an entire team (Pakistan v. England ODI, 1996), or the most entertaining, crowd-pleasing performance. On the latter grounds determining the man of the match award viewer votes could be defended, even if producing a biased result. A bigger question is do we need these awards at all: they are historically relatively new to test cricket, and cricket is after all a team game ...

  • POSTED BY Enots on | December 14, 2011, 16:13 GMT

    ...and we thought the BBCI was the only body to resort to cheap, shameless and selfish tactics. What more could anyone do to have the Aussies vote for someone else and of all a Kiwi who ran through them like a freight train lol... priceless memory this one.

  • POSTED BY Dhushan on | December 14, 2011, 14:58 GMT

    Just imagine if this happened in a match against India. Wonder what BCCI would do? Now just imagine BCCI doing the same thing. Tendulkar would be Man of the Match even when he doesn't play......

  • POSTED BY Fifthman on | December 14, 2011, 14:43 GMT

    It seems as if a lot of posters (mainly Aussies, it has to be said) are having difficulty with the 'Man of the Match' concept. It doesn't automatically go to the guy on your side who top scores or takes most wickeits, it goes to the guy who either DEFINED or CHANGED the COURSE of the MATCH. And that was Doug Bracewell. End of.

  • POSTED BY SomeCents on | December 14, 2011, 14:33 GMT

    Warner did NOT deserve MOM! Bracewell bowled NZ to victory! However, the process was doomed before it even started! Who do you expect the home public to vote for?????? You think CA were so daft not to be aware of this????? Now their expert panel might consist of Australian commentators!

  • POSTED BY WICric101 on | December 14, 2011, 14:04 GMT

    Oh come on ppl, Bracewall deserved MOM award he won the game for his team.Who takes 9 wkts in a match to win a thriller of a game and gets snubbed,some real biased system i'd say

  • POSTED BY Kiwi-Jake on | December 14, 2011, 13:11 GMT

    Too many Warner fans are looking at Bracewell's figures as just numbers, you need to put them in to context. He completely tore out Australia's backbone, clearing out Ponting, Clarke and Hussey of all people (and then the tail), when they were cruising to victory, it turned the game on it's head and he won it for NZ by himself when it looked like almost certain defeat. It's effectively the same as what we would be saying about Warner had Australia actually won the game. The MoM should've been decided on what team won, as it was an individual's performance who attributed to the result. An Australian public MoM vote is just a popularity vote, you need proper unbiased experts (not that darn patronizing Tony Grieg) doing the voting. Mark Richardson said today on his sports show, that in NZ (where they've done public man of match for some time), if the Sky TV commentators aren't happy with the public's MoM, they just secretly change it to the right person.

  • POSTED BY rhtdm302 on | December 14, 2011, 13:04 GMT

    Wont be surprised if this was Tony Grieg's idea in the first place!

  • POSTED BY the_wallster on | December 14, 2011, 12:40 GMT

    i think this has put the aussie public to shame. a fantastic opportunity for themselves, and potentially fans around the world to become even more involved in the game, and they ruin it through their nationalism and bias. we see this all the time on the BCCI's 'pulse', where any poll involving india or tendulkar, it's a whitewash, instead of being a good, sensible opportunity for us fans watching at home to be involved. such a shame.

  • POSTED BY PCNBLUEBULL on | December 14, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    Hi shame, I feel for the Australian public, because they can't desern between a winning performence and a losing innings. Yes David Warner had a good innings, but not a match winning innings. So Aussie fans can't have much between the ears.

  • POSTED BY trueindian on | December 14, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    Its the same trend again.... Fans voting out for their heroes. How many times it has happened. CA perhaps wanted to check whether they can gain some extra income from public-voting. Well, shut up and give cricket some space, Guys.

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | December 14, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    On a wicket where the next highest score was 56, and another bowler got 5 wickets, the MoM awards itself.

  • POSTED BY Dan9999 on | December 14, 2011, 11:25 GMT

    I think Warner deserved the MoM award. On what was clearly a bowling wicket, he more than doubled the next best score in the entire Test. Don't forget, James Pattinson took 8 wickets in the match for 105- not too far off Doug Bracewells. "It's embarrassing"? Really. Come on.

  • POSTED BY Aussie_in_SAF on | December 14, 2011, 10:49 GMT

    I believe the issue was the vote happened whilst the match was being played. In a very close match as this one was the Man of the Match should be heavily decided by who won hoever the voting was done beforehand. I think its fair to say had Australia won Warner should have been Man of the Match but not if New Zealand won then Bracewell should have been the Man of the Match. Perhaps in games like these they should only open up the voting when the result is known.

  • POSTED BY Brumby90 on | December 14, 2011, 10:28 GMT

    Wow, there are some real whinges in this room. As usual from the same countries. Bracewell was not at all MOTM. He was gifted wickets on a green top with the ball hooping around. All bowlers got wickets. Warner was by far the best performer with that innings on a very difficult wicket. Where a player is on the winning or losing side makes no difference.

  • POSTED BY wrongun77 on | December 14, 2011, 10:12 GMT

    sounds like this phone in voting system is just another money making gimmick, why would you even think of letting the public vote on the MoM ?

    next it'll be vote for if you think batsmen have snicked the ball, vote if you think player X should be in the squad ?

    ridiculous

  • POSTED BY BellCurve on | December 14, 2011, 9:51 GMT

    A simple zero sum analysis suggests that Warner is indeed MotM. He scores 129.57 points. 2nd is Bracewell with 85.15 and 3rd Pattinson with 60.95. The bottom three are Hussey (-31.27), Southee (-51.67) and Starc (-64.85). Although a zero sum analysis does not tell the entire story, it is seldom off by much. In this case Warner is clearly the deserved winner. But I agree to revert to populism to determine a winner is ludricous. Imagine such a simtym was followed for gymnastics at the Olympic games.

  • POSTED BY CliffM on | December 14, 2011, 9:34 GMT

    Who cares who the man of the match is? It is un utterly pointless award and is hopelessly subjective whoever chooses the recipient. No one remembers who wins it. For example: I watched the recent England v India series avidly. I went to one of the matches. I remember that England won 4-0. I have no idea who was man of the match in any of the games. Cricket is a team game. All members of both teams contribute to the best of their abilities (with the obvious exception of matches featured in recent court cases) and the best TEAM wins. This is a complete non-story. Surely Cricket Australia have more pressing things to worry about.

  • POSTED BY Swappy_Gaddar on | December 14, 2011, 9:19 GMT

    CA should consider which player contributed the most for his team to achieve a win and brace well did the same. even when Australia was hanging with the last wicket it was bracwell who claimed the last wicket and should have an edge over warner for MOM !!!

  • POSTED BY scritty on | December 14, 2011, 9:11 GMT

    Peoples choice will nearly always just go to their favourite home player. If that's what you want, then fine. It wasn't as clear cut who SHOULD have won it in this case. Waner batted on a bowler friendly pitch, Bracewell had that advantage. However, the fasct that the voting was more than 2-1 in favour of Warner is more worrying. It shows that a visiting side would have to dominate by an excessive amount to get any where near one of their players getting MOM. I don't understand why anyone thought this system would ever work. Home crowds all over the world are very partisan, it's sport after all.

  • POSTED BY cricnext on | December 14, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    I WANT THE PUBLIC VOTING SYSTEM FOR INDIA SERIES!!!!!Lets see how an australian gets MOM award ......The voting must be made available online and free to send a message from the fone to vote...lets see!Australia or otherwise are not going to win......they can win only by cheating like last time.......Aussies are going to get thrashed like they wer wen they came to India......At the end of the series sachin will be on his 110th century.....ponting will be dropped

  • POSTED BY nicevans on | December 14, 2011, 8:53 GMT

    Of course it shouldve been Bracewell - a no brainer. Warners innings was good but Bracewell basically won the game for NZ. And to all those posters who talk about the pitch -how many of the vital wickets that he took in the 2nd innings were due to pitch conditions -very few if any. Just good length, swing, and variation did the aussies. The pitch was getting easier and more consistent, the aussie batsmen just werent up to it.

  • POSTED BY Naresh28 on | December 14, 2011, 8:49 GMT

    WHY NOT HAVE A JOINT MAN OF THE MATCH AWARD WHERE TWO PLAYERS PRODUCE GREAT PIECES THAT FINISH A TIGHT GAME. ALSO THERE IS A BIAS TO AWARD MOM AWARD TO A BATSMAN THAN A BOWLER.

  • POSTED BY tfjones1978 on | December 14, 2011, 8:42 GMT

    I think the voting system was silly, but lets face it, its a MoM award, not "vote whether X should be given out! YES Out, NO Not Out". The MoM award had no influence on the match other then to make one player feel good. However, lets look at the match, Warner got 138 runs (18.5% of runs in match), Bracewell got 9 wickets (22.5% of wickets in match) and Pattison got 8 wickets (20.0% of wickets in match). When you take into account that the 123* was scored on 4th day in 4th innings, it is hard to say that Warner shouldnt have been in the running. Personally I wouldnt like to be selecting it, but then again it made no influence on the match, its just a minor glamor thing. I recommend that selecting MoM should be chosen by the three umpires and Match Referee. After all they get paid to be independent, neutral & have a good understanding of the game!

  • POSTED BY RealCool on | December 14, 2011, 8:37 GMT

    CA should be brave and continue voting system for India series. You guys will see what will happen. None of Australian players going to get MOM award :)

  • POSTED BY Dhoni_fan_from_a_dada_era on | December 14, 2011, 8:33 GMT

    point is Bracewell won NZ the match, warner with all his heroics could not. That should settle the debate who really played the more important part in the game in deciding its fate.

  • POSTED BY daewoodev on | December 14, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    wondering what will happen if this is India vs Aus in India and BCCI does the same as CA

  • POSTED BY Y2SJ on | December 14, 2011, 8:11 GMT

    If viewers have a choice, Steve Waugh would still be captain. This is not some reality show for viewer's to vote. One of the most ridiculous things I have heard of.

  • POSTED BY spence1324 on | December 14, 2011, 7:39 GMT

    Allowing the Australian public to deiced the man of the match?, thats stupid! its like the ACB asking @jonesy02 who is the man of the series LOL......

  • POSTED BY Juna-id on | December 14, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    Being a Pakistani cricket fan from ages, i truly regard New Zealand as my second Cricket Nation, but under the current scenario/debate, i truly believe that the MOM award given to Warner is justified, as the MOM is awarded to the player who has truly contributed for the match rather than the player who has contributed to WIN the match. Bracewell had delivered a great bowling spell, but looking at the pitch, it was Warner's inning that was the real gem. So, i believe the award was well justified.

    As far as the NEW SYSTEM by CA is considered, it is good for the interest of audience, but it should be named as the People's award rather than the MOM.

  • POSTED BY nitinkg on | December 14, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    may be there should be 2 awards...one official MOM by experts and other people's choice award

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | December 14, 2011, 7:19 GMT

    If you want to know whether there was bias on the part of the Australian voting public on this award, just ask your self this question: if the roles had been reversed and a NZ batsmen had scored as Warner did on a losing side while an Australian bowler had performed as Bracewell did, who do you think would have won MoM. Does anyone, anywhere, think that the NZ batsman would win it then? I certainly don't. I'm not suggesting that there was any malice involved for the most part, although I wouldn't be surprised if RandyOz and jonesy2 cast more than their fair share of votes, but just that the voting public would make very little effort to be impartial, where at least commentators, etc, would try.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | December 14, 2011, 7:13 GMT

    There's a lot of argument about this MoM award but do we really have a proper definition of what the MoM is? I'm a basketball fan and basketball tends to award an MVP, as probably most American and American-influenced sports do. In that case, it is about what player produced the most valuable contribution. In this case, Bracewell clearly produced the most valuable contribution because NZ would not have won without it. Had Australia won then Warner's would clearly have been the most valuable. Whether their team wins or loses has a big influence on how valuable a player's contribution is. Does which team wins or loses affect the MoM? Of course it does. Many, many times it has done so. That says to me that it's about relative value as much as absolute performance and, as such, it should have gone to Bracewell. Even on an absolute basis, Bracewell got a higher percentage of his team's wickets than Warner did his team's runs overall and in the second innings, so he pips Warner there too.

  • POSTED BY G-Wyll on | December 14, 2011, 7:11 GMT

    Good to see this shambles is sorted now, you can never pick a MOM until the game's done. Doug Bracewell won it with 9 for 60, the match winning performance. A FAR superior haul than David Warners scratchy ton. While he batted well, it wasn't chanceless, and he lost the game for Australia when, with only 8 runs to get, he took a single and allowed his number 11 to face the rampant Bracewell. No matter what side you're on, that is dumb cricket. Plus, what did he get in the first innings again? Anyone think that if Simon Katich was there, Oz may have won? Pup's gotta get over his beef, Katich has staying power and winning experience. It will cost him test after test and ultimately the captaincy. Appreciation for any aussies out there that realise the MOM farce was just that - it was just a very poorly thought out attempt at audience interaction and shouldn't reflect on what was a thrilling game. Doug won't care one way or another, there's more where that came from...

  • POSTED BY StatsNerd67 on | December 14, 2011, 6:56 GMT

    From what I hear, the match was televised in India. Very surprised Sachin wasn't Man of the Match.

  • POSTED BY MiddleStump on | December 14, 2011, 6:52 GMT

    The MOM does NOT have to be always from the winning side, though in most cases it will be appropriate. Like Warner, there have been many performances in the past where the selection cannot be condemned simply because his side lost. Had Warner scored 131 the same people would have cheered his selection and Bracewell would have been unlucky even if he had taken 9 wickets. The MOM is an individual award. The onlly stupidity in this exercise is closing the voting a few minutes before the match ended. That is a basic flaw that will always work against bowlers. Suppose a team needs 10 or 12 runs to win with 4 or 5 wickets in hand 15 minutes before the end. What if a bowler gets 4 wickets including a hat trick in a single over and takes his side to a win? Such a performance would be effectively ignored by the current voting system that closes a few minutes before the end of the match.

  • POSTED BY bsin82 on | December 14, 2011, 6:50 GMT

    What stupid idea by the CA! If they have asked the whole world to chose MOM for the second Aus-NZ test, MOM could have been chosen as Sachin Tendulkar! That's how stupid it was.

  • POSTED BY satish619chandar on | December 14, 2011, 6:32 GMT

    @RandyOZ : Agree but the match swung because of Bracewell.. From a stage when Aussies were cruising, he took the game back to NZ.. Warner too deserved.. Had the experts given the authority to give away the Man of the match, they might well have shared it between both.. Both deserved it..

  • POSTED BY OttawaRocks on | December 14, 2011, 6:30 GMT

    Bipulkumar has the best comment of this feedback section - yes, Warner should have got the viewers choice award (and this is also considerate of the fact that most of the votes for Warner came well before Bracewell made his dramatic impact on the match) while MOM should be reserved for the expert panel to decide on. Great comment!

  • POSTED BY KD84 on | December 14, 2011, 6:14 GMT

    Why should Warner get it because it was a difficult batting wicket? Does that mean that on flat Indian wickets when a team makes 5/600 and someone make 200, that the bowler who takes 5 for 150 should get it? After all they took a 5fa in batting friendly conditions?

    But we all know it doesn't work like that, except if your Australian and one of your players has done well.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | December 14, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    @landl47 - it doesn't really matter who got the MOM all that much. The two players concerned proabably couldn't give a toss, but the fact that Warner was theoretically twice as good as the next batsmen in this match versus Bracewell who was at best about 10% better than Pattinson, this was hardly a case of Bracewell being ripped off!

  • POSTED BY Mitcher on | December 14, 2011, 6:10 GMT

    From the moment I saw this initiative I knew it would be a debacle at some point. That said, I don't think this particular incident is as outrageous as some are trying to suggest. The fact that had Australia won, not one person would have disputed the award is telling. I've never personally thought MOM should HAVE to be from the winning team. What if someone takes 20 wickets in a losing cause? For those trying to turn it into a free hit against Australia, this system would produce a farce in any country. Anyway glad it will go back to expert decision.

  • POSTED BY Situtata on | December 14, 2011, 6:09 GMT

    The man of the Match could have been shared by both Bracewell & Warner for their great performances

  • POSTED BY trepuR on | December 14, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    those saying that warner should have won on account of his success on a bowlers wicket have no argument, I am an Aussie but any viewer could see that the pitch had flattened out when Warner was batting. The onlly reason his score was such a huge percentage of Australia's total is Doug Bracewell and some terrrible shot selection.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 5:58 GMT

    @ Khachhhhh: If i am not wrong, the system is only open to the people who are living/present in australia during the test match. So it would be touch and go rather than 20 millions vs 1 billion:) Param

  • POSTED BY Crictotter on | December 14, 2011, 5:54 GMT

    The Man of the Match can be decided only after the match is over and as we all know its not over until the last ball is bowled in Cricket. In fact OZis are the biggest proponents of this catch phrase, with the never-say-die attitude that they've atleast displayed in the majority of the last decade. And now I find it difficult to believe that its OZi cricket which is advocating the decision of the MOM before the match is over. Cricketers definitely require muscle and a good brain but thats not the case for the authorities (this is a comment which holds good for most cricketing governing bodies I guess).....

  • POSTED BY jonesy2 on | December 14, 2011, 5:34 GMT

    who really cares. the whole viewers choice thing was the stupidest thing to do because as you can plainly see by reading the comments of my fellow posters, the majority of viewers have no idea what they are talking about

  • POSTED BY gkg1 on | December 14, 2011, 5:31 GMT

    I disagree..warner deserved the award..and as somebody mentioned the voting was done before the match got over...moreover, its been one of the best innings..for me MOM was Warner.

  • POSTED BY Muzgrob on | December 14, 2011, 5:20 GMT

    A bowler taking 9 wickets over a batsmen who doubled any other batsmens score for the entire match on a bowler friendly wicket? I know which performance I found more skillful and it certainly wasn't Bracewell. Bracewell was barely the most outstanding bowler only just beating Pattinson while Warner was far and away the best batsmen of the match and with the batting so much more difficult then the bowling I can't see how there is any doubt at all that Warner deserved it.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | December 14, 2011, 5:12 GMT

    Or they could just let neutral observers like me vote. Warner's innings was great, but Bracewell won the match. A pretty easy decision for anyobody who isn't Australian.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | December 14, 2011, 5:11 GMT

    This should never have happened in the first place. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have guessed this scenario would have happened, why didn't CA? At least the wrong has been righted, although CA should be rightfully embarrassed by this blunder.

  • POSTED BY Marcio on | December 14, 2011, 4:57 GMT

    Why doesn't the article mention the defining issue in the subject matter? The fact that most of the votes were obviously cast before the match was decided. Or do you think they all voted in the 5 minutes between the end of the game and when the MOM was presented? The main issue I have is this seemingly deliberate attempt to make it look like the voters only voted for Warner because he was Australian, which was clearly not the case. And in a game where no batsman scored more than 56 runs, Warner scored 123 not out on the greenest wicket, under overcast conditions. Why wouldn't people NOT vote for him, considering most votes were probably cast around the time he scored his century, and Bracewell had 3 wickets to his name? The Kiwi's "Australia robbed us" story is getting a bit old. At least Australian fans know how to applaud an opposition boundary shot. The silence after the ball thuds into the fence in NZ from an Aussie bat is one of the most bizarre sounds in cricket.

  • POSTED BY bipulkumar on | December 14, 2011, 4:57 GMT

    It was a good initiative to engage viewers. I think they should have given a viewer's choice award to Warner instead of MOM. MOM should always be a prerogative of expert panel to avoid bias.

  • POSTED BY Dhushan on | December 14, 2011, 4:54 GMT

    Man of the Match is any 1 player who puts up an exceptional individual performance & "WINS" the match for his country. Although there are instances when the winning team performed as a whole & there is a highlighted performance from 1 player in the losing team. There is no doubt that Bracewell should have DEFINITELY been the Man of the Match! Bad luck for Warner as he carried the bat through the innings as well. The1st sentence of the last paragraph says it all. It's disappointing to see that the public didn't vote properly. Maybe CA was thinking that Australia would win both the matches & thus the public would have no problem in selecting 1 of their own countrymen.

  • POSTED BY Khachhhhh on | December 14, 2011, 4:40 GMT

    ofcourse they will revert to expert opinion in india series....if they continue with viewer voting system in india series they will nevere have an aussie man of the match even if india loose by 2000012235 runs or by 10 wickets .....1 billion vs 20 million !! no contest there ...

  • POSTED BY Someguy on | December 14, 2011, 4:31 GMT

    In fairness, I can see why people voted for Warner. He was the only batsmen that actually batted well in difficult conditions and almost single handedly saved the game for Australia.

    On the other hand, Bracewell was one of several bowlers to take cheap wickets in conditions that were perfect for the fast bowlers against batsmen not willing to do the hard yards. That is not to say that Bracewell shouldn't have been man of the match, just that in those conditions his performance could be argued to have been less than that of Warner.

  • POSTED BY Siddrocks on | December 14, 2011, 4:28 GMT

    Of course they will revert to the expert, 'cos Aussies can't match the viewership count against Indians for the upcoming series.

  • POSTED BY CricketisKing on | December 14, 2011, 4:28 GMT

    Man of the Match awards are the dumbest awards. Cricket is a team sport and as such there should be no individual awards.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 4:28 GMT

    As the Indian series is about to start this approach may not have worked. The operative word is "1 billion". So Cricket Australia changed its position.

  • POSTED BY cricindia4life on | December 14, 2011, 4:23 GMT

    Abandoning the viewer-voting system is a good step but they should recognize Bracewell as the official player of the match. Maybe Warner and Bracewell can share it because Warner had already been awarded. Either way, there should be a change to the official scorecard. It's not a question of having the name listed on the official scorecard but more of recognizing and honoring the man who actually altered the result of the match.

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | December 14, 2011, 4:12 GMT

    MOTM should always got to the player who had the most impact on the win. Even the experts get that wrong sometimes. However, CA's biggest mistake though was letting voting begin well before the final result was known. If voting began after the game ended, it's more likely Bracewell would have won.

  • POSTED BY simon_w on | December 14, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    i'm a little surprised the Aussie public was that one-eyed to be honest. obviously you could never use a system like this in India (Tendulkar would be man of the match every game -- even it he wasn't playing ;) hehe), but as good as Warner's innings was, Bracewell should clearly have got the award.

    I presume the voting system was open before the match ended? I wonder how that features in all this? If the Aussies had got those last seven runs, would that have made a difference?

    All in all, an interesting idea and experiment from CA, but I think binning it is the right choice, now!

  • POSTED BY RobertRussell on | December 14, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    While 58% to 27% is too big a difference, in my opinion David Warner should have got Man of the Match anyway. This was easily a bowlers wicket, and I think to score an unbeaten hundred on it is more impressive than taking 6 wickets.

  • POSTED BY getaclue on | December 14, 2011, 4:02 GMT

    Was an absolute joke. Why would they even consider letting the public vote. In a strange way it is a pretty good indication of why the average armchair critic would make a crap selector

  • POSTED BY satish619chandar on | December 14, 2011, 3:55 GMT

    Good to see.. Both deserved it but home fans selection will remain always bias and it is not fair to blame the fans too!

  • POSTED BY Mad_Hamish on | December 14, 2011, 3:53 GMT

    While I agree that Bracewell should have got it and the public voting system was an extremely stupid idea there are a couple of things to consider about the result of voting. a) when was the voting opened? I understand it was significantly before the match finished so I'm not sure if it was before Bracewell swung the match (if you were voting at 2-159 you'd be looking at giving it to an Australian because it looks a pretty good position for the chase) b) Warner did make 120+* in a 4th innings chase where the highest scored before that was 56. Other bowlers did well (Pattinson 8-105 for instance) so Warner's innings was further ahead of the other batting performances than Bracewell's was of other bowling performances.

    In any case MOTM shouldn't always go to a player from the winning side because sometimes it's clear that the best individual performance came from the losing side. (Not the case here IMO but happens sometimes)

  • POSTED BY BKyogi on | December 14, 2011, 3:53 GMT

    I think that the "Man Of The Match" should be someone whose performance on the field either in batting or bowling or for that matter fielding ( saving runs, taking good catches etc.) which results in the outcome of the match should be the the Man of the Match. At present the "man of the match" is either a batsman or a Bowler. How about the wicket keeper who dives and saves a lot of runs due to wayward bowling or a fielder who takes an astonishing catch to change the course of the match. CA has a completely different view for the MOTM. Why not select one of the CA members to have selected the winning team to be the MOTM. If a last pair holds on to get a draw when the bowling team tried everything to win the match, that guy should be the MOTM.

  • POSTED BY SouthPaw on | December 14, 2011, 3:38 GMT

    It is a well known fact that the "Man of the Match" award is given on the basis of a combination of the star-rating of a player, influence / dominance of the country the player represents, batsman over bowler over captain/fielder/wicket-keeper. Similarly, the "Man of the Series" is also a joke!

  • POSTED BY flyingwarner on | December 14, 2011, 3:36 GMT

    Smart move. If you let the Australian public choose the man of the match all the time, you'll end up with an Australian man of the match. All of the time. They're not the most impartial lot.

  • POSTED BY shouvicic on | December 14, 2011, 3:33 GMT

    Until and unless it's a neutral venue, the voting system is always going to be biased and the last para says it all. There is no question about Bracewell getting the Man of the match. Warner really played the innings of his lifetime but he never was a threat to the contender of the man of the match.

  • POSTED BY mangom on | December 14, 2011, 3:22 GMT

    They said on the telecast the voting was close.

    Personally i think any decent bowler could have got good figures with a bit of luck. The nature of the wicket in my opinion makes warner's knock even more exceptional and a thoroughly deserved MoM

  • POSTED BY no_second_chance_for_batsman on | December 14, 2011, 3:19 GMT

    Yep...with all due respect to warner century! ..it was a JOKE to use public opinion to give MOM award. These kind of CRAZY test should be best avoided by ACB. Instead what about TEST cricket going up to 9pm say...that would be interesting under lights & dew...why not test that. Cheers, kumar

  • POSTED BY ssid on | December 14, 2011, 3:18 GMT

    58% to 27%? So much for the Australian cricket fans being unbiased and having cricketing sense. Can't blame fans in India anymore.

  • POSTED BY wallabyted on | December 14, 2011, 3:16 GMT

    Good riddance to an obviously flawed system. The main problem with it was that it started polling before the match had ended. If CA want to involve the public in deciding the best players of the match, then they should just use the results to contribute to the Alan Border Medal (at least nobody will complain when an Australian wins it).

  • POSTED BY heavyside on | December 14, 2011, 3:14 GMT

    As an Australian, I was ashamed that this situation happened. Bracewell deserved the MOTM, and Cricket Australia should have known better. Im glad they are changing it, but for Bracewell, it's something that he will never get back. He should be posthumously awarded it, and it should go on his career record. Please do the right thing CA.

  • POSTED BY BhavanaP on | December 14, 2011, 3:14 GMT

    Public voting system can be best used for playing 11 selection ;-)

  • POSTED BY TamilIndian on | December 14, 2011, 3:09 GMT

    the viewers opinion can be used as the tie breaker may be?

  • POSTED BY Blal on | December 14, 2011, 3:05 GMT

    I told you so did't I...?! Where is Marcio?

  • POSTED BY boehj on | December 14, 2011, 3:04 GMT

    It was cringeworthy seeing Warner awarded the honour. Don't get me wrong, it was a fantastic innings, and very exciting to watch as an Australian fan. But really, this is *definitely* the type of thing that should be decided by the experts.

  • POSTED BY Warunamk on | December 14, 2011, 3:04 GMT

    Imagine during India's tour of Australia, over 1 billion people voting against 20 million

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:59 GMT

    If such system were introduced in India, Sachin would always win irrespective if he is playing or not. I am glad experiment is over. People will always be passionate about their own players and Australians are no different from the rest of the world.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:57 GMT

    It's good that the voting system is being discarded, because it's obviously a terrible idea, but it still seems to me that people wanted to be outraged no matter what happened. There is no argument against Dave Warner deserving Man of the Match. He nearly won it single-handedly - only two batsmen managed a half century in the match, and none from his side. He became the sixth Australian to bat through an entire innings since world war II - that's something that goes in the record books. Bracewell took 9 from the match, so he's 1 short of it even being noted on his record (outside of the current BBM) Bracewell won the match, but Warner outplayed him. In honesty, a joint MotM award would have been justified in the circumstances.

  • POSTED BY va_jatt on | December 14, 2011, 2:50 GMT

    it's so embarrassing bracewell desereved the MO match most.. warner played an outstanding knock but it was bracewll who's performance made nz win the test.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:46 GMT

    A bit late for Bracewell. Typical CA pat yourself on the back crud. And shameful for the Australian public as well. We've never been able to give proper credit to our opponents.

  • POSTED BY bigkiwi on | December 14, 2011, 2:43 GMT

    Well, I suppose it guaranteed Australia got some sort of victory out of the match!

  • POSTED BY zenboomerang on | December 14, 2011, 2:43 GMT

    Good backdown by CA... Before they get lynched... Stupid system based on a commercial product that doesn't allow for the intricacies of a closely fought out match... OK for innings defeats, but otherwise national bias is always going to show through... After all, we are optimistic about all our sports...

  • POSTED BY pa99 on | December 14, 2011, 2:38 GMT

    Memo to David Warner

    be a gentleman and hand over the prize to Dougie.

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | December 14, 2011, 2:18 GMT

    Clearly Warner was man of the match. Even Starc swung it. His innings was far and above any other batsmen. Pattinson also got 5 wickets.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:17 GMT

    It's good that this system is changed!! But still Warner deserved the MOM because he scored 123 on a pitch where nobody else scored more than 56!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:15 GMT

    That's rubbish ! People in Australia will vote for a australian; ahead of its time, are they kidding???

  • POSTED BY AIRkris on | December 14, 2011, 2:12 GMT

    hmmm... good idea, ca shld also let de public pick de team for de India series...

  • POSTED BY quayman on | December 14, 2011, 2:11 GMT

    I watched it live and they were asking for people to vote before it was over. It was hard to say who to give it to at that stage - if Australia had gotten over the line (they were very close), people would probably not have objected to Warner.

    It would be interesting to know the breakdown of the votes after the match ended, to see whether the viewers gave it to Bracewell in that period.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:10 GMT

    Easy answer - have man of the match voted by independent judges, and viewers hard knock award.

  • POSTED BY Dashgar on | December 14, 2011, 2:09 GMT

    The fact that the voting took place before the game finished should also be taken into account. At the time of voting Australia still had 25 or so runs to get, if they had won then Warner would have deserved the award. The system was flawed on so many levels, you can't just blame the Australian public, blame channel 9 for trying to be too involved in the actual game.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:09 GMT

    This was always going to happen. There were two problems here:

    1. The polling really is majority Australians. Of course they were going to vote for an Australian player. 2. The polling occurred before the end of the match. When the polling was going on, Australia was still in with a shot (slight as it may have been) to win, and if we had won, then Warner would have been in the same position as Bracewell.

    In this particular match, the 'Man of the Match' hung on the outcome. If everyone had assumed that NZ would win, and Bracewell won - only to find that Lyon and Warner DID get those extra 8 runs, then we'd be in the same position.

    It's probably good we got the close match like this early in the implementation of the Viewer polling system.

    Well done to Bracewell, and yes, he deserved it - but he only deserved it over Warner because of the match outcome.

  • POSTED BY farkin on | December 14, 2011, 2:05 GMT

    why not let the public put forward who they think then get the ex-pert's to pick from that

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:03 GMT

    what a shame!

    At first, I thought David Warner was chosen Player of the Match by expert opinion and not by any other means. But, clearly this is not the right thing to embarrass a match winning player, Doug Bracewell.

    If I was David Warner, I would've given the award to Doug Bracewell in the spirit of cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:00 GMT

    Warner played very well. But man of the match should have been Doug Bracewell. He bwled NZ to victory. It was one of the fine performance by a NZ bowler in test cricket.

  • POSTED BY jaininshah9 on | December 14, 2011, 2:00 GMT

    Finally CA made a sensible decision.. Bracewell truly deserved the man of the match!!

  • POSTED BY deepak_sholapurkar on | December 14, 2011, 1:57 GMT

    Its Good, CA has tried some thing new, and its better that they are reverting back to the old system

  • POSTED BY gopi_dhillon on | December 14, 2011, 1:54 GMT

    rightly so. now they should also give an award to bracewell

  • POSTED BY sAiyAnstAr on | December 14, 2011, 1:51 GMT

    Damn shame about that. I was shocked to see Warner winning the award, even though he did play an-almost-match-winning-knock on a difficult batting wicket.

    Bracewell deserved the award.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY sAiyAnstAr on | December 14, 2011, 1:51 GMT

    Damn shame about that. I was shocked to see Warner winning the award, even though he did play an-almost-match-winning-knock on a difficult batting wicket.

    Bracewell deserved the award.

  • POSTED BY gopi_dhillon on | December 14, 2011, 1:54 GMT

    rightly so. now they should also give an award to bracewell

  • POSTED BY deepak_sholapurkar on | December 14, 2011, 1:57 GMT

    Its Good, CA has tried some thing new, and its better that they are reverting back to the old system

  • POSTED BY jaininshah9 on | December 14, 2011, 2:00 GMT

    Finally CA made a sensible decision.. Bracewell truly deserved the man of the match!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:00 GMT

    Warner played very well. But man of the match should have been Doug Bracewell. He bwled NZ to victory. It was one of the fine performance by a NZ bowler in test cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:03 GMT

    what a shame!

    At first, I thought David Warner was chosen Player of the Match by expert opinion and not by any other means. But, clearly this is not the right thing to embarrass a match winning player, Doug Bracewell.

    If I was David Warner, I would've given the award to Doug Bracewell in the spirit of cricket.

  • POSTED BY farkin on | December 14, 2011, 2:05 GMT

    why not let the public put forward who they think then get the ex-pert's to pick from that

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:09 GMT

    This was always going to happen. There were two problems here:

    1. The polling really is majority Australians. Of course they were going to vote for an Australian player. 2. The polling occurred before the end of the match. When the polling was going on, Australia was still in with a shot (slight as it may have been) to win, and if we had won, then Warner would have been in the same position as Bracewell.

    In this particular match, the 'Man of the Match' hung on the outcome. If everyone had assumed that NZ would win, and Bracewell won - only to find that Lyon and Warner DID get those extra 8 runs, then we'd be in the same position.

    It's probably good we got the close match like this early in the implementation of the Viewer polling system.

    Well done to Bracewell, and yes, he deserved it - but he only deserved it over Warner because of the match outcome.

  • POSTED BY Dashgar on | December 14, 2011, 2:09 GMT

    The fact that the voting took place before the game finished should also be taken into account. At the time of voting Australia still had 25 or so runs to get, if they had won then Warner would have deserved the award. The system was flawed on so many levels, you can't just blame the Australian public, blame channel 9 for trying to be too involved in the actual game.

  • POSTED BY on | December 14, 2011, 2:10 GMT

    Easy answer - have man of the match voted by independent judges, and viewers hard knock award.