ICC World Cup 2023: Should Mohammad Shami have been given the Player of the Tournament award instead of Virat Kohli?

[Major]

This world cup we saw how good the Indian bowling was, and I believe had the award been given to Shami, for the way he bowled on Indian wickets, this would had made his PR better and also inspired alot more cricketers to become bowlers.

If becoming the highest wicket taker on the flattest of wickets in just 7 games is not good enough to win a cricketer of the year award than what is?

Now, had this been some other country's bowler i was vouching for if they had a similar performance, most of our resident indian fans (along with Pakistanis that support India) would had said that you saying that because an Indian won the award.

But in this case two Indians topped, but i believe what Shami did was more difficult considering the conditions.

I think Brand power of player does influence things, plus, because he broke that record of Tendulkar...

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Should’ve been joint winners imo.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Completely agree. Shami deserved it more than Kohli.

 

[sweep_shot]

There have been 13 ODI World Cups and only twice a bowler won this award (Mitchell Starc in 2015 and Glenn McGrath in 2007). So, this award tends to go to batter or all-rounder.

I believe Shami should've won it. I agree.

Shami was Man of the Match thrice while Kohli was MOTM twice.

 

[Mamoon]

@Major

I don't think he got robbed.

Shami sat out the first 4 games and in those 4 games, Kohli already had a century and an 80+ score so he had a head-start over Shami.

They played 7 games together:

1. vs New Zealand: In spite of Shami's 5-fer, India were in trouble at 191 for 5 chasing chasing 274. It was Kohli who played another chasing masterclass that saw them through.

2. vs England: Shami outperformed Kohli.

3. vs SL: Match was set up by the batsmen including Kohli. Shami helped India win by a huge margin but SL were never going to chase 358.

4. vs South Africa: Match was set up by Kohli's century. Shami took 2 wickets. Jadeja took 5 wickets.

5. vs Netherlands: Kohli scored a half-century and Shami took 0 wickets. Both weren't influential.

6. Semifinal vs New Zealand: Kohli century set the platform for India's massive total. Shami took 7 wickets but 398 was always beyond NZ's reach regardless of Shami's burst.

7. Final: Kohli scored 50, Shami took 1 wicket only and was India's most expensive bowler.

So in the 6 matches that they won together, Shami genuinely outperformed Kohli - or was more influential than Kohli - on only one occasion.

Getting robbed of a Man of the Tournament award happened to Yuvraj in 2007. It was a joke to see Afridi win the award over him or Stokes in 2019. Williamson was nowhere near Stokes in that World Cup in terms of influence and impact on results.

 

[Major]

@Major

I don't think he got robbed.

Shami sat out the first 4 games and in those 4 games, Kohli already had a century and an 80+ score so he had a head-start over Shami.

They played 7 games together:

1. vs New Zealand: In spite of Shami's 5-fer, India were in trouble at 191 for 5 chasing chasing 274. It was Kohli who played another chasing masterclass that saw them through.

2. vs England: Shami outperformed Kohli.

3. vs SL: Match was set up by the batsmen including Kohli. Shami helped India win by a huge margin but SL were never going to chase 358.

4. vs South Africa: Match was set up by Kohli's century. Shami took 2 wickets. Jadeja took 5 wickets.

5. vs Netherlands: Kohli scored a half-century and Shami took 0 wickets. Both weren't influential.

6. Semifinal vs New Zealand: Kohli century set the platform for India's massive total. Shami took 7 wickets but 398 was always beyond NZ's reach regardless of Shami's burst.

7. Final: Kohli scored 50, Shami took 1 wicket only and was India's most expensive bowler.

So in the 6 matches that they won together, Shami genuinely outperformed Kohli - or was more influential than Kohli - on only one occasion.

Getting robbed of a Man of the Tournament award happened to Yuvraj in 2007. It was a joke to see Afridi win the award over him or Stokes in 2019. Williamson was nowhere near Stokes in that World Cup in terms of influence and impact on results.

But you have to look at the conditions as well. Short boundaries and flat tracks, batters are more likely to perform. Plus, in India we see spinners dominate while pacers dont get much here. Shami bowled his heart on these flat tracks and was always the guy having the first impact.

Finals performance is never counted

As for World T20 2007, just cause Yuvraj hit 6 sixes did not mean he should get the award for the player of the tournament because by the same logic Maxwell would deserve it for this world cup. I think Misbah and Malik scored more runs than Yuvraj.

The player of the tournament standings for World T20 were

Afridi
Clarke
Jayasurya
Morkel
Yuvraj

 

[hassan918]

@Major

I don't think he got robbed.

Shami sat out the first 4 games and in those 4 games, Kohli already had a century and an 80+ score so he had a head-start over Shami.

They played 7 games together:

1. vs New Zealand: In spite of Shami's 5-fer, India were in trouble at 191 for 5 chasing chasing 274. It was Kohli who played another chasing masterclass that saw them through.

2. vs England: Shami outperformed Kohli.

3. vs SL: Match was set up by the batsmen including Kohli. Shami helped India win by a huge margin but SL were never going to chase 358.

4. vs South Africa: Match was set up by Kohli's century. Shami took 2 wickets. Jadeja took 5 wickets.

5. vs Netherlands: Kohli scored a half-century and Shami took 0 wickets. Both weren't influential.

6. Semifinal vs New Zealand: Kohli century set the platform for India's massive total. Shami took 7 wickets but 398 was always beyond NZ's reach regardless of Shami's burst.

7. Final: Kohli scored 50, Shami took 1 wicket only and was India's most expensive bowler.

So in the 6 matches that they won together, Shami genuinely outperformed Kohli - or was more influential than Kohli - on only one occasion.

Getting robbed of a Man of the Tournament award happened to Yuvraj in 2007. It was a joke to see Afridi win the award over him or Stokes in 2019. Williamson was nowhere near Stokes in that World Cup in terms of influence and impact on results.

I think he sums up the whole debate very well. If Shami had received the award, there would be a debate other way around as well but I think Shami or Kohli would be more concerned about the fact that their team couldn't win the World Cup rather than this individual award.

 

[batandballbattle]

I agree, shami should have got it. But modern white ball is a batsman's game after all

 

[saqib.rai]

@Major

I don't think he got robbed.

Shami sat out the first 4 games and in those 4 games, Kohli already had a century and an 80+ score so he had a head-start over Shami.

They played 7 games together:

1. vs New Zealand: In spite of Shami's 5-fer, India were in trouble at 191 for 5 chasing chasing 274. It was Kohli who played another chasing masterclass that saw them through.

2. vs England: Shami outperformed Kohli.

3. vs SL: Match was set up by the batsmen including Kohli. Shami helped India win by a huge margin but SL were never going to chase 358.

4. vs South Africa: Match was set up by Kohli's century. Shami took 2 wickets. Jadeja took 5 wickets.

5. vs Netherlands: Kohli scored a half-century and Shami took 0 wickets. Both weren't influential.

6. Semifinal vs New Zealand: Kohli century set the platform for India's massive total. Shami took 7 wickets but 398 was always beyond NZ's reach regardless of Shami's burst.

7. Final: Kohli scored 50, Shami took 1 wicket only and was India's most expensive bowler.

So in the 6 matches that they won together, Shami genuinely outperformed Kohli - or was more influential than Kohli - on only one occasion.

Getting robbed of a Man of the Tournament award happened to Yuvraj in 2007. It was a joke to see Afridi win the award over him or Stokes in 2019. Williamson was nowhere near Stokes in that World Cup in terms of influence and impact on results.

Yuvraj had 150 runs in the whole tournament
70 came in one match alone. In which he was rightly awarded Man of the Match.

Had ONE wicket in the whole tournament.

Afridi was the joint 2nd highest wicket taker and had a very very high Strike rate in batting.

Deserved the Player of the Tournament in 2007.
And was robbed by Dilshan in 2009- maybe ICC didn't want a Pakistani player winning it twice but the impact Afridi had on the semifinal and final, no one else should have gotten it.

Kane Williamson scored hundreds against West Indies and South Africa- the 2 tightly contested matches that New Zealand won and progressed.

Had a vital 70 or 80 against India in the semifinal.

Take Williamson out and New Zealand won't have made the finals.

Stokes got the Man of the Match in the final. Which he deserved but Williamson was clearly the Player of the Tournament

In this World Cup, I would have given it to Trevis Head. Australia won't have won the World Cup without him

Would India have reached the final without Kohli and Shami? Most probably yes

 

[Buffet]

Nah, Kohli had more contribution in 10-11 matches.

 

[Major]

I think they did voting by captains for this award.

Thus, in that case, maybe the first 4 captains that didnt get to face him probably didnt vote

 

[kingusama92]

Longevity is important.

Kohli performed from start to finish and helped India win those earlier games. Shami dominated the latter half of the WC but Kohli was right there with him in those games too.

I think it was a fair decision.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Should have been Head or Cummins.

Shami or Kohli will be long forgotten but Head is a GOAT already.

 

[Caved12]

It was very difficult to pick the man of the series award as both of them deserved to win this trophy. I agree that batting was easy on these Indian pitches whereas bowlers had to work extremely hard to pick up wickets.

 

[Mamoon]

Yuvraj had 150 runs in the whole tournament
70 came in one match alone. In which he was rightly awarded Man of the Match.

Had ONE wicket in the whole tournament.

Afridi was the joint 2nd highest wicket taker and had a very very high Strike rate in batting.

Deserved the Player of the Tournament in 2007.
And was robbed by Dilshan in 2009- maybe ICC didn't want a Pakistani player winning it twice but the impact Afridi had on the semifinal and final, no one else should have gotten it.

Kane Williamson scored hundreds against West Indies and South Africa- the 2 tightly contested matches that New Zealand won and progressed.

Had a vital 70 or 80 against India in the semifinal.

Take Williamson out and New Zealand won't have made the finals.

Stokes got the Man of the Match in the final. Which he deserved but Williamson was clearly the Player of the Tournament

In this World Cup, I would have given it to Trevis Head. Australia won't have won the World Cup without him

Would India have reached the final without Kohli and Shami? Most probably yes

Dilshan had nearly 100 more runs than the second highest scorer. He completely ruled the tournament and was the rightful winner of the award in spite of Afridi’s impact in the semifinal and final which was no doubt massive.

Stokes had a much better World Cup than Kane and deserved the player of the tournament award. It wasn’t even close and I can prove it to you with a game by game breakdown if you wish.

The ONLY reason Kane won was because of the circumstances in which New Zealand lost the final. It was a show of sympathy. A charity. It was more of a spirit of cricket award for Kane than an actual player of the tournament award.

 

[Major]

Dilshan had nearly 100 more runs than the second highest scorer. He completely ruled the tournament and was the rightful winner of the award in spite of Afridi’s impact in the semifinal and final which was no doubt massive.

Stokes had a much better World Cup than Kane and deserved the player of the tournament award. It wasn’t even close and I can prove it to you with a game by game breakdown if you wish.

The ONLY reason Kane won was because of the circumstances in which New Zealand lost the final. It was a show of sympathy. A charity. It was more of a spirit of cricket award for Kane than an actual player of the tournament award.

bro you dont even know how the award for best player is given and coming with some very poor logic

This award gets decided before the final. The final is not accounted for, and the voting is done by all captains before the final

 

[happydavy]

Broadcasters and their employees commentators have a major say in selection of MoM and MoS, and their top agenda of the WC was to make Virat Kohli look like a god. There's no case of deserving or not deserving , they needed some valid parameter to make Kohli mos and number of runs gave it to them. Had Kohli scored 500 runs even then they would have considered him giving mos award. I mean people forget easily but bear in mind an umpire didn't give a leg side wide ball to let Kohli score his century, things don't get more absurd than that.

 

[Ab Fan]

No, one major criteria is you play most matches for player of tournament award. Shami unfortunately missed those games and also that Kohli is a bigger brand so it helped him from that point of view and also the bucketload of runs he scored whether in league games or in knockouts puts him as the strongest contender for player of tournament award.

In 2007 WT20 purely on impact, Yuvraj should have been awarded player of tournament. T20 is not about who scores more runs but genuine impact. But they felt sad for Pakistan to lose the match hence they awarded him something, i.e., player of series award to one of their players.

 

[SaimFan]

Shami was brilliant in Wankhede stadium under lights, which always swings like crazy. He was decentish otherwise. He also dropped a few catches in knockouts and before.

Kohli was good but his own countryman Rohit deserved the award far more because of the impact he created at the top of the order, putting pressure on the bowlers and making most of the powerplay. Rohit's exploits and mindset of attacking new ball allowed the likes of Kohli to play safe and accumulate runs at a lower strike rate (thereby with lower risk).

Head deserved the award for the way he absolutely dominated bowlers after injury comeback and for his performances in the knockouts. His bowling and brilliant fielding were another plus. His blinder to dismiss Rohit was one the most important factors for an Australian win.

 

[saqib.rai]

bro you dont even know how the award for best player is given and coming with some very poor logic

This award gets decided before the final. The final is not accounted for, and the voting is done by all captains before the final

Ravi Shastri mentioned 5 people who voted for the Player of the Tournament

No mention of any captain

However, Wasim Khan as the ICC General Manager was one of the people who did