“Warner? Really? David Warner?” is fast becoming my catchphrase and I was forced to pull it out again when he was announced as the man-of-the-match in Tasmania.
It was my reaction when Ian Chappell suggested that the then-park cricketer be selected in the 2010-2011 Ashes series. It was also my reaction when, three weeks ago, that notion became a reality.
I have spent much of the time since branding Warner as a batsman without technique, unsuited to the Test arena.
However, I have eaten enough pie to know when it’s time to sample some of the humble variety and (while I maintain that suggesting Warner be picked in a Test side before he had played a first class game was idiotic), I can admit that Warner showed great technique, guts and staying power in carrying his bat through Australia’s otherwise abysmal second innings at the Bellerive Oval.
What I will not accept is the ingenious idea of allowing the Australian public select the man-of-the-match award. Which marketing whiz thought that would be a good idea?
Obviously technology is moving very quickly and Test cricket feels a need to keep up with it to combat the loss of young viewers to the shorter forms of the game, but it needs to stop short of giving the viewer any real power.
All cricket needed to do before diving brainlessly head first into this venture was a little research. It wouldn’t have taken them long to reach the NBA and find the idiotic decisions made by the public in selecting their All Star teams and the winner of the Slam Dunk competition.
A few years ago, the aged and underpeforming Allen Iverson and injured veteran Tracy McGrady were selected in the All Star game.
Earlier this year, the Boston Celtics’ ‘Big Four’ of Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Rajon Rondo were selected despite Rondo and possibly Pierce being the only two who were vaguely deserving.
And finally, the icing on the cake, Blake Griffin being voted the Slam Dunk competition winner. His dunk; a) had a veteran teammate throwing him the ball, b) had the car of the sponsor of the tournament, c) had a choir from a local church, and d) was all carried out in his home town.
While his dunk had the typical Hollywood excitement, it was light years from being the best dunk of the night and yet the fans voted him as their champion. Having a partial public vote on an award doesn’t work.
I couldn’t care less what 500 people think Australia will score in the second innings, but having that happen is relatively harmless (if not a touch annoying). But the man-of-the-match is something that, although they may say they don’t care about, matters to players.
So, when David Warner was called on stage to accept the inaugural home viewers’ award, the total stupidity of the idea had a colossal spotlight shone on it.
Surely a bowler who, almost single-handedly, bowled his team to victory deserves recognition more than the batsman who hit a good 120 to no avail.
Why Doug Bracewell wasn’t recognised as the man-of-the-match is blindingly obvious. The award has become a popularity contest and a New Zealander will never be as popular as an Australian in the eyes of Joe Aussie.
With any luck, this feature of the telecast is ditched faster than you can text ‘Vangipurapu Venkata Sai Laxman’.
Jonathan Healy
Roar Rookie
I was wondering if that would come back to bite me on the ass. Fair cop. Sort of.
Jonathan Healy
Roar Rookie
Matt I know for a fact that Warner had not played a first class match before Chappell suggested he be in the Ashes squad. Park cricketer was a bit of poetic licence but really not that far wrong.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Irrelevant now anyway, because the public will no longer have a vote on Man of the Match. This was a brief but silly CA experiment which has presumably been scrapped forever. But it was entertaining to hear the ABC's radio commentator Jim Maxwell become almost apoplectic when Warner was named MotM.
Alfred Chan
Expert
Sheek, that was absolutely terrible. You'd be a great dad.
Betty B
Guest
maybe the opoint should be 'Why vote for motm before the game is over?' Had Australia won, and they were looking good when the voting was going on, Warner would have deserved the award. Hold the motm vote after the last bowl is bowled.
itsuckstobeyou
Roar Pro
"Who gave the inmates the keys to the asylum?" That would be a brilliant metaphor, if it worked at all. In this context, it suggests that the players are in fact voting for MoM. I wouldn't normally comment about such things, but given your recent policing of metaphors, I thought it somewhat ironic : http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/12/15/australian-sport-needs-to-get-its-villains-back/#comments All in good spirits old chap. Perhaps we should be subbing each others posts :)
Eric
Guest
Warner has really grown as a batsman and person. I even think he might be captaincy material later on. He has really worked out what his strengths are and how to model them to the game, a real sign of a classy batsmen. Now, though, he will be analysed and targeted by opponents. They will find a weakness, and how he deals with that will be the real test.
Brendon
Guest
"I have spent much of the time since branding Warner as a batsman without technique" Warner has a solid technique. Just because someone is a big hitter does not mean they have a bad technique. Viv Richards had a s/r of 90 in ODI's in the days when anything over 70 was good but he was still a great test batsman. Just because someone is good at T20 doesn't mean they're automatically bad at test. Australian fans, media, adminstrators and a fair amount of the players are still stuck in the 1990's. Technique is not just plodding your front foot forward and blocking.
liquorbox
Guest
I dont think that Warner deserved the MOTM award, but I think you should have a look at why he could have come into consideration for it. -He is in his second test and carried his bat through an innings, he is the 48th player to do this in a Test match ever -He scored 123, the next best in 39 other innings was 56, so it was more than double what anyone else could achieve, this is "Bradmanesque" in its dominance over others scores, to be more than twice as good in your performance than others is a high achievement He may not have deserved the award in reality, but he had a mighty performance anyway
Baa Baa
Guest
Tom, can you send me from where you buy it? It obviously has lasting effects, causes blindness, provides irrational thinking and lets you think that you are on a different planet....AND I WANT SOME TOO........!
Matt Kennedy
Roar Rookie
Warner made his first class debut for NSW in March 2009. To say he was 'park cricketer' is an insult. By 2010/11 Ashes series, not only had he played first class cricket, he had played One Day and Twenty20 Internationals and state fixtures. He was also a top shelf 1st Grade cricketer in the Sydney Grade competition; where games are tough and players prepare themselves in the hope of state selection. You may not have agreed with the Chappell's idea of selecting him for the Test team, but a little research could have been useful before slating him as a park cricketer without any first class cricket under his belt.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Cricket Australia did. This has been one of my simple answers to simple questions.
sheek
Guest
Jonathon, What's the difference between Australian cricket in 2006 & Australian cricket in 2011? Aaarrrrrr.......... That's right - "r". We've gone from Warne in 2006 to Warner, that's Warne with an r, in 2011. Okay, sad joke I know. All my own effort, but I won't patent it, so feel free to use it!
TomC
Guest
I maintain that the right decision was made for MOM in Hobart. Clearly that was a wicket far easier to bowl on than bat on. Bracewell's bowling achievement's were marginally better than Pattinson. Warner's batting achievements were light years better than the next batsman, which was probably Brownlie. The public demonstrated some common sense.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Jonathan, it has already been ditched. CA announced that the day after the Hobart Test finished.