He captured everybody’s hearts with his incredibly humble reaction to New Zealand’s heartbreaking Cricket World Cup final loss.
Another amusing video did the rounds on social media of him reacting with disbelief upon learning he was the player of the tournament.
But was he really the right choice for the award?
There’s absolutely no denying he had a superb tournament, with the Black Caps skipper amassing 578 runs at an average of 82.57 and strike rate of 74.96.
He also chipped in with the ball, taking two wickets at an economy of 4.26.
But were there other more suitable candidates to take home the honour?
Our Cricket World Cup special episode of Game of Codes saw Roar cricket expert Glenn Mitchell join – and he thought the award should have been given to someone else, while also suggesting a separate ‘player of the finals’ award be created to recognise incredible knockout stage performances like Williamson’s.
Listen to the discussion:
That wasn’t the only player-specific topic we covered on the episode, with some of the most disappointing individual performances – not just from certain Australians – also going under the microscope.
Visit our Game of Codes hub to catch the full episode and be sure to subscribe and review on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or wherever else you’re listening.
Jacko
Guest
Do you mean "Match-drawer"?
Jacko
Guest
They were going to give it to an Englishman but on countback Williamson hit more boundries...
Gee
Roar Rookie
Please use a sarcasm emoji next time, I thought you were serious for most of that post ;)
ClassAct
Guest
You can’t have one of the losers collect the player of the tournament award. It isn’t right and should have been a victorious Englishman
Savage
Roar Rookie
There were two obvious choice,One was Stokes and other was Shakib. I would rate them Stokes-9.5 Shakib-9.5 Players like Starc,Sharma,Archer etc weren't even close to them in terms of performance. Sharma as a batsmen alone wasn't any better than Shakib. At max,I would give williamson 9/10. No middle order player could've had as much impact as Stokes.Even in the super over he was best batsmen for England. Stokes once again showed that he is by far the greatest match-winner of this generation.
Savage
Roar Rookie
No doubt about that,
U
Roar Rookie
Nope. It was an award to make up for their being robbed in the final
AREH
Roar Guru
Certainly wasn't a poor choice! Perhaps one or two others had a slightly greater claim, but just about neck and neck between all contenders
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Williamson, Shakib and Stokes were all very good candidates for this award.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Hi all. ‘Best and Fairest’ award.
Spanner
Roar Rookie
Points well made Paul - what a breath of fresh air the boy is. All class !
Paul
Roar Guru
It depends what are the criteria for awarding this. Someone like Jason Roy should have been in contention for his brilliant batting, but I wouldn't touch him for the MOTT award because of that dummy spit. In Williamson's case, not only did he have to perform with the bat and there were games where he was effectively New Zelands only contributor, but he had to get them into the finals, help lift the team mentally, then lead them past a rampaging Indian side, help his team to a competitive total against the worlds best in front of their home fans, then manage both the events and the fallout from the way the final was decided. The emotional and mental strength Williamson displayed was off the charts IMO. He did this for 6 weeks and went to an even higher level when it was needed at the death. He's the MOTT for mine by a considerable distance.
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
Daniel already got this right in his article. Shakib should have got that gong. Not that you'll get an argument from this Kiwi; Williamson is the role-model for all aspiring young cricketers. All class. With blade and demeanour...