Now don’t get your budgies in a bunch, I’m not bagging Pat Cummins.
He had a very good summer and had Australia won the Border-Gavaskar trophy, his award for player of the series would most likely be warranted. Even if the series had been drawn he would have been a reasonable choice.
But Australia did not win the series.
Pat Cummins was the leader of the attack that failed to dismiss the Indian side twice in two Tests on day five pitches with big leads.
I’m not blaming Pat Cummins. But if he had been able to make just a couple more breakthroughs on one of those day five wickets and turn the match, then that would have constituted a great individual series.
He showed he is capable of such feats on the morning of Day 3 in Adelaide when he almost single-handedly won the game for Australia. Cummins took 7-69 in that first match. In the remaining three games he took 14 wickets for 352 runs at 25.14.
Now 21 wickets in a four-Test series is nothing to sneeze at, but someone has to collect the scalps, and as the series wore on it became less and less likely that Mitchell Starc or Nathan Lyon would pick up wickets.
Cummins’ performance was brave in a beaten side, but not series defining. What may have been series defining was the amount of overs he was asked to bowl, 162 overs in a four-Test series played back to back to back to back. This workload seriously blunted his strike power. Cummins was a man of steel, yes, but man of the series, no.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
When a player from a losing side wins an award like man of the series, or a Clive Churchill Medal, or a Norm Smith Medal, it usually leaves a sour taste for the majority of fans. It also feels quite empty to the recipient. It’s like an albatross around their neck, and they often receive the award to a chorus of boos, meant for the judges, but felt by the recipient.
Yet too often the people who judge these awards are forced to choose the recipient well before the final and decisive act. Or maybe they just don’t get it. There should be an unwritten rule that the best player award should go to a member of the victorious squad and therefore not chosen until the conclusion of a contest.
After the exhilarating finish to the series when India come from the clouds to defeat Australia, I tuned in to the presentation ceremony and pondered who would win the player of the series award.
A strong case could be made for Rishabh Pant with his tally of 274 runs at 68.5. His batting exploits helped save a match in Sydney, and then win the series in Brisbane. Not to mention his ability to unsettle some Australian batsmen, without even saying a word to them.
It could have gone to Shubman Gill for his stunning debut series as opener. After being selected to open in the second Test at the MCG he scored 259 runs at an average of 51.8 with a strike rate of 60.65 runs per hundred balls. He made important contributions of 45, 35 not out, 50, 31 and a scored a vital 91 on the last day of the series to set the stage for India’s successful run chase. His consistency at the top of the order set a platform for India on all but one occasion, preventing any further top order collapses after their capitulation in Adelaide.
You could even give it to the Wall, Cheteshawar Pujara, whose series-high 928 deliveries faced was possibly the most telling factor in blunting the vaunted Australian attack.
(Photo by Saeed KHAN / AFP via Getty Images)
The old school Test match grinding innings should never be underestimated. Of course he couldn’t win the award with an average of only 33.87, but his concentration and commitment to his team’s cause may well have had the greatest influence of any player in this series.
I guess you would be hard pressed to make a case for any of the Indian bowlers. None of them lasted the full series and the wickets were shared among them.
Ravendra Jadeja topped their averages with seven wickets at 15 in two matches. Second Test debutant and fourth Test hero Mohammed Siraj topped their tally with 13 wickets at 29.53 in three matches.
Ravichandran Ashwin took 12, Jasprit Bumrah took 11, Umesh Yadav took four and three of their net bowlers – Navdeep Saini, Washington Sundar and T Natarajan – chipped in together for another 11 vital wickets. Hats off to the Indian bowling unit for manufacturing so many wickets under such difficult circumstances.
The player of the series award should have gone to Rishabh Pant. His fourth innings scores of 97 and 89 not out in Sydney and Brisbane defined those matches and decided the series.
WillowWiz
Roar Rookie
As a captain this series, Paine was an absolute travesty.
bowledover
Roar Rookie
100% agree. Pant defined sydney and brissy, and in turn the series!
Simoc
Guest
I agree. Home town decision by some biased idiot but that's common here. I think Pujara made a huge contribution in wearing the bowlers down. Sri Lanka beat South Africa in South Africa last year and like Oz the saffers attack the batsman. One of their batsman decided to just cop it and ended up with I think 182 runs but the rest of the team see it and rally around. Similarly the more talented Indian team see Pujara being attacked and rallied around him. MOS really doesn't matter and I'm sure cummins wouldn't rate it to highly given they lost.
matth
Roar Guru
Rahane for me. to keep that team going, to turn them around from 36 all out, with his own century as the example as well as through his calm demeanour. It was a top class series for the captain. Cummins was excellent as always by the way.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
You’re correct of course. I’m not sure I made my point very well with that explanation. The series result is an accumulation of individual performances. The Indian examples had more influence on the series result and that can be used to help remove some of the subjectivity out of gauging batting vs bowling. I agree it can’t be used to determine it though. I’ve been known to overthink many a thing though. Cummins is “The Man”. Where’s the harm in “putting of the series” at the end of that.
Nat
Roar Rookie
I tend to agree but then the amount of turnover India had may have hurt their cause. Aside from G1, India had a few different stars perform in G2-4 to secure the famous series win but Cummins was consistently good for the whole series. So I agree India had better individuals stand up, Cummins was good the whole series so probably deerves the acolaide.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Player of the series should go to the player most influential to the outcome. Clearly that was Pant (with Saha receiving a special commendation.. :-) )
Gee
Roar Rookie
Look up some past series before you spout off how horrible CA & co are. 1999/2000 India in Australia, we won 3-0 and Tendulkar somehow got man of the series despite being out scored by Ponting & Langer & McGrath taking 18 wickets at 14.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
I didn’t make it past first couples of seasons, but I know his story. Lol
Hammer50
Roar Rookie
agree . If you read the Laws of Cricket the preamble describes the spirit of the game, how it should be played and the law 1.4 the captains responsibility.
Hammer50
Roar Rookie
Yes.. well said Graeme. I receive a few texts from mates outside Australia saying the same thing , mostly not appropriate on this format. Again CA or whoever selected Player of the Series got it wrong. Its bad form and insular parochialism to award any player from a losing team a PoM or PoS again harps back to where CA were years ago and leading into the sandpapergate. Even T-V commentators in general have recently given a more balanced commentary. What better finale to the series with one of the best test matches ever. For test cricket lovers who have a love of the game with proper etiquette for the laws of cricket this series had it all. Pat Cummins is a class player obviously . But not the PoS.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
You been watching Viking???
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I was scrolling down to see whether anybody else made this point, Deepoz. I agree! Ajinkya for man of the series for mine...for the same reasons you give; a decisive century and great leadership. That said, I'm not sure I have every seen a Captain handed an award based, even in part, on the quality of their decision-making. Unlike runs and wickets, it's hard to measure.
Pol
Guest
Player of the series was Tim Paine - dropped catches, poor field placements and over arrogance of his and the teams ability to win ensured Australia lost and India won. Isn’t player of the series the player who did most to effect the final outcome?
MK
Guest
Graeme makes very salient points here. Totally concur with him on this one.
Tom
Guest
Yeah bizarre, it was clearly Benji. Same as Luke Lewis getting CCM over Fifita in 2016, or DCE getting it over SBW in 2013.
Tom
Guest
I agree - captaincy certainly has an impact. Rehane thoroughly out-captained Paine, both in temperament and the technical aspects such as bowler rotations and field placings.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Darn it. I just noticed ‘Ragnar’. Rahane. Sorry Mr Rahane, but Ragnar could be a new nickname, he was tough as.
Graeme Docker
Roar Rookie
:laughing: Classic !
Simon
Guest
Actually he did. Halfway through the 3rd test half of India was calling for Pant to dropped. He was brilliant at the end but 3rd on the runscorers list does not a MOTS make. Cummins on the other hand had the best series Ive ever seen him have. Pant doesn't get it because everyone has short memories