Bhuvi-The one who should have got the MoM yesterday

[sourab10forever]

What terrific bowling that..anyone who saw his bowling yesterday would have noticed the difference between bhuvi that played in SL and this bhuvi.Made the pitch look like it was lush green.

2 great wickets up-front at that economy rate.. brilliant performance.

Yes Kohli played a superb knock of 91 but he does that always...bhuvi should have got the MoM.

[philcric]

2 minutes ago, sourab10forever said:

What terrific bowling that..anyone who saw his bowling yesterday would have noticed the difference between bhuvi that played in SL and this bhuvi.Made the pitch look like it was lush green.

2 great wickets up-front at that economy rate.. brilliant performance.

Yes Kohli played a superb knock of 91 but he does that always...bhuvi should have got the MoM.

Could have easily been 3. Simple catch was dropped in the slips.

 

IMO, it was a toss up between Bhuvi and Kohli.

Kohli(91) was the highest scorer in the match by a long way, there was only one other half century in the match (Smith(59)).

Once India scored only 252, Bhuvi's contribution with the ball up front was the most important, it got India back into the game.

[beetle]

Agree

[rkt.india]

agree

[sandeep]

Someone claimed that Kohli getting it was justified since the batting was harder than the usual flat tracks.   By that logic, bowlers who bowl relatively well on flat tracks with massive scores should get MoMs.  When was the last time a bowler got it with a 3/60 in a 350 game, where batsmen hit through the line to short boundaries?  

 

Bowlers don't get enough credit in cricket.  And its especially the case in India.   Nobody ever wants to bowl.   Because its hard work.    And a tougher skill.  Any fat ass can pick up a bat and slog.   If things were more fair, then a Ravichandran Ashwin would be as big a commercial star as Virat Kohli.  Ashwin's test achievements are ridiculously good.  And there's no way India would have won as many tests and series as they have without him and Jaddu.  They could easily have done it without Kohli, as we saw in Dharamsala.   And before some moron alleges it, I'm not some bitter southie saying this.   Proud Gujju and member of the so-called "Mumbai Lobby".   

[Pollack]

AgReE

 

 

[Pollack]

 @sandeep You spoiled the pun above.Thora late post karta toh kya jata tera. 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Pollack

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Someone claimed that Kohli getting it was justified since the batting was harder than the usual flat tracks.   By that logic, bowlers who bowl relatively well on flat tracks with massive scores should get MoMs.  When was the last time a bowler got it with a 3/60 in a 350 game, where batsmen hit through the line to short boundaries?  

 

Bowlers don't get enough credit in cricket.  And its especially the case in India.   Nobody ever wants to bowl.   Because its hard work.    And a tougher skill.  Any fat ass can pick up a bat and slog.   If things were more fair, then a Ravichandran Ashwin would be as big a commercial star as Virat Kohli.  Ashwin's test achievements are ridiculously good.  And there's no way India would have won as many tests and series as they have without him and Jaddu.  They could easily have done it without Kohli, as we saw in Dharamsala.   And before some moron alleges it, I'm not some bitter southie saying this.   Proud Gujju and member of the so-called "Mumbai Lobby".   

It is a batsmen's game especially in India.Bhuvi deserved MOM for his efforts yesterday considering he batted and scored some runs.

[nevada]

Bhuvi deserved MOM for his excellent bowling plus scoring useful runs. 

[gakgupta]

13 hours ago, sourab10forever said:

What terrific bowling that..anyone who saw his bowling yesterday would have noticed the difference between bhuvi that played in SL and this bhuvi.Made the pitch look like it was lush green.

2 great wickets up-front at that economy rate.. brilliant performance.

Yes Kohli played a superb knock of 91 but he does that always...bhuvi should have got the MoM.

He could have got one more wicket, had Rohit didn't dropped a simple catch at first slip...

 

BTW, where was the Mumbai commentary lobby when the catch was missed.....I see manju and Sunil goes gaga over Rohit's fielding even it doesn't look spectacular for a naked eye but when a dolly was dropped, there will be pin-drop silence

[Gollum]

On a flat track bowlers make the difference, on a difficult track batsmen make the difference. According to me bowlers should get preference in these 400 meets 375 shootouts while in low scoring matches batsmen should get preference. This is the ideal criteria but as @sandeep pointed out this is hardly the case in modern day cricket, more so in India.

 

I have seen more instances of bowlers getting MOM in Australia and SA even with supposedly mediocre figures, just because they changed the course of a match or distinguished themselves from the pack more convincingly than batsmen. Unfortunately I have never seen such a thing in India, the MOM selection panel members are generally guys like Sunny, Shastri, Bhogle, VVS, Sehwag etc and they can't afford to anger BCCI/sponsors by placing the Dalits of Indian cricket(bowlers) over the upper castes(batsmen). Feel sorry for our bowlers right from Kumble/Srinath to Zak/Ashwin/Shami, they make peanuts compared to batsmen via ads and are relegated to the sidelines in spite of being no less than the upper castes. 

 

I don't know if you guys remember this but in the Faisalabad test in 2006 Pak and India batsmen both mad merry with humongous scores but RP Singh got MOM for his 4/89 effort in the 1st innings(in a match with 6 centurions no less !!!!!!). That is the attitude I want to see from the MOM/MOS selection panels, but alas sponsors and boards won't be very happy if bowlers get their due. Here is a link to that match I was talking about : http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-scores/4320/pak-vs-ind-2nd-test-india-in-pakistan-test-series-2006

Edited September 23, 2017 by Gollum

[Pollack]

One important point everyone's missing about Bhuvi is he hasn't bowled against a flat track bully team or any strong batting team on flat track after his return(IPL).  In CT he faced SL and Pakistan on flat track. Australia is one team who has some serious flat track bullies batsman who are match winners but both the matches so far were not played on flat track. So until Bhuvaneshwar bowls well against a good batting lineup on a flat track, I would remain sceptical about him.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Pollack

[Khota]

Unfortunately it is a cultural thing in India. Batsman is considered more valuable than a bowler. In my opinion a pace bowler is the most valuable commodity.

[Nonbeliever]

16 hours ago, philcric said:

Could have easily been 3. Simple catch was dropped in the slips.

 

IMO, it was a toss up between Bhuvi and Kohli.

Kohli(91) was the highest scorer in the match by a long way, there was only one other half century in the match (Smith(59)).

Once India scored only 252, Bhuvi's contribution with the ball up front was the most important, it got India back into the game.

Rahane and stoinis both scored fifties.  Nowadays match without a century is very rare.  Bhuvi and Kuldeep deserved more than Kohli.  Kuldeep also.picked hattrick otherwise stoinis would have got crucial support to win the match.

[Trichromatic]

Those who are saying that bowlers should get MoM in 350+ scores matches, problem is that bowlers don't stand out with performances in such matches. Kohli's 92 on that pitch is most of the time not comparable to 2-65 (or 3-65) on 300+ pitch. 

 

You will always find one or two bowler from each side who can bowl like that in high scoring game without an impact. But 90 on tough pitch is not very common. 

[Gollum]

45 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Those who are saying that bowlers should get MoM in 350+ scores matches, problem is that bowlers don't stand out with performances in such matches. Kohli's 92 on that pitch is most of the time not comparable to 2-65 (or 3-65) on 300+ pitch. 

 

You will always find one or two bowler from each side who can bowl like that in high scoring game without an impact. But 90 on tough pitch is not very common. 

India vs Sri Lanka, 2009 Rajkot. We scored 414, they were 328/2 in 37 overs with Dilshan and Sanath Jayasuriya batting. Bhajji got both of them out, we won by 3 runs. Bhajji's 58/2 was the clincher there but MOM went to Viru. Viru scored 146(102) while Dilshan scored 160(124). Bhajji got 58/2 in his 10 overs, and more importantly turned the match around with his double strike. Who deserved MOM according to you?

 http://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricket-scorecard/3196/ind-vs-sl-1st-odi-sri-lanka-in-india-odi-series

 

India vs England, 2011 WC group game Bengaluru. Match was a tie. Sachin scored 120(115) while Strauss scored 158(145). But Zak was the one who made the tie possible when England were cruising. They were 281/3 with 58 required of 45 balls. Strauss was on 158* while Bell was 69*. Zak got both of them out in a fantastic spell of reverse swing. He then dismissed Collingwood for 1 and finished with 3/64, undoubtedly the game changer there. Strauss got MOM but did he deserve it?

http://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricket-scorecard/2177/ind-vs-eng-11th-match-group-b-icc-world-cup-2011

 

These are just 2 examples from the top of my head, there will be more. My point is in high scoring games, bowlers can still stand out. Impact matters there, a few crucial breakthroughs or an economic spell at the fag end of the innings can turn the match by 180 degrees. But unfortunately even in those circumstances batsmen invariably get MOM. Bowlers never get their due, especially in India, in these MOM awards.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Gollum

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, Gollum said:

India vs Sri Lanka, 2009 Rajkot. We scored 414, they were 328/2 in 37 overs with Dilshan and Sanath Jayasuriya batting. Bhajji got both of them out, we won by 3 runs. Bhajji's 58/2 was the clincher there but MOM went to Viru. Viru scored 146(102) while Dilshan scored 160(124). Bhajji got 58/2 in his 10 overs, and more importantly turned the match around with his double strike. Who deserved MOM according to you?

 http://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricket-scorecard/3196/ind-vs-sl-1st-odi-sri-lanka-in-india-odi-series

 

India vs England, 2011 WC group game Bengaluru. Match was a tie. Sachin scored 120(115) while Strauss scored 158(145). But Zak was the one who made the tie possible when England were cruising. They were 281/3 with 58 required of 45 balls. Strauss was on 158* while Bell was 69*. Zak got both of them out in a fantastic spell of reverse swing. He then dismissed Collingwood for 1 and finished with 3/64, undoubtedly the game changer there. Strauss got MOM but did he deserve it?

http://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricket-scorecard/2177/ind-vs-eng-11th-match-group-b-icc-world-cup-2011

 

These are just 2 examples from the top of my head, there will be more. My point is in high scoring games, bowlers can still stand out. Impact matters there, a few crucial breakthroughs or an economic spell at the fag end of the innings can turn the match by 180 degrees. But unfortunately even in those circumstances batsmen invariably get MOM. Bowlers never get their due, especially in India, in these MOM awards.

In the same match Bresnan took 5-48, much better bowling performance and he was the reason why India could score only 33 runs in last 25 balls with 7 wickets in hand. India probably fell short by 15 runs.

 

Sure Zak was game changer and ensured that India saved the match from almost losing position, but those performances are similar to cameos played by batsman where a batsman comes in with RRR of 9-10 and plays a blinder of 45 runs. Does that deserve MoM,  probably yes. Is it completely unfair to award the batsman - certainly not. Batsman scoring 150-160 isn't that common. 

 

However, I agree that it appears batsmen are favored when it comes to selecting MoM in India. Panels tend to give more weightage to batting performance over bowling performance in close cases. 

[philcric]

3 hours ago, Nonbeliever said:

Rahane and stoinis both scored fifties.  Nowadays match without a century is very rare.  Bhuvi and Kuldeep deserved more than Kohli.  Kuldeep also.picked hattrick otherwise stoinis would have got crucial support to win the match.

Oh yes. Totally forgot about Rahane and Stoinis.

 

Kuldeep I don't think deserved the MOM. He bowled alright, wasn't great. Even his wickets, the one to Cummins was a great delivery, but others which got Wade and Agar were ordinary. Chahal bowled much better if you consider all 10 overs.

 

Bhuvi would definitely have got MOM if Rohit held on to that catch. 6 overs, 9 runs, 3 wkts in opening spell would have been a definite match winning performance, easily ahead of Virat's 91 and bowling performances of Chahal/Kuldeep.