What exactly does a bowler have to do to get MOM anymore?

[Vilander]

+1. I am not being able to understand the logic of giving the MOM for encouragement. The MOM would often go to the most outstanding performance of the match - and a 'contrarian' view is often taken; if the pitch favours bowlers, an outstanding batting performance is rewarded or vice-versa. Here someone scores 177 (which is incidentally more than what the whole of WI scored together in their second innngs), when the team was at 83/5 and was under pressure of conceding a reasonable first innings lead. That innings defines the match and makes sure that India is surely in the leader's position. I can still understand if there is a clamour for Ashwin, because his performance has been as good. But why should Shami win the MOM for encouragement? He surely bowled brilliantly, it was a great contribution, but was surely not the defining performance of the match that separated the two sides. Lastly, MOM adjudicators are supposed to use cold logic here - they are not supposed to make their decisions on the basis of 'what will encourage phaast bowling' in the country.

Rohit - 170 ashwin- 120 5 wkts shami - 9 wkts I innings for India remain. in which technically they could have scored 300 runs. obviously Shami was the most outstanding followed by Ashwin then Rohit.

[CommonMan]

It should have been given to Shami. BCCI not secular :vroam: