Making It Count.

In individual sporting contests there is no need for a Player of the Match award, as the event or the tournament is summed up by the term, ‘to the victor go the spoils.’

When it comes to team sports often when the winner of the Player of the Match is announced there are many who disagree with the player chosen. Then post match debate rages in the bars across a city or nation and on social media.

Any sports fan will be able to remember a time when they were at a live game and over the loud speakers came the announcement of the Player of the Match, and following that announcement sections of the crowd started to boo the decision. Others will have turned to the people sat next to them with raised eyebrows wondering how the said player has been given the award.

Lately there have been a number of sports events in which the player of the match has been announced and there have been very few who have agreed with the decision. That has been extremely clear via social media channels, and also simply by talking to those who watched the games.

So do team sports need a Player of the Match?

In Ice Hockey tradition has seen them award the “three stars.” The three stars were the best three players in the match, with the number one star often deemed the Player of the Match. This came about in the 1936/37 NHL season, when Imperial Oil were the major sponsor of the league. Three Star was a brand of gasoline, and the marketing people saw the link as the ideal way to promote the stars of the game. The Three Star tradition remained as long as Imperial were involved as a sponsor up until 1976. By then the Three Stars was so entrenched in the game it stayed.

It would appear that Cricket first adopted a Player of the Match award back in the 1960’s. Which is no surprise, as although a team game cricket sees players required to put in strong individual performances for the team. Batsmen stand alone when facing a bowler looking to send them back to the pavilion. Of course both of these combatants still require their team mates to partner them when batting, or stop runs and take catches in the field, but there is a solitary side to cricket.

The Super Bowl’s Most Valuable Player started in 1967, with the Green Bay Packers quarterback Bart Starr being the first recipient. In AFL the Norm Smith medal for the Fairest and Best started in 1979, while in the NRL the Clive Churchill medal for the player of the Grand Final started in 1986. The Joe Marston Medal for the best player in the NSL/A-League Grand Final was only introduced in the 1989/90 season.

Many feel that to have an award in Final has merit, but the big question is if it is really necessary in every other game? Especially in a game where the winner is a part of team, a team that has to contribute for the individual to thrive.

In the early days it was often the experts in the commentary box who made the decision as to who should receive the award. That evolved over time. Many sports saw self-important committee men who knew little about the sport take over the decision-making, while some of the sports who took the award seriously appointed a panel of ex players or coaches to vote.

By the 1990’s many of the Player of the Match awards had become a commercial opportunity. The broadcasters had found a sponsor to pay for that slot, the most unashamed being in the English Premier League when a sweaty player would be handed a branded bottle of Barclays champagne.

Sadly the award has now in many sports become farcical. If there was pride in receiving the award, much of that has been stripped by those in authority announcing the winner for political, or other reasons rather than solely for their performance.

I have worked on games where the expert commentator alongside me has made a decision on the Player of the Match, only to see the award given to another player. On one occasion when they asked why their decision had been ignored they were told that it was easier to compile a highlights package of one of the goal-scorers!

Sadly often fans have to endure a home decision. In other words whoever is making the call on the Player of the Match goes with a home team player irrespective of the result. This can be embarrassing to home fans and players especially if they have just been played off the park. It can undermine a broadcast for the same reason, especially if the away team has battered the home side. Yet there are times when a player on the losing side has genuinely been the best player, but because they have lost those adjudicating opt to give it to a player from the winning team.

It was a running joke in the late 1980’s and early 90’s that Manchester United’s Bryan Robson would win the Player of the Match irrespective of whether his team won or lost, or he dropped below his own high standards.

Incredibly there have also been occasions where a club has given an incentive to those voting to give it to their player, as they are aware the player wishes to leave their current club. By winning a series of Player of the Match awards the player’s value goes up.

Which shows that not only can the award be a commercial win for the broadcaster, but also for the clubs. As a result the spirit of the award has often been lost. That is not always the case, especially if the expert has the credentials and respect within the game to make such a call.

At the end of the day surely such an award should be kept just for the Final of a competition? What does it really tell the fans when such an award is handed out on a weekly basis in many competitions?

If we look at the players that have won the most Player of the Match awards it comes as no surprise that the list is headed by the big name players. In European football last season Barcelona’s Lionel Messi topped the list of the most Man of the Match awards with 22, second was Cristiano Ronaldo with ten at Juventus. Also on ten were Joselu of Alaves, Karim Benzema of Real Madrid, Luis Alberto of Lazio and Timo Werner, of RB Leipzig. Kevin de Bruyne of Manchester City won the most awards in the English Premier League with nine.

In cricket the top five players in terms of winning the most International Man of the Match awards in Test Cricket are again the big names, Kumar Sangakkarra of Sri Lanka with 16 in 134 Tests, Shane Warne of Australia 17/145, Wasim Akram of Pakistan 17/104, Muttiah Muralitharan of Sri Lanka 19/133 and Jacques Kallis of South Africa 23/166.

In One Day International Cricket Sachin Tendulkar is the top of the pile with 63 awards in 463 matches. The next closest is Sanath Jayasuriya of Sri Lanka with 48 in 445 matches.

This would appear to be as it should be. However, how often has the big name player been given the nod over the emerging player in a match, purely because they are the big name player?

Sadly sport always comes down to opinion, and as was shown when certain sports opted to hand the voting over to fans via an interactive voting system online, it can be hijacked by one club’s set of fans, and once again it becomes a farce.

At the end of the day does anyone care who the Player of the Match is in most team games? Is that not one of the great conversation points post game as everyone shares their view? How often does a goalkeeper get overlooked for such an award, when they may have made a crucial save when the game was in the balance, a save that lifts those around them and spurs them on to victory?

There is a place for it still in Cricket, and there is a place in Finals, but do we need it at every level of the game and in every match week in week out? Surely that alone dilutes it’s worth? Then when you throw in some of the ways the decision is reached does it not actually undermine the game and the sport rather than enhancing it?

Let’s keep the accolades for the big games, the games that truly matter. The games in which every player dreams of being the star. For those who perform when it counts.