Putting The Individual Ahead of the Team

‘Player of the match’ awards in team sports have always been a topic for debate. How often does the goalscorer get the nod over the player who created the opportunity for the scorer?  Is this simply a laziness on the part of those judging such an award? Or is it that those making the decision do not hold any value in such an accolade?

Of course there are some team sports where a Player of the match award seems appropriate, for example cricket or baseball. In both of these sports we see individuals go head-to-head in a battle between bat and ball within the context of a team. The batter or batsman trying to gain ascendency over the pitcher or bowler. The outcome of their individual tussle having an impact on the team as a whole. The bowler/pitcher is also reliant on their team mates fulfilling their roles in order to be successful, but when they prepare to bowl or pitch, it is one-on-one.

Other team sports such as Rugby Union and League, Football and Hockey are a completely different situation. Here the harmony and ability to work as a team is essential. Sure, a moment of brilliance from one player can turn a game, but in truth today how many times do we see that? Once in about ten games?

Sport today, or rather team sport today is all about “the process.” Fans are told this before and after almost every game. Every player has their role to play, and that role is intertwined with those around them. Play is so regimented, so organised. Tactics are based around possession and patience. Frustrate your opposition and force them to overcommit, to lose their shape defensively and that is when you pounce. That is when you look to drive home your advantage.

So process driven has sport become that one Super Rugby club coach would not even allow his players to go for the try-line if they saw a gap. They were told that they must stick to “the process.”

Anyone who follows sport knows that the Man or Woman of the Match award is essentially another form of revenue raising. The award is nearly always sponsored, and it gives the broadcaster or the Governing body another opportunity to pull in money and cover costs. 

There is nothing wrong with the player of the match award per se, what is often an issue is the criteria under which the award is decided. Frequently the award can be contradictory to what our eyes as spectators have witnessed. Sometimes the winner wins purely based on their reputation or because they scored the winning goal. Sometimes depending on what footage the broadcaster has of various players. On many other occasions the decision is clearly biased towards a player from the winning side, despite an outstanding performance from a player on the losing side. 

To illustrate this point at the recently concluded Hockey World Cup in India, there were 36 matches played and only twice did the Man of the Match come from a losing side.

Yet when it comes to the player of the tournament this rule does not seem to be so important. Take the FIFA World Cup held earlier this year, Luka Modric of Croatia, who lost the final, was voted player of the tournament. In the tournaments prior to this one, Lionel Messi or Argentina won the award and before him Uruguay’s Diego Forlan, yet neither won the World Cup. 

In the Hockey World Cup Arthur van Doren of Belgium was voted the player of the tournament and won the World Cup yesterday, and four years ago Mark Knowles of Australia also won Gold and the Player of the Tournament. This is not to say that they did not deserve their awards, but prior to Knowles’ win,  in 2010 the Netherlands won bronze but Guus Vogels was player of the tournament, in 2006 Australia lost the final but Jamie Dwyer won the player of the tournament. Likewise in 2002 when Australia again lost the final, but Troy Elder was the player of the tournament.

Just because your team does not win the tournament or the match, it should not preclude a player from winning one of these awards.

What is needed is more clarity on why the said player has been given the award. If the award is voted on by the commentary team, then they should explain why they chose that player. If there is a criteria on which the player of the match is selected then that too needs to be made clear.

At the moment it appears that many of these awards across most sports are extremely subjective and not based on a criteria at all.

For example at the Hockey World Cup Australia’s Tyler Lovell did not concede a goal throughout the whole tournament. A phenomenal achievement. Yet he was not voted the Best Goalkeeper at the Tournament.

On the face of it this would appear a strange decision. Yet because Australia opt to rotate their goalkeepers in each game, Lovell did not play every minute of every game like the winner of the award, the Netherlands’ Pirmin Blaak. Was this taken into account? Of course you must also take into account with goalkeepers, it could be that the defence in front of them that has done such a good job that they have very few shots to save. If the award was based on shots saved then China’s Wang Caiyu would surely have been a contender along with David Carter of Canada.

In fact when it came to the Man of the Match awards Carter picked up two from Canada’s four games. He was the only goalkeeper to win two such awards. While eventual player of the tournament van Doren and team mate Simon Gougnard were the only other players to pick up more than one such award.

Some tournaments do base their overall player of the tournament on the players that win the most Man of the Match awards. That is fine, but once again the fans and the spectators need clarity on how the decision is reached, as obviously they have their favourite players and want to know why that player was not chosen.

If used correctly such awards can be used to educate the viewer and fans. If a criteria was in place when assessing the merits of a player’s performance then those announcing the winners could explain on what grounds they were chosen, or the commentators could share that information with the viewers at home.

Yet even this is not flawless. As a coach may well have asked a player to carry out a set role with in a match, for example England’s Bobby Charlton was asked by coach Alf Ramsay to shadow Franz Beckenbauer in the 1966 World Cup final and also in 1970. Charlton was to sacrifice his natural game in order to negate what was deemed a major threat from the opposition. To those not aware of the tactics they would have claimed that Charlton had “a quiet game.” Yet the truth was he had a superb game in ’66 carrying out his coach’s instructions.

Of course back then there were no Player of the match awards. The Budweiser Man of the Match was only introduced in 2002! However Charlton did pick up the Golden Ball as the player of the Tournament; Since 1982 known as the “Adidas Golden Ball.” Confirming the commercialisation of not only sport, but also the awards.

Commercialism is a reality in sport today, and no doubt the “Player of the Match” award is here to stay. Yet for some reason in the team games mentioned it still doesn’t sit comfortably with this writer.

I was fortunate to work many years ago with Baseball Hall of Famer Jim Palmer, who won three World Series Championships with the Baltimore Orioles; the only club he played for. Palmer won his first World Series in 1966 a week before his 21st birthday. He has always been open and said that for a while, as the pitcher he thought he had won the world series for the team. Only after time on the sideline with injuries and ‘growing up,’ did he realise that to be successful he needed everyone on the team to do their jobs well. That it took a team-effort to be successful.

Rewarding one player for a team victory may suit sponsors and bring in revenue, but does that make it right?  

Restricting the honour of such an award to players from the winning team cannot be right, and appears to have become a modern trend. Has this come about as a result of society’s need to be associated with success?