Talk:New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2011–12

How is the Player of the Match chosen

Rumours I've heard tell me that it's now a popular vote of Channel Nine viewers.

That would explain a batsman in the losing Australian team getting it ahead of a very successful bowler from the winning team.

What IS the story? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was being voted for by viewers. Feel sorry for Bracewell. Lugnuts (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just Ch 9 viewers in Australia? That would be stupid. If it's the case, it has lost all merit and no longer deserves mention here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to this report, it was voted by people who purchased an app. BUT Warner was the official man of the match - it was Cricket Australia who decided to do it this way. StAnselm (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the Player of the Match award in Australia right now has almost no equivalence to the Player of the Match award in previous series and elsewhere currently. The article presents the information as if it means the same thing as in previous series. We either need to clarify this change in meaning in the article, or just remove it completely because it's rubbish (as that reliable source says). HiLo48 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should report who was the man of the match, regardless of how that person was picked. Cricinfo offers up Warner's name. I think we could become bogged down in a potential edit-war to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. If someone doesn't like Ch 9 viewers picking the MotM, why not the next editor disagreeing with a former cricketer in the commentary box who they dislike who picks a MotM. Report the facts not hide the facts you don't particually agree with, otherwise it becomes a bit PONTINGY, er WP:POINTY ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I definitely DO NOT want to hide the facts. Right now, the fact that the method of selecting this award's recipient has dramatically changed is hidden. I will work on a suitable annotation to make sure that we DO report the facts. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure that it changes much at all to be honest. Player of the match/series have been decided in a variety of ways in the past and I don't see that the method of choosing is relevant and I am puzzled that it is given much weight at all. If there was to be discussion on the topic in an article, this article is NOT the place - it should be at Man of the Match. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah. I looked there. It's a very shallow generic article about similar awards in many sports across the globe. There's an article in today's Age about this issue now - "Warner award a 'slap in the face' for Kiwis". So how the recipient is selected has in itself become a story. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cricket Australia has apparently decided to abandon the public vote system. This may be worth mentioning in the article. —Raven42 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly became an issue. Probably the most controversial aspect of the whole series in the end. I will think about some words for the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The best NPOV way forward is to mention the award and to mention the notable criticism it attracted. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a subsection to this effect. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)