James Pattinson

[ab5ides1]

http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/xx283/aashenden123/JamesPattinson9-60.jpg?t=1283574103

WOW!!

[CyberCricketer]

And he didn't get MoM! That sucks...

[mudassartufail67]

http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/x...g?t=1283574103
WOW!!

Good!!!
Did he get 10 wicket haul?

[ab5ides1]

Good!!!
Did he get 10 wicket haul?

Yes he got 1-91 in the first innings.

[ab5ides1]

And he didn't get MoM! That sucks...

The game totally favours batting performances over bowling performances. When there's a choice between a guy who hit a 100 and a 50 and a guy who takes, say 12 wickets, it chooses the batter. To an extent it mirrors real life, but sometimes overly so.

[mudassartufail67]

Yes he got 1-91 in the first innings.

WOW!!!
Excellent Come back !!!!!

[outbreak]

wow nice work from pattinson. It is odd how it favours batting. in a 20/20 match i had a batsman get man of the match for making a half century runs when a bowler went for 0 runs and 4 wickets off one over to finish off the match guess he was bowling to the tail but still...

[ab5ides1]

Here is a recent example of the games favouring batsmen over bowlers.

http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/xx283/aashenden123/ICC%202010%20Shots/Hilfy8for77.jpg?t=1283932586

[dancingmongoose]

a bowler needs to take 5 in each innings AND have no centuries scored in the match to get MoM. thats what i find anyway

[qpeedore]

I've seen bowlers get MotM with pretty regular frequency. It just depends on the match in particular, I guess. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes not.

I've been politely asking the team to take a look at the MotM selections since ICC08. But nothing doing just yet. At least lay out the criteria so that I know, because it sort of annoys me to see an obvious MotM be ignored.

An example of one such match where I have to wonder what the hell happened...how do they give Kapali MotM and NOT give Casey?

[enigma]

How about it if we, the gamers, were given the option to choose the MoM from a list of probables generated by the game according to their performance in the match & then asked us to choose one of them?

I'd like to see MoM being given to a bowler who's bowled really well on a flat wicket & to a batsmen on a helpful pitch & being able to choose MoM awardee will get rid of the frustration that we feel at the end of many good matches just because the MoM was awarded to the wrong individual, plus, I'm assuming that adding such a small feature won't eat out too much of the developers' time either but it'll definitely add to our good-feeling at the end of matches.

[ab5ides1]

How about it if we, the gamers, were given the option to choose the MoM from a list of probables generated by the game according to their performance in the match & then asked us to choose one of them?

I'd like to see MoM being given to a bowler who's bowled really well on a flat wicket & to a batsmen on a helpful pitch & being able to choose MoM awardee will get rid of the frustration that we feel at the end of many good matches just because the MoM was awarded to the wrong individual, plus, I'm assuming that adding such a small feature won't eat out too much of the developers' time either but it'll definitely add to our good-feeling at the end of matches.

But currently it doesn't really matter because you can't see how many motm awards people have, I think it would be a very good feature.

[6ry4nj]

How about it if we, the gamers, were given the option to choose the MoM from a list of probables generated by the game according to their performance in the match & then asked us to choose one of them?

But wouldn't you always pick one of your players?

A compromise I thought of would be to have a sort of Decision Review, where if you don't like the computer's choice, you can ask it to reconsider. Of course, it may well stand by its original decision.

However, I get the feeling that the computer's choice does not have a random element. Still, perhaps in a review scenario, if there was a close second choice (which probably happens a fair bit), it could be persuaded to change its mind...

[ab5ides1]

But wouldn't you always pick one of your players?

A compromise I thought of would be to have a sort of Decision Review, where if you don't like the computer's choice, you can ask it to reconsider. Of course, it may well stand by its original decision.

However, I get the feeling that the computer's choice does not have a random element. Still, perhaps in a review scenario, if there was a close second choice (which probably happens a fair bit), it could be persuaded to change its mind...

This sounds a bit like match-fixing......

[Phylos Fett]

This sounds a bit like match-fixing......

More like spot-betting