Why did **** get MoTM?

In this new spirit of no spoilers in the title I will now ask here:

How did Imanol Harinordoquy get MoTM? I admit I was mainly paying attention to what the England players did - but cannot believe Imanol's performance was better than Tom Croft for instance.

He was pretty good. I'd say from a French point of view he'd definitely get it. From my English point of view I don't see the problem with it (especially since MOTM is a load of bull anyway)

HammerofThunor wrote:He was pretty good. I'd say from a French point of view he'd definitely get it. From my English point of view I don't see the problem with it (especially since MOTM is a load of bull anyway)

+1. He was similar to Croft in his game (tackles, lineout work, carrying) except that he didn't get a try, but he was fantastic at claiming restarts and the MOTM is usually a home player

MOTM lost all credability for me after I watched womens rugby and one of the backs won MOTM

It was picked by the French commentary team about a minute before Trinh- Duc missed his DG attempt. The French were certain that they were going to nick the match.

In fairness though, he was one of the best players on the field so no real complaints.

Shouldn't make any difference who wins. The reason it usually goes to a winner is for the same reason it often goes to a try scorer. Because the media pick them and their stupid (or at least act like it)

Joke of a decision. Motm should only go to the losing side in exceptional circumstances, and whilst old Harry had a decent game (majestic in the air as always) it certainly wasn't worth motm.

In fact I can think of two pivotal moments where he contributed to his side losing the game: he was handed-off by Morgan prior to the offload for the second try; and he was mugged-off by Croft when he went through for the winning try.

....the thing is, Harinordoquy is a proud man: can you imagine him recieving the champers after the game? I'm surprised he didn't smash it over the pundit's head!! "Congratulations on a great performance Imanol"....."What are you talking about??!! We lost!!"

Shocking decision....but who really cares I suppose

Adam wrote:Joke of a decision. Motm should only go to the losing side in exceptional circumstances

Why? It's got nothing to do with the team performance (or at least it's not supposed to, that's why it's MAN of the match)

Cymroglan wrote:MOTM lost all credability for me after I watched womens rugby and one of the backs won MOTM

Brilliant

For the exact reasons that I later described in my post. You really think Harinordoquy was consoled with the award? He probably wanted to throw the bubbly in the bin!

Plus, in this instance he certainly wasn't the man of the match

Should a MOTM always be a try scorer?

No, I think he should be the best player on the field. Harinordoquy was certainly close to being that...and you couldn't blame him for being both a hero and villain to his own side, he was practically the only French man playing with pride. He kept bumping into himself with the effort!
Yeah, I'd give it to him.

I'd give Fofana Hero of the Match... and no, that's not a compliment.

It was just nice to see Croft finally doing all the things he is there for. The lineouts - that tackle on Malzieu when the wing was starting to fly - and that lovely lovely try

It was give by the France TV channel. I do admit he was fantastic all around the park today.

I personly do not agree with some one from the same team(french tv) picking the MOT. It should be an independent, a neutral so their is no biased.

The Italians are just as bad, its always Parisse

The papers seem to have it right:
Harinordoquy: 8/10
Croft: 9/10

By the way, is Harinordoquy a dick head or does he just come across that way when he plays England?

Since I doubt anyone here has met Harinordoquy personally, you probably won't get your answer. In what way was he a dick head in that game anyway? On topic though, is what Italy and France do in giving their MOTM awards to their own players any different from Davies giving it to a welsh player every time? Davies is the most biased and most rubbish pundit I have ever seen.

Well if an England player was quoted as saying something like this about the Scots, the Irish, or the Welsh:

He once said that he “hated” them for their Anglo-Saxon postures, for “their arrogance and dismissiveness”.

I assume he would be slammed.

Still, I don't think any England player has had their Dad run on to the pitch to defend their precious.

Alex_Germany wrote:The papers seem to have it right:
Harinordoquy: 8/10
Croft: 9/10

By the way, is Harinordoquy a dick head or does he just come across that way when he plays England?

Are you seeing him being a "dick head" when he plays England or are you just remembering headlines?

Harinordoquy does seem to have form when talking about England. For the record he can be a terrific player and there came a point in that match where he seemed to be everywhere - in particular in seemingly taking every high ball going. He was very noticable - but I guess not always for the right reasons.

Croft was great though. It would have been a lot harder to win without him, and his side won. I cant think of any other English players who did better. Morgan had that terrific run and offload but its hard to think of what else he did. Same really for Tuilagi, thought that try will live long in the memory. Farrell's tackling is just superb, but his all round game isnt there yet.

In Volleyball the two teams pick a player out of the opposition, Most Valued Player.

Man of the Match is too football like and often goes to media darlings.

Every man of the match was wrong.

It should have been Ferris, North, Croft
It was Ryan, Cuthbert, Harinordquy

If I was an England fan this morning I really wouldn't give a Fxxx who had MOM From an England perspective I would have given it to either the french 9 or 10 or Rougerie and Fofana

Croft was outstanding...made some big plays and some crucial tackles...

He's making me change my mind about him....although its only been two games....

Rory_Gallagher wrote: Davies is the most biased and most rubbish pundit I have ever seen.

+1 - Loathsome man with the most annoying voice in the world after Joe Pasquale.

Don't think he's that bad to be honest. Think he enjoys playing the role of 'one-eyed Welshman'. Was good to see him poke fun at himself this week wrt his England team talk before the Wales match. Passionate guy, should never dis someone for that. On a nother note did anyone notice that Brian Moore is turning Japanese? (I really think so...)

nobbled wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote: Davies is the most biased and most rubbish pundit I have ever seen.

+1 - Loathsome man with the most annoying voice in the world after Joe Pasquale.

+1 as well. Listening to him is like scrapping chalk down a blackboard.
The punter I dislike the most bar none
What makes it worse is he talks garbage most of the time as well.
Perfect example of a good player not translating into a knowledgable commentator

I prefer Jiffy to Betsen pitchside, can anyone make out anything the guy says?

I love Betsen, cool and knowledgeable - Jiffy is hard to like but I think most of the time he talks good rugby sense - I actually don't like the guy but you can hardly criticise someone for their voice, that's dodgy territory - I like the way More and Butler spar a little but for me the creme de la creme is Phiilp Matthews - Objective and head and shoulders above everyone else for me along with Lynagh and Fitzpatrick

I objective to his blinkered attitude. I dont think he is even handed and I think he is arrogant in a holier than thou sort of way. I certaintly don't agree he is one of the more knowledgable commentators.

Compared to Fitzpatrick, Matthews, Greenwood, Healy, Moore, O'Shea, Pope he is nowhere near as good.

Andy Nicol is another waste of space but he at least has the advantage of having a pleasant enough personality

I like Davis. The mischevious twinkle, the typically Welsh firebrand quick temper - the chuffed look when he knows the other panel members are rattled that Wales have just won again.

It's entertainment. You need more than a few miserable auto-cue readers and dull as dishwater analyists. You need someone passionate and sparky to take the pre/mid/post chats to places they never go to when the bores talk.

Cymroglan wrote:MOTM lost all credability for me after I watched womens rugby and one of the backs won MOTM

Wow A woman won Man of the Match!

Woman of the match just doesn't sound right though

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I prefer Jiffy to Betsen pitchside, can anyone make out anything the guy says?

Agree with that.

gowales wrote:Woman of the match just doesn't sound right though

I think Balshaw won that a few years back in the 6 Nations

MOTM

Miss of the Match

Missus of the Match

Madam of the Match

M is a versatile letter when you get to know it

SecretFly wrote:I like Davis. The mischevious twinkle, the typically Welsh firebrand quick temper - the chuffed look when he knows the other panel members are rattled that Wales have just won again.

It's entertainment. You need more than a few miserable auto-cue readers and dull as dishwater analyists. You need someone passionate and sparky to take the pre/mid/post chats to places they never go to when the bores talk.

Couldn't agree more with this. All of the pundits that people hate are - coincidentally - the same ones that others love....because they're passionate about their side and occasionally get a bit partisan....what's wrong with that?! I want passion in a pundit! The beeb - in fairness to them - do a decent job of ensuring that all partisan elements are evenly represented in the pundit team, so I don't see the problem. Also, I have a French uncle and a fair few Welsh and Scots mates and I can tell you, when the result hasn't gone England's way against their respective sides, it doesn't take very much at all for them to wind me up......the smug smile here, the little comment there.....it's all part of the fun!! "Davies really winds me up because he's just so bloody........Welsh!!!" - this isn't a valid criticism (really ).

Also, just like to say that Butler/Moore is by far the best commentary team going. I love the way Butler pushes Moore's buttons - he's definitely at his most entertaining when irate!

thats why MVP is better, its also nominated by the opposite team so is actually worth something

Theres nothing worng with pundits having perosnality, far from it. But when their "persoanlity" is whinging and one eyed, and they display a startling lack of knwoledge about the laws of the game ( and pass this on the watching public and media) its a problem.
Jiffy is the master of the " that was never a yellow" BS and the chear leader of the hang the ref crowd.

The BBC has become far too concerned with pandering to the casual viewer and doenst offer any level of real analysis any more.

The BBC's idea of unbiased reporting to have as many biased pundits as possible to cover all bases. I don't bother to watch build-ups or post game chat as it's usually pointless

Betsen should have been man of the match for managing to get the maskot/charity child off the pitch to let the game start

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Theres nothing worng with pundits having perosnality, far from it. But when their "persoanlity" is whinging and one eyed, and they display a startling lack of knwoledge about the laws of the game ( and pass this on the watching public and media) its a problem.
Jiffy is the master of the " that was never a yellow" BS and the chear leader of the hang the ref crowd.

The BBC has become far too concerned with pandering to the casual viewer and doenst offer any level of real analysis any more.

So who else has 'personality' AND a ruthlessly articulate grip of the intricacies of the game? Sorry, I don't see it. I either see boardroom misery and big scarves or I see Davis with bright eyes and opinions he doesn't mind sharing (whether you want them or not).

SecretFly wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Theres nothing worng with pundits having perosnality, far from it. But when their "persoanlity" is whinging and one eyed, and they display a startling lack of knwoledge about the laws of the game ( and pass this on the watching public and media) its a problem.
Jiffy is the master of the " that was never a yellow" BS and the chear leader of the hang the ref crowd.

The BBC has become far too concerned with pandering to the casual viewer and doenst offer any level of real analysis any more.

So who else has 'personality' AND a ruthlessly articulate grip of the intricacies of the game? Sorry, I don't see it. I either see boardroom misery and big scarves or I see Davis with bright eyes and opinions he doesn't mind sharing (whether you want them or not).

Healy

Healy?

Big scarf...mumbling something in the stands with his big microphone...and sorry, I never listen to a word he says.

I don't watch rugby to learn the rudiments (maybe others do, so be it)....but I don't, especially mid game when everything I want to see is already happening down on the field, where the camera should stay!

Adam wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I like Davis. The mischevious twinkle, the typically Welsh firebrand quick temper - the chuffed look when he knows the other panel members are rattled that Wales have just won again.

It's entertainment. You need more than a few miserable auto-cue readers and dull as dishwater analyists. You need someone passionate and sparky to take the pre/mid/post chats to places they never go to when the bores talk.

Couldn't agree more with this. All of the pundits that people hate are - coincidentally - the same ones that others love....because they're passionate about their side and occasionally get a bit partisan....what's wrong with that?!

Far too simplistic. The pundits I cant stand are typified by the dull boring automotons on the BBC panals.
I like Moore/Butler and I like passionate pundits. I don't accept that Davies comes across as passionate - he comes across as a whinger to me.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Betsen should have been man of the match for managing to get the maskot/charity child off the pitch to let the game start

I thought Rollaind was going to give a straight red for that one

SecretFly wrote:Healy?

Big scarf...mumbling something in the stands with his big microphone...and sorry, I never listen to a word he says.

I don't watch rugby to learn the rudiments (maybe others do, so be it)....but I don't, especially mid game when everything I want to see is already happening down on the field, where the camera should stay!

Right you just want to know theres numbers out wide and then be made to feel angry that someones been carded for dangerous play.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Healy?

Big scarf...mumbling something in the stands with his big microphone...and sorry, I never listen to a word he says.

I don't watch rugby to learn the rudiments (maybe others do, so be it)....but I don't, especially mid game when everything I want to see is already happening down on the field, where the camera should stay!

Right you just want to know theres numbers out wide and then be made to feel angry that someones been carded for dangerous play.

I want to see the game primarily. That is the absolute MUST for me. I could watch a game happily enough without commentary at all. Game is premium.

The rest is just packaging. Some of the packaging I like - Moore, Davis..a few more. Other bits of packaging I don't listen to or care about - and yes, that includes the mid-game video games with circles and arrows. I personally don't need it and would much prefer the camera sticks with what I tuned in to watch - the game -(stoppages and all).

But we're all different. Healy can do what he does.... I'll just continue to ignore him.

HammerofThunor wrote:The BBC's idea of unbiased reporting to have as many biased pundits as possible to cover all bases.

Exactly. A sensible approach given the impossibility of finding a pundit who is genuinely un-biased, and the heavy probability that if they did, fans would probably call them boring etc. etc. It's actually a pretty good way of handling a no-win situation.....except, by definition, they don't win.....more like a tacit and unsatisfactory draw