luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Olonga for me if the 'story' is true - maybe if it isn't even.
I disagree, Marc.marc71178 said:You're getting confused here.
If you're looking for the best performer then you want the player of the Tournament.
Man of the Tournament has to go to the biggest man, and Olonga wins that hands down for his stance.
Player of the Tournament would probably be someone like Tendulkar because Aus have had a team effort.
I disagree here.anilramavarma said:Once again, if Olonga is regarded as a hero in Zimbabwe because of his stance and actions, that is appropriate. If he is regarded as the "Man of Zimbabwe", it is appropriate. If he is regarded as the "Man of the Tournament", in a tournament where he played very little part, just because he chose to make a political statement on a cricket field, it is totally inappropriate.
For God's sake, guys, where did I ever say that Olonga and Flower doesn't deserve praise and awards for what they did? I repeatedly said they are heroes of Zimbabwe and should be regarded and respected as such. My only objection was to the statement that Henry Olonga is the "Man of the 2003 World Cup". He most definitely is not. That is an insult to the Tendulkars, the Bevans, the Vaas and the Bichels of this WC.Rik said:Anil, why should it? Henry Olonga has sacrificed his career for his country, he deserves an award. Why such a stance?
It's true that this tournament has been a controversial one for both cricketing and non-cricketing reasons. There has been a lot of politics which has affected play. However, this still remains the premier cricket tournament and the games played and the results achieved are all about cricket, not politics, mate. As I told Rik, Olonga has shown himself to be a big man, probably the biggest man in Zimbabwe and let's honor him as such. As far as the WC is concerned, let's honor the best player in the tournament as the "Man of the Tournament". I am sure whoever he is, deserves the award for his exploits on the field thoroughly.marc71178 said:I disagree here.
There is much more to this Tournament than just Cricket, and Olonga has been a bigger man than anyone can comprehend.
No it's proof that life is more important than just a game of cricket. Tendulkar has belted the ball around, but has he done anything else? Like standing against a facist dictator? No? Didn't think so.anilramavarma said:For God's sake, guys, where did I ever say that Olonga and Flower doesn't deserve praise and awards for what they did? I repeatedly said they are heroes of Zimbabwe and should be regarded and respected as such. My only objection was to the statement that Henry Olonga is the "Man of the 2003 World Cup". He most definitely is not. That is an insult to the Tendulkars, the Bevans, the Vaas and the Bichels of this WC.
Whoever said that life is not more important than cricket? Of course, it is way more important even to cricketers, forget people like us. However, this tournament is definitely all about that tiny part of a cricketer's life and even tinier part of us fan's lives, ie cricket.Rik said:No it's proof that life is more important than just a game of cricket. Tendulkar has belted the ball around, but has he done anything else? Like standing against a facist dictator? No? Didn't think so.
It's happened before...why not now?Originally posted by Neil Pickup Aside: I can't believe Rik and Marc agree on something! [/B]
That(the best player) should have been the focus from the beginning.Neil Pickup said:Right, it's obvious that Henry (and Andy) are the men of the Tournament, so now let's keep this to the best player as we're going nowhere!
a_b, I have been at pains to explain this point as clearly and succinctly as I can, but Marc, Neil and Rik just refuse to take it up. They come up with statements like Olonga is a much bigger "man", life is more important than cricket, Tendulkar has never fought against a dictator....etc...etc....:rolleyes:aussie_beater said:Who do we call a "man of the match" ? The player who performs the best in that match or someone who shows the admirable courage to make a statement in that match about some extraneous political issues surrounding that match ??
Going by that same logic who would we call a "man of the tournament".... the player who does best in that tournament or the person who bravely demonstrates his views on a political issue surrounding that tournament ?
Come on guys.......we are talking cricket when we are talking about "man of the tournament" and that's implied and obvious.
So Olonga gets the "Zimbabwe people's award" or "all-freedom-loving-cricket-fans" award for his brave stance but never the "man of the tournament" for a cricket world cup in which he didn't do much.
Anil, I have made four posts in this topic:I have been at pains to explain this point as clearly and succinctly as I can, but Marc, Neil and Rik just refuse to take it up.
Neil Pickup said:Anil, I have made four posts in this topic:
- It has to be Sachin...
- Henry Olonga
- No, we just made it up...
- Let's stop this pointless argument...
[/list=1]
The Henry Olonga post was a half-serious sideways look at the whole thing, but it got blown out of all proportion into a pointless argument in which both sides said the same thing in different ways!