World Cup MOTM

[mick]

With 10 minutes to go I thought Australia were still going to win, obviously they thought the same. But seriously, how hard would it be to relay a message out to the centre of the field??

that shouldn't make a difference. It shouldn't matter if you win or lose. The man of the match means, best player on the field.

And with a name like "King_Lockyer" you know this poster won't be biased at all! :roll:

Hohaia should have got it.

IMO Locky was just as good as Lance out there. Lance by a nose for me, but f**k Locky had a great game.

 

[Scumbag]

[quote="King_Lockyer":11uefavc]

With 10 minutes to go I thought Australia were still going to win, obviously they thought the same. But seriously, how hard would it be to relay a message out to the centre of the field??

that shouldn't make a difference. It shouldn't matter if you win or lose. The man of the match means, best player on the field.

And with a name like "King_Lockyer" you know this poster won't be biased at all! :roll:

Hohaia should have got it.

Who the **** is Hohaia?

:|[/quote:11uefavc]

Problem mate?

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Im just stunned someone who follows league and watched the game doesnt know who Hohaia is thats all lol

 

[Black Philip]

Hohaia played fullback for the Kiwis in the final. He plays for the Warriors as a utility back. He can play 1,6,7 and I'm not sure about hooker. In the warriors run in to the finals he was playing at fullback in place of the suspended Wade McKinnon and played awesome.

 

[Scumbag]

Im just stunned someone who follows league and watched the game doesnt know who Hohaia is thats all lol

I know who he is. [icon_wink Just look at the company he was mentioned next to. Do you understand now?

Also he plays for the Kiwis, enough said. icon_smile

 

[Black Philip]

So because he is a Kiwi, and because Lockyer was in contention for the man of the match, he shouldn't be considered?

 

[Coxy]

I'm guessing that's what he means. That Lockyer is that much better a player than Hohaia. But then man of the match doesn't go to the best player, it goes to the best player on the day.

However, Lockyer was clearly favoured by a majority of them until the final minutes, and Hohaia didn't do anything better than Locky in that final 10 minutes so the only reason they wanted to change their mind was because NZ won. So as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with Locky as man of the match.

Besides, if they wanted to give it to a player who had the most influence on NZ winning, it should've gone to Slater or Monaghan! :P

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Im just stunned someone who follows league and watched the game doesnt know who Hohaia is thats all lol

I know who he is. [icon_wink Just look at the company he was mentioned next to. Do you understand now?

Also he plays for the Kiwis, enough said. icon_smile

Ah ok i see lol... use some emoticons man! lol

 

[Scumbag]

Im just stunned someone who follows league and watched the game doesnt know who Hohaia is thats all lol

I know who he is. [icon_wink Just look at the company he was mentioned next to. Do you understand now?

Also he plays for the Kiwis, enough said. icon_smile

Ah ok i see lol... use some emoticons man! lol

Yeah sorry chaps, I'm not having a good one today. The meaning was two-fold, one because of the illustrious company factor and two because I was playing the standard "bag out the opposition" card. No malice intended. Good stuff. icon_smile

You alright Scotty?

 

[King_Lockyer]

With 10 minutes to go I thought Australia were still going to win, obviously they thought the same. But seriously, how hard would it be to relay a message out to the centre of the field??

that shouldn't make a difference. It shouldn't matter if you win or lose. The man of the match means, best player on the field.

And with a name like "King_Lockyer" you know this poster won't be biased at all! :roll:

Hohaia should have got it.

just because Locky happens to be my fav player doesn't mean that i can't have an opinion on this. I'm not being bias. the fact is, locky was the best on the field. end of story!

 

[Hamm.0]

At the end of the day, Lockyer had to be arguably one of the best players on the field. I honestly don't see the big deal with a losing side having the MOTM. Just because a side loses, doesn't mean a particular player hasn't been best on field.

Brett Hodgson was a classic example. He was one of the best players in heaps of Tigers defeats I watched.

There should be far more MOTM awards to players from losing sides, it should be solely judged on players merit.

 

[Jeba]

See Hammo I am the opposite. I am against the MOTM going to someone on a losing side (at least in big games anyway). And at the end of the day, every player on a losing side who wins MOTM would trade it back for a win any day of the week. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any player who won MOTM on a losing side that was happy to receive it.

 

[mick]

At the end of the day, Lockyer had to be arguably one of the best players on the field. I honestly don't see the big deal with a losing side having the MOTM. Just because a side loses, doesn't mean a particular player hasn't been best on field.

Brett Hodgson was a classic example. He was one of the best players in heaps of Tigers defeats I watched.

There should be far more MOTM awards to players from losing sides, it should be solely judged on players merit.

[eusa_clap.gi Very, very well said.

I also don't think we see it enough. There are so many close games in the NRL, where one team as a whole plays a little better to win it, but the best individual in the match by a clear margin is on the losing team and subsequently gets ignored.

 

[Sabu_2008]

Jeremy Smith, Sam Rapira or Benji Marshall should have gotten it.

 

[Hamm.0]

It's no secret I've had a man-crush on Jeremy Smith since 2006, but he did play an absolute cracker of a game.

 

[Kimlo]

Nothing happened in the last ten mins to make them change their mind! Locky was by far the best player on the field. He deserved to win it more than anyone!

And considering your nickname you post wouldn't be biased :P haha, I still think if he was best by 70 minutes he deserved it... what happen in the last 10 minutes that actually mattered???