who won the man of the match ?

thanks for confusing me.tendulkar scored 175 runs in that match so did shaun marsh with 112 runs.a 100 is a 100 even if it is 60 runs short. then there was clint mckay who bowled under 6 runs per over and got 3 wickets including that of tendulkar to win the match in his debut match. then ofcourse shane watson with over all performance of 93 runs and 3 wickets under 5.5 runs per over. why they didnt award man of the match to either clint mckay or shane watson considering australia won the match because of them. why to tendulkar who fell short of leading india to victory with more than 3 overs left? kallis took 3 important wickets and scored a good 89 runs and got out in the 42 over. if we apply the same logic to kallis,then he should have bagged the award. somewhere along the line,that these MoM award choser are biased.

Yeah sure by that logic even ab devilliers should have got the man of the match since he scored a century. 112 and 175 is not the same. not only did sachin score more than him but also scored at a better rate. had others not supported marsh they would not have got to 350. in India's case others did not support sachin which is why we lost the match.clint mckay went for 59 runs so that is almost 6runs. shane watson did not under 5.5 runs. he gave 56 runs. again close to 6. only harbhajan bowled well by giving 44 runs in 10 overs. he made some difference or the Australian total would have been over 350. the reasons watson and mckay went for less than six an over is that sachin planned his innings and went after the spinner hauritz and mike hussey in the initial stages. had he got out early then the match would have ended well before the 40th over. you are telling me tendulkar fee short of leading India to victory? he is the reasons they even got close. and is this a one man game or a 11 man game. 3 wickets left with 19 runs to win. even Zimbabwe would have won the match in such a situation. it is only because of the other players quite ironically, ravindra jadeja due to inexperience and nehra playing a senseless shot that India could not win the match. coming to this match, jadeja did not even 3 runs an over whereas everyone else gave at least 6 an over. he gave than less than half what the others gave way plus made two crucial breakthroughs first with gibbs and de villiers. had gibbs carried on in the fashion he was there was no chance for India to win.

you know i love to retaliate but for a comment i cant understand,i cannot reply.try to be either short or if you wanna write it long,try to write in atleast paragraph.sorry for not replying