England 2nd Test ratings...

Cook: 6 - 100 runs in the match but never really looked like he'd cash in either start. Scratchy as anything.
Vaughan: 4 - two failures with the bat.
Strauss: 4 - two failures with the bat, though the second innings had "promise".
Pietersen: 4 - two failures with the bat, though second time around was a freak dismissal. Poor fielding.
Bell: 4 - two failures with the bat, and one of the jumpiest, feeblest efforts ever seen from a specialist batsman in the first innings.
Collingwood: 7 - couple of solid 50s. Seems to be about the limit of his talent with the bat. Chipped in a couple of wickets (and dropped two sitters at second slip).
Ambrose: 8 - batted with un-English abandon in the first digs for a match-changing hundred. Missed an easy stumping, mind.
Broad: 6 - looked out of his depth in the first innings, but got his act together to bowl better than his figures suggest second time around.
Sidebottom: 8 - as good as a good thing. Always the go-to guy with the ball.
Anderson: 8 - got the bowling conditions he wanted, but you've still got to do the job to get make the most of them. Injury/the flattening of the wicket seemed to bring out the leg-stump half-volley merchant in him in the second innings, though.
Panesar: 4 - might as well have not played. Wasn't a spinner's wicket, to be fair, but his fielding was a joke.

I'd give Broad a 7, but spot on apart from that I'd say.

Aye. Pressure is really mounting on our top 6 to score more tons.

Changes for Napier?

Can we really lose anything by picking Swann above Panesar? I'd have thought myself mad for suggesting that a year or so ago.

Match figures of 3/118 on a track which had a bit in it for the bowlers all through the match.

Six is fair.

JKLever wrote:Aye. Pressure is really mounting on our top 6 to score more tons.

Changes for Napier?

Can we really lose anything by picking Swann above Panesar? I'd have thought myself mad for suggesting that a year or so ago.

Stands to reason - another Test without a hundred from the top order: replace a bowler.

Swanny has barely seen any action all tour - they only gave him one ODI - so it's seems pretty unlikely that they would give him the call now.

They'll be unchanged (unless Jimmy's ankle goes mental).

JKLever wrote:Aye. Pressure is really mounting on our top 6 to score more tons.

Changes for Napier?

Can we really lose anything by picking Swann above Panesar? I'd have thought myself mad for suggesting that a year or so ago.

This was no pitch for a spinner - and yes, it is mad to suggest picking Swann over Monty.

Even if the selectors are minded to change the batting for Napier (which I doubt) - Shah hasn't lifted a bat in anger since the warm-up game, is he really best placed to make a contribution ahead of either Strauss or Bell?

The only other conceivable change might be Hoggard for Anderson if Jimmy's ankle does not settle down.

Monty's fielding has really, really, fallen apart. It was shocking at times. Perhaps he's become a little complacent about his place in the side knowing that Rashid is his only rival and is not ready yet.

I don't think you can criticise his bowling at all. Vettori didn't get any wickets and was more expensive. It just wasn't a spinners wicket.

I'm pretty sure someone will have a word and he'll work hard on his fielding again. Perhaps he needs a refresher course from Lehmann. That or a good slap.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Monty's fielding has really, really, fallen apart. It was shocking at times. Perhaps he's become a little complacent about his place in the side knowing that Rashid is his only rival and is not ready yet.

No-one would ever accuse him of not working hard enough - by all accounts he's as enthusiastic as a puppy when it comes to training and practice.

He's just not very good.

Monty has averaged 50+ in his last 2 test series and if he's not careful it may be over 50 again.

If he's not contributing with the ball, what does he bring?

I accept his career average for an orthodox spinner at 33 is prefectly acceptable.

How bad is Tremlett's injury? Anyone know?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:How bad is Tremlett's injury? Anyone know?

It's a side strain - they're usually a two-three week lay off.

But he's gone home, so there's no chance of him playing in the series.

JKLever wrote:Monty has averaged 50+ in his last 2 test series and if he's not careful it may be over 50 again.

If he's not contributing with the ball, what does he bring?

I accept his career average for an orthodox spinner at 33 is prefectly acceptable.

You can't judge on this test even if his fielding was village green standard.

Basil wrote:

JKLever wrote:Monty has averaged 50+ in his last 2 test series and if he's not careful it may be over 50 again.

If he's not contributing with the ball, what does he bring?

I accept his career average for an orthodox spinner at 33 is prefectly acceptable.

You can't judge on this test even if his fielding was village green standard.

Quite, but his overall performance does bring to mind the often asked "what is the point of Giles?" query which followed the Bears' wheelie-bin around for most of his career.

And he could bat and field a bit.

Dello wrote:

Basil wrote:

JKLever wrote:Monty has averaged 50+ in his last 2 test series and if he's not careful it may be over 50 again.

If he's not contributing with the ball, what does he bring?

I accept his career average for an orthodox spinner at 33 is prefectly acceptable.

You can't judge on this test even if his fielding was village green standard.

Quite, but his overall performance does bring to mind the often asked "what is the point of Giles?" query which followed the Bears' wheelie-bin around for most of his career.

And he could bat and field a bit.

He was poorly served by our catching.

A bloke that scores a hundred runs for the match rates a 6, while others with twin "failures" rate 4?

F*ck knows where this England team would be without Sidebottom. If Strauss doesn't score at least a 50 in the next match, i'd banish him to county cricket for a long time.

Dello wrote:Match figures of 3/118 on a track which had a bit in it for the bowlers all through the match.

Six is fair.

Cor Jay... did you even watch anything? He bowled impeccably in the first innings with no reward at all, about 4 or 5 edges to the boundary, a dropped catch or two and about 10 jaffas just missing the stumps/the edge of the bat.

JKLever wrote:Aye. Pressure is really mounting on our top 6 to score more a ton.

Fixed

A nice flat track coming up for the 3rd test . . . you can guarantee a couple of tons as England bat out a series draw . . .

Brass Monkey wrote:

Dello wrote:Match figures of 3/118 on a track which had a bit in it for the bowlers all through the match.

Six is fair.

Cor Jay... did you even watch anything? He bowled impeccably in the first innings with no reward at all, about 4 or 5 edges to the boundary, a dropped catch or two and about 10 jaffas just missing the stumps/the edge of the bat.

Impeccable in the first innings? Got to disagree mate. At least one 4 ball every over.

Bowled a quality spell in the second innings though. I reckon 6 is fair.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:
Impeccable in the first innings? Got to disagree mate. At least one 4 ball every over.

Bowled a quality spell in the second innings though. I reckon 6 is fair.

Maybe I missed out on them, from 'where I was' most of the boundaries he conceded were edged.

Cook - 7. Gave a solid platform on which to build in both innings. That the middle order failed to build is both unfortunate and irrelevant to Cook's performance.
Vaughan - 4. Had a decent first innings, but once more failed to kick on, and then failed in the second innings. Failed to make an impact on the match.
Strauss - 4. Looked completely out of sorts despite getting a start in the second dig. Poor first innings dismissal, and contributed little of any substance.
Pietersen - 3. Probably England's greatest worry at the minute - our world class batsman has been found out. No back foot game, dreadful fielding. Pathetic.
Bell - 4. Much like Strauss and Vaughan, he had a bad dig and a mediocre one. Never looks capable of making a big score, to me.
Collingwood - 7. Scored in both innings, and anchored the important first innings partnership with Ambrose. Bowling has been useful too.
Ambrose - 9. Excellent, match-winning, hundred. Missed a few chances - one nigh on impossible and one very easy one - but still won us the match.
Broad - 6. Looked useful, has a lot of potential with both bat and ball. Probably deserved a few more wickets, but his match figures do look pretty unflattering.
Sidebottom - 8. A typically consistent Sidebottom performance. Got it in the right areas, picked up another 5fer, and once again looked our best bowler.
Anderson - 8. It was an Anderson pitch, so he actually turned in a performance of note. Still bowls in the wrong areas for when the pitch doesn't suit him, but a good match for him nonetheless.
Panesar - 5. Bowled reasonably well really, but the pitch didn't suit him. Also offered a little resistance with the bat, which was reassuring.

Bit harsh on KP. Second innings dismissal was freaky and the dropped catch (though it was still a sitter) did move about in the wind a bit.

And harsh on Strauss too. I thought he looked compact and solid in the second innings and was wrongly given out. Much more like his old self.

Would agree with most of Auggie's assessments - apart from Jimmikin's.
I'm not a Jimmy convert yet, but he didn't do too much wrong in this game.
His four balls were as a result of pitching leg stump in order to get the exaggerated
outswing for which he's reknown - some of those balls drifting a shade too much down leg for the right handers to crash through midwicket.
Other than that, no doubt, he was uncomfortable to face ... though very occasionally, a bit short of length.
He needs another go ... as does Broad - a 21 y o who did all that was asked of him.
SiBo - one word - brilliant.
KP will come good .....

Shah for Strauss? Swann for Bell ?..... Doubt it very much.
Same as same as in Napier.

Can't see any changes myself, barring injuries. But there's a few players who know they are playing for their futures, Strauss and Bell probably top of that list. We need big scores from the top six, and preferably in the first innings rather than second time round in a rearguard action or stone-cold draw situation.