England ratings.

Cook: 5 - No hundreds, looked scrappy and out of sorts for the most part. Technique has become increasingly ragged in the last year. Although England will be loath to drop their wonderboy, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if he was given some time out of the spotlight to pull his game together again. Fielding has improved out of sight, however.
Vaughan: 4 - On this evidence, it's only his captaincy that's keeping him in the side. Any other batsman who performed so poorly - and recklessly at times - would have their position seriously reviewed. Did a competent enough job of captaining, although England seemed to drift and lack intensity and direction at times in the field.
Strauss: 6 - Rotten series, redeemed by a big hundred in what could well have been his last innings in an England shirt. Showed character, guts, and glimpses of his form coming back. But also showed that the technical deficiencies that led him into his rut in the first place have not been fixed.
Pietersen: 7 - Never really looked as badly out of touch as his poor trot would have had you believe, his crucial hundred at Napier - under pressure, delivered when it counted - had been coming. Comfortably remains England's best batsman. Fielding's still a bit random, mind.
Bell: 6 - What did we learn that we didn't already know? When the pressure is off, he's a quite beautiful player who can dominate with grace, touch and a little arrogance. When the innings is on the line, however, he's as timid as a shrew and seemingly overwhelmed by the situation. An enigma.
Collingwood: 7 - Scrapped his way to some ugly runs when the team needed them, chipped in a couple of handy wickets along the way - just your standard Collingwood series.
Ambrose: 7 - A steady start to his international career. Scored important runs in the first two Tests - a match-turning hundred, no less - and kept competently. Promising.
Broad: 8 - Probably gets an extra point for potential alone. Bowled with heart and skill and probably didn't end up with the wickets he deserved. Showed all-round ability with the bat and in the field. If he can tidy up a few flaws in his action sooner rather than later, could be a big player for England.
Sidebottom: 9 - The best bowler on either side by miles. Not much else to add. Always made something happen.
Panesar: 6 - Finally came to the party in the second innings at Napier. Until then, he might as well have not played in the series, so little did he contribute to the cause. But when he was asked to bowl England to victory in the last innings, he did the job well. We know he can be effective on days four and five, but the question is whether he can find a way to get into matches on the first three days. Fielding was appalling.
Anderson: 5 - Much like Goldilocks, who can't eat porridge unless it's just right, can't sit in a chair unless it's just right and can't sleep on a bed unless it's just right, Anderson can't bowl to save his life unless the conditions are just right. They were in Wellington, and he cashed in. In Napier you needed a bit more nous and know-how to get your wickets - and he came across as a drooling vegetable.
Harmison: 1 - Didn't want to be there. Probably won't be asked to be again.
Hoggard: 1 - As toothlessly ineffective as Harmison. The worrying thing was that he seemed to be trying but was still bowling powder-puff dobbers.
Shah: n/a - Probably watched his Test career come to an end without lifting a bat in anger. Did give away four over-throws with the second worst return to the keeper you'll ever see.
Swann: n/a - Probably watched his Test career come to an end without tweaking a ball in anger. Did give away four over-throws with the worst return catch to the keeper you'll ever see.
Mustard: n/a - Don't even know what he was doing there. He's obviously not good enough to bat in proper cricket.
Tremlett: n/a - Injury cover. Went home injured...

Hard to argue with any of that. I'd give Strauss an extra mark for his slip catching - the England cordon would be carp without him. I'd give Hoggy 3 for effort. As for Monty, when was the last England spinner effective on days 1-3? Nobody in my memory.

Rob I wrote:Hard to argue with any of that. I'd give Strauss an extra mark for his slip catching - the England cordon would be carp without him. .

Wasn't flawless - can recall Strauss spilling two fairly regulation catches, off the top of my head.

Most of those seem reasonable enough - surprised you were that generous with some of the batsmen given your comments throughout the series. Vaughan was statistically the worst by some distance, so probably has to get the lowest rating, but perhaps didn't play as many muppetous shots as some of the others. He's just going through one of those spells where you expect him to get out at any moment, and seems to get the unplayable ball more often than not. I guess that tends to happen when you're out of form.

I think I'd give the top six a collective 5 or 5.5, all showed bits of what they are capable of but rarely functioned as a unit.

Dello wrote:
Anderson: 5 - Much like Goldilocks, who can't eat porridge unless it's just right, can't sit in a chair unless it's just right and can't sleep on a bed unless it's just right, Anderson can't bowl to save his life unless the conditions are just right. They were in Wellington, and he cashed in. In Napier you needed a bit more nous and know-how to get your wickets - and he came across as a drooling vegetable.

PMSL

And the worrying thing for NZ cricket is they lost to that lot!!

I think one was off Anderson when Fleming was blasting him all over the place and didn't quite get hold of one.

If Anderson gets a 5 overall, well his performance at Napier has to be worth a 0 or 1, so that would mean he was scoring a 9 or 10 rating at Wellington... perhaps 4 would be a fairer reflection of his combined efforts!

beamer - it has to be said in Andersons favour that he's one of the few players whose fielding wasn't absolute dogshit at some point.

If Fred comes back for the first test against NZ, hopefully that will liberate Colly to patrol the covers, which is what he does best.

Ambrose has started his Test career very well ... much as Geraint Jones and Matthew Prior did ... with excellent batting results and mostly acceptable keeping/catching. It will be interesting to see if he can sustain or even improve his current level of performance, or if opposing bowlers work him out and his batting drops away, as with the other two.

lardy...i think he looks more promising than the other two

Bell: 6 - What did we learn that we didn't already know? When the pressure is off, he's a quite beautiful player who can dominate with grace, touch and a little arrogance. When the innings is on the line, however, he's as timid as a shrew and seemingly overwhelmed by the situation. An enigma.

Please excuse the pedantry, but shrews are actually quite feisty little beasts.
They aren't ginger, either.

Feisty until tamed ...

lardbucket wrote:Feisty until tamed ...

Kiss me Kate.

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Feisty until tamed ...

Kiss me Kate.

Another cyber-whore?

Vole reversal.

Cook - 4. A number of starts, but he rarely looked comfortable against the New Zealand seamers and eventually succumbed to obvious weaknesses - fishing outside the off peg and playing with an angled bat towards the off-side, leaving him susceptible to in-swing.

Vaughan - 3.5. Very poor series in terms of his batting, and also an uninspiring one as captain. The team sometimes looked devoid of ideas in the field, which is unacceptable against any opposition, but particularly so against a team as weak as New Zealand.

Strauss - 5.5. The last innings hundred really papered over a lot of cracks with Strauss. Though it might inspire him to greater things, it's hard to forget the soft dismissals in all of his prior innings, and his continued weakness on the drive. Still looks uncomfortable to me.

Pietersen - 7. Always looked in good touch but didn't make the scores. Then, when we needed it the most, he popped up with an innings that eventually led to us winning the match. He began to look like the dominant Pietersen of old, and we should be seeing him return to his better form soon.

Bell - 6. A couple of good innings, a couple of turgid ones, and a couple of unacceptably bad ones. Once again, Ian Bell does a little bit of everything, offering both the anti- and pro- Bell camps hope. Once again, he comes home from a tour with everything about him up in the air.

Collingwood - 6. Fulfilled the role of the all-rounder throughout the tour. Usually bowled usefully and always batted determinedly, sometimes digging us out of a hole. He never did anything spectacular, but was usually above average in every field.

Ambrose - 7. An excellent hundred, generally solid keeping, mixed in with a few innings of absolutely no note whatsoever. His average of 30-odd is good, but boosted by that big score, and his batting still looks frail to me. In terms of keeping, he's absolutely fine.

Broad - 7. Batted well, bowled with heart and ability, and also added something in the field. Looks a fine prospect, though he could do with taking a few more wickets to really cement his place. Should be in the side for the foreseeable future, anyway.

Sidebottom - 10. If you wanted a wicket, you'd turn to Sidebottom. He didn't provide wickets though, he provided 100% Ryan Sidebottom Guaranteed MAGIC. In every single Test he bowled a spell that produced clusters of wickets, hauling England back when they looked out of it. Class.

Anderson - 4. Took wickets when the ball swung, then morphed into the worst bowler on either side. Absolute rubbish, should never get near the England team again. It's not about Anderson being frustrating, it's about him lacking the ability and talent to produce consistently. A cricketer who flatters to deceive.

Panesar - 7. Out-bowled both the opposition spinners. Easily the best left-arm orthodox spinner in the world at the minute. Helped to win one match, and otherwise bowled tight, economical spells when he had the opportunity. A comfortable tour for Monty.

Crocinfo gave Anderson a 7

Jokers!

JKLever wrote:Crocinfo gave Anderson a 7

Jokers!

Happy clappy twats.

Cook - 4. His technical deficiencies are coming to the fore more and more, and teams are now bowling for these. Was undone by some serious well thought out plans, and didn't seem to come up with an answer. Still young however, and has something about him. Best catcher on tour from both sides. Stick with him, and A. Flower needs to do something for his money with him!

Vaughan - 2. As calpable as any of our other batsmen if not worse. Looked in fairly decent niock and yet failed to produce anything really. His captaincy looked insipid and unispiring at best. Must have Sibo on his Xmas card list for infinity for saving his job!

Strauss - 5. Looked out of touch and all at sea until the final innings, which although incredibly gutsy (Ian Bell take Note), and under extreme pressure was against a side boling trash and on the M4. Hopefully can kick on from the 100.

Pietersen - 7. Had to happen at some point, and he got himself out of his rut by going back to more like the way he used to bat. Easily th best batter on show. Hopefully he sticks to his guns, and doesn't try and be a proper batsman.

Bell - 5. As usual did F'all when it counted, and looked all class when it didn't. Bell supporters will point to him topping the averages, but it means F'all in the grand scheme of what he actually contributed when it mattered in this series. Too comfortable within the setup and his position needs to be looked at seriously unless he starts contributing when the going isn't just good!!!

Collingwood - 6. Gritty half centuries, without ever looking in nick, and yet didn't push on. Needs to go back to point. Bowling was effective when required, and some useful wickets.

Ambrose - 7. A good 100, followed by some innocuous dismissals. His keeping was solid, and hardly noteworthy bar that stumping and catch. All in all a good debut series.

Broad - 7. His batting looked limited but gritty IMO. Good stickability which bodes well. His bowling was wholehearted throughout, and picked up wickets. Needs a little more movemoent IMO, and a couple of technical issues ironed out in his action. Promising however

Sidebottom - 10. GOD!!

Anderson - 3. Did his usual on a seamers paradise, and for the rest of the two tests looked abject and unpenetrative bordering on buffet. Needs to be sent of to do what Sibo did and learn how to bowl. His fielding however is pretty damn decent. Not the end, however a long sabbatical is required.

Panesar - 6. A poor start saw him bowling darts, however progressed during the series, and was finally back to something near his best when it mattered. Sod all this Rashid talk, this is our spinner for the fore-seeable future.

JKLever wrote:Crocinfo gave Anderson a 7

Jokers!

I know someone on here who uses that Croc as his yardstick to determine a batsman's calibre.

Anderson 7 .... PMSL.

And more ....

Michael Vaughan - 5
A series tally of 123 runs at 20.50 will be seriously troubling to England's captain,...

No it won't.

holcs wrote:
Bell - 5. As usual did F'all when it counted, and looked all class when it didn't. Bell supporters will point to him topping the averages, but it means F'all in the grand scheme of what he actually contributed when it mattered in this series. Too comfortable within the setup and his position needs to be looked at seriously unless he starts contributing when the going isn't just good!!!

he was the only batsman who was still standing at the end of the 1st test debacle and finished top of the averages. A lot of your criticisms are valid about Bell and i'm sure he's aware of them but to award the bloke a 5 is just one eyed to the extreme!!!

Thats the thing JK - had one of the top order stayed around with Bell - its possible thew two could have saved the match.

I thought at the time it was a bit harsh on Bell - I got the feeling he was (almost) being blamed for running out of tail-end partners, when the anger was more deserved elsewhere.

JKLever wrote:

holcs wrote:
Bell - 5. As usual did F'all when it counted, and looked all class when it didn't. Bell supporters will point to him topping the averages, but it means F'all in the grand scheme of what he actually contributed when it mattered in this series. Too comfortable within the setup and his position needs to be looked at seriously unless he starts contributing when the going isn't just good!!!

he was the only batsman who was still standing at the end of the 1st test debacle and finished top of the averages. A lot of your criticisms are valid about Bell and i'm sure he's aware of them but to award the bloke a 5 is just one eyed to the extreme!!!

Not at all. His 50 in the first test meant nothing as there was no pressure, the rest of the series he did diddly, His dismissal to Elliot in the 1st innings of the 3rd test deserved at least 2 minus points it was that bad in the situation we were in, and yes his hundred was classy and had the whole package, but again the pressure is off.

And as you yourself have said I believe averaging 40 can be misleading. Well I believe his being top of the averages for the series is very misleading to actually what he produced.

You may wish to call it being one-eyed, then fine. I'm just sick to the back teeth of under-performance when it matters from him.

Growler wrote:Thats the thing JK - had one of the top order stayed around with Bell - its possible thew two could have saved the match.

I thought at the time it was a bit harsh on Bell - I got the feeling he was (almost) being blamed for running out of tail-end partners, when the anger was more deserved elsewhere.

Bells not being blamed for Hamilton, well not by me. All i'm saying is he was very cagey to start with in that innings, then all of a sudden he's batting with Monty and the balls going everywhere! Whereas that was not seen again until England are 200 runs ahead at Napier and then the same happens. But in between were in the preverbial and he does diddly!