England player ratings v NZ

9- Strauss. Seems to be back to something close to his best- Leaving well, nudging round the corner, indulging in the occasional slash outside off. Classic Strauss.

8- Anderson. Has actually had a good series, rather than just a good test. Frustrating as hell, as it's obvious that on his day he is a world class swing bowler. Still had a couple of shockers, but by and large he was the England bowler most likely to take a wicket throughout the series.

7- Sidebottom. Wasn't quite at his best, but still showed he has the character to take wickets despite not performing at 100%. In the space of a year he has become an integral part of the side.

7- Vaughan. Did little with the bat apart from his century at Lords, but captained well. He's still the best captain and one of the best six batsmen in England, despite people looking for every opportunity to say otherwise.

6.5- Panesar. Came into his own in the NZ second innings at Old Trafford, able to bowl at a good pace and get the ball to spin and kick. Apart from that he wasn't really a factor, due to the conditions in this series being mostly more helpful for seamers

6.5- Pietersen. Found some form with a century at Trent Bridge, but it still wasn't his destructive best. Seems to be battling in his own mind as to how he should play. Likely to have more adrenaline pumping when playing against South Africa. He'll be desperate to have a good series against them and i'm predicting that he will.

6- Broad. His biggest contributions in this series came with the bat. Pretty much a genuine test number 8 now, and has shown enough to suggest that England could even gamble now and then and bat him at 7 if they need 5 bowlers and Fred isn't fit. Bowling was less convincing. Bowls a slightly innocuous length at times, and has stamina issues which should be erradicated as he gets older and stronger. Worth keeping around.

6- Ambrose. Played an important innings at Trent Bridge, and his 'keeping wasn't talked about, which is a good sign. Hasn't quite cemented his spot yet, though.

4- Cook. He's developing some serious technical problems. Could have really done with a spell at Essex working with Graham Gooch rather than playing in the JAMODI stuff to which he is not suited at all. Considering that Bell and Collingwood are in even worse form than him however, I don't think he'll be axed just yet.

2.5- Bell. Continues to be anonymous when he should really be starting to become a senior figure in the England setup. Nothing of substance again. He's clearly talented, but at the moment he's soft mentally and needs to toughen up. The crossroads are approaching.

1- Collingwood. Was in woeful form throughout the series. Doesn't look great at the best of times, but out of nick he can be mistaken for a number 11. A good ODI series will probably mean he hangs on to his test spot, but is that really the right way to pick a test side?


6.5- England as a team. The bowling looks in pretty good shape, but the batting has been below average. Need to improve if they are to beat South Africa.

Pretty accurate though KP is marked harshly, he's a gun who always looks likely to threaten.

I still think on home soil they'll comfortably account for the Saffers but they need to replace Collingwood with another batsman such as Bopara or alter the dynamics by playing five bowlers and using Broad or Flintoff (if it) as an all-rounder.

I still think on home soil they'll comfortably account for the Saffers

LOL.

6.5 for a guy who basically rescues the innings from the sh*t?

Are you LLL?

That analysis is fair. It is a bit troubling that the youngsters in the team - Broad, Cook and Bell (less of a youngster now) haven't really pushed on in this series.

The obvious thing that I expect to happen next is for Bell, Collingwood (and on the outside Bopara or Shah) to fight for one place in the team and for Flintoff to come back in as part of a 5 man bowling attack. I can't see the selectors making more than one change.

JKLever wrote:6.5 for a guy who basically rescues the innings from the sh*t?

Are you LLL?

My ratings are for the entire series, JKL. KP was out meekly at Lords, and needlesly ran himself out at Old Trafford in a tight situation.

Ah right, fair enough then...

Henry wrote:
8- Anderson. Has actually had a good series, rather than just a good test. Frustrating as hell, as it's obvious that on his day he is a world class swing bowler. Still had a couple of shockers, but by and large he was the England bowler most likely to take a wicket throughout the series.

He was poor at OT imo, tonking several batsmen aside. If NZ batted anywhere like 2nd inns, his 1st innings toss would have lost us the game.

6- Broad. His biggest contributions in this series came with the bat. Pretty much a genuine test number 8 now, and has shown enough to suggest that England could even gamble now and then and bat him at 7 if they need 5 bowlers and Fred isn't fit.

Why, when we find a decent number 8 to shore up our ropey lower order - do we insist on making it weaker by pushing players higher up the order than they should be? He only averages 23 in Fc cricket. Leave him at 8 FFS

Anderson wasn't poor at Old Trafford in the 1st innings he effectively got a 5-for (better if you bear in mind Flynn wasn't available for the 2nd innings). If Anderson was poor then Sidebottom and Broad were worse because they didn't get as many wickets.

It is fair to say that there was one great spell and one lousy one. We also saw Anderson bowl less well on Sat evening at Trent Bridge. His speed being markedly down on normal 81mph vs the 87mph average speed when he is bowling well. He may have deliberately slowed down to try and find some accuracy or he may frankly have been tired. This happens when you are spreading the bowling around only 3 seamers. My thought here is that maybe Anderson would be more consistent with the comfort blanket of being in a 5 man bowling attack.

THICKEDGE wrote:Anderson wasn't poor at Old Trafford in the 1st innings he effectively got a 5-for

Bollocks Thicky.

We had NZ 123-4 and aside from hitting Flynn he was giving away way too many runs with buffet bowling... NZ were quickly 200 without even trying.

3 quick tailend wickets couldn't disguise his utter dross.

Half marks are a total cop out. Make a f*cking decision one way or the other - you look like David Graveney.

I think Ambrose was more of a 6.25.


I think there's a problem with the sample size in a series where England batted only four times. Bell- ok 3 pretty meak failures and a not out - but only four innings ago he scored a ton.

6.2492551, if we're splitting hairs.

NZ's for balance

How 8/10 - Did well in swinging conditions. Kept throwing it away when set though
Redmond 1/10 - Junk
Marshall 0/10 - Not as good as his brother
Taylor 7/10 - Threw away a few good starts but scored a magnificent 154*
Flynn - 6/10 - Very courageous at Lords and deserved a 50 at TB
McCullum - 7/10 - Kept very well in the first 2 games and scored 2 very important 50s
Hopkins - 4/10 - Good effort in difficult circumstances
Oram - 7/10 - Great innings at Lords and kept it tight at one end
Vettori - 7/10 - Flattered to decieve a little bit but put in 2 very good bowling performances
Martin - 4/10 - Looked threatening but didn't deliver
Mills - 6/10 - Good solid effort
O'Brien - 6/10 - Good workmanlike effort
Southee - 0/10 - Didn't really get a chance