England Player Ratings

Strauss - 8. Batted well, captaincy pretty ordinary, but job done.
Cook - 5. Good 95 at Lord's, f*ck all else.
Bell - 5. Nice 72 at T'Oval, f*ck all else.
Pietersen - 5. Looked knackered, batted well at Cardiff, series curtailed due to injury.
Collingwood - 4. Valiant efforts at Cardiff but batted like Chris Martin on a bad day for much of the series.
Trott - 8. Brilliant debut, looks a solid competitor.
Prior - 8. Kept well, shock horror, batted reasonably.
Flintoff - 6. An ordinary end to his career, but made a huge difference at Lord's.
Broad - 7. Rubbish for 3 Tests, average but lucky for the 4th, God for the 5th.
Swann - 7. Combination of batting and bowling was very handy for England. Bowled some dross, bowled some great stuff. A little unlucky sometimes.
Anderson - 5. Same old Anderson, over-rated dross for most of the series.
Onions - 7. Bowled some filth mixed in with some brilliant stuff, very unlucky to be dropped at the start of the series and even more unlucky to miss the last Test.
Harmison - 4. Rubbish, lucky to boost his figures with two tail-end wickets when the series was over.
Panesar - 8. Anyone who needs an explanation is gay.
Bopara - 1. Typical Essex rimmer rubbish. Over-rated showpony.

I see you commented on Swann's batting but not Broad's. He made some valuable contributions with the bat in the first three Tests where he bowled poorly, and outshone some of the specialists, that probably kept him in the side.

Those two bailed out our top order on a few occasions, and were part of what made the difference - anyone still like to suggest you don't need bowlers who can bat? If we'd had a typical English tail we'd never have been in this series.

Strauss - 9: Our best player in the series.
Cook - 6: Not a disaster but should have got a ton.
Bell - 3: Ridiculously lucky 50 early in the series and a 50 later on when he should have been given out for 0. Get him out.
KP - 6: Injured, can't give him too much stick.
Collingwood - 7: Shite for most of the series but without him the ashes would still be with Australia.
Trott - 9: Dream debut, never looked in any trouble from the bowling on a difficult wicket.
Prior - 8: Ridiculously improved behind the stumps and 2nd highest run scorer for England.
Flintoff - 7: Probably could be a six but without him we may not have won the 2nd test so despite his poor averages he had an impact on a key result.
Broad - 7: Gash for the first few games, then suddenly looks like filling Flintoff's boots in the last two. Could 2009 be his breakthrough year? Lets hope so, he has the right attitude and the talent, no reason why he can't be the next Flintoff.
Swann - 7: Amazing batting for a number 9 (though not surprising to anyone who has seen him bat extensively in county cricket) and a couple of decent games. No one challenging for his place right now.
Anderson - 5: The poor man's Hoggard. Nuff said.
Onions - 7: Should have been picked for this test really, had a decent series.
Harmison - 6: Ordinary at Headingly but looked near to his best in the 2nd innings at the Oval.
Panesar - 7: Shite with the ball but England perhaps owe the ashes victory to his heroics at Cardiff.
Bopara - 2: F*cking useless.

It's hard to rate the players as most times people copy or imitate ones that have gone before.


Let's leave that to Cricinfo and then we'll judge them on their marks.

beamer wrote:anyone still like to suggest you don't need bowlers who can bat? If we'd had a typical English tail we'd never have been in this series.

Sage post of the year 2009.

Incidentally Broad should not be moved up to 7. As it stands he is a superb number 8, and Swanny is probably the best number 9 we've ever had.

Broad needs to concentrate on his bowling, he can be a sub 30 average bowler which England need far more than a 35 batting average number 8 with a similar bowling average.

But you know it's going to happen in South Africa. England will want to play 5 bowlers without doubt.

vilkrang wrote:Incidentally Broad should not be moved up to 7. As it stands he is a superb number 8, and Swanny is probably the best number 9 we've ever had.

Broad needs to concentrate on his bowling, he can be a sub 30 average bowler which England need far more than a 35 batting average number 8 with a similar bowling average.

I hear you, but that means either we play 4 bowlers or we find another all rounder type to play at 7

JKLever wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Incidentally Broad should not be moved up to 7. As it stands he is a superb number 8, and Swanny is probably the best number 9 we've ever had.

Broad needs to concentrate on his bowling, he can be a sub 30 average bowler which England need far more than a 35 batting average number 8 with a similar bowling average.

I hear you, but that means either we play 4 bowlers or we find another all rounder type to play at 7

4 bowlers unles thjat we find som dependable batss.

But why? We don't have five bowlers worthy of the name and our batting desperately needs reinforcements. Just imagine a 7, 8, 9 of Prior, Broad and Swann - it's terrifying. But a 6, 7, 8 of the same looks a little vulnerable. You could drop Bell or Bopara to 6 and groom a batsman for the first time in years. Strauss and Cook opening, Pietersen and Trott at 4 and 5, with another opener at 3 (maybe Key, maybe Carberry - though his injury rules him out).

If England elevate Broad then the selectors want sacking. It's just not time. He's good with the bat but part of that is the freedom he has. Moving him to 7 gives him a bit too much responsibility what with his bowling and the expectation of scoring runs.

Four bowlers, six bats for me.

vilkrang wrote:

JKLever wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Incidentally Broad should not be moved up to 7. As it stands he is a superb number 8, and Swanny is probably the best number 9 we've ever had.

Broad needs to concentrate on his bowling, he can be a sub 30 average bowler which England need far more than a 35 batting average number 8 with a similar bowling average.

I hear you, but that means either we play 4 bowlers or we find another all rounder type to play at 7

4 bowlers unles thjat we find som dependable batss.

Drunk already Vilks?

Actually wait. It all makes sense now. You've been pissed since 11am this morning, haven't you!

I agree to some extent, JK, but everything hinges on whether or not KP is fit. Of the XI today the likely ones to be missing for the 1st Test v. SA are Freddie and Harmison. If KP comes back he will most likely be slotted in at 4 with Collingwood, Trott and Prior dropping a place in the order with either Onions or Sidebottom taking over Harmi's spot. If KP still isn't fit by the start of the SA series the selectors are given greater leeway in the balance of the side but England are in greater doo-doo.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:But why? We don't have five bowlers worthy of the name and our batting desperately needs reinforcements. Just imagine a 7, 8, 9 of Prior, Broad and Swann - it's terrifying. But a 6, 7, 8 of the same looks a little vulnerable. You could drop Bell or Bopara to 6 and groom a batsman for the first time in years. Strauss and Cook opening, Pietersen and Trott at 4 and 5, with another opener at 3 (maybe Key, maybe Carberry - though his injury rules him out).

If England elevate Broad then the selectors want sacking. It's just not time. He's good with the bat but part of that is the freedom he has. Moving him to 7 gives him a bit too much responsibility what with his bowling and the expectation of scoring runs.

Four bowlers, six bats for me.

Agree - but we've already seen their willingness to promote him to 7 at Leeds - though now thankfully that didn't work out too well

I think Vilks has had one to many shandys.

Strauss - 9: Re-invented himself, a year on from looking all at sea & now an Ashes winning Kapitan
Cook - 5: One significant innings in a 5 match series. Talented but serious work to do if he keeps getting out the same way.
Bell - 4: Still weak but gets a 4 for the crucial 72, though that will now seal his spot for the next 4 years
KP - 6: Played on one leg and still produce battling knocks in 3 of the 4 innings he played.
Collingwood - 6: Kept us in the series early on but still looks like a county journeyman when out of form
Trott - 8: Didn't put a foot wrong, needs to work on losing the accent
Prior - 9 & 7: Great with the gloves & decent with the bat whilst never going on with it.
Flintoff - 6: Played 4 tests on one leg and drugged up to the hilt. Crucial Lords bowling, played well with the bat at Brum
Broad - 8: Eighteen wickets @ what? 28/9 - and lower order runs vital
Swann - 7: Dangerous player from number 9 all series, and either dross or godlike with the ball
Anderson - 4: One innings aside at Lords, he was an absolute Sh!thound
Onions - 7: Promising performance but still prone to drossmonger spells.
Harmison - 5: After test interview pretty much confirming test career is also over. Decent last spell at Oval
Panesar - 4: Batting heroics aside, has lost the plot as a spinner.
Bopara - 10: Essex Legend

Strauss - 8: Very rare for an England batsman to look so imperious, however good they are. Contrived to get himself out in slapdash, lazy ways.
Cook - 2: Awful. Looks like a dyspraxic gibbon who has been tied to an electric fence.
Bell - 4: Needle dick. Were it not for fortune, he wouldn't have made a single 50. As it was, he did, so he gets a pat on the head rating.
KP - 5: Hard to give him such a low mark considering he was batting on one leg. Still looked better than most of our batsmen.
Collingwood - 5: Typical Colly in our darkest hour. Typical Colly for the rest of the series.
Trott - 7: Can't say much after one game, apart from he never really looked like getting out to a bowler.
Prior - 7: Kept well, will keep the whingy tossers at bay for 1.27 more Tests and his poor batting average is down to his high strike rate.
Flintoff - 5: Won us a Test. Bowled better at Cardiff and Edgy than his figures suggest. Batting typically poor.
Broad - 6: Had 1.5 good Tests and everybody is wanking themselves dry about him. I'll reserve my judgement for now, but fair play to the lad. Not a #7 ATM, IMO.
Swann - 7: His bowling was unfortunate at times, other times he was piss. But overall contributed quite a bit in our two victories and his batting was as good as I'd always expected it would be at this level. Fletcher is a twat.
Anderson - 5: The Anderson cycle has lost it's hilarity.
Onions - 6: Looks hittable. Look dangerous.
Harmison - 6: Looked quality at the Oval (surprise). Poorish at Headingley when asked to bang it in on a pudding.
Panesar - 4: A scoring of 4 all for his batting and that's being kind.
Bopara - 2: He didn't bat badly in the 1st two Tests IMO, but then the bandwagon got going and it F'd him in the A.

Seems pretty obvious to me that Broad should stay at 8 and Rashid should
come in at 7.

Brass Monkey wrote:Strauss - 8: Very rare for an England batsman to look so imperious, however good they are. Contrived to get himself out in slapdash, lazy ways.
Cook - 2: Awful. Looks like a dyspraxic gibbon who has been tied to an electric fence.
Bell - 4: Needle dick. Were it not for fortune, he wouldn't have made a single 50. As it was, he did, so he gets a pat on the head rating.
KP - 5: Hard to give him such a low mark considering he was batting on one leg. Still looked better than most of our batsmen.
Collingwood - 5: Typical Colly in our darkest hour. Typical Colly for the rest of the series.
Trott - 7: Can't say much after one game, apart from he never really looked like getting out to a bowler.
Prior - 7: Kept well, will keep the whingy tossers at bay for 1.27 more Tests and his poor batting average is down to his high strike rate.
Flintoff - 5: Won us a Test. Bowled better at Cardiff and Edgy than his figures suggest. Batting typically poor.
Broad - 6: Had 1.5 good Tests and everybody is wanking themselves dry about him. I'll reserve my judgement for now, but fair play to the lad. Not a #7 ATM, IMO.
Swann - 7: His bowling was unfortunate at times, other times he was piss. But overall contributed quite a bit in our two victories and his batting was as good as I'd always expected it would be at this level. Fletcher is a twat.
Anderson - 5: The Anderson cycle has lost it's hilarity.
Onions - 6: Looks hittable. Look dangerous.
Harmison - 6: Looked quality at the Oval (surprise). Poorish at Headingley when asked to bang it in on a pudding.
Panesar - 4: A scoring of 4 all for his batting and that's being kind.
Bopara - 2: He didn't bat badly in the 1st two Tests IMO, but then the bandwagon got going and it F'd him in the A.

I would agree with all of this, bar the Cook rating, 2 is a little low, you cannot give Bell-end a 4, and Cookie who got 90 in the Lords test a 2!!

Bizarre really- if you average out the ratings the team gets a 5. Only one player (who played more than one test) had an unarguably fantastic series.

Brass Monkey wrote:Cook - 2: Awful. Looks like a dyspraxic gibbon who has been tied to an electric fence.

Just seen on Sky that he's somehow the third highest Test run scorer of this calendar year... six Tests against the West Indies probably helped, but still remarkable given the form he's in.

(I'm on holiday)

Strauss: 8 (knock a mark or two off for not converting more than one of his fifties into something more substantial - usually falling to a crap shot when set - and for being a fair-weather captain who seems to have the answers when all is tickety-boo, but when the opposition batsmen are entrenched, appears to be devoid of clue.)
Cook: 3 (one score and spent the rest of the series doing what he's been doing since 2007: being a technical car-wreck. Are there really no other openers in England?)
Bell: 4 (whatever. Did some stuff. Some handy-ish. Some weak. Whatever.)
Pietersen: 5 (probably could've had a one-legged ton at Cardiff but for the worst shot since my Gran tried a tequila slammer on her 90th birthday. Distressing.)
Collingwood 4 (there's no secret: he can't play off-side shots. Back of a length, six inches outside off, you'll pick him up all day every day. His "gutsyness" is the most overrated attribute in international cricket. An extremely average batsman who has somehow made a career out of just hanging on.
Trott: 8 (proof that "gutsyness" needs to be allied to talent in order for it to be worth something other than a stodgy fifty in a losing cause. Could well be a great find - making our three best batsmen the South African trinity of Strauss, Pietersen and Vince Vaughan. Maybe there's something in that...)
Bopara: 3 (flash. Ah-Ha! He saved every none of us. Twat.)
Prior: 6 (kept really well - almost like a keeper. Doesn't have the discipline to bat at six. Too many cameos for someone who fancies himself as a top-order batsman.)
Flintoff: 5 (you'd have to say, but for one good innings in both batting and bowling, Flintoff was mostly mediocre. All the talk of how much we'll miss him rung kind of hollow as he was carried through his final appearance.)
Broad: 7 (started so poorly, you'd be forgiven for thinking he was trying to be the new Steve Harmison, rather than ape his hero Glen McGrath. Finished strongly, though, so hopefully the penny has dropped. Again. Pitch it up, be patient: happy days. Not a number seven - but a good number eight.)
Swann: 6 (Erratic. Bowled some serious pies at times - couldn't pitch the ball at others - yet on the occasions when he got it right, looked a decent spinner.)
Anderson: 4 ("oh, he's so much better now - the leader of the pack." Pfft. Same as he ever was: good when the conditions come gift-wrapped with a bow, a total non-entity at all other times.)
Onions: 5 (A genuine wicket-threat, but frustratingly spray-ey when he appears to be perfectly set up to bowl tight lines.)
Harmison: 3 (he'll jack it in this week, I'm sure. There's nothing else to come from him.)
Panesar: 1 (for batting.)

The only wothwhile players XI to face SA:

Strauss
2
3
Pietersen
Trott
Prior +
7
Broad
Swann
10
11

Dello wrote:(I'm on holiday)

Zat: You're on holiday? That's it, the forum is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Dello: What do you mean "biblical"?
skully: What he means is Old Testament, Jay. Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
embee: Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos!
Woody: The dead rising from the grave!
Zat: Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Zat wrote:

Dello wrote:(I'm on holiday)

Zat: You're on holiday? That's it, the forum is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Dello: What do you mean "biblical"?
skully: What he means is Old Testament, Jay. Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
embee: Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos!
Woody: The dead rising from the grave!
Zat: Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Still such a genius line .

Dello wrote:(I'm on holiday)

I was about to mock you for forumming on your hols but remembered that I had done the same!