England Player Ratings

Excellent piece from Tim De Lisle
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422030.html

Only three batsmen have done enough to be inked in for the first Test
in Centurion in December - Strauss, Pietersen and Trott. And in picking
the squad, the selectors must give Strauss what Vaughan had: several
people who can drive the car. If they won't pick the best batsman in
the country, Mark Ramprakash - and they won't - the selectors should at
least pick men who can think for themselves and run a show, like Robert
Key. England started this Ashes series with the wrong opening pair, a
brittle middle order, and an attack that was apt to be flaky; they
ended it that way too. Somehow, in between, they managed to beat
Australia. Three cheers - and no delusions.

Also noting that much mention of the 8-2 century count what has been forgotten was the 4-2 5-fer count in Englands favour.

Yeah, a nice realistic piece. Apart from he ignores the fact that Strauss hates Key. Three cheers and no delusions indeed. I'm thinking (and hoping) that unlike other England coaches, Andy Flower will not be deluded.

JKLever wrote:

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!

And you didn't even have the excuse that we'd just won the blimmin' Ashes and you just had to post something...

I had the excuse of waiting for a coach though, honest guv.

A likely story...

JKLever wrote:Also noting that much mention of the 8-2 century count what has been forgotten was the 4-2 5-fer count in Englands favour.

What does that say about the two bowling attacks then? Probably says more about Australia's, in that all of them are decent enough at this level but not likely to run through sides like some of their predecessors did. In other words, they've got an attack of useful third or fourth seamers, but nothing to really scare the opposition. England's collapses were generally self-inflicted, a more disciplined batting side could have batted them out of a number of the matches.

Johnson is their one bowler who perhaps has that cutting edge, but his performance was rather like we've come to expect from most of the England bowlers - one innings in a series where it all comes together, and serving up pies the rest of the time!

JKLever wrote:Excellent piece from Tim De Lisle
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422030.html

Only three batsmen have done enough to be inked in for the first Test
in Centurion in December - Strauss, Pietersen and Trott. And in picking
the squad, the selectors must give Strauss what Vaughan had: several
people who can drive the car. If they won't pick the best batsman in
the country, Mark Ramprakash - and they won't - the selectors should at
least pick men who can think for themselves and run a show, like Robert
Key. England started this Ashes series with the wrong opening pair, a
brittle middle order, and an attack that was apt to be flaky; they
ended it that way too. Somehow, in between, they managed to beat
Australia. Three cheers - and no delusions.

Also noting that much mention of the 8-2 century count what has been forgotten was the 4-2 5-fer count in Englands favour.

I think one of the problems that Key faces to get back in the side is that he CAN think for himself.

They want 'in the bubble', 'toe the party line', 'safe pair of hands with the media' little morons like Bell. Let's face it, there's no other good reason for the little qunt to have - a) Got his place back, and b) Kept his spot for the Oval.

Career limiting move is having your own mind with modern England. Thank fark for Swanny, though I still wonder how he managed to get past the vetting process.

I think Johnson got buck fever.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:Thank fark for Swanny, though I still wonder how he managed to get past the vetting process.

He'll be sent away to the thought police before much longer.

Strauss 9: not a good test as Captain at Cardiff, but otherwise - seriously impressive.

Cook 5 : Went AWOL after Lords, needs a score in the first two tests against S.A. or else he might need to make way

Bell 5: Did nothing to dispel the notion that he is soft.

Pietersen 4: unfit and looked at odds with his own game. His absence will have done him (and the side) some good.

Collingwood 6: he gets that for the second innings at Cardiff. The fat lady is clearing her throat.

Trott 9: The new Collingwood - but with a decentish tecnique.

Prior 7: much improved with the gloves - some useful if not decisive contributions with the bat.

Flintoff 6.5: One 50, one 5fer, one brilliant piece of fielding. He will leave less of a whole than you might think.

Broad 7 : one rather jammy 6fer at Headingley, a McGrathesque spell at The Oval - otherwise bobbins with the ball. Some useful knocks with the bat.

Swann 6.5: needs to be more consistent and find a way of being more of a threat on non-bunsens, but he adds character to the side. Not the worst No. 9 in the business either.

Anderson 5: The Anderson cycle is back in business sadly.

Onions 6: some wicket-taking balls, some dross. he might go well in S.A.

Harmison 6 : signs that his pace is back to where it should be - worth a punt in S.A.

Panesar 2: thanks for turning up at Cardiff Monty.

Basil wrote:Bell 5: Did nothing to dispel the notion that he is soft.

What about his first innings dig at The Oval, huh?

Zat wrote:

Basil wrote:Bell 5: Did nothing to dispel the notion that he is soft.

What about his first innings dig at The Oval, huh?

Scored 72 when conditions were at their most benign for batting - got out straight away after tea. The charge still sticks.

Pah! Bell is class...

Zat wrote:Pah! Bell is class...

Well, compared with Phil Hughes.......................