Out of 10 - The Player Performances - Page 3

BoyBrumby · 13-01-2007, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

We know you don't like him, but that is a very harsh grading. He had a 92 & 153, that is 2 big scores for the series. He was also spectacular in the field.

If you're going out to bat for QLDers I'd say Richard's 3 for Symonds was a tad on the tight side too. Especially allowing for his 6 for Strauss. Strauss was twice as effective as Symonds then, we all agree?

Richard · 13-01-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

We know you don't like him, but that is a very harsh grading. He had a 92 & 153, that is 2 big scores for the series. He was also spectacular in the field.

All right, maybe an extra mark for the catching and the 93, which was a decent enough innings.

The 153 was damn lucky, though, nothing else - he was absolutely plumb twice before he even reached 12.

Richard · 13-01-2007, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

If you're going out to bat for QLDers I'd say Richard's 3 for Symonds was a tad on the tight side too. Especially allowing for his 6 for Strauss. Strauss was twice as effective as Symonds then, we all agree?

Nope, Strauss was 3 times more unlucky than Symonds - Strauss' luck count was -2 (3 bad decisions against him, 1 dropped catch in his favour), Symonds' luck count was +1 (absolutely plumb on 54 IIRR, cost 100 runs).

I don't give players marks for being lucky.

BoyBrumby · 13-01-2007, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Nope, Strauss was 3 times more unlucky than Symonds - Strauss' luck count was -2 (3 bad decisions against him, 1 dropped catch in his favour), Symonds' luck count was +1 (absolutely plumb on 54 IIRR, cost 100 runs).

I don't give players marks for being lucky.

But you give them for being unlucky? Even allowing for Strauss's three roughies he failed to make a score over 60 in 7 starts. Acceptable for a test opener? & even if Symonds was lucky twice he capitalised on his luck.

Richard · 13-01-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

But you give them for being unlucky? Even allowing for Strauss's three roughies he failed to make a score over 60 in 7 starts. Acceptable for a test opener?

As I mentioned - he played damn superbly on a MCG minefield.

As far as I'm concerned he failed to make a 29-plus score from 5 starts - and had he been less unlucky I'm absolutely convinced he'd have got at least 1 big score from 1 of those 3 unlucky ones.

Quote:

& even if Symonds was lucky twice he capitalised on his luck.

As I mentioned - I don't give marks for being lucky. I don't give a damn what happens after someone's been lucky - it shouldn't have had the chance to happen.

BoyBrumby · 13-01-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

As I mentioned - he played damn superbly on a MCG minefield.

As far as I'm concerned he failed to make a 29-plus score from 5 starts - and had he been less unlucky I'm absolutely convinced he'd have got at least 1 big score from 1 of those 3 unlucky ones.

As I mentioned - I don't give marks for being lucky. I don't give a damn what happens after someone's been lucky - it shouldn't have had the chance to happen.

Well your mind's made up, clearly. However, fruitless as debate with you obviously is, the logician in me feels compelled to point out that even if you divide Symonds 156 by 3 (allowing for his two "outs") he still avearges more than Strauss does during his "damn superb" innings of 50.

open365 · 13-01-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZTailender

AF Giles: 1/10. So ineffective with the ball. I'd hazard a guess his test career is over now. He did, however, add a lot to team spirit in the field.

Yes, i'm sure dropping Ricky Ponting was just his secret plan to galvanise the England team.

open365 · 13-01-2007, 07:38 AM

Richard, will you ever just accept that luck and bad luck is something that happens in equal amounts to all players and that marking them down for being lucky is as aimless as marking someone up for being unlucky?

Strauss was rubbish, he got 3 bad decisions, but even in those innings he looked like Australia's bunny, like he was to a certain extent last year, in two series against the best team in the world he has averaged 30, he's not unlucky, he's just not good enough.

Nnanden · 13-01-2007, 07:45 AM

LOL @ Richard`s ratings. Gun.

FaaipDeOiad · 13-01-2007, 08:20 AM

Haha, Richard's ratings are hilarious. 6 for Strauss? 3 and 4 for Symonds and Hayden, and 6 for Langer, who was clearly the worst Australian player in the series?

I'll give it a go.

England
Strauss: 3 - Real disappointment. Was obviously one of the crucial batsmen for England in the series, and had a highest score of 50. Had some harsh luck with decisions, but made problems for himself with some poor dismissals to the short ball early in the series and never really came back.

Cook: 4 - Not a great series either, though he certainly showed some promise and scored a good century. Dismissed the same way far too many times. England never really got off to a good start in any innings, which hurt throughout.

Bell: 4.5 - One of England's better batsmen in general, but didn't make enough of his starts and just generally came up short again against Australia. His mental failings were symptomatic of the team at times, particularly his ridiculous dismissal in Adelaide.

Collingwood: 6 - Was excellent early in the series, and his work against Warne in particular was stellar. Clearly among the best across the first two tests. Faded quite badly later in the series though. Caught well.

Pietersen: 9 - Great throughout. Clearly the standout batsman for England, and his battles with Warne and McGrath were great viewing. One of the few English players who kept playing well right through the series, even after it was lost. Establishing himself as one of the top batsmen in the world.

Flintoff: 4 - Terribly disappointing. Never could have expected too much from his batting, but it was even worse than one might have imagined, and while he never bowled absolutely terribly he lacked the fight which defined him as a player in '05. Aside from Brisbane never looked a real threat, presumably due in part to injury. Captaincy was aimless.

Jones: 2 - Horrible with the bat, decent with the gloves.

Read: 4 - Not much good with the bat, but at least showed a bit of fight, unlike Geraint. Keeping was more or less flawless.

Hoggard: 6 - Not a brilliant series by any means, but he did bowl quite well at times, and would have returned better figures against other sides. Dedication in Adelaide was admirable, and was a key contributor in the one game where England actually kept it tight.

Harmison: 3 - Absolutely horrible in Brisbane, and very bad in Adelaide. Got better from there and he actually bowled relatively well in the last three tests, but the damage was already done.

Mahmood: 1.5 - Non-event as a player. Only thing he managed to do with any success was knock over the tail in Melbourne and bowl one or two good deliveries along the way. Hopeless with the bat, despite being picked in part because of his ability in that area.

Anderson: 2 - Another major disappointment. Generally fodder throughout except the odd over in Brisbane and the Sydney test, where he bowled a couple of good spells.

Panesar: 5 - Added something to the team after Giles was belatedly dropped, and bowled pretty well in general. Got taken apart once or twice, but always kept trying, and even stuck around with the bat. England's most impressive bowler after Hoggard.

Giles: 1 - Waste of space. Bowled decently in the first innings in Brisbane, but was an absolutely shocking selection ahead of Panesar and never did anything after that point to justify it. Should never have played one test, let alone two.

Australia
Langer: 4 - Batted pretty well in Brisbane and had a hand in setting up the series, but was pretty poor thereafter. Picked the right moment to retire.

Hayden: 6 - Had a pretty poor start to the series with some strange dismissals and a couple of good deliveries, but came back quite well in the end. Was lucky to get through the period on the first evening in Melbourne, but his application to get through the second morning and make a big score was crucial to the result.

Ponting: 9.5 - Stunning in Brisbane, very good in Adelaide, and then the series was more or less gone. Captaincy was much improved, and while he tailed off later in the series it never had a major impact on the result. Would have broken the 600 barrier if he'd been able to bat the full amount of times.

Martyn: 1.5 - Had to go really. His shot in the second innings in Adelaide wasn't the shot of a test player. Disappointing way to end his career, but picked the right moment.

Hussey: 9 - Phenomenal. Wasn't dismissed for anything under 50 until the 4th test, and was unlucky to only get one century. Application was simply incredible throughout.

Clarke: 8 - Probably takes the "biggest surprise" award, though it wasn't so much of a shock that he did well, merely the degree to which he did. Worked hard on his shot selection and reaped the rewards.

Symonds: 6 - Another big surprise. Innings in Melbourne was a real stunner, and he played with great discipline in Sydney too. Wasn't out to Panesar in Melbourne IMO, and while I don't really rate him as a test player for the future, you can never take that innings away from him.

Gilchrist: 6 - Pretty good series, all round. Disappointing with the gloves in Melbourne and got out cheaply a number of times, but kept well elsewhere and had a fairly productive series with the bat. His innings in Adelaide and Sydney were absolutely crucial, and while the innings in Perth didn't matter as much, it was an amazing knock anyway.

Warne: 7.5 - Not his best Ashes series, but he still turned two games around with brilliant spells. The 5th day effort in Adelaide will go down as one of his finest moments. Batted very well throughout.

Lee: 5.5 - Horrible in Brisbane and the first innings in Adelaide, pretty good thereafter and probably outdid his 2005 efforts. Bowled a couple of great spells but generally needs to be more consistent if he's to be a successful opening bowler post-McGrath.

Clark: 9.5 - Didn't bowl badly in a single innings in the series, simple as that. Didn't quite turn games singlehandedly the way Warne did, but with some more chances at the tail he might have taken more big hauls.

McGrath: 7 - Very solid series, but not quite his usual destructive self. Best performances came in the first and last tests to round out a good end to a great career. Showed in Brisbane that he can still exploit helpful conditions better than anyone.

Richard · 13-01-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Well your mind's made up, clearly. However, fruitless as debate with you obviously is, the logician in me feels compelled to point out that even if you divide Symonds 156 by 3 (allowing for his two "outs") he still avearges more than Strauss does during his "damn superb" innings of 50.

Does the quality of the bowling mean nothing to you?

Richard · 13-01-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by open365

Richard, will you ever just accept that luck and bad luck is something that happens in equal amounts

No, I won't, because that's complete and absolute bull****, and anyone who looks at the matter seriously rather than clutching at straws will realise that.

Quote:

Strauss was rubbish, he got 3 bad decisions, but even in those innings he looked like Australia's bunny, like he was to a certain extent last year, in two series against the best team in the world he has averaged 30, he's not unlucky, he's just not good enough.

He was unlucky and to suggest otherwise is stupid. It doesn't get much worse than 3 bad decisions in a row.

He could have been better, that's why I didn't give him 8 or 9 out of 10, but he was nowhere near as bad as a 4 or so.

Richard · 13-01-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Haha, Richard's ratings are hilarious. 6 for Strauss? 3 and 4 for Symonds and Hayden, and 6 for Langer, who was clearly the worst Australian player in the series?

Did Hayden or Symonds score (chancelessly) 182 for once out?

No, at no stage did they.

Therefore both were far worse than Langer.

Nnanden · 13-01-2007, 06:02 PM

Richard - saw every single ball of the Ashes?

Richard · 13-01-2007, 06:04 PM

Anyone who claims they did is a liar.

I'd be willing to bet that no-one in history has watched every single ball of a 5- or 6-match Test series (and quite conceivably of a 2-, 3- or 4- too), including players and the most attentive of match-reporters.

13-01-2007, 07:45 AM	#39 (permalink)
Nnanden You'll Never Walk Alone Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New South Wales Posts: 26,190	LOL @ Richard`s ratings. Gun. __________________ Jesus saves proudly supporting Liverpool FC

13-01-2007, 08:20 AM	#40 (permalink)
FaaipDeOiad Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 18,682	Haha, Richard's ratings are hilarious. 6 for Strauss? 3 and 4 for Symonds and Hayden, and 6 for Langer, who was clearly the worst Australian player in the series? I'll give it a go. England Strauss: 3 - Real disappointment. Was obviously one of the crucial batsmen for England in the series, and had a highest score of 50. Had some harsh luck with decisions, but made problems for himself with some poor dismissals to the short ball early in the series and never really came back. Cook: 4 - Not a great series either, though he certainly showed some promise and scored a good century. Dismissed the same way far too many times. England never really got off to a good start in any innings, which hurt throughout. Bell: 4.5 - One of England's better batsmen in general, but didn't make enough of his starts and just generally came up short again against Australia. His mental failings were symptomatic of the team at times, particularly his ridiculous dismissal in Adelaide. Collingwood: 6 - Was excellent early in the series, and his work against Warne in particular was stellar. Clearly among the best across the first two tests. Faded quite badly later in the series though. Caught well. Pietersen: 9 - Great throughout. Clearly the standout batsman for England, and his battles with Warne and McGrath were great viewing. One of the few English players who kept playing well right through the series, even after it was lost. Establishing himself as one of the top batsmen in the world. Flintoff: 4 - Terribly disappointing. Never could have expected too much from his batting, but it was even worse than one might have imagined, and while he never bowled absolutely terribly he lacked the fight which defined him as a player in '05. Aside from Brisbane never looked a real threat, presumably due in part to injury. Captaincy was aimless. Jones: 2 - Horrible with the bat, decent with the gloves. Read: 4 - Not much good with the bat, but at least showed a bit of fight, unlike Geraint. Keeping was more or less flawless. Hoggard: 6 - Not a brilliant series by any means, but he did bowl quite well at times, and would have returned better figures against other sides. Dedication in Adelaide was admirable, and was a key contributor in the one game where England actually kept it tight. Harmison: 3 - Absolutely horrible in Brisbane, and very bad in Adelaide. Got better from there and he actually bowled relatively well in the last three tests, but the damage was already done. Mahmood: 1.5 - Non-event as a player. Only thing he managed to do with any success was knock over the tail in Melbourne and bowl one or two good deliveries along the way. Hopeless with the bat, despite being picked in part because of his ability in that area. Anderson: 2 - Another major disappointment. Generally fodder throughout except the odd over in Brisbane and the Sydney test, where he bowled a couple of good spells. Panesar: 5 - Added something to the team after Giles was belatedly dropped, and bowled pretty well in general. Got taken apart once or twice, but always kept trying, and even stuck around with the bat. England's most impressive bowler after Hoggard. Giles: 1 - Waste of space. Bowled decently in the first innings in Brisbane, but was an absolutely shocking selection ahead of Panesar and never did anything after that point to justify it. Should never have played one test, let alone two. Australia Langer: 4 - Batted pretty well in Brisbane and had a hand in setting up the series, but was pretty poor thereafter. Picked the right moment to retire. Hayden: 6 - Had a pretty poor start to the series with some strange dismissals and a couple of good deliveries, but came back quite well in the end. Was lucky to get through the period on the first evening in Melbourne, but his application to get through the second morning and make a big score was crucial to the result. Ponting: 9.5 - Stunning in Brisbane, very good in Adelaide, and then the series was more or less gone. Captaincy was much improved, and while he tailed off later in the series it never had a major impact on the result. Would have broken the 600 barrier if he'd been able to bat the full amount of times. Martyn: 1.5 - Had to go really. His shot in the second innings in Adelaide wasn't the shot of a test player. Disappointing way to end his career, but picked the right moment. Hussey: 9 - Phenomenal. Wasn't dismissed for anything under 50 until the 4th test, and was unlucky to only get one century. Application was simply incredible throughout. Clarke: 8 - Probably takes the "biggest surprise" award, though it wasn't so much of a shock that he did well, merely the degree to which he did. Worked hard on his shot selection and reaped the rewards. Symonds: 6 - Another big surprise. Innings in Melbourne was a real stunner, and he played with great discipline in Sydney too. Wasn't out to Panesar in Melbourne IMO, and while I don't really rate him as a test player for the future, you can never take that innings away from him. Gilchrist: 6 - Pretty good series, all round. Disappointing with the gloves in Melbourne and got out cheaply a number of times, but kept well elsewhere and had a fairly productive series with the bat. His innings in Adelaide and Sydney were absolutely crucial, and while the innings in Perth didn't matter as much, it was an amazing knock anyway. Warne: 7.5 - Not his best Ashes series, but he still turned two games around with brilliant spells. The 5th day effort in Adelaide will go down as one of his finest moments. Batted very well throughout. Lee: 5.5 - Horrible in Brisbane and the first innings in Adelaide, pretty good thereafter and probably outdid his 2005 efforts. Bowled a couple of great spells but generally needs to be more consistent if he's to be a successful opening bowler post-McGrath. Clark: 9.5 - Didn't bowl badly in a single innings in the series, simple as that. Didn't quite turn games singlehandedly the way Warne did, but with some more chances at the tail he might have taken more big hauls. McGrath: 7 - Very solid series, but not quite his usual destructive self. Best performances came in the first and last tests to round out a good end to a great career. Showed in Brisbane that he can still exploit helpful conditions better than anyone. __________________ I know a place where a royal flush Can never beat a pair

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Team 1st XI help	maxmartin	Battrick	3	05-11-2006 03:45 PM
Player of the Week Voting - First Class Round 10	Simon	World Club Cricket	10	21-10-2006 12:27 AM
Rate the player relay.	Johnners	Cricket Chat	1	12-10-2006 04:51 AM
Survey - Player Abuse	Loony BoB	CW XI Players Association	20	06-10-2006 02:44 AM
*Official* New Zealand in Zimbabwe & Zimbabwe/New Zealand/India ODI Tri-Series	James	Cricket Chat	1876	23-09-2005 04:21 PM

13-01-2007, 07:38 AM	#38 (permalink)
open365 International Vice-Captain Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: liverpool Posts: 4,066	Richard, will you ever just accept that luck and bad luck is something that happens in equal amounts to all players and that marking them down for being lucky is as aimless as marking someone up for being unlucky? Strauss was rubbish, he got 3 bad decisions, but even in those innings he looked like Australia's bunny, like he was to a certain extent last year, in two series against the best team in the world he has averaged 30, he's not unlucky, he's just not good enough.

13-01-2007, 06:02 PM	#44 (permalink)
Nnanden You'll Never Walk Alone Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New South Wales Posts: 26,190	Richard - saw every single ball of the Ashes?

13-01-2007, 06:04 PM	#45 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	Anyone who claims they did is a liar. I'd be willing to bet that no-one in history has watched every single ball of a 5- or 6-match Test series (and quite conceivably of a 2-, 3- or 4- too), including players and the most attentive of match-reporters.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)