Player ratings

[age_master]

Strauss 8/10
Cook 4/10
Bell 3/10
Collingwood 4/10
Trott 7/10
Prior 6/10
Flintoff 5/10
Broad 7/10
Swann 6/10
Harmison 2/10
Anderson 4/10


Katich 6/10
Watson 6/10
Ponting 6/10
Hussey 3/10
Clarke 8/10
Haddin 6/10
North 7/10
Johnson 4/10
Clark 2/10
Siddle 5/10
Hilfenhaus 6/10
Haurtiz 6/10

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Mine would basically be this but I'd probably give Onions 6.5 because I think he was better than Anderson. He was probably England's most consistent bowler.

and yet even he was extremely inconsistent.......

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Just because Midge was all over him (Bell) at first. Bit of a nit-pick though. I don't really care whether an innings is awkward or pretty.

Didn't he glove one which the umpire missed, before he had scored a run?

Batted well after that tbf and was a bit unlucky in the 2nd innings.

[alw1971]

[QUOTE=kingkallis;2015032]Strauss 8/10
Cook 3/10
Bell 3/10
Collingwood 4/10
Trott 7/10
Prior 5/10
Flintoff 5/10
Broad 8/10
Swann 7/10
Harmison 2/10
Anderson 3/10
------

Strauss 8/10
Cook 4/10
Bell 3/10
Collingwood 4/10
Trott 8/10
Prior 7/10
Flintoff 5/10
Broad 8/10
Swann 7/10
Harmison 4/10
Anderson 4/10

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by age_master

Strauss 8/10
Cook 4/10
Bell 3/10
Collingwood 4/10
Trott 7/10
Prior 6/10
Flintoff 5/10
Broad 7/10
Swann 6/10
Harmison 2/10
Anderson 4/10


Katich 6/10
Watson 6/10
Ponting 6/10
Hussey 3/10
Clarke 8/10
Haddin 6/10
North 7/10
Johnson 4/10
Clark 2/10
Siddle 5/10
Hilfenhaus 6/10
Haurtiz 6/10

Really tough on Clark - did you watch the Leeds Test? - and Trott - one of the greatest debut performances in the history of the game, and he gets a 7 out of 10. What would he have had to have done to get full marks?

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Really tough on Clark - did you watch the Leeds Test? - and Trott - one of the greatest debut performances in the history of the game, and he gets a 7 out of 10. What would he have had to have done to get full marks?

Take 6 wickets.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Really tough on Clark - did you watch the Leeds Test? - and Trott - one of the greatest debut performances in the history of the game, and he gets a 7 out of 10. What would he have had to have done to get full marks?

You're impressed by 4 wickets @ 44? People are giving Johnson a bagging yet the guy managed 20 wickets @ 32.55.

Strauss 8.5
Cook 5. Would have looked a lot worse if Strauss didnt have such a strong series
Bopara 2
Bell 5.5 1st innings at the Oval was vital for England.
Collingwood. 5
Flintoff 6
Prior 7. I think he was solid behind the stumps*
Pietersen. 5.5. Head wasnt in the right place.Amateurish dismissal
Trott 7.5 About as high a rating you can give someone who played just one test
Broad 8. Bowling was weak first 3 matches but batted well and finished strongly.
Swann 7. Played well when England needed a spinner. Handy runs earns him a 7
Anderson 5.5 If the ball wasnt swinging was nothing but a stock bowler
Onions 6.5 Maybe unlucky to miss out on the Oval.
Harmison 5.5. Bland and boring as usual.
Panesar 3

Australia

Hughes. 4.5. Inexperience and found out but will learn from it is (hopefully)
Katich. 7. You can criticise him for not going on with it but a consistent opener is very handy.
Watson 7. Combined well with Katich.No collapse was their fault.
Ponting 7.5. Fell short of greatness
Clarke 8.5. Would have been 9 or 9.5 except for his failures at the Oval
Hussey. 5
North 6.5. Only scored runs when Australia was already on top.Failed in 2nd and 5th tests
Haddin 6.5.
Johnson 6. Bowled badly a lot of the time but still wickets.But wickets are wickets.
Siddle 6.5
Hilfenhaus 8.
Hauritz 6.5. Could have been 7 or 7.5 if he was picked for the 5th test.
S. Clark. 4.5. One good spell. Should have been dropped for Hauritz for the Oval.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

You're impressed by 4 wickets @ 44?

Mindless reliance on bowling averages isn't enough.

At Headingley, Australia won the game on the first morning, and Clark's bowling was instrumental in that. England went to lunch at 72-6. Clark's figures were 7-4-7-3. He was absolutely outstanding.

His figures were dented in the 2nd innings when Broad, Swann and Harmison, with the pressure completely off, thrashed around and scored 56 irrelevant runs off his bowling. Without those, his series average (for what it's worth) would have been 30 and not 44.

He didn't have a great game at the Oval in conditions generally considered to be unfavourable to his style of bowling (as it happens, I thought the conditions ought to have suited him and I'm surprised he didn't take more wickets). But to suggest that this justifies a series rating of 2 is ridiculously unfair on a bowler who played a leading part in Australia's only win in the series.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

and yet even he was extremely inconsistent.......

It's saying something isn't it!

[Son Of Coco]

North 6.5. Only scored runs when Australia was already on top.Failed in 2nd and 5th tests

People keep saying this, I really don't think it's true. You could say that for nearly every bat to come after the openers in that case, as we collapsed twice.

What about his innings with Clarke to take us safely to the draw? What about his innings to get us a long way in front in the 4th test?

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

People keep saying this, I really don't think it's true. You could say that for nearly every bat to come after the openers in that case, as we collapsed twice.

What about his innings with Clarke to take us safely to the draw? What about his innings to get us a long way in front in the 4th test?

Agreed.

There was a thread a few weeks back about whether you'd rather have a player who made 40 in every innings or one who made 4 scores of 100 and 6 ducks in every 10 innings. People generally said they preferred the latter. There's an element of that in North, though, and he gets criticised for it. Unfairly, imo - he scored runs that hurt England this series; and he's a good player to watch too.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Mindless reliance on bowling averages isn't enough.

At Headingley, Australia won the game on the first morning, and Clark's bowling was instrumental in that. England went to lunch at 72-6. Clark's figures were 7-4-7-3. He was absolutely outstanding.

Right. Because England were powering on and dominating the Australian bowlers up to the point Clark started to bowl? Clearly it was impossible for Australia to win that game at all without Clark's Three wickets.

Three wickets
Three
3

Never in the history of cricket has three wickets been so overrated.

His figures were dented in the 2nd innings when Broad, Swann and Harmison, with the pressure completely off, thrashed around and scored 56 irrelevant runs off his bowling. Without those, his series average (for what it's worth) would have been 30 and not 44.

He got smashed. Smashed is smashed. Or should the record books put an * next to his 2nd innings performance saying "This performance (or lack thereof) doesnt count because "the pressure was off"? There was no pressure on Australia. The game was already won.

He didn't have a great game at the Oval in conditions generally considered to be unfavourable to his style of bowling (as it happens, I thought the conditions ought to have suited him and I'm surprised he didn't take more wickets). But to suggest that this justifies a series rating of 2 is ridiculously unfair on a bowler who played a leading part in Australia's only win in the series.

England had the brains to drop Onions (would have been better to drop Andersen), a similar style bowler to Clark and bring in Swann, even though Onion's series figures were far far superior to Swann's. Australia, still stuck in the 1960's thinking when it comes to selecting a professional sporting team, decided to stick "with a winning team" regardless of the evidence at hand.

England won.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

People keep saying this, I really don't think it's true. You could say that for nearly every bat to come after the openers in that case, as we collapsed twice.

What about his innings with Clarke to take us safely to the draw? What about his innings to get us a long way in front in the 4th test?

I didnt say he played badly. Just that he never made runs under a lot of pressure like Hussey did at the Oval.

And by the time North made those runs at Edgbaston the game was already heading to a draw. Only the most optimistic English fans thought they had a chance of winning.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

Right. Because England were powering on and dominating the Australian bowlers up to the point Clark started to bowl? Clearly it was impossible for Australia to win that game at all without Clark's Three wickets.

Three wickets
Three
3

Never in the history of cricket has three wickets been so overrated.



He got smashed. Smashed is smashed. Or should the record books put an * next to his 2nd innings performance saying "This performance (or lack thereof) doesnt count because "the pressure was off"? There was no pressure on Australia. The game was already won.



England had the brains to drop Onions (would have been better to drop Andersen), a similar style bowler to Clark and bring in Swann, even though Onion's series figures were far far superior to Swann's. Australia, still stuck in the 1960's thinking when it comes to selecting a professional sporting team, decided to stick "with a winning team" regardless of the evidence at hand.

England won.

He was by far and away the pick of the bowlers in that 102ao. It's impossible to say what would have happened without that spell; sure we'd have still collapsed, but probably for a few more runs.

The fact that he wasn't up to much from the next innings onwards isn't really up for debate, but that spell alone should see him above a 2, the same way Flintoff and Anderson get 5/6
sort of ratings because althoguh they were largely quiet, they did turn in matchwinning performances at Lord's/

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

Clearly it was impossible for Australia to win that game at all without Clark's Three wickets.

In case you're having some kind of difficulty reading what's been written in this thread, no-one's actually said anything of the sort. What is being said by DCYE, GIMH and me is that a rating of 2 is ridiculously unfair on him. As you seem to accept yourself, since you've given him 4.5. Australia may well have won without him, but as Son of Coco put it, Clark put Australia in a winning position.

Originally Posted by slippyslip

He got smashed. Smashed is smashed. Or should the record books put an * next to his 2nd innings performance saying "This performance (or lack thereof) doesnt count because "the pressure was off"?

That's my point about blind reliance on bowling averages: they don't tell the whole story and can easily mislead the ignorant.