Player Ratings - As We Go By...

[Goughy]

Watson on strike, hits it to midwicket and it's not his call?

No, of course not. The ball goes just in front of square to a right handed fielder that would have to throw across his body to the more distant stumps against his momentum to target the bowlers end.

Clearly Katich is going to the danger end and clearly his shout. Schoolboy stuff. I question the standard of schoolboy coaching if this is being discussed (Im not trying to be a dick while making my point, Im just still pumped after finishing the Day 5 highlights )

YouTube - Ashes 2nd Test Australia v England Adelaide Trott Runs Out Katich 2nd Dec 2010

 

[Goughy]

These days, at least in Australian cricket, it's generally recognised that it's always the batsman's call, unless he doesn't know where the ball is.

Has a better view of the angles square of the wicket, knows how well or otherwise he hit the ball, and stops confusion when a ball is just behind square.

Really? Thats horrible. Why should the batsman have contol of his partners wicket when he is heading to the safe end? I do not agree with that at all.

EDIT- I can see the logic in limited over cricket, even if Im not a huge fan of it. Hit, call, run and put the fielders under pressure but not in Test cricket where the risks are not worth it and each individual has greater accountabilty for their wicket. In Test cricket, the guy going to the danger end should call.

 

[vic_orthdox]

a) The call can come earlier from the batsman himself.
b) The batsman on strike has more information to make the call.
c) Lessens confusion, in working out when it is the striker/non-striker's call.

I agree with you on most things with coaching, but looks like we'll have to sit on opposite sides of the fence for this one.

 

[Furball]

I was always taught (mind you, this was 15 years ago playing West of Scotland U10 league) that it's the striker's call if the ball goes in front of square, and the non-striker's call for anything behind square.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I was always taught (mind you, this was 15 years ago playing West of Scotland U10 league) that it's the striker's call if the ball goes in front of square, and the non-striker's call for anything behind square.

That was the sort of basic thing that is taught to all juniors, who really have little idea about how to judge a run, particularly if it's not hit through the field. But when you reach pathway levels of cricket, and involvement in regional programs, the theory changes.

 

[Furball]

That was the sort of basic thing that is taught to all juniors, who really have little idea about how to judge a run, particularly if it's not hit through the field. But when you reach pathway levels of cricket, and involvement in regional programs, the theory changes.

I'd have thought the "in front of square is the striker's call" would remain more or less the same though, surely if I hit the ball to midwicket or cover then I've got a much better look at the angle and whether a fielder is likely to intercept than the guy at the non-strikers end?

 

[Goughy]

a) The call can come earlier from the batsman himself.
b) The batsman on strike has more information to make the call.
c) Lessens confusion, in working out when it is the striker/non-striker's call.

I agree with you on most things with coaching, but looks like we'll have to sit on opposite sides of the fence for this one.

If the striker is going to the safe end and calls immediately and sets off and then the non-striker who is going to the danger end answers 'no' then the striker is halfway down the track stranded.

Ill be buggered if Id ever risk running myself out or have a player I coach do the same just because someone happened to hit the ball. If Im going to the danger end then Ill trust myself or my charges to make that decision for themselves rather than the guy who is at no risk.

Running is about communication and decision making not just blind obedience.

I also find it a dubious concept. Rather than each batsman individually assessing their own risk that one player can immediately make a more accurate assessment of the risk for all involved especially when their wicket is also on the line and they are going away from danger. I dont believe that type of assessment is as accurate as the one in most danger makes the decision. IMO, human nature makes the striker always calling prone to more failures.

If I am Katich then and I am going to the danger end and I dont think there is a run then I shout 'no' and turn my back on Watson. Ill be ****ed if someone is trying to run me out when they are in no danger themselves.

I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence on this and to be fair not even Geoff Boycott's mum could change my mind on this.

As for lessening confusion, sports is about decision making. Things should not be simplified for elite athletes. Otherwise just go back to what GingerFurball said was coached at the U'10 level in Scotland.

 

[Jarquis]

Tbf I thought it went further infront of square than that.
The fact Trott had so much time due to the fact Katich was sat on his heels for 6 minutes means that the liability isn't solely with Watson IMO

 

[Furball]

If the striker is going to the safe end and calls immediately and sets off and then the non-striker who is going to the danger end answers 'no' then the striker is halfway down the track stranded.

Ill be buggered if Id ever risk running myself out or have a player I coach just because someone happened to hit the ball. If Im going to the danger end then Ill trust myself or my charges to make that decision for themselves rather than the guy who is at no risk.

Running is about communication and decision making not just blind obedience.

If I am Katich then and I am going to the danger end and I dont think there is a run then I shout 'no' and turn my back on Watson. Ill be ****ed if someone is trying to run me out when they are in no danger themselves.

I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence on this and to be fair not even Geoff Boycott's mum could change my mind on this.

That's the thing though, Katich didn't make any attempt at communicating with Watson - he was ballwatching. While Watson has apparently admitted his call wasn't loud enough, Katich should have responded to Watson running - and it wasn't even a tight single. Watson made the single easily by lightly jogging it. If Katich had gone early and gone hard, there would have been no need for Trott to have a shy, the run would have been completed by the time he got the ball in his hands.

 

[Goughy]

That's the thing though, Katich didn't make any attempt at communicating with Watson - he was ballwatching. While Watson has apparently admitted his call wasn't loud enough, Katich should have responded to Watson running - and it wasn't even a tight single. Watson made the single easily by lightly jogging it. If Katich had gone early and gone hard, there would have been no need for Trott to have a shy, the run would have been completed by the time he got the ball in his hands.

He was not ball watching, he was assessing risk and waiting to make a call. As the man going to the danger end that is what, IMO, he should do unless in the middle of a frantic run chase. Just because his partner is madly sprinting down the pitch has nothing to do with it. Watson may have made the single easy but he was never in any danger as he was running to the safe end.

If Watson waits for Katich's call of 'no' then a dot ball and no drama.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Personally, silence = death in running between wickets.

 

[Goughy]

Personally, silence = death in running between wickets.

Agreed, shout 'NO!' and turn your back

 

[Jarquis]

Still think that if Katich goes when Watson calls/whispers that they make it without fuss. Whether it's Watson's call or not, Katich could have made if he went rather than dawdling.

 

[Smudge]

Hussey 1 Not his fault was run out then injured
Watson 4 Gave his wicket away twice when his team needed him to get big runs,never gets them though.
Ponting 1 only thing he did right was win the toss
Clarke 6 Gutsy 2nd innings knock under pressure
Hussey 7 Looks in prime form though threw it away on last day.
North 2 Surely his last match?
Haddin 5 batting very well but dropped a dolly
Harris 5 Pick of bowlers, not saying much though. King pair
Doherty 1 Not good enough
Siddle 2 Bowled utter garbage
Bollinger 1 So much hype so little delivery

Might want to run through that teamlist again, champ. Pretty sure D. Hussey wasn't playing, let alone opening.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Might want to run through that teamlist again, champ. Pretty sure D. Hussey wasn't playing, let alone opening.

Too late to edit it now, it was gone 2 am after 5 long days with no sleep.

That is my excuse and i am sticking to it.

 

[social]

Good Guys

Strauss - 0 for batting, 10 for captaincy. Let's say 5. Declaration was spot on.
Cook - 9. In the form of his life.
Trott - 8 - might not be box office, but he is playing bloody well.
Pietersen - 10. Declared himself an all-rounder after removing Clarke, who am I to argue. Piled the misery on Australia and took probably the most important wicket.
Collingwood - 5.5. Steady with the bat, useful in the field. Did enough.
Bell - 7. Good innings, easy though the going was he still managed to look a million dollars.
Prior - 5.5. Steady but could have cost us with his drop. Should buy James Anderson a pint.
Broad - 4.5. Looked good without the end product but supported Anderson well on day one.
Swann - 9. Did his job in the first dig, won us the game in the second. A true national hero.
Anderson - 8. World class on days one and five. Disappointing on day four.
Finn - 6. Atrocious first dig but came back well second time. Hussey ball might not have been an ATG but the execution was spot on.

clowns

Katich - 3. His dismissal set it all off.
Twatto - 4.5. Hasn't got it in him to score big ones but did okay both innings. Bowled like he was playing a practical joke on somebody, on day two.
Chimpy - 0. It's pasag's fault for making that tribute thread.
Clarke - 5. Got a pearler first dig but fought back well second time. Doesn't have the balls to see the day out. Would lose points for letting his dismissal be reviewed but as he apologised I'll let him off.
Hussey - 6. Did well both times, but the shot to get out was slightly questionable.
North - 10. Integral to England's retention hopes.
Haddin - 4.5. Ok first dig, did nothing in the second,
Harris - 4. Australia's best bowler. Although that is like having the best vision on the blind ward.
Doherty - 1. Seems like a nice lad.
Siddle - 2. Hat-trick seems a long time ago.
Bollinger - 1. Atrocious.

Ha ha

Colly is a 0.5 - couldnt buy a run atm
Prior was correctly given out but given a reprieve and cant catch a cold - 1
Bell comes into bat with no pressure and runs arent worth anything - 4
Broad is Eng's 2nd best bowler - 7
Jimmeh is back to form ( good one day, total **** the next) - 7
Swann's figures are massively flattered by the tail - 6

Australia - 0

 

[Furball]

Bell comes into bat with no pressure and runs arent worth anything - 4
Swann's figures are massively flattered by the tail - 6

Bell's runs were pretty much the difference between England batting again and winning by an innings.

If you don't bowl out the tail, you don't win the game.

I know you hate giving us credit, but **** me, that's two ****ing stupid points there.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah always pisses me off when people denigrate bowlers because they can only clean up the tail or whatever. Such a stupid point, getting rid of tail enders is just as important as getting rid of top order batsmen.

Social - -1

And Collingwood got 42 ffs, it's hardly 'not being able to buy a run'.

 

[Tom 1972]

Neutral perspective:

Australia:

Katich - 4: Freak dismissal in the first innings, failed to convert a start in the second.
Watson - 6: Solid performance. Not really match-turning though.
Ponting - 2: Horrible performance with the bat, uninspiring as a captain, though not much he could've done.
Clarke - 5: Fought hard in the second innings in a difficult situation. Ultimately failed again.
Hussey - 7: Australia's best batsman. Loses points for his atrocious shot in the second dig.
North - 2: Not much more can be said. Expected performance from North.
Haddin - 4: Scored a 50 on a flat deck, then failed with the gloves and failed in the second innings, though he got a genuine good ball.
Harris - 4: Probably the most encouraging Australian bowler, though that really doesn't say much. Kingpair coming in at no 8 is pretty awful.
Doherty - 1: Tempted to say zero. Felt sorry for him, clearly not a test bowler.
Siddle - 2: Toothless performance.
Bollinger - 2: Same as Siddle.


England:
Strauss - 5: failed with the bat, but led England to their first live win on Australian soil in years.
Cook - 9: Chanceless hundred basically, thought he actually batted better than in the last game.
Trott - 7.5: Edgy innings, displayed a clear weakness to the short ball but still made runs. Got a vital runout.
Pieterson - 10: Peerless performance in every capacity.
Collingwood - 5: Average performance really, though didn't really do anything wrong.
Bell - 7: To me still looks arguably the best England batsman. Didn't get a chance to show much.
Prior - 6: Solid stuff
Broad - 4: Not great. Took one wicket and got injured.
Swann - 8: Bowled well in the first and beautifully in the second.
Anderson - 8: Brilliant performance in the first innings on a flat pitch.
Finn - 5: Showed some promise, also some vulnerability.

I think you're nailed it for mine.
Aus: 39 points.
Poms: 74.5

Well and truly reflected in the scorecard.

 

[pasag]

English poster ratings after two Tests:

BoyBrumby - 6. Does ok for himself despite the obvious handicap.
flibbertyjibber - 4. Jesus weeps after every post.
Marcuss - 2. Usually good value, but the decline has been sudden and quite noticeable. Might be terminal.
Goughy - 7. Gets the highest rating for being a self-hating pom.
marc71178 - 1. Improving.
zaremba - 3. Consistent drivel for two Ashes series now. Impressive.
four_or_six - 5. Will you still need Watto when he's 64?
Jamee999 - 3. Goes missing when England do poorly and then suddenly he's back when they do well. The ultimate bandwagon fan.
GIMH - 0. Oxygen thief.