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.
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.
Last edited by GIMH; 07-12-2010 at 07:26 AM.
"It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
Watson on strike, hits it to midwicket and it's not his call?
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.
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
Last edited by Goughy; 07-12-2010 at 07:39 AM.
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.
Last edited by Goughy; 07-12-2010 at 07:38 AM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Goughy; 07-12-2010 at 08:11 AM.
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
If Watson waits for Katich's call of 'no' then a dot ball and no drama.
Last edited by Goughy; 07-12-2010 at 08:12 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)