Rather than rating everyboday, I'll rate the key players who I think need rating.
Clarke - 3: While he failed with the bat, his captaincy was creative and sustained on a tough pitch I thought, used his bowlers well (loses mark for no Smitteh though)
Watson/Rogers - 6: showed promise as an opening pair, complement each other as a pair, but they need to be better when the going gets tough to really give our middle order a chance.
Cowan - 1, fielded poorly, played two ****ty shots to get out, but was sick I guess, I don't see a place for him in this team IMO, a grafter at 3 who is inconsistent is nothing but a liability.
Agar - 8 great debut, excellent batting which kept us in the game, bowling suffered from nerves and finger injury, flights the ball well and picked up top order wickets, well played.
Starc - 6 showed all the typical Starc traits, bowled well with the moving ball, but released the pressure at times, was disappointing with the bat, should continue to play IMO.
Cook - 5 captained poorly IMO, was uncreative and lacked killer instinct, still loose outside off but batted well in the second dig, countered Agar well until dismissal
Root - 4 Looks OK at the top, got a good ball in the first and then was unlucky in the second, picked up a wicket too, should be stuck with for a little while at the top
Bell - 8 was still a bit loose and lucky at times, but ultimately batted superbly in the second innings and gave them a match-winning lead
Anderson - 10 couldn't have been better from him, looks very dangerous at times and his movement is very difficult to play, will be major factor going into Lords.
An extra point to Prior for standing at the stumps to Anderson and making it look easy? I thought the art of catching 135 kph deliveries from 20 metres away was dead and gone. A great effort.
“I'm writing a book on magic”, I explain, and I'm asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No”, I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic”. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.”
― Lee Siegel, 'Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India'
A big problem for England bowling at tailenders is how bad Swann is when a batsman is coming at him. Its a real hole in his game.
Watson - 6 : gets a couple of bonus points for bowling really really well. Batting is infuriating, but averaging 30 in a fairly low-scoring game isn't awful.
Rogers - 6 : very promising. Looked pretty untroubled, unlucky to be given in the first, will be very annoyed by the second innings dismissal, and England will think that if they can dry up his runs then they're in with a chance, as he didn't look the same once Watson had been dismissed.
Cowan - 1 : almost loses the token 1/10 for some poor fielding. He actually survived a very difficult spell in the second innings, before getting out to Root on tea...
Clarke - 2 : few runs, bad DRS-ing. Rotated his bowlers fairly well, and kept England in check in the second innings.
Smith - 6 : nice first innings, but a bad shot to get out which started a collapse, and then couldn't survive till stumps on day 4.
Hughes - 6 : I didn't know he could bat like his first innings.
Haddin - 7 : his keeping was probably only 4/10, but still so much better than Wade. Limp first innings dismissal, but superb on day 5...
Agar - 8 : bowling figures would look much better with a third wicket. ICC needs to take baseball's lead and amend stats retrospectively...
Starc - 3 : the occasional reasonable spell, but a lot of rubbish in there too and very flattered by his figures. Should he try to bat properly or just throw the bat?
Siddle - 7 : looks tidy rather than threatening, but takes a lot of wickets. 150 at under 28... I think he is seriously underrated in general.
Pattinson - 6 : Can bowl better, but still looks likely. Would be a contender for number 7 in some sides (eg New Zealand)...
Root - 5 : Yet to convince though it was an unlucky second innings dismissal, possibly in two ways. Gains a point for getting a useful wicket.
Cook - 6 : Two poor shots to get out, but the second innings was important to gain some parity again. Loses a point for giving Finn a second over, but gains it back for a couple of excellent catches.
Trott - 5 : Nice first innings, unlucky in the second, though he did basically miss a full-inswinger.
Pietersen - 6 : Very good second innings knock when the momentum was all with Australia.
Bell - 8 : I think his second innings has been over-praised - it felt like he had a fair amount of good fortune along the way, but he made the most of it. Excellent ground-fielding.
Bairstow - 3 : I too think England were better off with Root at 6, and Compton opening, and nothing in this test changed my mind.
Prior - 6 : won't enjoy watching either of those dismissals again, but kept well.
Broad - 7 : took some big wickets, not least Agar in the first innings. And for all the controversy, his second innings runs won the game. Yes, he's a ****, but the bleating about his standing his ground is just pathetic. Seems a lot of people feel it's ok to stand for the thin edges, but you have to walk for the thick ones, which I feel is amazingly illogical.
Swann - 3 : just not his ground. Didn't look like scoring any runs either.
Finn - 2 : I scratch my head when I see his figures, 90 wickets at 29.., how has he managed that?
Anderson - 10. Just superb. I made the comment in the match-thread - Anderson at one end, Ilford second eleven at the other. Hard to imagine England winning a match without him.
For those that rated Rogers / Twatto the same do you really think that his 9 extra runs are worth wattos bowling?
Watson's bowling was rubbish.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)