Hang your head for replying to ceep
Hang your head for replying to ceep
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts.. . For support rather than illumination. " - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
Don't get narky floglocity
Was it the best I have seen? No. There goes the 10.
Was he by far the best bowler for England? Yes. That is reflected in the rankings.
Did he bowl very well? Yes. I gave a score of 8.
Were there times in between the good stuff where he, along with the other looked a little flat - including being a witness to a 10th wicket celebration of batting? Yes. I dont quite believe it was a 9. It is a solid 8 in a low scoring game and he was a clear match winner in part because England's other bowlers were so poor in addition to Anderson being good.
That 13 over spell was magic though and he is clearly World class with both the new and old ball.
Last edited by Goughy; 16-07-2013 at 03:48 AM.
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
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
1st Test, Trent Bridge:
Cook - 6: Good fifty in 2nd innings. Average captaincy overall but was good when it cames to taking/not taking reviews.
Root - 4: Pretty mediocre as opener, struggled a bit but it's his first Ashes and opener test so a bit generous here. He made it up with the important wicket though.
Trott-4: Not sure about innings 2, but pretty good batting on day 1 until that horrendous dismissal.
Pieterson - 6: Showed plenty of grit in the second innings and partly helped England rebuild their innings on days 2 and 3. A shame he didn't go all the way.
Bell - 8 : Great ton, just when England needed it.
Bairstow - 2 : Struggled and didn't look good at all.
Prior -3 : Ok with the glove, looked promising with the bat in the second innings but overall not anything noteworthy
Broad -7: A vital batting innings in the second half. Impressive bowling on day 4. And bonus points for the hilarious shoe time wasting.
Finn - 0 : Absolute rubbish. Feel sorry for him and would have liked to give more considering he was on a hat-rick, but his **** far exceeded any merit he presented.
Swann - 2: Looked dangerous at times but ended up as mediocre and pretty tame.
Anderson - 10 :Absolutely stunning performance. A bit inconsistent at times but you can't give him less than full marks.
Watson - 3: Same promising yet ultimately disappointing Watson.
Rogers - 6: Good batting in both innings.
Cowan - 0: Eeek.
Clarke - 1.5 : Poor captaincy, poor batting. Points only awarded for that good catch of Cook's edge.
Smith - 4:Fighting innings on day1/day 2 but just so-so afterwards.
Hughes - 6.5:Shame he's no. 6. Very good batting from him.
Haddin - 7: Mediocre keeping tbh but great batting that almost steered Oz to victory in the 2nd half.
Agar - 6.5: Great 98 on day 2 but not really effective with the ball.
Starc - 5: Good enough and was certainly dangerous on day 2 with his 2 wickets of Root and Trott, but overall inconsistent.
Siddle -8.5:Good bowling, very experienced and consistent.
Pattinson - 9: Great bowling, unlucky many times, and an equally fabulous bit of sensible batting at the end.
How on earth does Pattinson get a 9 yet Siddle get an 8.5 (and Clarke's captaincy was actually very good, referrals aside and the decision to take the 2nd new ball)?
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
How does Agar get 6.5?
First game, saves the batting lineup with a 98 batting at #11 highest score in history) and only gets a 6.5?
Lost points for being a Victorian can be the only reason.......perfectly valid too tbf.
We are the army, the Barmy Army
Oh we are mental, and we are mad
We are the loyalest, cricket supporters
That the world has ever had
I don't understand how Rogers can be seen to have had a much better test than Watson, unless people are rating based on performance relative to potential rather than just contribution. Made similar amounts of runs, had fairly similar dismissals batting at the same time against the same bowlers, and Watson bowled a bunch of overs and took a catch.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
Didn't get injured bowling 4 overs.
"I can't promise anyone success but I can promise them a trip to the moon." - John King
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Cook 6- Just like England, terrible shot first innings and a scrappy, important knock second innings. Australia know where to bowl to him much better this time around.
Root 4- Bonus mark for picking up a wicket but his complete lack of a front foot makes him too easy to bowl to up front. If he gets any runs opening this series they'll be hideous.
Trott 5- Didn't get the runs. Got a great ball second innings.
Pietersen 6- See: Cook.
Bell 9- The best batsman of the match by miles. Unlikely to have put an end to the "easy runs" label but is in reality a quite-good test bat.
Bairstow 4- I really don't rate him but he wasn't terrible. His second innings will look worse than it was because he saw off a very tough spell of bowling.
Prior 5- Took some good catches and a useful second innings knock. Could do better.
Broad 6- A crucial if astonishingly lucky second innings, and broke a couple of big partnerships. Should have bowled much earlier in the first innings.
Swann 6- Got a few wickets but a bit too inconsistent in length and didn't live up to the commentators' hype. Has to take some of the blame for the massive left-handed 10th-wicket partnership. Australia seem to find him easier to play than they do other top-class spinners.
Finn 2- Two big wickets on day one but holy jesus he was bad. His match is a strong argument against continuing to pick players that somehow take wickets bowling ****e.
Anderson 9.5- Much better than everyone else.
Watson 6- Unlucky with the ball. Same old story with the bat.
Rogers 6- Didn't quite get the runs but definitely looks like justifying his selection. Didn't at any stage actually look like getting out.
Cowan 2- Unfortunately doesn't look quite up to it. Played some horribly loose shots for a batsman renowned for his leaving ability, suggesting the pressure of his lack of runs might have got to him.
Clarke 2- No runs and a crucial balls-up with the review system. Widely seen as pivotal to the series, which puts him under a lot of pressure. England bring on their best bowlers and visibly try harder when he's at the crease.
Smith 5- Looked encouraging but didn't quite get the job done. First innings dismissal suggests his shot selection when set might not quite be suited to batting in England.
Hughes 6- Useful first innings knock but when Swann is bowling it just seems like a matter of time.
Haddin 6- Got a good ball early on in the first. Decent effort in the second but ultimately didn't get the job done.
Starc 6- The weakest Aussie bowler but certainly didn't bowl any filth. Looks really awkward to face.
Siddle 8- Probably slightly lucky to get so many wickets but bowled some really good stuff too.
Pattinson 7- Maybe slightly unlucky. Looks almost certain to be world-class but just gave away a touch too many runs.
Agar 9- Not sure what else to say. Great batting, very good bowling. Already feels odd that his selection was seen as a bad joke.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)