-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Player Ratings
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Andrew Strauss - 7 - Huge kudos for captaining his side to a whitewash, fairly meh series with the bat. Was never out of nick but never looked like going on with his form either.
Ali Cook - 8 - A fairly unproductive series aside from a monstrous 294 at Edgbaston. You'd take that from your opening bat though.
Jonathan Trott - 6 - good fighting innings on day 1 at Lord's to help set up the series. Bonus point for attempting to audition for World War Z whilst batting at Trent Bridge.
Kevin Pietersen - 9 - Imperious. Complete ownage of the Indian bowlers all series, treated them like an under 9s side at Lord's.
Ian Bell - 9 - exploited Dhoni's generous captaincy throughout the series by helping himself to approximately 16,000 runs through third man.
Eoin Morgan - 5 - couple of nice innings against joke bowling, worrylingly exposed at other times
Matt Prior - 8 - kept well, bashed crucial runs to set up the first two test wins.
Stuart Broad - 10 - where the hell have you been for the last 2 years? I can only assume his early season form was part of some evil genius plan.
Chris Tremlett - 6 - reasonable contribution at Lord's.
Graeme Swann - 7 - crucial runs at Trent Bridge, looked like the weak link until the Oval. As in Australia, when given his one turning track of the series, made it count.
James Anderson - 9 - utterly owned the Indian top order despite not really firing on all cylinders.
Tim Bresnan - 9 - brilliant with bat and ball, responded to being written off as a defensive option by bouncing the top order out.
Ravi Bopara - 4 - meh.
Gautam Gambhir - 2 - poor series. Possibly **** his pants at Trent Bridge, redeemed himself by playing on through concussion at the Oval. Incidentally, whoever ok'd Gambhir playing at the Oval needs to take a good look at themselves.
Abhinav Mukund - 3 - decent innings at Lord's, clearly out of his depth in Test cricket, which he can't really be blamed for.
Vehrinder Sehwag - 0 - hilariously bad with the bat, too lazy to field. Woeful.
Rahul Dravid - 10 - heroic in the face of disaster. Was the only Indian batsman not to have a technical weakness exposed then ruthlessly exploited by the England bowlers, who pretty much had to resort to bowling magic balls to even have a chance of getting out. 2 unbeaten tons, would have been 3 had he not needed to slog at Trent Bridge, opened in 5 innings (effectively 7 with Sehwag's "efforts" at Edgbaston), could not have done anything more. Also kept wicket. Could conceivably lose a point for some poor slip fielding, but in light of everything else he gave for his team, I'm not going to be that harsh. WAG.
Sachin Tendulkar - 3 - fairly unproductive series, scored his runs when they didn't matter, owned again by Jimmeh, loses points for being a selfish **** and refusing to bat at 3, forcing the team's lower order firefighter up to number 3 instead. Gets a bonus point for ensuring cricinfo will be readable for the forseeable future by saving us from the months of sycophantic articles we'd have had to endure had he reached his milestone.
VVS Laxman - 4 - forced out of position, started series decently. Very generously gave England's fine leg fielders catching practice and seemed to forget where his offstump was.
Suresh Raina - 2 - should be investigated by the ICC for sending out a doppleganger 2nd dig at Lord's. I refuse to believe the man who made a composed half century was the same man who got himself into such a tangle when the ball bounced above his knees.
Yuvraj Singh - 5 - achieved a personal milestone when he was described by the Sky team as a "good player of spin" for the first time in his career.
MS Dhoni - 0 - would probably have kept better had he taped frying pans to his gloves. Gains bonus points for his batting at Edgbaston. Loses all points gained for repeated irresponsible batting throughout the series, which has somehow escaped scrutiny. Exposed the tail to the new ball 2nd innings at Lord's and the Oval when batting for a draw was a remote possibility, and squandered a great position at Trent Bridge in the first innings. Here's a hint: when Rahul Dravid is 110 not out at the other end, you have a lead of 50 and the opposition bowlers are moving a new ball outside your off stump, and you only have the tail behind you, cover driving isn't a particularly smart idea.
Harbhajan - 0 - simultaneously made a mockery of the idea that India had the spinning advantage going into the series, and the 400+ Test wicket list. Managed to be outbowled by Raina and Yuvraj, which was no mean feat.
Praveen Kumar - 8 - Dravid aside, India's only shining light throughout the series. Always kept the batsmen honest, constantly prized out wickets at crucial times, and entertained with his batting.
Ishant Sharma - 4 - great spell 2nd innings at Lord's to put India into a potential winning position, gets a bonus point for being the only Indian bowler on the 2nd morning at the Oval who looked like he knew what he was meant to be doing with the strange red thing in their hands. Shame he ruined it by bowling innocuous rubbish for the rest of the series.
Zaheer Khan - 0 - here's a gym membership son, how about you use it once in a while given your importance to the Indian team?
Sreesanth - 0 - apparently good in bowler friendly conditions. I can only assume CricketWeb have confused Sreesanth with somebody else. Presumably gets away with calling himself a bowler because the Indian public have no idea what a good seam bowler looks like.
Amit Mishra - 4 - should probably reinvent himself as a batsman. Achieved the admirable feat of making Harbhajan Singh look like a threatening spinner.
RP Singh - 0 - the BCCI could have called up literally anyone from the beach in Miami and they'd probably have done better.
Ali Cook - 8 - A fairly unproductive series aside from a monstrous 294 at Edgbaston. You'd take that from your opening bat though.
Jonathan Trott - 6 - good fighting innings on day 1 at Lord's to help set up the series. Bonus point for attempting to audition for World War Z whilst batting at Trent Bridge.
Kevin Pietersen - 9 - Imperious. Complete ownage of the Indian bowlers all series, treated them like an under 9s side at Lord's.
Ian Bell - 9 - exploited Dhoni's generous captaincy throughout the series by helping himself to approximately 16,000 runs through third man.
Eoin Morgan - 5 - couple of nice innings against joke bowling, worrylingly exposed at other times
Matt Prior - 8 - kept well, bashed crucial runs to set up the first two test wins.
Stuart Broad - 10 - where the hell have you been for the last 2 years? I can only assume his early season form was part of some evil genius plan.
Chris Tremlett - 6 - reasonable contribution at Lord's.
Graeme Swann - 7 - crucial runs at Trent Bridge, looked like the weak link until the Oval. As in Australia, when given his one turning track of the series, made it count.
James Anderson - 9 - utterly owned the Indian top order despite not really firing on all cylinders.
Tim Bresnan - 9 - brilliant with bat and ball, responded to being written off as a defensive option by bouncing the top order out.
Ravi Bopara - 4 - meh.
Gautam Gambhir - 2 - poor series. Possibly **** his pants at Trent Bridge, redeemed himself by playing on through concussion at the Oval. Incidentally, whoever ok'd Gambhir playing at the Oval needs to take a good look at themselves.
Abhinav Mukund - 3 - decent innings at Lord's, clearly out of his depth in Test cricket, which he can't really be blamed for.
Vehrinder Sehwag - 0 - hilariously bad with the bat, too lazy to field. Woeful.
Rahul Dravid - 10 - heroic in the face of disaster. Was the only Indian batsman not to have a technical weakness exposed then ruthlessly exploited by the England bowlers, who pretty much had to resort to bowling magic balls to even have a chance of getting out. 2 unbeaten tons, would have been 3 had he not needed to slog at Trent Bridge, opened in 5 innings (effectively 7 with Sehwag's "efforts" at Edgbaston), could not have done anything more. Also kept wicket. Could conceivably lose a point for some poor slip fielding, but in light of everything else he gave for his team, I'm not going to be that harsh. WAG.
Sachin Tendulkar - 3 - fairly unproductive series, scored his runs when they didn't matter, owned again by Jimmeh, loses points for being a selfish **** and refusing to bat at 3, forcing the team's lower order firefighter up to number 3 instead. Gets a bonus point for ensuring cricinfo will be readable for the forseeable future by saving us from the months of sycophantic articles we'd have had to endure had he reached his milestone.
VVS Laxman - 4 - forced out of position, started series decently. Very generously gave England's fine leg fielders catching practice and seemed to forget where his offstump was.
Suresh Raina - 2 - should be investigated by the ICC for sending out a doppleganger 2nd dig at Lord's. I refuse to believe the man who made a composed half century was the same man who got himself into such a tangle when the ball bounced above his knees.
Yuvraj Singh - 5 - achieved a personal milestone when he was described by the Sky team as a "good player of spin" for the first time in his career.
MS Dhoni - 0 - would probably have kept better had he taped frying pans to his gloves. Gains bonus points for his batting at Edgbaston. Loses all points gained for repeated irresponsible batting throughout the series, which has somehow escaped scrutiny. Exposed the tail to the new ball 2nd innings at Lord's and the Oval when batting for a draw was a remote possibility, and squandered a great position at Trent Bridge in the first innings. Here's a hint: when Rahul Dravid is 110 not out at the other end, you have a lead of 50 and the opposition bowlers are moving a new ball outside your off stump, and you only have the tail behind you, cover driving isn't a particularly smart idea.
Harbhajan - 0 - simultaneously made a mockery of the idea that India had the spinning advantage going into the series, and the 400+ Test wicket list. Managed to be outbowled by Raina and Yuvraj, which was no mean feat.
Praveen Kumar - 8 - Dravid aside, India's only shining light throughout the series. Always kept the batsmen honest, constantly prized out wickets at crucial times, and entertained with his batting.
Ishant Sharma - 4 - great spell 2nd innings at Lord's to put India into a potential winning position, gets a bonus point for being the only Indian bowler on the 2nd morning at the Oval who looked like he knew what he was meant to be doing with the strange red thing in their hands. Shame he ruined it by bowling innocuous rubbish for the rest of the series.
Zaheer Khan - 0 - here's a gym membership son, how about you use it once in a while given your importance to the Indian team?
Sreesanth - 0 - apparently good in bowler friendly conditions. I can only assume CricketWeb have confused Sreesanth with somebody else. Presumably gets away with calling himself a bowler because the Indian public have no idea what a good seam bowler looks like.
Amit Mishra - 4 - should probably reinvent himself as a batsman. Achieved the admirable feat of making Harbhajan Singh look like a threatening spinner.
RP Singh - 0 - the BCCI could have called up literally anyone from the beach in Miami and they'd probably have done better.
MW1304
Cricketer Of The Year
Probably cause it was cartwheeling all over the place most of the time.
MW1304
Cricketer Of The Year
Sachin's much more suited to batting against the new ball than Laxman, who's played his best innings in recent times at 5 or 6. I just find it astounding that someone of Sachin's calibre has never batted at 3, whereas Bell has a better defensive technique than KP and more suited to number 3. Not as if KP has never batted there, he was just never good at it.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Laxman's strength is his firefighting ability when India are in trouble. He's played plenty of knocks in the last year where he's rescued India from being in deep ****, given that the team had been disrupted enough by Gambhir's injuries forcing Dravid up the order, it beggars belief that you'd not only disrupt the line up further by shifting Laxman up the order but also negate Laxman's greatest ability in doing so.
If India had a fully fit lineup all series Laxman wouldn't have been batting ahead of Tendulkar, so why was he doing it when Gambhir wasn't fit?
Ian Bell's position isn't a valid comparison, Bell has always been a number 3 and the only reason he's been batting lower for England for the last 2 years is because up until now he'd been a complete and utter failure at 3, and a proven success at 5 or 6. Bell obviously decided that he fancied a go at 3 and scored a big hundred at Trent Bridge, which secured him the slot for the rest of the series.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Yeah, exactly. There were a couple of times in the series where the ideal man for the situation was Laxman, unfortunately for India Laxman was often sitting with his feet up on the balcony in his tracksuit bottoms because he'd gotten out half an hour previously.
The one thing that's really suprised me though is how little criticism MS Dhoni has received for his batting; it was utterly appaling.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Because he was very good at 4 since he started to bat there and the Number 3 slot has been occupied by other throughout his career and since Dravid and Laxman broke through there were 2 number 3's already in the team.
Before this series Bell averaged around 30 at number 3 while Laxman averaged around 50 there. Given those records and given that is what India has done previously, why the hell would they shift the whole order up to accomodate the loss of one player this time?
Laxman has often said he wants to bat at 3 too.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Because Laxman's greatest strength is his ability to play innings that you can't play at 3. In England, Tendulkar is a much better bet for the number 3 spot than Laxman.
By your logic the natural order for India should be Dravid-Laxman-Tendulkar.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
So you can't play that innings at 3 and can at 4?
Laxman would have been at 3 for India had Dravid not been there throughout his career and has done well there too.
Are you saying this series despite him averaging 50 at 3 in 20 odd matches , India should have told him you aren't good enough to bat at 3? Specially when throughout Dravid's career when he has been out Laxman has batted at 3.
It's not as if -
1) He has done it for the first time and not done it before like Sachin infact.
2) He doesn't want to bat there.
3)He hasn't done well there.
4)He looked really bad or something. Infact on 3 occasions he threw his wicket away playing loose shots after getting settled down and getting through the worst spell.
Sachin bats at 4 and is settled there. Why would you shift everyone instead of just shifting 1 player or 2 instead of injury?
The difference is it worked well for England while it didn't for India. Hindsight is great and all but Laxman's record there before the series was better.
Last edited:
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
So you would have played Raina at 4 to stick with Laxman at 5?
Which basically means 3 players are playing out of position instead of 2, one of which feels he has gone into his natural postion?
Furball
Evil Scotsman
You can't firefight at 3 because you're never going to enter a crisis situation. With a new ball and fresh bowlers, there's always a chance that an opener is going to lose his wicket early, coming in at 0/1 isn't a crisis.
Coming in at 20/3 most certainly is a crisis.
I also had my doubts over Laxman's technique against a newish ball in England - his good record at 3 was largely accumulated in conditions vastly different to what you'd expect to face in England at 3. Tendulkar was the man for the job, not Laxman IMO.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Yes you can. If you capitalise on your starts at 3.
Laxman's 281 came batting at 3 with Dravid down at 6 for example, which itself kind of defeats your point.
And he would have batted at 4 if not at 3, not 5 in anycase.
Maybe, but then i had doubts about Bell coming back to a position he previously failed in.
Basically Sachin has never batted at 3, and India use Laxman there everytime when Dravid is out and even sometimes early on their careers with Dravid in the team. So there was no real basis to change that strategy this time when it has worked previously perfectly well.
And it's not as if Laxman looked out of his depth or something. He as i said threw his wicket away softly on most occasions.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
He looked massively out of his depth towards the end of the series when his offstump acquired a rather annoying (for him) habit of cartwheeling all over the place.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Still whether you agree on disagree with the decision do not know how you can say Sachin forced Laxman to play there and with what basis? It would have been Dhoni and the team management's call and they stucked with what has worked in the past.
Some of the things attributed to Sachin on here are clearly straw clutching or really ridiculous at best.
When he gets injured with maybe requiring a surgery in the future he is supposed to be faking it without basis, and now he is supposed to have held a gun to Laxman's head to force him to play there ,when Laxman infact wants to play in that position.
Sigh!!
Some of the things attributed to Sachin on here are clearly straw clutching or really ridiculous at best.
When he gets injured with maybe requiring a surgery in the future he is supposed to be faking it without basis, and now he is supposed to have held a gun to Laxman's head to force him to play there ,when Laxman infact wants to play in that position.
Sigh!!
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
It was just the norm for Dravid wasn't it?
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
India have long had Laxman as their back up number 3. He wants to bat there, Tendulkar feels more comfortable at 4. Whenever Dravid's opened in the past, VVS has put his hand up. It's really not an issue at all for mine.