***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[adub]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Australia in South Africa 2011-12: Young Cummins stands out for Australia | Cricket Features | South Africa v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Gotta love Cricinfo's scores out of 10. How exactly are a number of batsmen who managed a stunning average of around 20, ahead of Lyon and Harris - who did a serviceable job with the ball?

Someone has to ease up on the crackpipe. Ponting 6? 3 if you're feeling really really generous. 2 is closer to the mark. Utterly unacceptable. Barely contributed more than Copeland.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah, a series performance rating. His impact on the first Test was 0.

It is for guys that played both Tests. Not playing in the 1st Test =/= Performing poorly in the 1st Test.

What should have been done was given 10/10*, where * means he only played in the 2nd Test.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by adub

Someone has to ease up on the crackpipe. Ponting 6? 3 if you're feeling really really generous. 2 is closer to the mark. Utterly unacceptable. Barely contributed more than Copeland.

Actually I wonder if facing Copes in the nets helped Punter build his patience for that final innings. It can't be fun facing a guy who always lands it in exactly the right spot, no matter how military medium he is.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by TumTum

It is for guys that played both Tests. Not playing in the 1st Test =/= Performing poorly in the 1st Test.

What should have been done was given 10/10*, where * means he only played in the 2nd Test.

I don't think I'd ever be able to give a 10/10 series rating to someone who only played 50% of the matches. Maybe if he knocked up a couple of hundreds as well.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I don't think I'd ever be able to give a 10/10 series rating to someone who only played 50% of the matches. Maybe if he knocked up a couple of hundreds as well.

You don't get my point. Your performance can only be judged where you are actually given the chance to perform, and is to measure how well you play, not necessarily your impact throughout the whole series.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by TumTum

You don't get my point. Your performance can only be judged where you are actually given the chance to perform, and is to measure how well you play, not necessarily your impact throughout the whole series.

You don't understand that I completely disagree with what a series rating is.

I'm quite happy to leave it at that.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

You don't understand that I completely disagree with what a series rating is.

I'm quite happy to leave it at that.

You are thinking this as a rating or points system, where as the article talks about individual performance. Different things imo.

[Metal Quality]

1-1 huh? Well that was my prediction before the series but I didn't expect this many twists and turns. Overall I think its fair to say that SA had the bigger edge and are still the stronger team.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by TumTum

You are thinking this as a rating or points system, where as the article talks about individual performance. Different things imo.

PEWS is correct, you are not.

[Nnanden]

Read Cricket Web, write article.

Was Australia's victory a bad thing? | Cricket | Fox Sports

[Spikey]

i've long thought Martin Smith boarded here



ponting was staying anyway. haddin probs too. they do love paine.

[Debris]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah, a series performance rating. His impact on the first Test was 0.

Have to wonder how he got more than a five.