Out of 10 - The Player Performances

[McKanga]

Nonsense.

If anything, he should consider himself lucky that he was gifted the farcical bonus Gilchrist wicket in Sydney when the joke Bowden choked again.

Wonderful stuff! Are you sure you aren't Australian?

 

[McKanga]

......Might as well give them 10/10 each, really. Can't be bothered doing individual ones.

Must be an English thing, isn't that how Collingwood got his MBE?

 

[Great Birtannia]

SR Clark: 9/10. Should have got MOTS. Marvellous - like Hussey, I can't help but feel glad he never got picked last year, especially as I rememebr reading that he'd been called up at some point. Is this correct?

I've just finished reading Ponting's 2005 ashes diary, someone bought it for me last Christmas and until the massacre of the poms this season I have never had the motivation to read it. I think it was after the second test that Clark was called up as both McGrath and Lee were going into the next game as 'doubtfuls'. The funny thing though was that Ponting was pushing for the selection of Mick Lewis but the selectors went with Clark instead. What a disaster that could have been; 2005 Gillespie and Kasprowicz, and Lewis in the one attack

 

[albo97056]

Can we give minus figures?

 

[Richard]

TBF he never ran through a side and he didn't get a five wicket haul, but not to take anything away from him.

Kinda hard to do that when you have Warne and McGrath in your side.

 

[Richard]

Must be an English thing, isn't that how Collingwood got his MBE?

Yep. Utterly ludicrous that Collingwood got a MBE for doing not much in 1 Test, while Thorpe had to wait another year to get recognition for his 96 Tests of outstanding service.

 

[GIMH]

I take it he played 4 against Bangladesh?

 

[Richard]

Rate the players out of ten, with a brief reason.

Yes sir!

England (losers always come first)

1. Strauss: 6\10: three bad decisions in a row, and a superb performance on a MCG minefield. Many here have been very harsh on him IMO. Had he not been sawn-off 3 times it's almost certain he'd have scored at least 1 big innings, and when you do that a load of starts is usually forgotten.

• Cook: 5\10: not the greatest series, though he got some good deliveries (not surprising considering there were some good bowlers on view). He's almost certainly got the talent to keep going and make-up for this series (and after all he did have quite some credit in the bank beforehand).

• Bell: 5\10: England's most consistent batsman, but got himself out cheaply too often. Was entitled to a slightly-less-than-excellent series after his superb exploits last summer.

• Collingwood: 5\10: two excellent innings, sod-all besides. Batting is about consistency, not flashes in the pan (one of which happened when a game was already long-lost).

• Pietersen: 9\10: batted superbly many times, I don't give a flying you-know-what about not protecting the tail when a game's long-lost. Mutterings about attitude issues are just bull****ting from people who're desperately thrashing around for idiotic excuses.

• Flintoff: 5\10: hard to criticise his bowling too badly with the ankle impingement, and for me didn't really underperform with the bat. Captaincy had nothing to do with it, he just isn't that good a batsman. Only rarely (SA 2003, Aus 2005, India 2005\06) has he ever actually performed well against a bowling-attack of anything other than rabble status. It's a shame he was given the captaincy, but equally it'd have been a shame if Strauss had been given it.

• Jones: 1\10: abysmal. If you'd told me in 2004 that this was what he'd be reduced to I'd have widenened my eyes in shock. Looked the real deal when he first came in but since the Third Test in Pakistan has been a walking wicket. Kept well but that doesn't matter one iota when you're batting so terribly. Surely must've played his last Test.

• Read: 2\10: abysmal too, but got an extra mark because he was abysmal for less time. Surely deserves one more go against West Indies next summer, but if he fails then, and Steven Davies starts well, maybe his time in Tests, too, has gone.

• Giles: I'm not prepared to rate him given that he's currently going through the trauma of his wife possibly having a brain-tumour. In such circumstances, cricket completely ceases to matter. Absolutely gutted for the poor guy, and I hope and pray that she comes through. If so, maybe he might be able to resume a cricket career and maybe I might be able to give a toss about what he did in The Ashes 2006\07.

• Mahmood: 1\10: bowled a heap of crap as per usual, as he has done throughout the last 3 years. Why on Earth everyone thinks so highly of him is totally beyond me, if he ever comes close to being an international-standard bowler I'll be flabbergasted.

• Hoggard: 7\10: bowled one of the best spells you're ever going to see at Adelaide in the first-innings. But didn't really do that much apart from that. Why, I'm not sure, because if Flintoff's not fully fit and Jones isn't available to play, he's England's best bowler by a distance.

• Harmison: 1\10: nonsense as per usual. What was unusual was that he played a full series and didn't get flattered by his figures once, it usually happens at least once a season (2003 it was The Oval second-innings, 2004 it was The Oval all game, 2005 it was Lord's, 2005\06 it was the 1st, 2nd and 4th, 2006 it was Old Trafford). He'll presumably keep being picked, though when eventually he gets dropped I'll be happy, because finally his record does justice to a wholly mediocre bowler who can try as hard as he likes but is simply never, ever going to be remotely good enough.

• Panesar: 4\10: bowled well on the pitch that helped him but didn't do much thereafter. For the third series in a row, the same story was true. He's a mortal fingerspinner, and the sooner the population of Britain realise this, the better for them, because otherwise one hell of a lot of disappointments await.

Australia:

1. Langer: 6\10: started well, but faded. Have seen people bat worse than he did Adelaide-Sydney, though

• Hayden: 4\10: only one big score, and was plumb lbw twice before reaching 12 there

• Ponting: 9\10: superb at The 'Gabba, very lucky at Adelaide, but consistent enough throughout the rest of the series

• Martyn: 2\10: poor when he played, and impulsive as ever in retiring when he might have had more chances and might well have taken them

• Hussey: 9\10: superb all in all, YET AGAIN!!!!!!

• Clarke: 9\10: really did play better than you'd ever have imagined he could - unless, that is, you noted that he scored 398 for once out last season (as someone did - though I can't find the post where I mentioned it) and looks to have finally cracked Test cricket. Shame, though, that Watson had to miss-out with injury

• Symonds: 3\10: poor with the bat mostly, including in that 154 - was absolutely plumb to Monty Panesar and if he has a sizeable Test career he can be buying Rudi Koertzen gifts for the rest of their lives, as Nasser Hussain damn well should be for Darrell Hair

• Gilchrist: 5\10: typical Gilchrist of recent times, bomb or blast. The blast was so spectacular that it gets an extra mark, but he still didn't have a particularly good series and is clearly no longer the force he was 4 years ago

• Warne: 8\10: good, not as good as the previous series (which is hardly surprising), but still more than enough skill (and humility to go with it - witness the round-the-wicket attack to Pietersen) to oust one last lot of English batsmen. Greatest bowler ever? Nonsense of the highest order. Greatest Ashes bowler ever? Very, very probably

• Lee: 3\10: flattered, grossly, by his figures in the last 3 Tests, and only bowled particularly well once (when he got 2\35). Surely India will once again hammer him out of Test cricket - perminantly this time? - next winter

• Clark: 9.5\10: no-one can get a perfect score for a series, really, but Clark bowled about as well this series as you could hope for. Mitchell Johnson and Shaun Tait being selected ahead of him? Sounds like the most ludicrous idea in The World now, doesn't it?

• McGrath: 8\10: about as good as ever, really. Ball of the series to dismiss Cook at The 'Gabba and set the tone. Needed something in the pitch but, in my experience, mostly has anyway. Deserved nothing better than to breeze into the sunset with his old mucker Warne, just a shame that his other old mucker and longest-term opening partner Gillespie couldn't have been there to share it with him - maybe if England had played Lee better at The WACA and MCG he just might have been.

 

[Richard]

I take it he played 4 against Bangladesh?

Indeed he did.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yes sir!

Australia:

• Hayden: 4\10: only one big score, and was plumb lbw twice before reaching 12 there

[/LIST]

We know you don't like him, but that is a very harsh grading. He had a 92 & 153, that is 2 big scores for the series. He was also spectacular in the field.

 

[BoyBrumby]

We know you don't like him, but that is a very harsh grading. He had a 92 & 153, that is 2 big scores for the series. He was also spectacular in the field.

If you're going out to bat for QLDers I'd say Richard's 3 for Symonds was a tad on the tight side too. Especially allowing for his 6 for Strauss. Strauss was twice as effective as Symonds then, we all agree?

 

[Richard]

We know you don't like him, but that is a very harsh grading. He had a 92 & 153, that is 2 big scores for the series. He was also spectacular in the field.

All right, maybe an extra mark for the catching and the 93, which was a decent enough innings.

The 153 was damn lucky, though, nothing else - he was absolutely plumb twice before he even reached 12.

 

[Richard]

If you're going out to bat for QLDers I'd say Richard's 3 for Symonds was a tad on the tight side too. Especially allowing for his 6 for Strauss. Strauss was twice as effective as Symonds then, we all agree?

Nope, Strauss was 3 times more unlucky than Symonds - Strauss' luck count was -2 (3 bad decisions against him, 1 dropped catch in his favour), Symonds' luck count was +1 (absolutely plumb on 54 IIRR, cost 100 runs).

I don't give players marks for being lucky.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nope, Strauss was 3 times more unlucky than Symonds - Strauss' luck count was -2 (3 bad decisions against him, 1 dropped catch in his favour), Symonds' luck count was +1 (absolutely plumb on 54 IIRR, cost 100 runs).

I don't give players marks for being lucky.

But you give them for being unlucky? Even allowing for Strauss's three roughies he failed to make a score over 60 in 7 starts. Acceptable for a test opener? & even if Symonds was lucky twice he capitalised on his luck.

 

[Richard]

But you give them for being unlucky? Even allowing for Strauss's three roughies he failed to make a score over 60 in 7 starts. Acceptable for a test opener?

As I mentioned - he played damn superbly on a MCG minefield.

As far as I'm concerned he failed to make a 29-plus score from 5 starts - and had he been less unlucky I'm absolutely convinced he'd have got at least 1 big score from 1 of those 3 unlucky ones.

& even if Symonds was lucky twice he capitalised on his luck.

As I mentioned - I don't give marks for being lucky. I don't give a damn what happens after someone's been lucky - it shouldn't have had the chance to happen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As I mentioned - he played damn superbly on a MCG minefield.

As far as I'm concerned he failed to make a 29-plus score from 5 starts - and had he been less unlucky I'm absolutely convinced he'd have got at least 1 big score from 1 of those 3 unlucky ones.

As I mentioned - I don't give marks for being lucky. I don't give a damn what happens after someone's been lucky - it shouldn't have had the chance to happen.

Well your mind's made up, clearly. However, fruitless as debate with you obviously is, the logician in me feels compelled to point out that even if you divide Symonds 156 by 3 (allowing for his two "outs") he still avearges more than Strauss does during his "damn superb" innings of 50.

 

[open365]

AF Giles: 1/10. So ineffective with the ball. I'd hazard a guess his test career is over now. He did, however, add a lot to team spirit in the field.

Yes, i'm sure dropping Ricky Ponting was just his secret plan to galvanise the England team.

 

[open365]

Richard, will you ever just accept that luck and bad luck is something that happens in equal amounts to all players and that marking them down for being lucky is as aimless as marking someone up for being unlucky?

Strauss was rubbish, he got 3 bad decisions, but even in those innings he looked like Australia's bunny, like he was to a certain extent last year, in two series against the best team in the world he has averaged 30, he's not unlucky, he's just not good enough.

 

[Nate]

LOL @ Richard`s ratings. Gun.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, Richard's ratings are hilarious. 6 for Strauss? 3 and 4 for Symonds and Hayden, and 6 for Langer, who was clearly the worst Australian player in the series?

I'll give it a go.

England
Strauss: 3 - Real disappointment. Was obviously one of the crucial batsmen for England in the series, and had a highest score of 50. Had some harsh luck with decisions, but made problems for himself with some poor dismissals to the short ball early in the series and never really came back.

Cook: 4 - Not a great series either, though he certainly showed some promise and scored a good century. Dismissed the same way far too many times. England never really got off to a good start in any innings, which hurt throughout.

Bell: 4.5 - One of England's better batsmen in general, but didn't make enough of his starts and just generally came up short again against Australia. His mental failings were symptomatic of the team at times, particularly his ridiculous dismissal in Adelaide.

Collingwood: 6 - Was excellent early in the series, and his work against Warne in particular was stellar. Clearly among the best across the first two tests. Faded quite badly later in the series though. Caught well.

Pietersen: 9 - Great throughout. Clearly the standout batsman for England, and his battles with Warne and McGrath were great viewing. One of the few English players who kept playing well right through the series, even after it was lost. Establishing himself as one of the top batsmen in the world.

Flintoff: 4 - Terribly disappointing. Never could have expected too much from his batting, but it was even worse than one might have imagined, and while he never bowled absolutely terribly he lacked the fight which defined him as a player in '05. Aside from Brisbane never looked a real threat, presumably due in part to injury. Captaincy was aimless.

Jones: 2 - Horrible with the bat, decent with the gloves.

Read: 4 - Not much good with the bat, but at least showed a bit of fight, unlike Geraint. Keeping was more or less flawless.

Hoggard: 6 - Not a brilliant series by any means, but he did bowl quite well at times, and would have returned better figures against other sides. Dedication in Adelaide was admirable, and was a key contributor in the one game where England actually kept it tight.

Harmison: 3 - Absolutely horrible in Brisbane, and very bad in Adelaide. Got better from there and he actually bowled relatively well in the last three tests, but the damage was already done.

Mahmood: 1.5 - Non-event as a player. Only thing he managed to do with any success was knock over the tail in Melbourne and bowl one or two good deliveries along the way. Hopeless with the bat, despite being picked in part because of his ability in that area.

Anderson: 2 - Another major disappointment. Generally fodder throughout except the odd over in Brisbane and the Sydney test, where he bowled a couple of good spells.

Panesar: 5 - Added something to the team after Giles was belatedly dropped, and bowled pretty well in general. Got taken apart once or twice, but always kept trying, and even stuck around with the bat. England's most impressive bowler after Hoggard.

Giles: 1 - Waste of space. Bowled decently in the first innings in Brisbane, but was an absolutely shocking selection ahead of Panesar and never did anything after that point to justify it. Should never have played one test, let alone two.


Australia
Langer: 4 - Batted pretty well in Brisbane and had a hand in setting up the series, but was pretty poor thereafter. Picked the right moment to retire.

Hayden: 6 - Had a pretty poor start to the series with some strange dismissals and a couple of good deliveries, but came back quite well in the end. Was lucky to get through the period on the first evening in Melbourne, but his application to get through the second morning and make a big score was crucial to the result.

Ponting: 9.5 - Stunning in Brisbane, very good in Adelaide, and then the series was more or less gone. Captaincy was much improved, and while he tailed off later in the series it never had a major impact on the result. Would have broken the 600 barrier if he'd been able to bat the full amount of times.

Martyn: 1.5 - Had to go really. His shot in the second innings in Adelaide wasn't the shot of a test player. Disappointing way to end his career, but picked the right moment.

Hussey: 9 - Phenomenal. Wasn't dismissed for anything under 50 until the 4th test, and was unlucky to only get one century. Application was simply incredible throughout.

Clarke: 8 - Probably takes the "biggest surprise" award, though it wasn't so much of a shock that he did well, merely the degree to which he did. Worked hard on his shot selection and reaped the rewards.

Symonds: 6 - Another big surprise. Innings in Melbourne was a real stunner, and he played with great discipline in Sydney too. Wasn't out to Panesar in Melbourne IMO, and while I don't really rate him as a test player for the future, you can never take that innings away from him.

Gilchrist: 6 - Pretty good series, all round. Disappointing with the gloves in Melbourne and got out cheaply a number of times, but kept well elsewhere and had a fairly productive series with the bat. His innings in Adelaide and Sydney were absolutely crucial, and while the innings in Perth didn't matter as much, it was an amazing knock anyway.

Warne: 7.5 - Not his best Ashes series, but he still turned two games around with brilliant spells. The 5th day effort in Adelaide will go down as one of his finest moments. Batted very well throughout.

Lee: 5.5 - Horrible in Brisbane and the first innings in Adelaide, pretty good thereafter and probably outdid his 2005 efforts. Bowled a couple of great spells but generally needs to be more consistent if he's to be a successful opening bowler post-McGrath.

Clark: 9.5 - Didn't bowl badly in a single innings in the series, simple as that. Didn't quite turn games singlehandedly the way Warne did, but with some more chances at the tail he might have taken more big hauls.

McGrath: 7 - Very solid series, but not quite his usual destructive self. Best performances came in the first and last tests to round out a good end to a great career. Showed in Brisbane that he can still exploit helpful conditions better than anyone.