Player Ratings - As We Go By....

[morgieb]

First Test:

England:

Cook 6 - won the captaincy battle IMO, and scored a fighting 50 in the 2nd innings.
Root 3 - never really looked comfortable out there.
Trott 5 - arguably unlucky in the second innings, played well in the first.
Pietersen 6 - good 2nd innings dig, though you'd expect him to go on with those.
Bell 8 - excellent work. Arguably as key as Anderson towards the victory.
Bairstow 4 - got a couple of starts I suppose. Not really great though, and still has vultures around his place.
Prior 5 - decent with the gloves. Not his best batting day but did have a fun cameo.
Broad 7.5 - probably should've bowled more (though injury didn't help here), but played a hugely crucial role here despite luck.
Swann 6 - batting feels like it has seriously declined. Bowled dangerous in patches, but most of the tidy was merely tidy.
Finn 2 - Watson and Cowan should be under investigation for spot-fixing. Did a great job in trying to lose the side the match.
Anderson 9 - arguably inconsistent but when he was on...oh boy. Hopefully he treads on a cricket ball McGrath style

Australia:

Watson 6 - good start in the second innings, although arguably could lose points for another ****ing referral. Bowled tidily.
Rogers 6 - ditto, nice 50 in the second innings. Will prove useful.
Cowan 2 - not good, although was sick. Probably would be harsh to drop him.
Clarke 2 - poor, albeit somewhat unlucky use of the referral system, and didn't score runs. Arguably cost us the game.
Smith 6 - good 50 in the first innings.
Hughes 7.5 - great knock in the first innings but will be annoyed by the nature of his dismissal in the second innings.
Haddin 7 - kept well, almost carried us to victory. Welcome back.
Siddle 8 - bowled very well, particularly in the first innings. Was wrong about him.
Starc 6 - weakest of the bunch, but looked occasionally dangerous and his dross to quality ratio wasn't as awful as say Finn.
Pattinson 8 - very unlucky in the second innings in particular, bowled very well. Nearly took us home, too.
Agar 8 - was lucky but that innings...wow. Also showed fight in the second innings. Bowling was slightly ineffective though, but was his first game and he will learn.

 

[Cabinet96]

1st Test at Trent Bridge

England:

Alastair Cook - 6 - Will have better performances with the bat, and made some questionable captaincy decisions, but his 50 second dig was invaluable and he won the game.
Joe Root - 5 - Got a start in the first innings before getting a beauty. Strangled in the second innings. Crucial wicket on day four.
Jonathan Trott - 4 - Best batsman in the first innings but threw it away. Don't think he hit it second dig.
Kevin Pietersen - 6 - Came in when England were in trouble in the second innings, and batted well.
Ian Bell - 9 - One of his best knocks for England in the second dig. Match winning.
Jonny Bairstow - 4 - Not convinced by him at all, but he did look good for most of the 1st innings
Matt Prior - 5 - Bit meh really. Seem to recall him dropping a catch, but can't remember when.
Stuart Broad - 8 - Was flukey with the bat, but they were important runs. Hampered by his injury in the first innings, but got the two most important wickets on day four.
Graeme Swann - 5 - Disappointing in the fourth innings.
James Anderson - 9.5 - Never have England been so reliant on him.
Steven Finn - 4 - Got a couple of important wickets in the first innings, and bowled well in patches, but overall poor. His place must be under real scrutiny.


Australia:

Shane Watson - 6 - Failed in the first innings and did his thing in the second. Bowled well though and often looked Australia's best bowler.
Chris Rogers - 6 - Did OK in tough circumstances in the first innings, and got a useful fifty second time around
Ed Cowan - 2 - Poor guy
Michael Clarke - 3 - Got an unplayable one first innings, and gave England the momentum with his second innings wicket. Blew important reviews with lucky hunches.
Steve Smith - 7 - Got the first 50 of the match when batting was at it's toughest. His wicket straight after Clarke's in the second innings was part of the turnaround though.
Phil Hughes - 7.5 - Looked really good in the first innings, got a good ball early on in the second.
Brad Haddin - 8 - Superb in the chase. Put down a tough chance off Bell though.
Ashton Agar - 8.5 - Brilliant 98 from number 11. Bowling was OK without being brilliant.
Mitchell Starc - 4 - Surely Harris or Bird would be a better option?
Peter Siddle - 8 - Australia's best bowler on the opening day. Wasn't as good second time around but still did OK.
James Pattinson - 7.5 - Bowled well for the most part but wasn't always as lucky as he could've been.

 

[GIMH]

Cook - 7 - couple of questionable bowling changes and could have done with more runs but his second dig 50 was just the tonic at the time
Root - 5 - jury is out on him as an opener and will remain so for these two series I'd have thought. Great bowling average!
Trott - 5 - decent first dig, sawn off second but there you go
Pietersen - 7 - looking in decent nick and his second innings should not be forgotten though he should have carried on with it
Bell - 9 - his best game for England IMO
Bairstow - 3 - did nothing with the bat and bottled a chance to finish t in the field
Prior - 6 - wasted what seemed like good form second dig, keeping was fine
Broad - 7 - probably our 3rd best contribution, two useful innings and a couple of vital wickets. Control was key after Finn's shambles
Swann - 5 - had his moments but wasn't himself
Finn - 2 - couple of good deliveries and a decent spell on the 4th evening, embarrassing the rest of the time
Anderson 9 - remarkable


Cbf to do the Aussies. 9 for Agar.

 

[NUFAN]

Morgie Australia defeated England 66.5 - 61.5
Cabinet Australia defeated England 67.5 - 65.5

 

[Goughy]

For all the drama, I don't think the standard was of the highest.

First Test:

England:

Cook - 6
Root - 4
Trott - 5
Pietersen - 7
Bell -9
Bairstow 4
Prior -4
Broad - 6
Swann - 4
Finn - 3
Anderson - 8

Australia:

Watson - 6
Rogers 6
Cowan - 2
Clarke 2
Smith 6
Hughes 7
Haddin 7
Siddle 8
Starc 5
Pattinson - 7
Agar - 7

 

[Expressway76]

For all the drama, I don't think the standard was of the highest.

First Test:

England:

Cook - 6
Root - 4
Trott - 5
Pietersen - 7
Bell -9
Bairstow 4
Prior -4
Broad - 6
Swann - 4
Finn - 3
Anderson - 8

Australia:

Watson - 6
Rogers 6
Cowan - 2
Clarke 2
Smith 6
Hughes 7
Haddin 7
Siddle 8
Starc 5
Pattinson - 7
Agar - 7

A match winning 10fer yields only an 8 for Anderson?

 

[Furball]

Cook - 6 - good 50 in the 2nd innings, didn't panic when England could've collapsed on day 2. Alright captaincy.
Root - 5 - victim to an excellent delivery 1st innings, could maybe have batted more proactively 2nd time round.
Trott - 5 - should have gone on in the first dig. Probably didn't hit it 2nd dig.
KP - 6 - see Cook
Bell - 8 - soft **** dismissal in the first dig. Great ton.
Bairstow - 2 - rubbish
Prior - 5 - kept fine, batting a bit plop.
Broad - 7 - bowled well day 4, vital 50. Deserves an Oscar for his 'why are they appealing' face.
Swann - 5 - average bowling, terrible batting. 2 really soft dismissals.
Finn - 0 - can't bowl, can't bat, can't field. I'd relegate him to drinks duty but he'd probably get the order wrong before dropping the tray.
Anderson - 10 - thank god they're changing the law so I can marry this man.

Watson - 0 - usual **** **** innings, wasted a review, bowled floaty unthreatening rubbish.
Rogers - 5 - seems solid enough. Needs an opener next to him.
Cowan - 0 - rubbish
Clarke - 3 - victim to ball of the century, but really needs to learn how to use reviews. And Bell will break Bradman's series record if he persists with no third man.
Smith - 6 - led fightback in first innings until he was Jimmeh'd. Shocked the Sky comms by not bowling.
Hughes - 7 - excellent in the first innings. Why he's at 6 I have no idea.
Haddin - 0 - a cheat who wouldn't walk, deserves no marks.
Siddle - 9 - brilliant first innings, experience in English conditions showed and bowled intelligently.
Starc - 2 - new contender for 'worst left arm fast bowler named Mitchell' award.
Pattinson - 6 - solid enough start to his Ashes career.
Agar - 8 - batted brilliantly in the first innings. Loses a point because he looks like somebody famous, I can't work out who and it's been annoying me all game.

 

[Spark]

Starc wasn't that bad, surely...

 

[Cabinet96]

I don't see how you give Bairstow a 2 but Trott a 5.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Cook - 6 - Decent 2nd innings knock but questionable captaincy.
Root - 5 - Thought it was possibly his worst test with the bat, nerves? HUGE wicket though gains a couple of points.
Trott - 6 - Looked comfortably the best player in the 1st innings, saying nowt about 2nd.
Pietersen - 7 - Showed he is UP for this by batting sensibly when it was needed.
Bell - 9 - Best innings by him for England.
Bairstow - 5 - Not a bad effort first innings, needs a score though to silence doubters.
Prior - 5 - Two iffy dismissals and not best test with gloves but one superb catch.
Broad - 6 - Great innings 2nd dig before the controversy, is shoulder going to stop him playing all series?
Swann - 5 - Not his greatest test on a dry surface.
Finn - 4 - Fell generous giving him that but he was on a hat trick
Anderson - 9.94 - Simply awesome performance from the leader of our attack.

Rodgers - 6 - Will be gutted to have given it away but a decent return for the veteran.
Watson - 6 - Same old Watson, gets in, gets out, wastes referrals and bowls decently without being exceptional.
Cowan - 2 - Poor game but was ill.
Clarke - 4 - Worst test for nearly 2 years, was due a bad one though. Hunches for reviews are a bad idea.
Smith - 7 - Showed fight in first innings.
Hughes - 7 - Played great knock in first innings and tad unlucky 2nd.
Haddin - 6 - Still a crap keeper but showed he is still a talented bat.
Siddle - 8 - Experienced man of attack led by example.
Starc - 4 - Hard to believe he got same amount of victims as Pattinson.
Pattinson - 7 - Whole hearted trier/wanker. Bowled well with little luck and fought like a lion with bat at end.
Agar - 8 - Can a teenage debutant have made more headlines in a match? Looks a prospect and a half.

I know my ratings give Aussies more than England but I think England are a better side and played below what they can and Aussies played to their maximum. Think we will still win series 3-1.

 

[Coronis]

Broad - 7 - bowled well day 4, vital 50. Deserves an Oscar for his 'why are they appealing' face.

Haddin - 0 - a cheat who wouldn't walk, deserves no marks.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Anyway Clarke performed horribly this match. Needs to get his act together pronto.

 

[Burgey]

Agar - 8 - batted brilliantly in the first innings. Loses a point because he looks like somebody famous, I can't work out who and it's been annoying me all game.

He looks like Adam Scott IMO.

 

[Bahnz]

Watson 5
Rogers 4
Cowan 1
Clark 3
Smith 5
Hughes 6
Haddin 6
Agar 8
Starc 5
Siddle 7.5
Pattinson 6

Cook 5
Root 3 (still think it was daft to drop Compton)
Trott 3
Pietersen 5
Bell 8
Bairstow 3
Prior 4.5
Broad 7
Finn 3
Swann 5.5
Anderson 10

 

[Bahnz]

I know my ratings give Aussies more than England but I think England are a better side and played below what they can and Aussies played to their maximum. Think we will still win series 3-1.

Agree with this. Australia got 220+ (nearly 40%) of their runs from last wicket partnerships. I struggle to see Australia's lower order posting 150+ everytime, which is realistically what they need to do to make up for the difference in the top order batting. England's bowling (Anderson aside) was disappointing in this match, and does look a little vulnerable at times. But I still don't think the Aussie bats are good enough to take advantage.

 

[Burgey]

Agree with this. Australia got 220+ (nearly 40%) of their runs from last wicket partnerships. I struggle to see Australia's lower order posting 150+ everytime, which is realistically what they need to do to make up for the difference in the top order batting. England's bowling (Anderson aside) was disappointing in this match, and does look a little vulnerable at times. But I still don't think the Aussie bats are good enough to take advantage.

You can't just assume they'll be 9-115 all the time either though. The teams are far more evenly matched than a lot of people gave credit for before the series started.

 

[Bahnz]

You can't just assume they'll be 9-115 all the time either though. The teams are far more evenly matched than a lot of people gave credit for before the series started.

I'm not saying they'll be 9/115 everytime. I'm just saying that there's still a very large disparity in the quality of the top-order batting, too large imo to be made up by Australia's (arguably) slight advantages in bowling depth and lower order batting.

 

[Maximas]

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.

 

[Maximas]

I'm not saying they'll be 9/115 everytime. I'm just saying that there's still a very large disparity in the quality of the top-order batting, too large imo to be made up by Australia's (arguably) slight advantages in bowling depth and lower order batting.

The lower order batting wasn't just about Australia though IMO, I think it showed England lack a bit of killer instinct in finishing things off, and that they panic a little under the pressure of lower order partnerships. With 4 perfectly capable players in the bottom 4, you can't assume England are going to run through all them cheaply at some point during the series, I think it will always be struggle for England to get through our lower order, brings out the best in middle order batsmen it seems as well when batting with the lower order.

 

[watson]

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.

 

[hendrix]

Agree with this. Australia got 220+ (nearly 40%) of their runs from last wicket partnerships. I struggle to see Australia's lower order posting 150+ everytime, which is realistically what they need to do to make up for the difference in the top order batting. England's bowling (Anderson aside) was disappointing in this match, and does look a little vulnerable at times. But I still don't think the Aussie bats are good enough to take advantage.

OK, maybe not 150+, but why do people think Australia's lower order won't score runs consistently?

It's not like Tim Southee having a slog, those guys are genuine batsmen with the ability to attack and defend. There is no reason they can't score runs consistently.