Player Ratings - As We Go By....

[Uppercut]

Think most people's summed ratings would give this: Australia's performance was closer to their ceiling than our efforts were.

Yeah that's probably true. I also don't think it'd be especially controversial to say they played the better cricket over the test. Only lost by 15 runs.

 

[Goughy]

Agar - very good bowling.

I also don't think it'd be especially controversial to say they played the better cricket over the test. Only lost by 15 runs.

Not convinced you watched the Test

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd say on the whole England batted better and with a lot more discipline, and Australia bowled better, which isn't really a huge shock. Australia would have lost heavily without the Hughes/Agar stand in the first innings, but then Bell/Broad saved England in a similar way since 200 odd certainly wouldn't have been enough as a target. Pretty even test overall as the final score suggests.

 

[Uppercut]

Not convinced you watched the Test

On Agar I really don't know, I'm not an expert on spin bowling. He gave it a tweak and picked up a couple of wickets, should have had one more. If you say he's actually dire I'm not going to argue.

I think I misphrased the second. What I really meant was that it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest Australia played the better cricket over the game. I wouldn't say so but it's a fair enough position given how tight the match was. I definitely think they bowled better.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah, can't disagree with any of that and just because Agar got his runs at 11 does not mean they were some kind of fluke. It was a part of the match in which Australia played much better than England.

 

[Spark]

Agar didn't look special but he certainly didn't look entirely toothless either. He caused the English left-handers in particular to think carefully about how they were going to play him and obviously he really should have had at least one more wicket (which would've made his figures look much better)

 

[Goughy]

On Agar I really don't know, I'm not an expert on spin bowling. He gave it a tweak and picked up a couple of wickets, should have had one more. If you say he's actually dire I'm not going to argue.

I think I misphrased the second. What I really meant was that it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest Australia played the better cricket over the game. I wouldn't say so but it's a fair enough position given how tight the match was. I definitely think they bowled better.

Australia, IMO, had a golden opportunity to put themselves miles ahead in the first session and they bowled gash. It was a perfect opportunity wasted. The new ball bowlers didnt make the batsmen play in extremely difficult batting conditions. To have England only two down at lunch was a complete waste and the advantage was lost and the game back on an even footing. Siddle bowled well after the break but the chance to blitz England had already gone. It was a huge failure IMO.

Overall I dont think they bowled poorly as a unit but I watched virtually every ball of this Test -- some thing I hadnt been able to do for a while -- and I was a little disappointed in Starc and Pattinson having seen little of them before and knowing them more from reputation than first hand viewing.

 

[Expressway76]

Australia, IMO, had a golden opportunity to put themselves miles ahead in the first session and they bowled gash. It was a perfect opportunity wasted. The new ball bowlers didnt make the batsmen play in extremely difficult batting conditions. To have England only two down at lunch was a complete waste and the advantage was lost and the game back on an even footing. Siddle bowled well after the break but the chance to blitz England had already gone. It was a huge failure IMO.

Overall I dont think they bowled poorly as a unit but I watched virtually every ball of this Test -- some thing I hadnt been able to do for a while -- and I was a little disappointed in Starc and Pattinson having seen little of them before and knowing them more from reputation than first hand viewing.

Similarly, our bowlers managed to squander a killer position with their bowling during the Agar onslaught. Never mind the missed stumping, bowling low pressure filth at such a crucial stage was nearly our undoing.

 

[grecian]

People seem to be not just rating based on performances, but rating on how much they like the player and how good they are. Watson getting rated below Rogers isn't the only example, Bairstow has been rated miles below Trott by many, despite scoring a similar amount of runs in the game and not getting out in such terrible modes of dismissal (dragging on from a really wide one, and getting out to Starc). Grecian's ratings where Trott gets a 6, and Bairstow gets a 2 would be the best example.

Well I don't think Trott was out. Also thought JB looked incredibly nervous. 2 possibly harsh though I'll agree.

 

[Uppercut]

Australia, IMO, had a golden opportunity to put themselves miles ahead in the first session and they bowled gash. It was a perfect opportunity wasted. The new ball bowlers didnt make the batsmen play in extremely difficult batting conditions. To have England only two down at lunch was a complete waste and the advantage was lost and the game back on an even footing. Siddle bowled well after the break but the chance to blitz England had already gone. It was a huge failure IMO.

Overall I dont think they bowled poorly as a unit but I watched virtually every ball of this Test -- some thing I hadnt been able to do for a while -- and I was a little disappointed in Starc and Pattinson having seen little of them before and knowing them more from reputation than first hand viewing.

You know, I'd completely forgotten that first session had ever happened. Seems so long ago.

I'm pretty sure I agreed at the time.

 

[Maximas]

Those saying Clarke's captaincy was marred by DRS use, consider that the keeper and bowler are the main culprits in poor DRS use, especially the keeper, I would exonerate Clarke from blame there to some extent. Agar was good with the ball, was bowling with a dodgy finger and he kept it tight and picked up two good wickets. As for the Rogers/Watson debate, consider that Watson was first to go in both innings, Rogers played a role in continuing the thread in the second dig (not helped at all by Cowan) and stemmed the flow somewhat in the first innings, he also gains half a point for keeping the ball in good nick maybe.

 

[Furball]

Those saying Clarke's captaincy was marred by DRS use, consider that the keeper and bowler are the main culprits in poor DRS use, especially the keeper, I would exonerate Clarke from blame there to some extent. Agar was good with the ball, was bowling with a dodgy finger and he kept it tight and picked up two good wickets. As for the Rogers/Watson debate, consider that Watson was first to go in both innings, Rogers played a role in continuing the thread in the second dig (not helped at all by Cowan) and stemmed the flow somewhat in the first innings, he also gains half a point for keeping the ball in good nick maybe.

I also docked Clarke points for not setting a 3rd man to Bell. It will cost Australia hundreds of runs this series if he doesn't do it.

 

[Furball]

Watson - 0 - usual **** **** innings, wasted a review, bowled floaty unthreatening rubbish.

Might as well just do Watson's now.

 

[morgieb]

Might as well just do Watson's now.

Heh.

At least he dismissed Cook.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Like I said in the other thread, if Watson gets a 0 I don't know what the other Australian batsmen get. I'd rather a handsome 30 and an LBW over getting to 12 and then slogging to mid-off or whatever. There's already like three articles on cricinfo blaming him for Rogers getting out and/or the entire collapse too. The only Australians who have done anything of much value this test are Harris, Siddle and maybe Smith and Clarke. Watson still contributed more than most though.

 

[GIMH]

Australia have bigger problems than Watson but surely the issue is that Watson shouldn't be a problem, but is.

 

[Furball]

Like I said in the other thread, if Watson gets a 0 I don't know what the other Australian batsmen get. I'd rather a handsome 30 and an LBW over getting to 12 and then slogging to mid-off or whatever. There's already like three articles on cricinfo blaming him for Rogers getting out and/or the entire collapse too. The only Australians who have done anything of much value this test are Harris, Siddle and maybe Smith and Clarke. Watson still contributed more than most though.

That's true when you look at this test in isolation. Watson is a massive issue because he simply doesn't contribute.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, I think the issue is exactly what GIMH has said. He was one of only two batsman who ever looked comfortable for a decent length period today. And it's always the case. He always looks one of the best batsman in the match. Until he plants his front leg and misses one. Despite always looking one of the best batsman going, you can still count the number of match winning performances with the bat on one hand. I think what pisses people off is he still seems to have a rep of being one of the best players in the side, both by CA and the general public and media, when really, he's still not really peforming and hasn't done much since the last Ashes. The side is often doing things to accumulate him, whether it be wherever he wants to bat in the order, or whether he wants to bowl, and he's not really repaying the faith.

He gets unfair slack on CW, mostly I feel as a reaction to his perhaps overhyped reputation outside of the forum, and he's really valuable to Australia because of his bowling - I'd take him in the England team in a heartbeat - but he's still part of the greater problem with the Australian batting line up. His dismissall today was a massive boost for England and a big kick in the teeth to Australia, both because of how well he was batting before that, and because of the selfish and idiotic use of the review, which must be terrible for team morale.

 

[Burgey]

It's the same ****ing dismissal at the same ****ing stage of the game. Either he's not prepared to work hard to alter his technique which has had the same problem since forever, in which case see an arrogant ****, or he's just as thick as whipped **** and doesn't realise it's an issue.

But certainly Khawaja was worse today. No surprise he's part of the tumour faction.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am absolutely not saying Watson isn't a problem or that he didn't get out in a stupid, predictable way. Just that blaming him for the entire collapse because his referral was super selfish and hurt everyone's morale or whatever is silly.