Player Ratings thread

[OverratedSanity]

That does not mean they bowled well, FFS they only took ten wickets for the match and clouderson only took 2/77. dismal. You dont get anything for beating the bat.

Easily could've had more wickets but they both needed Ball and Woakes to be less rubbish.

 

[TNT]

The same could be said of Ball and Woaks, they need better leading bowlers to inflict a bit of damage first. If your strike bowlers cant make inroads then why expect your back up bowlers to do their job.

 

[OverratedSanity]

? But they did make inroads.

 

[TNT]

? But they did make inroads.

What in the second innings, they looked beaten. It was a capitulation, a no show, gutless bowling, surrender, if it was good bowling in the second innings then Warner would easily rate an 8 dont you think.

 

[TNT]

Just a quirky stat, Clouderson has never taken a fourth innings wicket in Australia from 5 attempts.

 

[Starfighter]

You sound like you didn't actually watch the match.

 

[TNT]

You sound like you didn't actually watch the match.

If you feel that Anderson and Broad bowled well in the match, not just compared to the other england bowlers but stand alone bowlers then we just came to different conclusions.

 

[Spark]

This is what happens when you only pay attention to scorecards.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What in the second innings, they looked beaten. It was a capitulation, a no show, gutless bowling, surrender, if it was good bowling in the second innings then Warner would easily rate an 8 dont you think.

They bowled quite well early in the 2nd innings, there were at least 2 or 3 play and misses. Terrible field placings didn't help either.

 

[TNT]

They bowled quite well early in the 2nd innings, there were at least 2 or 3 play and misses. Terrible field placings didn't help either.

How many test match innings have you watched where there wasnt a couple of plays and misses.

 

[Spark]

It was pretty obvious that the plan was to just sit on them and attack the others. When the pitch is this lifeless there isn't really much you can do when that happens. Pakistan did it to great effect against peak Johnson a few years back.

 

[TNT]

It was pretty obvious that the plan was to just sit on them and attack the others. When the pitch is this lifeless there isn't really much you can do when that happens. Pakistan did it to great effect against peak Johnson a few years back.

Agreed, Anderson and Broad didnt bowl well enough to force the issue. Might have been the best bowlers for england but it was not a good performance by any means.

 

[Starfighter]

Agreed, Anderson and Broad didnt bowl well enough to force the issue. Might have been the best bowlers for england but it was not a good performance by any means.

If you think they didn't bowl well enough then propose how they could have bowled better. We had to work very hard and resort to somewhat silly tactics at times and all our bowlers, if not necessarily bowling well, kept up the pressure, whereas Anderson and Broad did not have the pleasure of knowing that their work wasn't going to be wasted. On such a benign surface these things had to be worked on over multiple bowlers, and Woakes, Ball and Ali could not pull it off.

This is what happens when you only pay attention to scorecards.

Exactly.

 

[Spark]

Agreed, Anderson and Broad didnt bowl well enough to force the issue. Might have been the best bowlers for england but it was not a good performance by any means.

Did you even bother to read my post properly?

 

[TNT]

If you think they didn't bowl well enough then propose how they could have bowled better. We had to work very hard and resort to somewhat silly tactics at times and all our bowlers, if not necessarily bowling well, kept up the pressure, whereas Anderson and Broad did not have the pleasure of knowing that their work wasn't going to be wasted. On such a benign surface these things had to be worked on over multiple bowlers, and Woakes, Ball and Ali could not pull it off.



Exactly.

Benign surface, how did Australia take 20 wickets then. Before you answer that remember that you rated Stonemen and Vince better than Warner and Bancroft in the batting.

 

[TNT]

Did you even bother to read my post properly?

Yeah.

 

[Spark]

So the pitch was bowler friendly now, but presumably only when England were bowling.

 

[Starfighter]

Benign surface, how did Australia take 20 wickets then. Before you answer that remember that you rated Stonemen and Vince better than Warner and Bancroft in the batting.

You clearly did not read what I wrote, or at least have made your own twisted interpretation of it. We were able to take 20 wickets by being able to apply enough pressure despite Haze and Starc being quite rough around the edges. Cummins and Lyon were extremely good, and I would also add that the English were obviously mentally fragile to the short ball strategy and were not able to take singles when they would have been very useful (especially off Lyon). We were able to rotate the strike and only had to wait until one or both of Anderson and Broad were off to be able to get runs, so the pressure was not sustained. All Warner and Bancroft had to do was outlast the opening pair and they were golden. Our field settings were also tighter. Stoneman and Vince played significantly better first innings against more sustained pressure than Warner and Bancroft, who made their second innings runs against deflated team who could not sustain pressure without Anderson and Broad bowling.
The pitch was not easy to score on during the first two innings but there was very little movement and the pace was unexceptional. It was a 400 first innings surface.

I've made my ratings on actually watching most of the match's play and using my own judgement, however flawed it may be, whereas yours seem to be based off a superficial reading of the scorecard, which is why I'm unconvinced you actually watched a significant portion of the match.

 

[TNT]

So the pitch was bowler friendly now, but presumably only when England were bowling.

No it was a pitch where if you bowled well you could get wickets, hence the relatively low scores for the Gabba.

 

[TNT]

You clearly did not read what I wrote, or at least have made your own twisted interpretation of it. We were able to take 20 wickets by being able to apply enough pressure despite Haze and Starc being quite rough around the edges. Cummins and Lyon were extremely good, and I would also add that the English were obviously mentally fragile to the short ball strategy and were not able to take singles when they would have been very useful (especially off Lyon). We were able to rotate the strike and only had to wait until one or both of Anderson and Broad were off to be able to get runs, so the pressure was not sustained. All Warner and Bancroft had to do was outlast the opening pair and they were golden. Our field settings were also tighter. Stoneman and Vince played significantly better first innings against more sustained pressure than Warner and Bancroft, who made their second innings runs against deflated team who could not sustain pressure without Anderson and Broad bowling.
The pitch was not easy to score on during the first two innings but there was very little movement and the pace was unexceptional. It was a 400 first innings surface.

I've made my ratings on actually watching most of the match's play and using my own judgement, however flawed it may be, whereas yours seem to be based off a superficial reading of the scorecard, which is why I'm unconvinced you actually watched a significant portion of the match.

You seem to be missing the point, Bancroft and Warner faced 21 overs from anderson and broad in the second innings and you think they bowled well, but you also think that it was easy for Warner and Bancroft to see them off.

I can see that you make assumptions so I have to factor that in.