Player ratings thread

[honestbharani]

getting outbowled by every spinner India trotted out is embarassing.

Happening since 2018 as well. Maybe even 2017 post Bangalore 1st innings.

 

[ankitj]

Pant was quite tight this game.

/mandatory Pant post

 

[Shri]

lose weight fat ass

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I've decided that this is the place to dump at least some of the thoughts I've had about the series. No numerical ratings here, just pure quality qualitative ones. Of course, given that it's been a couple of weeks now, it's likely I'll have forgotten most many some of the details.

Australia:

Burns—Did what we expected of him, which was probably not what the team wanted. Backing somebody in subterranean form because they were in the position almost a year ago is the height of wishful thinking. Had one pressure-free fifty though.
Wade—I'd previously described him as very all-or-nothing. Unfortunately, his 'all' was not so large, and throwing your wicket away three times in the same manner is inexcusable. I don't think it made a difference if he was opening or not as to how he went.
Warner—Clearly unfit since confirming how brilliant modern fielding is. At least he started our innings off in Sydney on an attacking note.
Pucovski—Good first innings: it was chancy, but the Indians rode their luck a lot while batting, so you cannot hold it against Pucovski. Not so good second. Another victim of how much better fielding is these days than in the old days.
Harris—Also did as much as CW expected.
Labuschagne—Definitely our best batsman, particularly after he began playing through off, and discounted my fears he might regress.
Smith—Did well in the last two tests, but I gained the impression he didn't care a lot of the time, as odd as it may seem. Was overly defensive; in Brisbane, Labuschagne would score off the first two balls, and then Smith would block the rest of the over. Entirely his fault he didn't make the hundred there.
Head—Played so well I forgot to include him originally. Probably no worse than some of our openers, but he is not an opener.
Green—Clearly still a work in progress, missed that middle gear with the bat, but played well enough. Good when really attacking. Bowling was lacklustre and he hasn't the pace to join in the bouncer barrage, meaning he was being mishandled as a bowler. Was good at gully fielding.
Paine—Average to poor with the gloves, perhaps a bit unpractised or under pressure. Not bad with the bat—he was man-of-the-match in Adelaide and well deserved, too—; he was probably the most proactive of us playing the Indian spinners and was entertaining while doing so. I think his captaincy issues are a bit deeper than just himself. I certainly don't think he should be dropped.
Cummins—Bowled well, but looked tired in later tests. This will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not letting him off the hook for our bowling failures because he is a big part of the problem. Since 2017 when he made his comeback and discovered bowling four bouncers an over is a good way to dismiss such excellent batsmen as Jake Ball—particularly as the umpires will not enforce the relevant laws—we have been excessively reliant on short-pitched bowling particularly against the tail: I doubt many of the tailenders we've spend many overs bowling short at could keep out two good yorkers even if they could block one. He is the best equipped bowler to sustain such an attack, but I noticed in both Sydney and Brisbane, the first four overs of him and Hazlewood would see the batsmen jumping, fending, taking the ball on the body a lot, but after that, they were then able to duck it comfortably. Apparently, no-one on field noticed.
Starc—Still a better batsman than Cummins. Bowled well in the first two tests. I decided the headband he wore in the third was cutting off blood to his brain, and apparently no functioning had been recovered by the fourth. Since changing his action, he is slower and has lost the in-swinger: all balls I saw him swing this series swung out, and I think this means he has no fall-back when his aim goes astray. In the last test, he was either too short, or when he got it full it was too wide.
Lyon—Probably the biggest bowling failure: 9 wickets compared to 21 last time India toured. Seemed to have less energy and put less body into his bowling. Was too fast and straight. Also, even if he can't think to bring up fine-leg when India have taken yet another single through there, surely somebody else can.
Hazlewood—Also bowled well.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

India:

Shaw—Easy win there for all who predicted failure.
Agarwal—Averaging 19.5 must be such a comedown from 65 last series.
Gill—Played very well, averaged over fifty in fact.
Sharma—Wan't especially brilliant, but gave India a good start often enough which was what counted.
Pujara—Only averaged 33 but was constantly a stumbling-block to Australia's bowlers. His defensiveness helped his team, unlike ours, and he showed grit and courage lacking in our side. Also drove some of our commentators mad which is a plus.
Kohli—Started off well but couldn't sustain the form in the second half of his series.
Rahane—Batted well, perhaps more serviceably later, and was clearly the better captain of the two who stayed. Running needs work.
Vihari—Not a good series really, but his 23(161) while injured warmed the hearts of all wannabe Trevor Baileys and made our bowlers look hopeless in the process.
Saha—Was at his best when not actually in the side.
Pant—Keeping a little iffy, but played a decisive role with the bat. His attacking attitude didn't always result in the largest of scores, but counterbalanced the more defensive features of the others and he was able to seize critical moments.
Jadeja—Had what would have certainly been a good series ended by injury.
Ashwin—Bowled well in contrast to some predictions on here, but was helped by the inexplicably defensive approach of the Australian batsmen, and took only two wickets in the third test when they allowed themselves to actually cut and cover-drive. His last innings batting was another great piece of defensive work, and that he was able to hook and cut near the end of it—well if our bowlers didn't feel like idiots, they ought to have.
Sundar—Bowling was not brilliant but dismissing Smith and Green in the 1st inns in Brisbane was very helpful to India. One half of the pivotal partnership of the last test and by extension the series.
Yadav—Being the third in line of India's first choice pacemen, his injury probably robbed him of his best chances.
Thakur—Bowled well though at a high economy rate. Perhaps not superlative, but he was good enough. Other half of the crucial partnership in the final test. Although it's just one test, I don't think he deserves writing off.
Saini—Did not bowl all that well, though he improved through the Sydney test from his first ball going for four. Held up an end at most.
Bumrah—Bowled well and was unfortunate to miss the last test. He did not seem to have the same stranglehold on our batsmen as last time, particularly after Wade and Burns were booted from opening.
Shami—The most unfortunate player of the series.
Siraj—Great start to his test career, particularly as he found himself the leader of India's attack in his third test. Same wickets and average as Bumrah.
Natarajan—That he played the T20s and one ODI shows he is considered an international prospect. He was serviceable but did go wicketless in the third innings. He swung the ball nicely but bowled too wide on the crease to take advantage of it. Prone to having his name mis-spelt.

And an extra honorary mention:
Supporters of India on CW—Took Gambhiring to the next level. All the comments of "If someones gets out we'll be all out by tea" when the Aus bowlers did not look at all like taking a wicket, "Plenty of time left for this to go bad," "India C", "The pitch will be a nightmare tomorrow" [after the heavy roller?], slating the Indian bowlers in contradiction of what was actually happening and so on and so forth must have created such massive waves of reverse-jinx energy it compelled the Indians to victory. You know who you are.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

May as well give another rating, too, even if not a player: A thumbs down for the extraordinarily* bad production from the broadcasters. Since the change from 9, we seem to have lost two-thirds of the angles. There was bad direction, some faulty graphics, and twice I saw something repeat itself like time rewound half a second at the ground. Get it together ffs.

*N.B.—This word has six syllables, not seven.

 

[honestbharani]

You know who you are.

So not me, then?

 

[NotMcKenzie]

So not me, then?

Dunno

 

[OverratedSanity]

must have created such massive waves of reverse-jinx energy it compelled the Indians to victory.

**** off Im still not convinced Rishabh and Sundar can get us home

 

[Starfighter]

Prone to having his name mis-spelt.

@cnerd123 this was you.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I think there were several people guilty of it. Not all of them on cricketweb either going off some posters' complaints about commentary.

 

[stephen]

India:

Shaw—Easy win there for all who predicted failure.
Agarwal—Averaging 19.5 must be such a comedown from 65 last series.
Gill—Played very well, averaged over fifty in fact.
Sharma—Wan't especially brilliant, but gave India a good start often enough which was what counted.
Pujara—Only averaged 33 but was constantly a stumbling-block to Australia's bowlers. His defensiveness helped his team, unlike ours, and he showed grit and courage lacking in our side. Also drove some of our commentators mad which is a plus.
Kohli—Started off well but couldn't sustain the form in the second half of his series.
Rahane—Batted well, perhaps more serviceably later, and was clearly the better captain of the two who stayed. Running needs work.
Vihari—Not a good series really, but his 23(161) while injured warmed the hearts of all wannabe Trevor Baileys and made our bowlers look hopeless in the process.
Saha—Was at his best when not actually in the side.
Pant—Keeping a little iffy, but played a decisive role with the bat. His attacking attitude didn't always result in the largest of scores, but counterbalanced the more defensive features of the others and he was able to seize critical moments.
Jadeja—Had what would have certainly been a good series ended by injury.
Ashwin—Bowled well in contrast to some predictions on here, but was helped by the inexplicably defensive approach of the Australian batsmen, and took only two wickets in the third test when they allowed themselves to actually cut and cover-drive. His last innings batting was another great piece of defensive work, and that he was able to hook and cut near the end of it—well if our bowlers didn't feel like idiots, they ought to have.
Sundar—Bowling was not brilliant but dismissing Smith and Green in the 1st inns in Brisbane was very helpful to India. One half of the pivotal partnership of the last test and by extension the series.
Yadav—Being the third in line of India's first choice pacemen, his injury probably robbed him of his best chances.
Thakur—Bowled well though at a high economy rate. Perhaps not superlative, but he was good enough. Other half of the crucial partnership in the final test. Although it's just one test, I don't think he deserves writing off.
Saini—Did not bowl all that well, though he improved through the Sydney test from his first ball going for four. Held up an end at most.
Bumrah—Bowled well and was unfortunate to miss the last test. He did not seem to have the same stranglehold on our batsmen as last time, particularly after Wade and Burns were booted from opening.
Shami—The most unfortunate player of the series.
Siraj—Great start to his test career, particularly as he found himself the leader of India's attack in his third test. Same wickets and average as Bumrah.
Natarajan—That he played the T20s and one ODI shows he is considered an international prospect. He was serviceable but did go wicketless in the third innings. He swung the ball nicely but bowled too wide on the crease to take advantage of it. Prone to having his name mis-spelt.

And an extra honorary mention:
Supporters of India on CW—Took Gambhiring to the next level. All the comments of "If someones gets out we'll be all out by tea" when the Aus bowlers did not look at all like taking a wicket, "Plenty of time left for this to go bad," "India C", "The pitch will be a nightmare tomorrow" [after the heavy roller?], slating the Indian bowlers in contradiction of what was actually happening and so on and so forth must have created such massive waves of reverse-jinx energy it compelled the Indians to victory. You know who you are.

Spot on.

Lyon's bowling falling off a cliff was probably the difference between this and a 3-1 in Australia's favour scoreline.