Ratings for the Second Test

Seeing as everyone hated Gooch's one, and also seeing that this should be a regular feature on this darn forum from one of you tw@ts (NZ ratings are optional):

ENG:

Strauss - 9.5. I had a noose a-hanging tightly around his neck throughout his whole time over in New Zealand, and even after his 177, but he has been class in this Test and deserved the man of the match in my opinion.
Cook - 5.5. Did alright in forming a partnership in both innings, but typically got out after getting a start.
Vaughan - 7. A really dour innings first dig was covered up by a better, and a more important one in the second dig that contributed heavily in our eventual win.
Pietersen - 6.5. Scratchy in the first innings, much better second time out. Started playing properly (in his mind) and looked in decent form before running himself out (stupidly). Looking at him playing, I thought about running out and putting some £££ on a big one at Trent Bridge.
Bell - 5. Shit, as usual. Contributed very little.
Collingwood - 4. Rubbish. Contributed nothing in essence, but an extra mark knocked off for looking embarrassingly poor.
Ambrose - 5. Contributed little to the winning cause.
Broad - 4. Even a Nottinghamshire lad cannot be spared the ignominy; he contributed absolutely nothing in his main role as a bowler, and whilst he looks a good lower-order batsman and, in the future, a good bowler too, he isn't up to it yet.
Sidebottom - 7. Good, consistent lines, wasn't always reliable but was the best seamer on show for England.
Anderson - 3. The wickets cannot cover up how awful he was; his first innings efforts nearly cost us the match and the series.
Panesar - 9. I reverse-woofed him; an excellent second innings bowling effort after an unlucky time of it before that in the series.

Cruel but fair, Gus.

Agree with all of that apart from Ambrose. He kept well and only had one innings so 4.5 is a bit harsh.

Pietersen averaging around 48.

Bell, Collingwood, Vaughan, Strauss, and Cook all averaging aroun 41.5 through 43.0 ... very little between them on stats alone.

I don't agree with some of your ratings, Augustus. Even a 4 is too high for Collingwood. He should be about 2 considering how woeful he looked. Bell should be 4. Vaughan should be 6 as he really dug a hole for England with the way he batted in the first innings. Broad should be 5.5, as he at least batted with spirit in the first innings and guided England past the follow on. Who knows what could have happened if we'd failed to do that and Vettori had decided to send us in again. Monty should be 8 as he did get a hammering in the first innings.

I've made a few concessions to certain points and dropped Anderson down a mark after seeing a few first-day highlights again.

I was tempted to go lower with Collingwood, I admit, but there's something about handing ratings out that makes it hard to drop below 3, and therefore 4 is pretty damn poor and 3 is simply staggeringly bad. 6 is about average. I wouldn't say Broad deserved to be awarded anywhere near average because, though he batted well, that isn't his job and he wouldn't have needed to had he not bowled so badly.

Monty did get a hammering, yes, but he recovered well and has good match figures in the end. He out-bowled Vettori in all, which is saying something even though Vettori's an over-rated skunt.

If "shit" earns you a 5 out of 10 then I think the rating scale is a bit generous!

Broad does deserve some credit for his batting, just because a player contributes in an area which is "not what his job is" it shouldn't be forgotten or dismissed. Those runs that got us past the follow-on were crucial to the way the match unfolded.

Are the relative ratings really that important if they all get the same MBE?

lardbucket wrote:Are the relative ratings really that important if they all get the same MBE?

Has to be an OBE this year for beating the Kiwis... then CBEs for a hard-fought win over Bangladesh next year. Perhaps we'll save the knighthoods for winning some JAMODI tournament or something, if that ever happens...

3 is much, much too kind for Jimmykins.

Don't be afraid to hand out "3".

I gave Harmi "1" in the first test of the NZ-Eng series - that was for turning up.

Well I'm full of a warm afterglow of tolerance, acceptance and perspective so can't get too worked up about the non-performers. My only really worry is Jimmikins- he's going to get sozzled by South Africa so an alternative's got to be found now.

Think Ambrose and Broad might not make the South Africa series either- the next test's a big-un for them now.

Collingwood should be 3 or worse. I like the guy but he looked like a tailender in this test match.