England player ratings

JKLever wrote:Has there ever been a player who has scored 18 test match hundreds that gets slated as much as MPV?

Everyone has a go at him because he's not the Vaughan of 2002, because they expected great things of him based on one run of exceptional form. Instead he will go down as a decent batsman who had one amazing year. No shame in that. But it's his captaincy record that will stand out at the end of his career, even if some still doubt him in that regard as well!

JKLever wrote:Has there ever been a player who has scored 18 test match hundreds that gets slated as much as MPV?

Haven't got the stats to hand, but yes, there was someone.

Graham Thorpe
(whom some believe was a better batsman than Vaughan).

And guess who decided he didn't want Thorpe in his team back in 2005?
Yep ... the very same Michael Vaughan!

Funny how things come round full circle!

He can't dine out on his 18 tons for much longer if he keeps cocking it up the way he did at Lord's JKL !
Unless of course his spin doctor friend Alistair Campbell works the oracle!

Those who gave Vaughan a rating of higher than 4, need to have a word with themselves. His captaincy was OK, yes he tried stuff, but it didn't really work did it.

As for the ball that got him out, a straight ball that moved a tad away, that he conmprehensively got qwrong because his fett were stuck on the crease. Batting error. It was not a superb ball, just a good one, that Vaughan as is his want didn't move his feet too, and made it look a belter.

It happens far too often for him to continually get all these jaffa's. Its a technical flaw, nothing more!

Have there ever been so many critics unprepared to meet the mandate, as set out for them by the original poster? Seriously, it's a ratings thread. I think 94% of what you lot write is bollocks, whilst the other 6% is mostly bollocks, but I find it more than a little annoying when you derail a pretty appropriate thread by disagreeing without offering ratings of your own in between your contradictions. LLL starts a thread, gives an opinion. It's neither wrong nor right, it's just an opinion. I disagreed with a lot of the ratings so gave my own. LLL can look at them and see what I think and then think to himself "what a cock-muncher".

But you lot just talk shit. Talking Michael Vaughan this and Michael Vaughan that. It was a ****** good ball. Not a brilliant one, but it's alright being a critic from home when you're not the guy who has been in for two balls and has just got a 90mph ball that's pitched middle, hit off. Not an easy thing to keep out early on, believe it or not. He ain't the messiah either. He has plundered the shite since he has been back and doesn't look half the batsman he was a few years ago. There's no shame in that, he was a darn fine batsman, but when his captaincy has also seemed to suffer at times, it's a worry. That said, he was back to, or at least close to, his best captaincy wise in this match.

Anyway, let me reiterate my point - it's a ratings thread. The nature of a ratings thread is that you rate. If you don't want to, don't. I think it's a little high and mighty the way people like Dello come on to every one of these threads, disagree, then ****** off without saying why. The next time we have one of these threads, I'm not even going to bother - they're shit, like half the stuff on the forum when certain people get their hands on them. C.u.n.t.s.

Jaffa it was not.
Clumsy it made him look.

May the Force be with you.

PS :
Auggie - I rated Vaughan a 3, that's 3.5 less than LLL's rating.
The other ratings per LLL's list I more or less agreed with.
And stop making excuses for a seasoned batsman who will have you believe he IS the captain of England for Ashes 2009.
In my book that's bollocks.
He now has to prove himself - like all the other team members, and as catain, him more than ever -
and if he cocks it over the nexy 6 innings - what then?

So there.

furriner wrote:So there.

Auggie's having a hissy fit!
Think I'll go find me a rock and lie down.

Night all!

Strauss 6 - A gritty 40, but missed one he would normally flick for a couple, and got a dodgy one.

Cook 6 - Still looked out of sorts, and rode his luck well, but got out once again having done the hard work, and hence gets the same as Strauss, a 40 is as good as a 60, becuase both are in, and both didn't go on.

Vaughan 4 - Yet again missed a straight one, that moved a touch off the straight. Was far from the wonderball he made it look, as always. His captaincy was inventive but nothing came off.

KP 9.5 - his calmness, and eventually his 150 set the game up for England. His 91 runs in a session took the Saffa's out of it.

Bell 9.5 - got gifted a start, and made the most of it, to compile a very classy and well paced innings. Batted well with the tail as well

Collingwood 3 - looked out of sorts, and bad decision or not, never looked at all comfortable in a fairly good position to walk to the crease.

Ambrose 4 - Yet again looks out of form, unless its short and wide. Dropped a regulation catch of KP stood up. Should be looking over his shoulder.

Broad 6 - his 70 gets him a 6. His bowling looks in the main ineffective still, even though this was as flat as a pancake

Sibo 6.5 - Looks a little unfit, but toiled manfully to apply pressure. Got what is normally the key wicket of Kallis both times.

Anderson 7 - Bowled well with control, and was arguably out most consistent bowler shockingly enough on this featherbed

Panesar 7 - Showed again his is a wicket taker when there was a little bite in the pitch, however the sun killed the deck for him in their second innings, but he bowled economically.

Augustus wrote:
Vaughan - 4. His batting has been poor since he came back into the side.

Hasn't he been just about the best batsman since he's come back aside from KP?

Ambrose - 2. Dropped one of the few catches of any interest, and got out to a nothing ball in the process of scoring a very few runs. I'm neither his biggest fan nor his biggest critic, but after this performance I'm erring in favour of whoever it is who is the latter. His keeping looks mediocre and his batting looks worse. He's the wicket-keeping equivalent of Ashley Giles.

I think we've become obsessed with our keeper position. His keeping looks perfectly ok to me?

Augustus wrote:Have there ever been so many critics unprepared to meet the mandate, as set out for them by the original poster? Seriously, it's a ratings thread. I think 94% of what you lot write is bollocks, whilst the other 6% is mostly bollocks, but I find it more than a little annoying when you derail a pretty appropriate thread by disagreeing without offering ratings of your own in between your contradictions. LLL starts a thread, gives an opinion. It's neither wrong nor right, it's just an opinion. I disagreed with a lot of the ratings so gave my own. LLL can look at them and see what I think and then think to himself "what a cock-muncher".

But you lot just talk shit. Talking Michael Vaughan this and Michael Vaughan that. It was a ****** good ball. Not a brilliant one, but it's alright being a critic from home when you're not the guy who has been in for two balls and has just got a 90mph ball that's pitched middle, hit off. Not an easy thing to keep out early on, believe it or not. He ain't the messiah either. He has plundered the shite since he has been back and doesn't look half the batsman he was a few years ago. There's no shame in that, he was a darn fine batsman, but when his captaincy has also seemed to suffer at times, it's a worry. That said, he was back to, or at least close to, his best captaincy wise in this match.

Anyway, let me reiterate my point - it's a ratings thread. The nature of a ratings thread is that you rate. If you don't want to, don't. I think it's a little high and mighty the way people like Dello come on to every one of these threads, disagree, then ****** off without saying why. The next time we have one of these threads, I'm not even going to bother - they're shit, like half the stuff on the forum when certain people get their hands on them. C.u.n.t.s.

?

I'm scared. Umm....Michael Vaughan 4.5 and no further comment. Is that ok?

Re: JKLever

It depends how you define best. He has been our fourth most prolific batsman (Pietersen's miles ahead in every way followed by Cook and Bell) in terms of runs and average. Yet he is only averaging three more than the endangered Paul Collingwood in that time-frame. If you strive for my opinion, it's somewhere in my previous post. Somewhere.

Anyway, goodnight and god bless you bunch of w@nkers .

My ratings

Cook: 5.574
Strauss: A-
Vaughan: 57%
Pietersen: pass
Bell: 199
Collingwood: ****
Ambrose: 5.9, 5.8, 5.9. 5.7, 5.8
Broad: well played my son
Sidebottom: 101%
Anderson: 0.03
Panesar: 17 (42)
Flintoff: 10

MoM - McKenzie