´óÏó´«Ã½

Not too sure I agree with Pietersen and Bresnan's ratings. If Cook gets 6 for batting twice and getting 35. How does KP get 6 for getting out for a golden duck? Bresnan didn't do much with the bat or ball (not his fault) and yet gets the same. Colly only got 5. Bresnan, Colly and KP should all have got 5.

I can't see how Kevin Pietersen got a 6 as well as Cook.

Pietersen should be lower, howeve I think that it's round about the right rating for Cook. Swann would have been awarded a 9 if I was doing it.

Not sure about 8 for Onions, maybe a 7/7.5. Sure he took 5 wickets, but he was bowling at a lengthy west indian tail who pretty much all got themselves out.

Swann outstanding, definitely a 9. KP contributed pretty much nothing, so a 6 seems unjustifiable to me.

KP got 6 because he was bowled by a very good ball, where as Cook and Colly threw away their own wickets and that is always worse than being bowled by a gem, anyone who thinks that KP wasn't up for it didn't watch is important team contribution in the field, or his dismissal for that matter!

no.4:

So he got a 6 for lots of clapping then?

KP getting a 6 seems ridiculous personally! Granted he got a good one, but if a batsmen faces one ball and thats an average performance what is the game coming to? Especially when it's Englands self proclaimed superstar. Think its put into persepective by the fact Onions also only faced one ball, but got 7 wickets, a feat thats only worth a ranking 2 points better

Mr. Oliver Brett:

Why did you not complete the ratings by including the the players from the West Indies as well? I'm sure their fans and supporters (and even the players themselves) would have liked to know what you think?

By excluding them, you have also excluded objectivity in the above article, as I see it!

Rgds.

I'm not sure about Strauss convincing more and more as captain. Granted we spanked them but this is the guy that only 1 test match ago failed to convince with a declaration, the second time in the series he'd done that.

Yes, I know, he's still learning. But he also made some odd decisions in this match that bordered on the smart arse rather than inspired, giving the new ball to Swann for one and bowling Bopara instead of Bresnan was a bit pointless.

As with Onions there will be toughter tests for Strauss. I don't want to do him down as he's learning but it isn't grinding beating a poor Windies team who have had no preparation in a damp May match. He made some good changes but some silly choices too, he needs to cut that out as better teams will punish him. Let's hope he is willing to learn and loses the smart arse edge.

Your ratings in fact go from 5 to 8 not 0 to 10. If we say your ratings go from 3.5 to 8.5 and then double them we get...

Strauss 7
Cook 5
Bopara 9
Peitersen 5
Collingwood 3
Prior 7
Bresnan 5
Broad 7
Swann 9
Anderson 6
Onions 9

which seems more accurate to me (though peitersen would get 3, bresnan 4 and cook 6 in my ratings).

No way you can give KP a 6 for his enthusiasm in the field. That's ridiculous! Perhaps Colly should get a 6 for his persistant shining of the ball?! In fact, Colly's 2 catches off the spinner were vital and in my eyes much more deserving of a bump up to a 6 than the fact that KP "encouraged Graham Onions." Aside from KP I would agree with all the others. I think Cook deserves a 6 given that he did at least contribute something in the first innings and battled hard to see out the second. Bresnan also bowled quite tightly during his limited spell and was given a poor LBW decision when he was looking to settle with the bat.

A "6" for Bresnan seems a bit generous, as is a "6" for Pietersen. To give Stuart Broad just one more point for a useful innings and hostile, wicket-taking bowling seems ungenerous in the extreme. Swann's 2 point advantage over Bresnan also seems a little curmugeonly.

Pity that there are more silly comments about Strauss' supposed errors making declarations. It does make me worry about what world some fans live in. Give the guy a break: he took on a tough job onto a hiding to nothing. His captaincy has been good and he has made few demonstrable errors (unless you make some really odd judgements on not enforcing the follow-on with an exhausted attack short of two bowlers and then declaring, horror of horrors, at lunch on the last day rather than handing the match to the Windies on a plate). In this game he has not missed a trick and to come so close in the 5th Test was nothing short of miraculous after the Windies had scored 500+ in their 1st innings.

no:11:

I agree, Strauss is doing a sound job and has been leading from the front with runs to his name.

He made a mockery of Boycott's implication that he couldn't think "three steps ahead" as a captain. I would suggest he is further ahead of the game than you might realise, Sir Geoffrey.

Graeme Swann has made a huge difference in this revamped England squad. Can you imagine Panesar winning the Man-of-the-Match award with a 'solid' all-round performance?

He was a part of the problem, not the solution. The selectors have made a big mistake in picking him! It's time a promising athletic youngster be given his spot.

Swann's contribution is ranked a 9 out of 10 in my book!

It's not a comment on these ratings, more on Jonathan Agnew's blog. He had Keith Bradshaw, Chief Executive of MCC, on TMS on the first day telling him that they had deliberately made the pitch more bowler friendly after six draws in a row. He then criticsises the generic 'administrator' for an early finish. You can't have it both ways! Personally, I prefer an England victory in 3 days than a bore draw. I'm sure, despite the early season start, the groundsman could have prepared a flat track if he'd wanted. We don't want that and clearly neither did they. As regards Agnew's criticism on TMS saying 'it serves them right that they won't get the money for tomorrow', well that may be the case. The fact is however, that is a risk, I am well informed, the ECB insure for. I was supposed to be going to Lord's tomorrow and it's a shame I won't. However, it's more important that England win. As far as I am concerned, that is the most important thing and I'm sure the ECB would agree too, Jonathan!

If the MCC prepared a result pitch then there is intelligent life at Lords! Taking the 1st Ashes Test away from Lords (where the Australians have a fabulous record) may also be a masterstroke. Poor old Shane Warne! He's had a major wobbly at the thought that the Australians will not start the series with a win at their banker ground. Maybe they are more frightened than they admit; we heard similar nervous outbursts in 2005 too.

Bullsh*t, don't believe the hype.

England will get crushed by Australia.

The Aussies will play, if all goes well, under more clement weather and that is likely to result in more competitive cricket. The West Indians, unfortunately, were handicapped from the get-go by unfavourable scheduling.

England should not feel too giddy about what transpired at Lord's. The Aussies will rudely bring them back to reality, when all is said and done!

#14 - completely agree! As someone who has been to all six of those bore draws, it was so refreshing to see a match at Lords where there was something in it for the bowlers. Thursday was easily the most exciting day's Test cricket at Lord's since the Ashes test in 2005. No way should Lords be criticised for preparing a result pitch - I would definitely see a victory within three days rather than going along tomorrow for the fourth day to watch meaningless batting practice.

Did this guy even watch the match? Wow his ratings are bad. Only 0.5 more for Jimmy A who bowled really well without much reward over KP who was basically a glorified cheerleader! Swann was the stand out bowler taking the big wickets and scored a very important 63 (or at least it seemed they would be at the time) as well. My ratings (not that anyone really cares)

Strauss - 6
Cook - 6
Bopara - 8.5
Pietersen - 4.5
Collingwood - 5
Prior - 7
Broad - 8
Swann - 9
Bresnan - 5.5
Anderson - 7
Onions - 8.5

Wow! The way England finished off the match I wouldn't be surprised if someone said all the players could get 10. The newcomers seem to hit the ground running. Onions has given scope for a lot of good headlines.
In India the newspapers have come out with different captions -
- Onions peels off the Windies
- Raw Onions too strong for the West Indies
and so on.
But the bowling certainly has menace. Imagine England with a back-in-form Harmison. That kind of bowling combi would be awesome. I think England should get the series , no doubt. And I also have a feeling that England would be a threat , definitely in the top 4, by end 2009. The batting is settling down ominously, the bowling has teeth, and the fielding is as good as most sides if not the best.

Hope we get more Test matches than these Twenty20 stuff.

As others have said, 6 for Pietersen just doesn't make sense. Nor does the description 'brute of a delivery' really fit the ball that dismissed him. It was a good ball, I will not argue with that, but good batsmen are supposed to survive good balls. Peitersen just gave himself every chance to be dismissed by it by playing across the line before he had picked up the pace of the pitch.

Getting a good stride in and showing the full face of the bat to the ball would have minimised any risk. He was not in the best of form in India, hadn't had a first class knock since the tour of the Windies and is unlikely to get many before the Ashes outside of the two tests of this series (if any), so he really needed to maximise his time at the crease.

My rating for him in this test is equal to the amount of thought he put into that shot. In other words, zero.

Bresnan's a tricky one. He did everything asked of him, but that wasn't very much. He batted well until getting a shocking decision. He bowled well against the two WI batsmen who showed any sort of fight when finally called upon and fielded well taking a decent catch.

He's still likely to be the player to make way for the returning Freddie, but undoubtedly deserves another run out at Durham and could have a busy summer ahead of him.

Harmison's return is looking much less likely than it was four days ago.

I'm sorry, but I don't recall Bresnan doing anything at all.

How come, then, that he has still got 6?


Sure, he wasn't given much oppurtunity, but you can't say he did a half-decent job in the match.

Barely a 3 for him!

He's a waste of space, England don't need him.

Oliver Brett - In response to other comments, perhaps I was a bit curmudgeonly and might have sprinkled a few more eights and a couple of nines about.

I disagree. It is more the upping of the poorer performances that is the problem. I assume that 5 is considered an average performance and there were a few performances that wouldn't measure up on that score. That we won is no excuse to turn a blind eye.

9s should only be given for exceptional performances and only Swann came close to deserving one. Even then it would be borderline but getting Chanderpaul twice probably seals the deal.

8s are fine for Bopara (as he got 3 lifes) and Onions (I doubt any of his victims would bat top 6 in a Div 1 CC side).

7s for Prior and Broad. Both did their jobs pretty well in the field and with the bat combined with Bopara to take a difficult situation at 4 wickets down into a reasonable one at 6 down.

6 for Cook (5 were it not for the excellent catch of Nash) and Anderson (as you say, bowled better than his figures suggest).

4 for Strauss due to his use of his bowlers seeming to work.

3 for Bresnan due to lack of impact, though not his fault. (Possibly fairer to not give a rating.)

2 for Collingwood for his fielding.

A charitable 1 for Pietersen for encouraging Onions. Next time we should put him in a short skirt and give him some pompoms if we want him to be a cheerleader.

"Strauss begins to convince more and more as a captain, with some imaginative planning paying handsome dividends"

Dont sound so surprised, has everyone forgotten England's 3-0 victory over Pakistan in 2006, when Pakistan were ranked 2nd and England 3rd in the ICC rankings and the series was already won before that final infamous match at the Oval... oh and who was the captain... Strauss!

Sorry, but the best headline was in yesterdays London Paper- "Onions brings tears to eyes of Windies". The scope is fantastic for headlines. Let's hope that the Aussies put young hopeful Dave Liver* in for the Ashes.

*Sadly not a real person

Sorry but you can't rate KP higher than Colly. Yes KP got a good delivery, but it was exactly the same good delivery that got him out in Jamaica. If I was part of a 51 all out, I would look at my dismissal very carefully and make sure it didn't happen again. He didn't play straight and he is impatient at the start of innings. Colly, however, took some good slip catches, vital in the case of Chanderpaul.
I think Swann and Bopara deserve 9's - you really couldn't ask more of them, and Broady is an 8. He took the big wickets of Gayle and Sarwan in the first innings, got the breakthrough in the second when things were getting irritating, and sorted out the tailenders.

Fair enough Ollie, but trust me,


There are better players than Bresnan who deserve a chance at the biggest stage.

"He did concede eight byes on the final day, but you'd have to be really pernickety to take a mark off for that, and I won't!"
I disagree - he is supposed to be an international standard wicket keeper, and this is surely a major part of his role. The occasional aberration would be fine, but this is part of a pretty shoddy picture. In 29 innings in which Prior has kept (including truncated innings, e.g. India's 2nd innings 73 at Trent Bridge in 2007), only 3 times has he avoided conceding a bye. He averages 9 byes conceded per innings - so I suppose we could count Lords as something of a triumph! - and has twice conceded over 30 (a unique achievement).
This may all be balanced out by his contributions with the bat, but surely his mark has to take his keeping into account.
Incidentally, it might be easier to find marks for players if you use a range of 1-10, rather than 5-9.

I think England will have their work well and truly cut out for them when it comes to taking on Australia in the Ashes!
Although we can see this as a "building block" I don't think it's possible to compare it to what England will face later this summer.
They need the right personnel - I'm not sure Strauss is the right person to lead England and they will need big firepower in bowling terms such as Harmison, Flintoff etc.
I'm not too optimistic, right now, about England's chances in the Ashes.

Can't believe that people are already writing Onions off as a one-test wonder. Yeah, he looked less potent as the pitch flattened a bit, but so did Glenn McGrath - a fact often overlooked due to the fact that the Aussies had Warne to come into his own on those pitches. And since when does a 'medium-fast bowler' clock 90mph on the speed gun?

It is impossible to give player ratings on a match as one-sided as this one was. I do think however that the team can be rated and you would have to give England 7 at least. The Windies could really only be given a rather poor 3.5 at best. My team ratings, whilst subjective, may illustrate the difference better than individual performance ratings might over the 3 days. Interestingly though my England team rating of 7+ is marginally higher than the average of Mr Oliver Brett's..... And I do tend to agree with the majority view that KP's 6 is well over the top! So maybe a couple of 9's for Bopara and Swann?

sick of all the Pieterson rating, when he does nothing.

But slating others who fail

# 8 Calminthestorm

Disagree. Strauss' captaincy has been in unsettled times (v Pakistan and now) and he has not had the benfit of continuity. He's a good positive influence and leads from the front. Also, with Andy Flower taking over, there are changes. Can't be bad.

# 13 splendidsparrow

Mony is 27 years old and Graeme Swann is 30!!

Agree with those who don't rate Pietersen as highly as OB. Wait for the next match - I expect a century from KP!

It is stupid to rate players after just one test - not everyone can contribute significantly in every game.
In this match alone, Collingwood, Bresnan and Pietersen should be getting 1s and 2s as they didn't add much to the team performance and Swann, Onions and Bopara deserve 9s and 10s as they gave each gave brilliant performances

Jonties:

The sooner Panesar exits the scene, the better. The only thing he does relatively well is 'pitching' a good line. Other than that he's a major liability.

He's way too slow on the field and is incapable of replicating an innings such as we have seen from Graeme. Had Graeme batted a little higher, he very well could have reached tripple figure. I'm delighted to have him on the team.

Cheers!

Oliver,

I'm looking forward to that article! Hopefully, you'll have it out soon!

Cheers!

splendidsparrow


Agree fully - also delighted to have Graeme on the team. In fact, pleased to see the contribution from all the team, especially the latest call ups.

I simply don't understand Pietersen's rating. 2 below Bopara. Being chirpy in the field does not warrant 6. No runs, no wickets, no catches. That suggests 0 to me.

Alastair Cook - 6
It's a bit naughty to get to 35 and then get out, and his wicket on the first afternoon led to two more quick ones for West Indies. But a nice unbeaten 14 at the end maintained his average, and he also took two good catches amid a few drops by others.



Yet more stupid scoring from the Beeb regarding marks out of 10 in cricket. To get 35 and then get out is bad? Would it have been better to only get 5 before getting out? Also how can you even consider marking someone down because the next two guys did badly? Scoring 35 is a little below par but OK none the less and some very good fielding on it's own should have guarenteed a 7.

For ratings to work effectively you need to let the reader know what the scores equate to.

Having read you ratings on a few occassions i don't find much to disagree with in terms of what order you would rate player performances in.

You do, however, need to use the lower scores more often.

My understanding of a 1-10 rating system would be broadly as follows:

10: the sort of score reserved for Jim Laker style 19 wickets in a match
7-9: good to fantastic overall performance
(Swann, Bopara and Onions fall in here.....maybe Broad
at the lower end)
5-6: Solid but unspectacular
(Cook, Anderson*, Prior and maybe Strauss)
3-4: Below average contribution (whether their fault or not) or poor
(Pietersen, Collingwood** and Bresnan)
1-2: Actually bad and should be dropped

*Anderson i'd probably rate at a 6.5 so in agreement there
** Collingwood probably 4.5 - 5 for catches

Basically, Pietersen and Bresnan did not contribute to the team winning the game in any real way and should be scored as below average. The fact that it wasn't their fault is a defining factor only in not labelling their performance bad.

And before i'm engulfed by fanboys this is about my ratings for this match.....Pietersen is clearly not only England's best batsman but one of the best of the current crop of test batsmen and Bresnan would be highly unlucky (and a victim more of circumstance) to be dropped.

MOM rightly awarded. Criticism of Bresnan bowling misplaced.

India used to have a bowler by the name of Bapu Nadkarni who would bowl something like 30 overs in a Test without picking up any wicket whatever. But conceding only 7 or 8 runs over all his number of maidens was always more than runs conceded. He was instrumental in inducing wickets for bowlers at the other end.

Bapu played 41 Tests for India and had an economy rate of 1.67 runs per over. In 191 first class matches his economy rate was 1.64 runs per over.

Not really a commentor on this, only a reader, but have been quite interested by this. Pietersen's score is far too high as i think everyone is in agreement, however if it is only based on figures then yes i would give him zero, but there is no real way to score his team contribution. That slap on the back or a couple of words of advice can make such a difference which an observer cannot pick up on.
Im very surprised that in a 10 wicket victory, not a player picked up a nine or ten, thought Onions or Swann would have got that, both did there job exceptionally well, Swann doing even more so but yet still an eight?

Apologies for the over-use of the word "this" in the first sentence.

I have to agree with other posters in being astounded that KP was given 6. I think that some players are assessed on reputation rather than actual performance. Anderson didn't have the best game ever but to be honest he didn't have much of the bowling in the econd innings after taking out two prime wickets the second evening. To award him just one half mark more than Pietersen who did nothing whatsoever, and likewise half a mark more than Bresnan who did nothing much is farcical. Agreed, Bresnan wasn't asked to do much and didn't let anyone down but Anderson at least got wickets with the new ball. Maybe if he'd been given first use of the new ball in the first innings he might have taken more.

Re KP and Bresnan,
It should not be a cause for alarm that they didn't do much in the match. For bowlers there are only so many wickets to share around, and if someone is bowling well the captain will give them more of a go ahead of others in the team. As for KP, it should be reassuring that England have won so convincingly without any assistance from "England's only 2 decent players" if the media are to be believed - Kev and Flintoff.

Lets not get too excited about the England performance. The summer holdsa much sterner test than a bunch of Windies who are over here for a holiday and not much else.

Lets see facts. They did not bother to get their captain over until a couple of days before the Test started. When Benn came out to bat in the first innings, he was joking and laughing, did not take the situation seriously. Then was out in a couple of balls.

England can only beat the team in front of them, but the Windies are nothing better than an average county side.

Improvement is needed for the Aussies. Still think we will beat them tho.

Thirdwoman: Re KP and Bresnan,
It should not be a cause for alarm that they didn't do much in the match. For bowlers there are only so many wickets to share around, and if someone is bowling well the captain will give them more of a go ahead of others in the team. As for KP, it should be reassuring that England have won so convincingly without any assistance from "England's only 2 decent players" if the media are to be believed - Kev and Flintoff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone is alarmed, thirdwoman. Just annoyed that our alleged best player still gets rated when he doesn't actually contribute. As you say, it is very reassuring - and gratifying - when the team performs without the so-called stars.

Excuse me KP gets a 6 because he gets out to a ball because 'nobody else would get to it' and does nothing in the rest of the test yet PC only gets 5 because he fails to take a catch nobody else would get to, takes 2 others including 1 jaffa.

Oliver Brett you need to get off Collingwoods back as well please, there are enough numpties on the boards on his back already without so called professional comentators spreading the claptrap as well.

#3 You can only play against the opponents in front of you. Regardless of whether batsmen "got themselves out", you still have to bowl a decent line and length to pick up such wickets - regardless, they all register the same on the scoreboard.

Ollie

Other than knocking Pietersen down to 5, your about spot on, IMO.

It will good to see West Indies ratings next test.

As an Australian, I was very taken by Onions, looking ahead to the Ashes. We (Australia) have always been suspect to the swinging ball and I believe Onions could be the man to give us a lot of trouble. Likewise, Hilfenhaus should be a huge asset to us in England as he too, is a genuine swinger of the ball. I have only seen Swann a couple of times and he obviously has ability but I think he will struggle against us.

My god, what a miserable bunch most of the people posting here are, did anybody else notice that we've just won a test match in 3 days? You don't do that without a good team performance. You can't give Bresnan a 2 or 3 because he didn't do much. Giving a grade of 2 implies that he performed poorly which he didn't, it's not his fault the match transpired in a way that didn't allow him to show what he's worth.
Oliver Brett is a cricket journalist and as such has a brain and the ability to use it, his ratings are based on how the player performed when he WAS playing a part, so you can only judge Bresnan for instance on his 7 overs of bowling, batting and fielding. Considering he didn't do much wrong an average mark seems appropriate as his bowling was good and fielding was good, the only criticism being how he batted. Likewise with KP, he may have been out to a beauty first up but how he encouraged Onions and his attitude in the field says a lot, lets not forget Onions was getting a bit of tap at first and without someone like KP giving him encouragement it might not have gone the way it did. The ratings are weighed up on the whole game and not just 'he didn't do anything, give him a 2' it's the constant barrage of criticism (even in the aftermath of a 3 day crushing victory) that epitomizes our attitude towards cricket, how about CELEBRATING a win for once, instead of pointing out the infinitesimal errors we may have made. I mean who needs enemies when we've got our supporters to slate us at every corner? Good job by Strauss & England all round in my opinion, and i agree with Olivers scoring as it weighs up the whole event, not just nit-picking like everybody else.

A five would suggest to me an average contribution, so why did KP get a 6 for basically contributing nothing?

if bresnan played for lancashire would he have only got seven overs, DONT THINK SO! you cant judge a player who didnt get a chance.

# 13 swann is 30 not a young promising player in my book. what more does adil rashid have to do to get a chance, the guy takes wickets on the glass table that is headingley.

Normally I love the responses to player rating blogs, but unfortunately someone let the side down earlier by suggesting that Swann should have had a 9. Look, this is supposed to be an opportunity for England "supporters" to belittle as many performances as possible, deliver a few personal insults to those who didn't have a great match and look for excuses to demonstrate that what appeared to be excellent contributions really weren't (you know the sort of thing - "he may have scored 265 off 160 deliveries, but he could have taken that catch if he'd run a bit faster, so he should only get 5").

Honestly, can't you people whinge more pathetically? If you're going to start praising players for stand-out performances and the team for a good professional win, next you'll be suggesting that the coach and the captain know what they're doing and if you're going to do that, you might as well start supporting Australia!

Rather than assigning arbitrary values, perhaps it would be better to rank the players from 1 to 11 on their performance.

If it were done that way, Cook's 49 runs in two knocks, out once and a couple of catches would be ranked way higher than KP's 0 runs in one knock, out once and no catches, rather than getting the same score. In fact, it would probably put him quite a few places above.

Assuming England wins this series I feel the standings in Test level could be

Australia
South Africa
India
England
Sri Lanka

I am just taking top 5. No point in looking below that.

Choice between in Australia and South Africa is tough. But I thought Australia should continue to be No.1 just because of its recent victory. This may change if England beats them in the Ashes ( hopefully! ). I thought India had done well of late and we had wanted to get ahead of Australia and South Africa to the No.1 spot but then this can happen only if we get to play South Africa and beat them.
Again, the rankings should change if England wins the next 5 matches or so. Probably could be 3 or even No.2. That should be interesting with the situation being fluid, but that is the way it should be. There should be no clear No.1 or No.2 or even No.3.

swann, bopara and onions deserved 9's and strauss deseved an 8

Can I have a 6 please. I also scored no runs and cheered England on. 8-p

Will give you a 7, tengearbatbike. You didn't get out. :)

There is certainly a lack of consistency in some of the scores. Whilst I would agree that Pietersen and Bresnan should be scored lower, I do not agree that there should be 9s and 10s in there.

The only performance worthy of a 9 is Swann. You have to score players in light of the competition- and West Indies are not a good enough team to be awarded a 10 against regardless of the performance.

Swann dismissed Chanderpaul twice and, along with his tasty half century (NOT OUT) knock and other wickets deserves a 9.

Onions got 5 in the first but was gifted some of these by poor batting. He deserves a 7.5 due to the quality of the opposition.

Bopara similarly deserves a 7.5- he made a decent score in his first outing at 3- however, he should have been dismissed earlier, and the WI attack is not the meanest you will ever some up against.

These 3 were our best performers and they should set the benchmark for the scores. Broad gets a generous 7 out of 10.

With this in mind- Pietersen is awarded a 3, Collingwood a 4, and Bresnan a 4. Pietersen cannot use 'homesickness' as an excuse for another failure with the bat and needs to pull his socks up a little. He is our finest player and needs a decent knock next innings.

The other performances were average. Prior perhaps 1/2 more than the rest- somewhere between 5.5 and 6.5 seems fair. The West Indies do not like paying in England and this result should be celebrated cautiously.

I feel a bit sorry for Bresnan; as the fourth seamer, he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing, and to be given only one spell, while quite understandable and right at the time, was unlucky. I would suggest that he's probably not going to get too much more opportunity in the immediate future, partly because Onions' performance has made him the more obvious choice of the two; and partly because of the other seamers waiting in the wings. He shouldn't be too downhearted, though: he didn't let himself down, and the experience will stand him in good stead for the future.
One disconcerting thing is the fact that, although he recognised that the team need to go on improving, Strauss hasn't identified how. Even in a winning situation, an Aussie captain would have some definite ideas and comments as to the things needed to be worked upon. I can remember Dean Jones and Merv Hughes winning a test match for Australia in the late '80's, and Allan Border STILL tearing into them in the post match press conference!

BRESNAN'S MATCH:

- Scored 9 and then got the WORST lbw decision you'll see all Summer.
- Bowled 1 nervous over when it was swinging.
- Bowled 6 tight overs for 15 runs when it wasn't swinging.
- Dropped 1 difficult catch and caught 1 amazing catch.

The words NOT APPLICABLE some it up. Did very little wrong.

Totally out of order of Strauss to not give Bresnan more of a go with the new cherry! Really bad captaincy and the waste of a young talent.

#55- How about dishing out knighthoods to the victorious players on the back of one unexpected fine performance? It is a nonsense to suggest that there is an inability to enjoy and celebrate victories- just as it is to over-celebrate without any consideration what were, for the most part, average performances. In fairness, they didn't have to be much more than average. I suspect someone is slightly confused as to where many of the contributors' criticisms are directed- not at the players, but at the blogger for what is percieved a slightly too optimistic assessment.

Incidently-

Strauss- 6
Cook- 6
Bopara- 7
Pietersen- 4
Collingwood- 6
Prior- 6
Broad- 7
Swann- 8
Bresnan- 5
Onions- 7
Anderson- 6

KP gets a golden duck and you award him 6 out of 10? It must be love ;)

Hats off to the selectors for finally sacking the limpet Panesar! His excessive in-your-face appealing might have cost England valuable LBW decisions, time and again. He often appeals when the ball is pitched clearly outside leg-stump, as well as when the batsman is struck outside the line of the off-stump playing a legitimate cricket stroke.

He obviously must be ignorant of the laws. Good riddance!

Am I really the only one tired of this mania for awarding everything and everyone marks out of ten or star ratings? Does it really tell us anything that a well-written, nuanced article couldn't do better? Do we really all want to pretend to be old-style schoolteachers or even new-style appraisers? Is it compulsory to express our opinions in quantifiable form?

Does awarding a player 6 out out of 10 really mean anything?