´óÏó´«Ã½

Surely cook deserves a 9 for 160?

Im with you on those predictions although id have given cook a 9 aswell Anderson. Lets hope they pull more out of the bag for the ODIs then it on for the Twenty20 world cup !!

Agree with the above posters cook deserves a 9, and probably Bopara too. Broads display of accurate and hostile bowling to dislodge Sarwan deserves an 8 on it's own. Great Victory, against poor opposition but you can only beat whats infront of you.

Bopara an 8? 2 innings, 2 100's? What does a man have to do to get a 10? Typical English Press. Lets praise our boys as much as possible! :)

It's the quality of the opposition that's the problem... Gayle only said what the rest of that team were thinking.... if this is the quality of warm up for the ashes (and you can see the West Indies treated the whole thing as a 'fee paying' in and out trip) we should go back to probables v possibles.... The one good thing is the confidence building aspect ahead of the Aussies, but giving marks out of ten is tough as the West Indies were lamentable.

Colly deserves an 8 surely!

The wicket-keeping was nothing short of superb.

I think the ratings are for this test alone and not the series. Agree with those above, Cook deserved a nine for his 160.

marks out of 10 are opinion. These are fair marks, Anderson does deserve the highest rating as he is the main reason England have won. Credit to Cook for getting a big hundred, but that's not going to stop the likes of Chanderpaul and Sarwan responding in kind - that is Anderson's job and he has shown that perhaps a long hard winter on flat pitches was beneficial to the bowling attack in the longer run

I think the ratings are pretty accurate, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the West Indies were truly awful and Australia will be a far tougher test. I'm sure the players are well aware of this though, so this was a good warm up at least.

Mark@7 "Is anyone worth a 10?"

So you're saying in reality you're marking the players on a scale of 1-9? Or following that logic, is anyone bad enough to ever justify a 1? So shall we say it's actually 2-9? :)

Am I the only one who's worried about our batting? Apart from Pieterson and Bopara I honestly can't see any of those batsmen getting any runs against the Australians. Cook may do but hes got some confidence and technical issues which I fear the Australians will exploit. They've figured out Strauss completely and he just gets caught in the slips on single figures every innings. Collingwood has proved time and time again that he can get big scores when we're in winning positions but when our backs are against the wall (which they no doubt will be) he always fails. He's just in the senior players 'clique.'Prior might be able to smack a few but I'm sure he'll make up for that with some howlers behind the stumps. Why is Shah not in for Collingwood?

'11. At 4:01pm on 18 May 2009, SundayParkGeorge wrote:
Mark@7 "Is anyone worth a 10?"

So you're saying in reality you're marking the players on a scale of 1-9? Or following that logic, is anyone bad enough to ever justify a 1? So shall we say it's actually 2-9? :)'

He said examples of what a 10 would be, they are rare but not impossible. In this case I think a 9 is good enough, although I would also have cook on an 8.5 or 9


'4. At 3:44pm on 18 May 2009, KennytheLeggie wrote:
Bopara an 8? 2 innings, 2 100's? What does a man have to do to get a 10? Typical English Press. Lets praise our boys as much as possible! :)'

But then it is typical English press hyping everything up as much as possible beyond realistic expectations ... Also this is just for this latest test match...

I know he looks, and has a build, a lot like you, but surely giving Bresnan a 6 is a bit too much. He did pretty much nothing, aside from the wickets, which came to him, rather than he getting them.

matty3891 wrote:
"Am I the only one who's worried about our batting? Apart from Pieterson and Bopara I honestly can't see any of those batsmen getting any runs against the Australians. Cook may do but hes got some confidence and technical issues which I fear the Australians will exploit. They've figured out Strauss completely and he just gets caught in the slips on single figures every innings. Collingwood has proved time and time again that he can get big scores when we're in winning positions but when our backs are against the wall (which they no doubt will be) he always fails. He's just in the senior players 'clique.'Prior might be able to smack a few but I'm sure he'll make up for that with some howlers behind the stumps. Why is Shah not in for Collingwood?"

I tend not to comment on these sort of things and instead just read with vague amusement the comments people make but this one seems just a little bit too much.
First, Bopara looks an excellent find but at the end of the day he's scored three centuries against a fairly poor bowling attack.
This is however, considerably more than Owais Shah managed to do who had his opportunity in the Caribbean on batsman's paradises of wickets and failed miserably.
As for complaining Colly doesn't perform when his back is up against the wall, I must only shake my head in vague bemusement. On the last Ashes tour the man scored a massive double hundred and an unbeaten 22-odd of 198 balls in the 2nd Test when the entire rest of the team crumbled.
In the West Indies he scored a bucket-load of runs, before then he got a century in India in a losing cause, and against the SouthAfricans, playing for his Test future he again scored a medium sized century when few others aside from Pieterson scored runs.
The guy has a test average of 44, is an excellent fielder, a gritty player, has succeeded against the Aussies and is well deserving of a place in the side. Definitely more-so than Owais 'test average of 26' Shah, including averaging 22 in the West Indies when the Average for every batsmen in the series was 46.6. He's just not a top-class batsman.

Your comments about Strauss are flimsy.

"...extra mark for some astute and pro-active captaincy - in marked contrast to opposite number Chris Gayle."

I think I could have looked like Mike Brearly captaining England against this side. What did he do that was so pro-active? Declaring on 550? Asking Broad to open with Anderson? Nonsense. A truer test of his captaincy will come when the opposition are 250-1 and his bowlers are putting it all over the place. It was impossible to judge his captaincy here and to award him extra marks for it is silly.

I agree with the guy who says he's worried about the Ashes. Cook may have got to 160 but he didn't actually look that good and I think he will be found out by the Aussies just like last time round.

Collingwood and Prior were able to slog some quick runs but neither of them are good enough with the bat to be top 6 batsmen against a world class attack. I know it's not gonna be possible now, but if it was down to me I'd defo bring Vaughan back into the fold as we don't have anyone of his class around at the moment (Bopara and KP deserve their places but they both have flaws that again, could be found out).

All in all, I think this series was a complete waste of time and actually proves Chris Gayle's point...test cricket has been cheapened (to make way for the T20 cup!)

I got heated writing that and didn't check through for spelling and punctuation, can only apologise for the lack of spaces (not sure why my keyboard is ignorning my requests) and the use of 'of' instead of 'off'.
Guaranteed 55 if I handed in an essay in that condition!!

No much of a cricket fan I admit, but is cricket always this pointless?! You had a team playing that clearly did not want to be there and had no desire to even play a test match and stadiums that were hardly full over the course of the both matches. I hear England have now moved up to 5th too in the rankings. I can only think of about 10 teams in total so thats not much of an achievement.

Sorry to be such a misery but I cant help but feel these test matches have done cricket more harm than good. Other sports like F1, tennis, boxing and football are thriving in this country, cricket needs to do something quickly

Fair ratings if you ask me. I think a few people are being a bit mean questioning Bresnan's 6. I thought he bowled reasonably well, fielded well, took a good catch. Plenty there for a 6, if not at place in the squad for Cardiff.

FWIW all things being equal here is the 13 I would select for the Swalec Stadium; Strauss (capt), Cook, Bopara, KP, Collingwood, Bell, Prior (+), Flintoff, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions or Sidebottom or Harmison, Panesar.

One bowling space in the squad up for grabs it seems to me. I guess it somewhat depends on Freddie's status. The batting seems reasonably well set after the Windies series, so from that point of view it has served England well. I think Swann has secured the number 1 spinner's spot, and then it comes down to the balance of the team I guess. 6 specialist batsmen, 2 spinners or 4 quicks and 1 spinner seems to be the 3 choices.

brandyrecovery, when did you want the declaration? 480? West Indies probably would have saved the follow on and that's a draw from then on

Also, Strauss' captaincy removed centurion Sarwan (brilliantly executed by Broad), and England never looked back from that point.

The team looks pretty good, clinically dispatching the wounded beast. Of course Australia will have fewer pie-chuckers but nobody can claim that W.I. don't have decent batsmen. The only change would obviously be Bresnan for (a fit) Flintoff, but the bowling attack looked great, any team would've had a hard time against it today.

Im thinking that we go with 4 seamers because in Bresnan, Harmy and Sidebottom we have assured wickets for back up, whereas i wouldnt trust Panesar in the ashes. He is a decent spinner but he cant field or bat, and in a series with such magnitude, you have to be class with either the bat or ball if you are useless with the other.

If Freddie is fit, he must take Bresnans place, then with Bresnan as 12th man we have a strong, in form batting line up and a dangerous looking attack

I would leave out Flintoff Vaughan and Harmison out of the ashes. Sorry but they are no longger if international standard let them go and play Twenty20. Pieterson jury still out for me.
Scores here about right I would have given Cook a 9 for his overall contribution in taking on 2 new balls and therefore making it easier for the rest of the team. Well done James Anderson.

Fair enough marks Mark, although if you were to take account of the opposition they would be factored down for me.

A few things observations. For all those wanting Cook to get 9 did you see him play? Yes he scored 160 but he still dosen't look quite right. If he'd played a flowing innings, or if the attack he was facing had been world class and he'd had to grit it out, fair enough, but as Mark said, if you just go on stats then you may as well just look at the scorecard.

Aus will be a much tougher prospect, and whilst many people are saying that England have got a confidence boosting win under thier belt, bear in mind that the T20 WC could knock a bit of the stuffing out of this feel good factor. (Remember the last World cup in England.) This series will be a distant memory by the time The Ashes come round. It was a pointless series because the WI didn't seem to take it seriously enough. They weren't just here for the appreance fee though, they justdidn't to be here full stop.

Lastly, can people please stop going on about Vaughan. He WAS an England player and now he isn't. The sooner the press just accept that he will not be up to International cricket again and stop going on about it every time he gets near 50 the better.

Pietersen scores the same as when he got the first ball duck!?

However, fair play to him. I was very critical of his playing across the line to that ball and this time he showed the full face of the bat regularly and played some beautiful straight drives because of it.

Pretty fair overall, though whilst I am a Prior fan and believe that he must be picked, I would dock him a point for having the weight on the wrong foot on the one he let through of Bresnan's.

Perhaps an extra point was due to Cook. 150+s don't grow on trees.

I really don't think Bresnan justified being selected to play against the aussies in July. He wasn't needed, against poor opposition it has to be said, he's a same same bowler, always looking to hit the same line at the same pace, he'd be destroyed by Phil Hughes etc. Anderson definitely earned a 9 with that bowling performance, Cook got a shakey 160, and was lucky, he'd never have survived against Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle Ben Hilfenhaus and the like, it's not hard to look brilliant against opposition that aren't trying. If Flintoff's fit and firing, he has to play, and I really doubt that Bopara can perform against the aussies, Bell's firing at the moment, so give Bopara a chance, but if he falls at the first hurdle, i.e Cardiff, bring Bell in.

Why is anyone talking about bringing panesar back in?! he's truly awful compared to Swann, who can bat, bowl and field, Panesar turns it on a wicket that anyone could, and has no variations.

Starting 11 for the first test :

Strauss (capt), Cook, Bopara, Pieterson, Collingwood, Prior (wkt) , Swann, Flintoff, Broad, Anderson and either Onions or Harmy

Back ups have to be Bell and Mahmood

To fedupwithelves,

How is the jury still out on Pietersen? Pietersen averages 50.49 with the bat. He has made just as many runs as H.Sutcliffe in as many Tests. Sutcliffe played 54, made 4,555 for average of 60.73, Pietersen has played 52, scored 4,494 average 50.49.
In English Test cricket Pietersen is no.15 in terms of batting average-and is no. 7 if you discount anyone who played less than 20 Tests. In modern times Pietersen is on his own easily out-scoring Thorpe, Gooch, Boycott et al. What more does the guy have to do? I feel if Pietersen averaged 99.00, the nay-sayers would still say 'well he is not averaging 100'.
I just don't get it! You don't have to like the guy, but surely you can see his average is up there with the best in English cricket.

Cant say that i disagree with the marks. I personally thought that this was a very committed and balanced test by England. A real confidence booster.

who cares ?

totallyfair

'who cares ?'

You obviously do otherwise you've completely wasted your timing reading the article and then posting a comment!!!!!!!!

tigermilkboy, could not have put it better myself. KP would walk into ANY team in the world. Actually, he's probably the only England player who would. WOuld I wish to spend time in his company? No, but who cares!

My worry is still in the wicketkeeping department. Yes, Prior is performing superbly in the batting department, but if he misses a catch, like the one he didn't go for, and Ponting goes on to score a big hundred, then that negates that contribution completely. ALong with that, he also dropped at least a couple of balls straight through from the bowler, which if they had been edges...

Until they guy turned up who wants to drop all the batsmen except Owais Shah followed by the one who wants to sack the captain for not getting the declaration wrong and drop Collingwood for only being able to deal with Australia and South Africa by scoring centuries against them, and one or two people who think that an England win is by definition a nail in the coffin of test cricket, I was getting worried. Responding to a player ratings piece by saying that it was generally fair and if anything didn't give people enough credit? That is not the kind of whining negativity that England expects from its supporters.

Fortunately the responses demanding Collingwood's removal were so gloriously full of factual inaccuracies, ridiculous interpretations and ludicrous alternatives that they restore confidence - but it was a close run thing for a minute there.

Re: NoMoreSweeping,

Totally share your concern and argument about Prior and his keeping. Right now I don't see how England can not select him due to his batting-his career average is close to 50. Part of me wishes he would give up the gloves and just bat, then we would have real competition in the batting line-up.

"IF" Flintoff gets fit, lets hope there isn't any tinkering or tweaking of the batting line-up. Let Flintoff bowl and bat at 7, Broad 8, Swann 9 would give England plenty of depth. Feeling we will need every run and wicket against Australia.

flintoff should not just walk back into the team, yes he's a great bowler but he has to take lots of wickets for Lancashire first. I feel sorry for Bresnan he has bowled harldly any overs, batted once and got given out wrongly, he took the catches that came his way.
When he did get a decent spell, he swung the old ball as much as Anderson and got three wickets.
What more does he have to do?
You can't be a great bowler if you only get less than 20 overs in 3 innings, can you?

For the second test match at Chester-le-Street:

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

However, marks for the series would look like this, in my opinion:


Strauss- 6 (1 extra mark for his rotation of bowlers, e.c.t.)
Cook- 8
Bopara- 9
Pietersen- 5
Collingwood- 6
Prior- 7
Broad- 8
Swann- 8
Bresnan- 6 (mainly because he wasn't given much of a chance)
Anderson- 8
Onions- 8

Man of the Match for Lord's- Graeme Swann
Man of the Match for Chester-le-Street- James Anderson
Man of the Series: Ravi Bopara

Mark,
I don't understand why fielding does not come into your calculations, Strauss for instance being a safe pair of hands, over and above his batting and captaincy accomplishments. You will have been steeped in the Sainsbury tradition and must appreciate the fielding art, after all?
And let's award marks to the umpires, a serious demerit for de Silva's finger to dismiss Gayle.

is anyone else still out there or am I too late to contribute?

EddieOnTheWing has summed up most of what I wanted to say, so I would just like to agree with those saying that Flintoff should not stroll back into the side the moment he is fit. England's Ashes hopes should not hang on such a long shot. This is a man whose form with the bat has been woeful, whose bowling has not hit previous heights (though it's still been very good), and who, unlike Jonny Wilkinson's bad luck with injuries, suffers repeated relapses of the same injury problems, reducing the hope that he can ever put together a long period of fitness. Of course, I hope these fears prove unfounded, but when and if the time comes, he should be picked for England on form, not on reputation.

I feel like just mentioning a couple of things to thin air so apologies to anyone still reading this....
Let's please really look at the side and work out if it's strong enough to beat the Aussies....who, let's face it, are a lesser team than they were last time round but still have plenty of talent in abundance.
Let's not consider Harmison and Vaughan.....supporter nerves simply don't allow for the Ashes to be lost with a first ball to second slip nor, indeed, a first ball to second slip!

Indelibly printed on the team sheet have to be:

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Pietersen

Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson


Who will bat at 5? and who will make up either the second spinner (for Cardiff anyway) and is Mr. Onions the genuine article? Probably.
Colly....determined battler etc doesn't inspire confidence....when he is out of touch with the bat it is painful...and when he's got a bit of form it looks....painful! We need a number 5 who will be their at the end if necessary....viz Chanderpaul....he is not of that ability or class despite all his other fantastic attributes. It seems to me that the selectors are effectively saying 'Well, Colly, you've got 6 Ashes innings to prove you're up to it....loyalty precludes us from making the right decision for English Cricket right now, and you have scored some runs, surprisingly, but it is the Ashes, you know, and we have to make sure we've got the best man for this job, you know.'
Doesn't everyone feel that?????

I wonder if Freddie's current injury might be a blessing in disguise in the end. Keeps him out of the T20 world cup and means he can get some decent overs in for Lanashire before the Ashes, or breakdown and we can give it up for good and work out how to get along without him. But of he is match fit (note match fit) just his presence alone means he has to be in the 1st test team. And he is still as good a bowler as there is in England when he is fit. I think with Fred as all rounder then 5 bowlers works well, he can nail 12-15 overs a day, and even if he doesn't take wickets, he creates the pressure for others to take them.

The way I see it, England are clearly second best vs Australia without Flintoff right now, with him fit and ready they are competitive.

Okay. Scoring a century against a fagged-out attack that is suffering from a large dose of apathy is not the same as taking a century off a pumped-up Australian attack. So 8 for Ravi Bopara is fair.

So, what scale are we using when the substitute fielder gets just one point less? And players who failed to reach 50 get just 2 points less?

However, I do agree that Andrew Strauss showed some neat touches, such as keeping Tim Bresnan on to see if he could do his confidence some good.

LordHughes, I assume that this is a new guise for "Fairandbalanced", who gained fame for his total contempt for any team that was not India.

I agree with the idea that Andrew Flintoff should be made to score runs and take wickets before playing. He should play at least two County Championship matches to show that he can last 4 days and show that his form deserves selection. At his best Freddy is inspired, but it's a while since we have seen him at his very best. Injuries have not helped, but he has not taken a lot of Test wickets and has not scored a lot of runs recently, however good he has looked with the ball.

Hmm, so Pietersen gets a 6 here for nearly getting a half century, the same as he did in the first test for a golden duck. Can someone from the Beeb explain the scoring methodology please? Ta.

Stop moaning and be glad of seeing signs of progress! Under Peter Moores too many players (particularly Panesar) regressed, so to see Anderson come on, backed up with Broad and the "overnight sensation" Swann is pleasing.
Batting is a worry, but there's no point going back to recently tried players. Ian Bell is just Ramprakash with a central contract - talented but flawed at the top level. Shah is a bag of nerves. Vaughan has been outstanding but his time has gone. If there's any thought to replace any batter then selectors must look to fresh blood.
Strauss has been excellent in charge (and was 3 years ago against Pakistan), the tail appears shorter and the fielding is better. Australia will be very tough, but Johnson apart, their bowling looks thin.

Rating these players under such dreadful, unfriendly circumstances against such a demoralised, depleted, rag-tag West Indian squad is an epitomical example of self-aggrandizing, self-gloating vanity. What a waste of space!

Yeah sure, they moved up a notch to 5 (whoopee!), then, after they got their asses royally whipped by the Aussies, then what, back down to a pathetic 4 or 3?

"Doesn't everyone feel that?????"

No,it amazes me that anyone feels that.

I suspect that COllingwood (a bit like Hoggard) will be one of those players that many fans don't really appreciate until he is gone and we have to try to replace him.

I really don't get why he is criticised so often, pretty much regardless of his performances.

Also, Strauss' captaincy removed centurion Sarwan (brilliantly executed by Broad), and England never looked back from that point.

How does Swann (1 wicket) score 6, the same as Bresnan (3 wickets)? For being a "popular member of the side"?

Bresnan hardly got a chance all series and when he finally did he picked up 3 wickets and bowled with pace and brains, yet Athers was slating him in The Times yesterday and Aggers has a dig in his ´óÏó´«Ã½ column too (pot calling the kettle ref. "old-fashioned county seamer").

Let's give him a decent run in the side and then pass judgement rather than knocking him after a steady start.

No 36 i think youll find gayle gloved one behind and nicked one behind in the second innings off anderson and was given not out twice by steve davis so things do even themselves out. Sky claimed the decisions were correct but channel 5 proved that wrong with snicko

I also think bresnan could be very handy if the ball swings. The cold weather hasnt shown that in these 2 tests but later in the year when its warmer he could be useful. He does however need to improve his accuaracy because he bowls too many 4 balls an over at the moment.

I think that Scott Borthwick needs to stop messing about with all this cricket malarky and start concentrating on the 2012 olympics - The kid is rapid!

With regards to KP - ask yourself this;

Is he our most naturally talented batsman? (bar possibly Ian Bell) - Yes
Is his test average more than 50? - Yes
Can adapt his game to suit different situations so England get the right result? - When needs must - Yes
Is he regarded by the other test playing nations as the key wicket in Englands batting line-up? - Yes
Does he relish that fact? - Yes ,

So lets be honest, the jury can't still out can it? He is a must for the Ashes, so he sometimes tries to get to the landmarks with a flurry, its the fact that he's getting close that is important and maybe the aforementioned Mr Bell needs to take this on board as I think he could have a pivitol role to play for England in the future - He needs a bit of fire! He needs to react to getting dropped and put pressure on Bopara - the same with Harmy although he is in a slightly better situation and again could be important to us in future series- especially abroad on flat lifeless pitches when we need a bit of pace and bounce as opposed to relying on swing - its important not to get carried away with the success of Englands attack in this test against an Inexperienced Windies - although the performances of Anderson, Broad & Onions were bonuses - However I think Englands key man this summer could be Greame Swann. Cardiff is clearly going to be a turning pitch as the outfield drys quickly and draws moisture from the pitch itself - the first test is important and I think England could be back to their old problem of taking 20 wickets to win a test match and I can see Swanny bowling plenty of overs! We need to gett key wickets like Ponting and Symonds (If he plays, which I'm confident he will)and If Swanny is going to be bowling big overs - he becomes massive! Especially to the left -handers.

Good to see Jimmy A , Onions and Broad smashing few people up as well - we need fire and flashpoints to get under the Aussies Skins' circa Simon Jones and Matty Hayden, Plenty of chirp and stare - Also good to see England so good in the field!

It's all shaping up so beautifully! - I Cannot Wait!!

Strauss deserves higher.
Coming when he did as Captain I think he has done a superb job or pulling this team together.

"Lets praise our boys as much as possible!"

No let's not! Look what happened after the last Ashes! Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen I say!

Bresnan deserves a fair chance against world-class opponents to prove his mettle! Because others did so well against a weak, cold, disinterested opponent, he was essentially odd man out!

I think the selectors know that! As for Flintoff, he should pack it in or have the selectors do it for him! He has become a real liability, not to mention his weight and fitness issues! It would be a huge mistake to include him in the Ashes. Ditto Panesar!

I'd suggest that we would be delighted to have Chanderpaul playing for us as a batsman - incredibly resilient, refuses to quit, difficult to remove. Yes, unwatchable at points, because he has one of the ugliest techniques in the game. BUT, any team in the world would take him in a flash. Now, if you consider Collingwood, he basically does the same job for England. Do you really want to lose that sort of player? For my money, Collingwood is the most consistently underrated of the English batsmen, and is a superb fielder. How would we replace that?

The marks are basically pretty fair, although I'd probably give Broad 7.5. But maybe you don't do halves?

Colly gets sooo much flack from the English public. For me, this is completely undeserved. First of all, he has a fantastic test average, and has scored runs against the 2 top teams (SA & Aus). Second of all, most people seem to think that because he is ugly to watch he is not of good enough quality - cough cough Boycott. Finally, Colly provides something which the other Batsmen don't - grit and determination. He really VALUES his wicket, in a way the other batsmen don't, and for that reason alone he is needed for the balance he provides.

As for post 39, it is fair to say that what you are suggesting is we need someone in the batting line up to replace Colly, who plays like Shiv. Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds given Colly IS just like Shiv - impossible to dislodge and with a slightly unorthodox technique.

As for the scores - all seem fair to me. I would point out that WI have 3 top quality batsmen, so the fact the bowlers skittled them so easily is worth pointing out. By a similar rationale, the Batsmen have yet to be properly tested this summer.

To the people who nothing about cricket who continue to post ridiculous comments.

Flintoff is an inspiration to the team. Hostile, bowls 90mph, has the ability to reverse swing and is probably the best in the world at bowling the yorker. A must for the ashes. You only have to go back to the series in the Windies to see how effective he was. Last home series against South Africa his performances were inspriring.

Collingwood has done NOTHING wrong! He is consistently one of Englands best batsmen. Strauss, Cook, Bell, Shah, Vaughn have recently been dropped because of bad form. Has Collingwood? No because he has never been in a rut like these guys have! Also a ridiculous comment to suggest that he under performs when under pressure. He relishes the pressure and produces his trademark gritty, determined innings when in the given situation. Also he can turn his game around and shine in 20/20 and 50 over cricket.

If you watched the recent test series in the Carribean you will see that the test matches that Monty Panesar was asked to play in (after being dropped) he bowled beautifully. I remember one passage of play where he had Chris Gayle in all sorts of trouble! Yes Chris Gayle one of the most destructive batsmen in international cricket. A must for a test match that requires 2 spinners. Adil Rashid has the potential and variety but not the experience. This time next year Rashid will be a force.

If im wrong please tell me but Panesar's most recent performances have done nothing but encourage England and further strenghen the spin bowling department.

What is it with people being negative about bresnan, the guy has done nothing wrong in these 2 tests. He didnt get the chance to get a reasonable score. His fielding was superb, and when given a decent spell with the ball he had the west indies in trouble.

Freddie cant just walk back into the team, he needs to prove he is back to full fitness and in the form to justify his selection. The selectors shouldnt pick on reputation like the england football team is.

The two subs mentioned fielded excellently but, especially in Ashes games, it strikes me as absurd to have anyone on the field who is not already a Test cricketer. It is a daunting experience to go out and field against a side as tough as the Aussies, probably for the first time in front of a big crowd. They are not always county players even.

A certain condescending panderer to Panesar and Flintoff appears to be afflicted by short-memory syndrome. All he needs to do is look back to the recent series in the Caribbean and review the evidence:

Without Prejudice:


Q: Why is Flintoff a veritable liability on the England team?

A: Because he has become injury prone largely as a result of the excessive body weight he carries around. When you are bounding in from 30 yards to bowl, such excessive over weight puts enormous stress on the joints each time you land. One does not have to go to medical school to understand this.

It is obvious that he will continue to be dogged by these types of injuries until such time as he takes meaningful remedial action to reduce the weight. His indiscipline and over-indulgences, as embarrassingly surfaced in the boating incident in Trinidad & Tobago in the last WC, are all contributory factors to his fitness woes. Im not convinced that he takes fitness seriously.


As for the other liability Panesar, England are clearly doing well without him. Graeme Swann has shown that he can bowl effectively while contributing with the bat as well, which you cannot say for Panesar. Like a limpet, he is embarrassingly slow on the field. It cannot be considered a step forward toward building a successful future with players like him.

The selectors have rightfully sacked him. Additionally, he appears to be ignorant of the Laws of cricket as is evidenced by his relentless in-your-face appealing, often when the ball is pitched prodigiously outside leg-stump or when the batsman is struck outside off-stump playing a legitimate cricket stroke.

Such exuberance, unquestionably, has resulted in costly LBW decisions being turned down. Im certain a more disciplined, athletic youngster can be found to replace this liability.

It's interesting to compare these ratings with those on a certain very popular cricket website (other websites are available). There is a wider range in the alternative list, which also rates the West Indians.

There's no point getting over-excited, but you can only beat what's in front and England beat them well. The foot went on the throat and did not slip. And, as has been pointed out, having to work so hard for wickets all winter has not done the attack too much harm in acquiring street smarts. Whisper it quietly, but the Australian attack is not very experienced and has yet to be properly tested in unfriendly conditions. They look good, but they will have to walk the walk rather than just limiting themselves to talking the talk and hoping that we'll be impressed.

@ Splendid Sparrow,

Are you saying you wouldn't have Flintoff in your team? Who would you have? His enthusiasm alone inspires the side. Yes agreed we are doing well without either, however these additions add strength and depth to an England side who haven't had this strength in depth for years. Too long we have been scratching the surface for half decent players. Agreed they are not world class (imo bar Pietersen and Jimmy) but a side that do have the variety in batting and bowling to regain the ashes! I bet the aussies would have Panesar in their side any day because they lack a spinner, I bet they would have Stuart Broad in their side, I bet they would have Jimmy, Colly and KP. Let's try and look at the positives. We have 2 decent spinners, one left arm, one right arm, both can tear sides apart on their day. Freddie I believe their is no arguement. I do not care how injury prone he is, I don't care how eccentric he is outside of cricket. All I care about is seeing him perform on the cricket field, which he does with all his heart and soul even if he is injured he is the man who puts in the effort whether we are 300-1 or 100-6. Personally I believe we can win back the ashes as we have a better squad than 2005, more depth, more variety. You must remember that the aussies are missing certain destroyers in Warne, Mcgrath and the forgotten man Gilchrist.

Leftarm, in 2005 were England world class? Before the series the experts felt that in a hypothetical combined side, a minimum of 8 and possibly as many as 10 Australians would have played.

Cricket is a team game and sides like New Zealand have proved time and time again that the whole can be far more than the sum of the parts.

Stargazer, I agree with you! I'm saying we are an improved side and the Aussies have gone backwards! In a combined side I would only chose Ponting, Johnson, Symonds and M Clarke. Maybe Brett Lee? Would you choose any others?

It's a difficult one to answer as so many of the side are either new or trying to come back. There is a general feeling (particularly among Australians with short memories) that the Australian attack is rather special and will blow anyone away. In fact, they are pretty untried and not very experienced. On paper the seam attack looks very strong, but then we thought that of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz and, of them, only McGrath averaged under 40. Australians always embue their attack with mythical superhuman powers: often they have been right, as in 2006/07 but the current attack is not as balanced and, at times, took a terrible pasting from the Indians and South Africans. In fact, it is fair to say that England gave India more problems in India than Australia did.

England are still the underdogs and it will be a major surprise if we win, but the matter is not as cut and dried as our Antipodean cousins would like to make out. In Anderson, Broad, Flintoff, Onions and Swann we have an attack that looks more than useful. In particular, the 2005 Australians tucked-in to Anderson, but will find a much better spinner and a much more dangerous Anderson in this side. Stuart Broad is developing fast and has a chance to make people sit up and take notice.

I don't think that the England attack will lose too much by comparison with the Australians and, in particular, Brett Lee has to demonstrate that he can bowl in English conditions and without Glenn McGrath to tie up an end for him: to date he's never really done it against credible opposition.

I like the idea of these player ratings after a Test, but can we use a scale that makes sense? These are so devalued that they remind me of American school grades, which are equally meaningless.

First, you need to tell us what the range of this scale is. Is 1-10 all Test level cricket, or is anything below 5 just village cricket? If it is supposed to be Test level cricket all the way down, then you have to give some scores below six once in a while, or you lose all credibility.

There should be an average range of 4-7. Someone who does poorly should be below 4 or the scale is pointless. I have NEVER seen a score below 5 that I remember. To score a golden duck and still get a six (as happened recently) is ridiculous, like giving a student high marks just for being present. 8-10 should be reserved for extraordinary performances.

As a relatively new cricket fan, I would like actually to learn something from this rating. The way it is now reveals nothing of any significance.

A better commentator than anyone on this board once said that you should do what your opponents would least like you to do.

As a result of the various commercial manoeuvrings since 2005, we've not got a game at Old Trafford (traditionally a spinner's wicket, where England seem to have an advantage - not because ours are world-beaters, but Australia don't have much to sing about) and Trent Bridge (a swing-bowler's wicket, where we seem to have a pretty good option at the moment).
So, we've got Cardiff (bit of a lottery, may turn square), Lords (inspires everyone bar England), Edgbaston (10 for Warne last time round), Headingley (traditionally a horses for courses pitch, but reckon England will struggle against Clark and Johnson) and The Oval (fast and suits big spinners).

It's not a case of what Bresnan "deserves" to try him out for a couple of tests, it's what will win the Ashes for England. So, if you were the Australian team looking at the England team, you might be concerned about Bresnan at Headingley, but would he really be a better option than Flintoff, Anderson, Broad and Onions?

I'd have thought that based on availability, England will aim to play nine of those from the last test, drop Bresnan for Flintoff, and then choose between Onions and Panesar for the last spot depending on the pitch. If the weather remains as dry as it has done this year (where most of the 5-wicket hauls in the Friends Provident have been spinners), we may see more of Monty.

The thing that pleased me most about the results against the Windies was that the team seemed more balanced. Almost like, well, a team.

Maybe it was just the commentary I read, but it seemed like the bowlers were actually enjoying themselves while causing the opposition some genuine stress. Done, I would add, in the absence of Flintoff who many still seem to think of as one-half-of-the-messiah.

Meanwhile, some of the batsmen were posting useful scores at the same time as the-other-half-of-the-messiah (Pietersen) was not.

I think Strauss is a better captain than he is given credit for, and so are his declarations. He wasn't the captain that declared before 600 in the second test in Australia. If he had been the captain, England might not have gone into the 3rd test knowing and believing they were already finished.

If they can keep this up, then they may even be in with a good shout by the time someone wheels out McGrath to make his 5-0 prediction.

It's funny that we are missing the usual suspects who would normally come on here and post "two wins against a side that isn't even Test standard and you think that you are world beaters".

It's funny what a difference a couple of months makes. Last winter England played some palatably good cricket, but lost both series due to crucial lapses. We should have at least drawn and probably won the 1st Test v India and we should never ever have lost the 1st Test v the West Indies. Both times the side played catch-up and had to slog hard in a vain attempt to recover. That battling did the side good and has bourne its fruit in these first two Tests. A pitch that looked flat and a certain draw, especially with more than a day's play lost, suddenly became a minefield when England bowled. Why? because they had learnt to battle for their wickets. The funny thing is that in 2005 the Australians laughed at our attack and many England fans doubted that it would be good enough to stem the tide. Many England fans seriously doubted that Simon Jones was Test-class having been so sparingly used.

The pieces seem to be falling into place. The 1st Test will not be at Lords, rather on a possible big turner at Cardiff (something that has upset the Australians no end) and the side looks to be gelling. Maybe the Australians might discover that this is not the walkover that they expected. It would be nice to give them something to whinge about.

Am I the only one that feels that Pieterson gets a minimum of 6 for being KP? His batting has been fair below par of late and although better than some others in the team he should be crushing teams like the Windies for century after century, but he plays "his way" and will underachieve more often than not.
Hopefully Australia will make him wake up to play with some responsibility otherwise I will wonder why he is there.

To attempt to assign a single digit number to a Cricketer's performance in a Test series, albeit of only two matches is rediculous. Cricket is a team game and England wom 2-0, each match by a huge margin.They could do no more. The fact that you assign the lowest mark to the 100% successful England Captain and higher marks to the young England subs. shows how fatuous the whole exercise is. I have come to expect such misuse of mathematics by football pundits who know no better, but not from cricket writers. What next?

I'd say all the boys deserve 10 out of 10 for such a splendid performance. In addition I've asked matron to bake one of her delicious sponge cakes, to be shared amongst the whole team.

Full colours awarded to Bopara and Anderson - half colours for young Onions.

The Headmaster

Cook can have 9 for me but lets not kid ourselves his footwork is woeful and despite an outstanding temperament he will come up short against the Aussies.
How can Prior get 7 he just cant keep and even a proud Yorkshireman like myself cannot give Bresnan 6 he is not an International, Broad has done well and Anderson has exceeded my expectations.
i am still waiting to see Anderson under pressure before i believe all this 'world beater' stuff !
We need two spinners against the Aussies and cant believe we have not given Rashid a go against the Windies.

Firstly, to anyone who thinks colly only scores when england are winning, then you should see when his centuries have come and i think more than 75% have come when england have lost.

Also, i am a huge fan of onions, but i feel his inclusion on the ashes squad is very much still up in the air. Five tail end wickets in the 1st test and 6 overs for 46 runs against a chris gayle who didt even want to be in england doesn't inspire me, if jimmy and stuart are struggling an onions has to come on and bowl at phil hughes.

Also, bresnan merits his place in the team as his only spell of great length got him 3 wickets!

Also,is prior any better than collingwood at wicket keeper?I'd have collingwood at wk and then bring in hildreth or vaughan or bell!

Lets not push Stuart Broad too early, No.7 is too high for him at this time. We don't need 5 front line bolwers, 4 will be ample, If Freddie is fit great, that's a bonus, he can bat at No.7 and Broad No.8. If Freddie is not fit, we need an extra batsman. Paul Collingwood, Ravi Bopara and even Kevin Pieterson can between them, make up the fifth bowler.

I would agree with tigermilkboy re: KP. Though it's fair to say England have enjoyed patchy form since the last home Ashes, it's a comparative modern luxury to see the England top 6 all averaging over 40, two [with Cook] over 45 and one over 50. Lest we forget, the revolving door of some-hit [and miss] wonders successively anihilated by Oz barely manages to register any kind of figure.

I beleive I'm right in saying that only Caddick, Hoggard, Gough have managed 200+ test wickets for England since the likes of a certain IT Botham, yet we have two to choose from this upoming series, both of whom might stuggle to make the squad [for different reasons]. It's rare even for us to have a spinner with 100+ wickets, he's availble, and yet supplanted by someone who may even better those exploits - and can bat as well. We have a wicketkeeper averaging 45+, the quicket to achieve 1,000 runs in that position.

Lies, damned lies .... and statistics, but why are we moaning? It's Australia that has more to prove, believe me.

Marks seem fair, wonderful to see Bopara and Onions doing great jobs against a relatively un interested opposition though.. jury remains out on the team until we've faced the old foe! Mr Pietersen will certainly have the opportunity to put his travails behind him and prove his standing as potentially the Best batsman of all bowling around, can he do it? I guess the juries out on that one too!

At 3:57pm on 18 May 2009, StandfreeFM wrote:
I think the ratings are for this test alone and not the series. Agree with those above, Cook deserved a nine for his 160.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it's worth noting that going by usual ´óÏó´«Ã½ form, Ian Bell probably got about 7 for his 199 v. South Africa, and if he had scored this 160 he'd have got 6 and a comment that once again he gave it away when set. So an 8 for Cook seems pretty fair.

Take three points off them all as the Windies were dire and that better assesses where we are in relation to the Aussies.
Those bowlers will be chicken fodder to the Aussies and players like Collingwood Prior and Swan need not turn up.
I reckon 5-0 to the Aussies.

Er, you gave KP a 6 for his duck in the first test. Now he gets a decent 40-something and it's 6 again?
Can you explain?

8 out of 10 for Alastair Cook making 160.

Bradman averaged 99.99. So a typical Bradman innings would score 5 out of 10 then?