BBC Blog Network

User Profile

battingwitharunner

Listed below are comments made by battingwitharunner between Sunday, 2nd November 2008 and Monday, 20th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Second Ashes Test - player ratings 9:11pm on 20 Jul 2009 33. dave_h wrote:
The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs. It was clear from the Aussie second innings performance that the wicket wasn't deteriorating. He should have put the Aussies straight back in, the follow-on is a huge psychological advantage, as well as helping to guarantee a result.
-------------------------------------------------------------
erm, remind me again, who won the match?

We won by 115 runs. That's a pretty emphatic endorseement of Strauss's decisions, don't you think?

P.S. What results have enforcing the follow on guaranteed in recent years? ;)
Ashes player ratings - First Test 12:51pm on 13 Jul 2009 Softandfluffy:
Harmison is on fire and bowling at his best - for Durham. We know all about this. But there is a chance that he might do the same at Lord's so I see why people want him back. Unfortunately you can't rely on him time and time again and meanwhile other bowlers don't get their chance. Onions is also at his best and played two tests v. W. Indies, not just the one. I know there's a huge difference between WI and Australia but he is an experienced bowler who has honed his craft, unlike Broad who was selected for test cricket on potential, batting ability and good results in ODIs. His youth and inexperience showed at Cardiff but hopefully Onions has that bit more experience and a good head on his shoulders.

This sounds as if I'm wanting to replace Broad with Onions, but it was just for comparison. I think Onions should come in for a spinner (sorry it has to be Panesar). The selectors might stick with Broad - heaven knows he's kept his place while others around him have been dropped - Anderson, Sidebottom in the West Indies, etc.
Ashes player ratings - First Test 02:48am on 13 Jul 2009 Cricketing_stargazer wrote:
Steve Harmison has rarely let England down in home Tests, even if he is a reluctant tourist. He bowled well for the Lions v Australia and probably bought Phillip Hughes' wicket for Andrew Flintoff. He is also desperate to play again and his form is showing it. Having had a dreadful start to the season he now has 42 wickets @ 19.4 this season, behind only Graeme Onions' 54 @ 16.8 and way ahead of the third highest wicket-taker (Liam Plunkett, with 31 @ 24.7).

If the pitch has some pace, play him now, while he is in form. The selectors faced a similar dilema last season and delayed picking him too late v South Africa but he made a significant impact when he did play. If not, let him know that he's in the mix and go with Onions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Harmison is more reliable in home tests. But England need to build a team that can play in all tests. This horses for courses stuff just doesn't work. And I don't know why you are quoting all his county figures. Every year he gets into form with Durham but he is different when playing for England. Yes he came back strongly at the Oval last summer but went off the boil again once the winter tours got underway. What are England supposed to do? Pick someone else to tour, he does brilliantly, but then drop him back in England because Harmison has taken a couple of fivefers at Durham?
If you're talking county cricket, his team mate Onions has done better than Harmison, he played a couple of test matches and did well, and he is younger. Time for England to move on, I'm afraid, Harmison has let them down too many times.
And talking of being afraid, do you seriously believe that the Aussies "fear" Harmison - after 2006/7?? I don't think so! He roughed Hughes up, something Flintoff was capable of doing and did.
Ashes player ratings - First Test 02:32am on 13 Jul 2009 sisterkaren wrote:
If I was Kevin Pietersen I would quit if the man scored 200 evertime he batted people on here would still not be satisfied.
He is an unorthodox player who scores runs by the shed load and has done from the word go. He got out to a poor shot in the first innings. Was he alone in doing this no he wasn't so did Cook Strauss Bopara Collingwood and Flintoff. In the second he misjudged a delivery Cook strauss Bopara Priorall played poor shots.
The thing that struck me was Collingwood's dismisal today. I like Colly he is good at grinding it out.His innings was heroic and he was out playing a poor shot. If that had been KP he would have been crucified at that stage in the game with 40 minutes go.
We have one set of standards for KP and a much lower set for everybody else. The other batsmen know they can play poorly or play stupid shots to get out as KP will either score lots of runs or top score with out a century and get slated by the media while no other batsmen is mentioned for their mistakes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SisterKaren you have got things totally out of proportion here. If KP scored 200 every innings we would be delighted. In fact he doesn't even need to do that. But with his ability we would like him to get big scores that really make a difference.
As to Collingwood's dismissal this afternoon, I think you are being really hard on the man. There is no comparison with the Pietersen dismissals. It was Colly's first error or lapse of concentration in over 5 and a half hours at the crease - 344 minutes to be precise. That's 31 minutes longer than it took Ricky Ponting to score 150. Collingwood was grinding out time and the runs were less important. Yes, he fell before the job was complete and it could all have been different but for the resolve of the numbers 10 and 11. But at least he took them nearly all the way and set the example, and your criticism is way off the mark. If KP had played that innings - unlikely that he would have - we would not have complained.
You're right though that the rest of the top order failed miserably and they also deserve criticism.
Ashes player ratings - First Test 9:44pm on 12 Jul 2009 Well I say bravo for giving Anderson a 9. We are well used to him getting 5s and 6s and being told that he is just too inconsistent even when he's been the best bowler on show. 9 is rather generous but I'll take it on this occasion.
But as for what The Hand Of Hidden Forces says:
"As for their batting [Anderson and Monty], they performed well enough - but really, they were just in the right place at the right time, with just enough time having been lost to weather and light throughout the test for them to hang on."
Words fail me! Just in the right place at the right time? They faced 83 balls between them. Anderson survived more than 18 overs and Panesar over 11. The key word is "survived" - while all the proper batsmen got in and got out as if they didn't fully understand that to secure the draw they had to prize their wickets and not give them away. All except the hero Collingwood, of course, the real star of the innings.
England player ratings 11:13pm on 21 May 2009 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 BBC 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.
England player ratings 7:05pm on 09 May 2009 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.
England player ratings 4:59pm on 09 May 2009 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.
England player ratings 00:52am on 11 Mar 2009 It's unbelievable that Shah gets 6 and Prior just half a point more.

Shah scored a total of 133 runs in 6 inns at an average of 22.16 while Prior scored 310 at 77.5 from the same no. of innings. Prior in fact tops the batting averages among the players who played regularly during the series (Bopara had just the one match). A hell of a difference wouldn't you say?

Yes, Prior had a few problems behind the stumps but his own efforts with the bat easily wipe out the byes conceded. I think Prior probably deserves 7 and Shah about 3. And I also am disappointed that Shah failed to seize his opportunity after waiting for it so long.
Stanford parade raises serious concerns 2:42pm on 02 Nov 2008 The element of the competition that failed was the English element. The Superstars had a six week training camp and it showed, they beat all comers with a disciplined performance. That the final match was a one-sided affair is not the fault of Allen Stanford and the Antiguan hosts but the fault of the ECB and the England team for snubbing the organisers and behaving like spoilt kids who'd rather be somewhere else.

Belatedly KP says they should have bought in to the tournament. He looks silly saying it now, though, after they've been humiliated.

Given English attitudes, it would have been better if the ECB had never agreed to participate in this event. However, once they had signed up to it, they should have bitten the bullet and gone through with it in a positive manner. After all, if they'd won, they'd have been perfectly happy to take the money. I suspect some of them or their WAGS had already started spending it, no wonder they looked fed up.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

battingwitharunner