England series rankings
By former England captain Graham Gooch
So England wrapped up a 3-0 Test series victory over the West Indies - but just how good was the performance of the England side?
I have ranked the players in reverse order leading to my choice of England's MVP (most valuable player) - so here we go...
13 Owais Shah
Only one opportunity in this series which he didn't take - but I am certain he can come good in the future.
12 Liam Plunkett
Liam is a young cricketer I have got a lot of time for. I think he has all the attributes to be an international quality bowler. He's tall, with the ability to move the ball away from the right-handed batsman - at the top level this is a priceless asset. Sadly, in this series his radar was awry, and he needs to work hard on his consistency with the new bowling coach Allan Donald and get some overs under his belt in county cricket. On the positive side he is still only 22-years-old and is a very handy lower-order batsman.
11 Andrew Strauss
Although he had his best match of the series at the Riverside, scoring 77 in the first innings, it was scored against what is a decidedly ordinary bowling attack. In my opinion, he needs to work hard on his footwork. Having been through bad patches myself, it's not always easy to keep your confidence levels up. Andrew is a good player and must always believe in his abilty. He needs to make improvements especially in transferring his weight backwards and forwards. This will help him improve his play when the ball is pitched up to him. International bowlers quickly work out your weaknesses and prey on them. A spell in county cricket might be a solution and I'm confident he will return a better player.
10 Matthew Hoggard
Dependable as ever when he returned to the side after recovering from injury. Chester-le-Street was tailor-made for his style of bowling. When he swings the ball, he is as effective as any new-ball bowler in the world .
9 Steve Harmison
A return of 16 wickets at 34 in the series is not good enough for a bowler of his menace against this quality of opposition. No doubt he has worked hard on his technique, but he needs to find a more consistent rhythm. He bowled at his best on his home turf at the Riverside, where his last spell here was highly impressive, using the conditions well. If England are to challenge Australia in the next Ashes, Harmison will have to be a factor. One of the reasons England were toothless last winter was because their premier fast bowler didn't turn up.
8 Paul Collingwood
Reliable as ever - the worker in the engine room of the team. He is not the most stylish player, but he can be counted on when it matters. At 31 years of age, he is still improving. It will be interesting to see how his game stands up if he is given the extra responsibilty of the one-day captaincy.
7 Ian Bell
Wasn't tested to any extent by this West Indies attack, but I would like to see him impose himself a bit more, create a presence at the crease and let the opposition know that he is about. This, I believe, will take him to a new level and see him become a feared match-winner in the England set-up.
6 Matt Prior
Won the race for the wicket-keeper berth by a short head from other contenders and made an impressive debut at Lord's, scoring a maiden century. He is a counter-attacking batsman, who showed in the final Test that he has the bottle to bat in difficult circumstances. What I like about him is he has plenty of self-confidence. As long as the runs keep flowing he will be excused the odd mistake with the gloves. Has so far justfied Peter Moores's faith in him.
5 Ryan Sidebottom
Standard bearer for the county game. The selectors gave him a second chance and it showed that Team England is not a closed shop. He used the conditions well at Leeds and Chester-le-Street and the inexperienced West Indies batsmen struggled against this traditional English swing bowler. As a left-armer he adds variety to the squad and I'll be keeping a close eye on the battle for bowling places to see if he can stay in the side.
4 Michael Vaughan
Given the media hype that always surrounds the England captain, he rose to the challenge with flying colours in his comeback match with a century at Headingley. I thought that innings, apart from its technical merit, showed great heart and character. He was copping flak from all quarters regarding preferential treatment as captain and there were question marks over his form and readiness for the Test, but a fit and firing Vaughan is an asset to the England Test team. His leadership has class and cunning - his next challenge will be to see if he can bring the best out of Andrew Flintoff following the "Fredalo" affair.
3 Alastair Cook
People will accuse me of Essex bias, but there is no doubt this lad has an extra touch of class. He is very mature for a 22-year-old and already an established Test match player. But he still has years to develop and enhance his game and I have no doubt that if he is given a chance in the one-day format we will get the same result.
2 Monty Panesar
Three five-wicket hauls in the series is testament to his control and skill as a match-winning Test spinner. West Indies couldn’t cope wth his variety and abilty to turn the ball, even on non-responsive pitches. Although they are no Australia, his figures make a mockery of his non-selection at the start of last winter's Ashes series. If he continues to develop, learning more about the art of flight and control, he could become one of the best English spinners of all time.
1 Kevin Pietersen
Star quality, box office, extrovert, entertainer, risk taker - these are the words and phrases that come to mind when I think about KP's considerable skill. He is learning to add composure and innings management to his undoubted stroke-making skills and his double century was possibly the highlight of the series.
Collingwood 8th?
Complain about this postWas Gooch watching a different series to me? How many times did he haul an England innings back on track? Two tons and plenty of cameo roles as well.
Excellent article, and I would generally agree, especially with the top 4. Ian Bell baffles me though - as a long time England-watcher I have yet to see any true reason for the selectors perseverance with him. He only scores runs when the team is not under pressure - i.e. first innings, and usually only when someone in front of him has scored big already. Its not good enough. This is the best all-round England side in many, many years, and he is letting it down.
Complain about this posti agree KP is an amazing talent and i am very happy we have him, but a top quality english spinner is absolutely priceless. alongside the skipper (MV) he would be the number 1 name on my team sheet regardless of pitch conditions every time
Phil,
Complain about this postPerth Western Australia
I cannot agree with KP being so high, most of his runs were scored with England already having being given a good start.
For me he should rank behind Cook and Monty.
I still have niggling doubts that Pieterson is primarily a selfish individual who is unable to adapt himself to what the team needs.
I hope I am wrong
Complain about this postHmmm. I think Collingwood was a little hard done by here. 8 catches, 2 hundreds and an average of neraly 60, yet he still ranks as the 8th most valuable player.
As for Goochy's Essex bias? never....
Complain about this postCollingwood 8th????
Nonsense. He batted England out of trouble more than once, and certainly is now integral to this England side.
Complain about this postNo real arguments with Gooch's ratings, except I'd put Monty at #1 - his bowling was responsible for at least two of the three wins.
Complain about this postVery good comments, KP and Monty is Stat for england. Without KP england is nothing in test as well as ODI's. KP is best suitable attacking captain for the one days.
Complain about this postMVP??? What on earth's wrong with Man of the Series?
Complain about this postGraham good summary. With Strauss, in addition to footwork, would you agree with me, Andrew Strauss plays and looks better when he plays straight to mid off/ mid on rather than the overuse of hands to play/force the favourite square shots to Point and Midwicket/Deep Square.
Check his Run Star Diagrams of runs
Complain about this postHow can KP be placed top?
Surely his rash dismissal to the last ball of the day shows he is still earning test match batting!
Complain about this postAfter Collingwood's performance in the final test, how can he be ranked below Bell? He scored more runs than Bell (359 to 227), more centuries than Bell (2 to 1) & averaged higher than Bell (59.83 to 49.40). He also did not drop catches at crucial times like Bell did. How on earth can Bell be ranked higher? It could be argued that Collingwood & Prior should be equal 6th.
Also, Pietersen 1st above Panesar? Surely this should be the other way around. Without Panesar, we would not have won 2 of the Tests & he was rightly declared Man of the Series.
Complain about this postHow can bell be higher than colly when he scored and averaged less runs bell scored runs is less pressure situations
Complain about this postAt which point was KP's swing at the last ball of the day "adding compure and innings management". Collingwood, Prior and Sidebottom with Monty should have been the top 4.
Complain about this postGenerally fair but the contribution of Collingwood was greater than Bell and that of Prior and Sidebottom greater than that of Vaughan and Cook. Good though Pieterson batted, Panesar was comfortably my England man of the series.
Complain about this postDon't really agree with this list at all.
Firstly, Collingwood at number 8?! I think you must have been watching a different series, from my perspective he scored 2 centuries, was the 4th highest run scorer (overall including both teams) and averaged a little under 60. His fielding was excellent as usual and he bowled well when called on. In my opinion he should have been around 5 or 6 at least.
Secondly, how is Monty Panesar not first? Clearly the star player for england in this series and the best bowler. I'm not saying KP wasn't excellent (as usual) but he made enough rash errors that in my book he doesnt deserve to be no.1.
Thirdly, what did Hoggard do to deserve being 10th, other than getting injured? Let's not forget that bar the last match (and the second innings of the third match) Harmison has been downright awful! Yet he is higher than Hoggard, who, when he has bowled, has been highly accurate and effective.
To be quite frank I think the only places you got right were the last 3.
Complain about this postColly below Bell?
Am I reading a typo here or is the coffee not kicking in yet? Wait, nope, haven't had coffee this morning yet.
Mr Gooch, are you watching the same series we all were here? Other than a few cool strokes and a few good innings nary did he ever attempt (or was asked) to save one. Hell, Colly made sure Belly had a chance to bat.
Complain about this postA quick comment on Michael Vaughan who has surpassed Peter May's record, and is in my opinion the finest England captain in my lifetime (54years) It is no coincidence I think that under Andrew Strauss, we were not able to finish the West Indies off, yet we won the three matches played under Vaughan's leadership. This is no comment on Strauss, more a plaudit for Vaughan.
Complain about this postgooch has to show strauss more patience. He has had two bad series, but only last summer was the best batsman against pakistan. England showed patience with gooch from 1975 right up to 1990 when he finally made his name against a toothless attack. (Kapil dev was )past his best). Personally i think what has affected strauss is being messed around with the captaincy all winter. Flintoff should never have been made captain before him on the strength of that win in india. There had been missed opportunities a plenty from flintoff against sri lanka at home. Vaughan will make strauss feel wanted again and the runs will come.
Complain about this postI think that I would have Monty at No.1
KP troubles me because he has played some truely great innings but I feel in the first innings at Durham his dismissal was impetuous - if he'd got a jaffa fine but he was out chasing a wide one last ball of the day not clever.
I shall defend Bell as I think he has taken some superb catches and made valuable runs. To pick between him and Collywobbles is always going to be hard as neither is going to set the pulse racing at the momment. However, I feel that Bell has the technical base that to go forward and score big if he could just stop finding ways to give his wicket away.
I am glad to see Strauss got the ranking he deserved. I flukey 77 does not proove anything he still has concrete in his shoes and now we have nothing to try before we face India - great.
Complain about this postOnly two I really disagree with are Monty and Collingwood.
Monty's bowling was superb and himself and Collingwood won us the last test. I think Monty should be in 1st with Pietersen moving down to second. Another reason that KP should move down to second is he still has a rush of blood and gets out. I cite the recent test at Durham when he got out to the last ball of the day trying to pull.
Collingwood has been superb. Excellent fielder and an excellent batsman. He's earnt his run in the team. Just remember two years ago he was always the 12th man.
Complain about this postyeah why is colly so low? he has shown the sort of consistency in every match that some players (peitersen) lack. he may not dazzle but he is so dependable and reliable.
Complain about this postI'd have to go for Monty as man of the series. KP's batting was impressive but with 5 players averaging over 50 for the series and 9 centuries I think a batsman would have to do something really special to stand out. At the moment nobody has a better 5for/innings average than Panesar showing that when he gets on top he can skittle an opposition. The series against India will be an exellent marker of how much he has improved since debuting for England.
Complain about this postI get so annoyed by the way Paul Collingwood is constantly underrated. How Graham can have him as the 8th best player in this series is beyond me.
He scored 359 runs (including 2 centuries) at an average of almost 60 plus he fielded brilliantly as always and turned his arm over when required.
Looking at the career stats Collingwood now averages 45.47, above players such as Cowdrey, Gower, Thorpe and of course Graham Gooch; as well as Vaughan, Bell and Strauss from the current team.
Despite the fact that he is one of our best and most reliable players, most commentators and cricket writers still seem to think that he is liable to be dropped at any moment. In favour of someone with more 'style' no doubt.
Complain about this postNice to read your opinions Graham, Id have Hoggard above Harmison, Collingwood above Bell and Prior, but unlike many I agree with KP at the top spot, I forgive his odd rash shot and simply admire his runs, he realy is a huge talent probably in the top 5 batters in the world, Monty bless him is developing very well, but is not top 5, or even top 10 yet in my book, given time who knows?
Complain about this postPartly flawed analysis.
Complain about this postCollingwood 8th ???#$*!!!
For heaven's sake Graham He's the most dependable batsman in the side . Pieterson maybe spectacular but far more unpredictable.
Same for hoggard , much more consistant than the lethal-in-patches-only Harmison. As for Monty , what about a new nickname
- ' The Prancing Beardo ' ?
"He is learning to add composure and innings management"
Key word there is learning - did you watch the last test match? Maybe you didn't GG, but he threw his wicket away to the last ball of the day after we had already lost two quick wickets. Against a side stronger than the windies, we would have been blown away the next day (we nearly were anyway), and his rash shot could have lost us the test. It's not the only time he did it in the series and he has to learn to play less stupid shots.
No doubt he is a great talent, but Monty was miles in front of him for me - without Monty we wouldn't have won. Without KP, we still might well have won.
Complain about this post13 Owais Shah 1/10 Agree
Complain about this post12 Liam Plunkett 2/10 Agree
11 Andrew Strauss 2/10 Agree
10 Steve Harmison 4/10 Only really got it right in one innings, but heading in the right direction
9 Matthew Hoggard 6/10
8 Ian Bell 6/10 Could have done better
7 Paul Collingwood 7/10 Mr Reliable, although got lucky early a couple of times
6 Michael Vaughan 7/10 Just squeezes out Colly through good captaincy
5 Alastair Cook 7/10 Calm composure but more to do against better attacks
4 Kevin Pietersen 7/10 Silly shots at silly times (I have no problem with him getting out with attacking shots but not right at the end of the day when he has yet to play himself in). Most of his runs in one (very very good) innings
3 Matt Prior 7/10 Above KP, because KP should have done more
2 Ryan Sidebottom 8/10 Could have done no more
1 Monty Panesar 9/10 Simply the best (England has to offer)
How wrong can you be about Collingwood ?
Complain about this postHe is definitely the backbone of this Engalnd team and time and again he has righted the ship when it seemed to be sinking. I bet he's first on the team sheet with the selectors ( after Michael Vaughan, that is ! ) .
Sorry Goochy, but you are way off.
Excellent summaries especially GH mentioning the 'mockery' of Monty being left out of the Brisbane and Adelaide Tests.
This still rankles as the greatest mistake since Admiral Lord Horatio Nelsons adjutant forgot to pack his brown trousers on the even of the battle of Trafalgar.
Complain about this postHas Gooch been watching a different series then me?? Colly at 8th and KP at 1, no way. Monty at 1 and Colly at 2 should be the right way. And what's all this about MVP, did not think this was a basketball series..!
Complain about this postHas Gooch been watching a different series?? Colly at 8th and KP at 1, no way. Monty at 1 and Colly at 2 should be the right way. And what's all this about MVP, did not think this was a basketball series..!
Complain about this postMatthew Hoggard 10th - I don't think so. Yet again Hoggy has proved himself to be England's best, most versatile and most consistant bowler. He has 240 test wickets (only 5 Englishmen have more), and any placing below 5th is an insult to the Yorkshireman's talent.
Complain about this postPietersen No.1? Ludicrous. Last ball of the day and a class team player wafts an airy shot and puts his side in trouble?? I don't think so Mr Gooch.
Collingwood, Panesar, Sidebottom and Prior should be top 4 over the series.
Finally a word for the umpires - Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden must be the best two in the world at the moment. Making decisions in split seconds before Hawkeye, slo mo, Hot spot, 3rd man et al confirmed that Bowden and Dar were absolutely correct.
Complain about this postKP is class!!!!!
Complain about this postGenerally agree, but a bit harsh on Colly I think. Couple of centuries, 8 catches and some good finishing, surely that makes him pretty 'valuable'!
As for KP, agree he's box office, but it seems as if being able to play 1000 different shots excuses you from getting out in daft ways too often.
Complain about this postThat list is awful Goochie.
1. Panesar
Complain about this post2. Pietersen
3. Cook
4. Vaughan
5. Collingwood
6. Sidebottom
7. Prior
8. Bell
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Strauss
I am not one who should be able to argue with Graham Gooch but i feel that he has unfairly place KP at number one, there is no denying the talent that he has but in that series there was no way that he could be called the best player.
Complain about this postRyan Sidebottom came into the team and bowled amazingly, Alastair Cook who has only batted amazingly for Engalnd (and frankly lets me honest for essex) and plays a lot smarter and beautiful game than KP.
But of course the obvious number one is Monty, taking 23 wickets in a four match series is amazing. West Indies may have statistically the worst tail but he bowled beautifully getting turn and bounce, I am sure the Indian watched this and the one player that they would truely worry about is Monty Panesar.
Goochy what are you thinking?
Collingwood at 8th. Tut tut!!
I think we all need to get past this ideal of Collingwood being an 'unstylish' player!!
Complain about this postGreat assesment and comments from Goochie, however how is Paul Collingwood rated at number 8!!!! and I would also have to question Pietersen in front of Monty.
Phil, Chelsea FC. (Carefree)
Complain about this postAgree with hardly any of them. Pieterson did not warrent the top spot, he is a very good player but Cook played better.
Complain about this postAlso not sure how harmisson managed to beat Hoggard as he barley bowled straight for the first few matchs where Hoggard was consistantly consistant.
I agree with Robert Frith, Colling wood at 8th???!!!!! And KP ahead of Monty? I don't think you've got it quite right there mate.
Complain about this postVery good report overall but..........
Complain about this postSurely Collingwood should have been up at 5th. He was the backbone of much of Englands innings during the series,solid without being flambuoyant.
Panasar never let the team down at all during the series and that can not be said of Pieterson. Yes he scores a lot of runs but I would rather he achieved some consistancy and not be facing the `double duck` as he did in the final innings at the Riverside.
I think you have been a little unfair to Panasar.
And then there is Strauss.....
He has been so technically flawed in this series that he should have been dropped after the first two matches.
We need changes in the opening order for India.
yep Gooch you have it wrong on collingwood. fantastic player and england rely on him heavily.
Complain about this postI have to agree with most of the comments above - to put Collingwood at 8 is ridiculous and just sums up what journalists and ex-players think of him. He'd have to score 500 and take 20 wickets for Boycott to compliment him!
Every article I see about Collingwood will have a variation on the phrase: "He's not the most talented player in the World".
What does the man have to do to earn a good report without that caveat? Score a double century against Australia? Save his team time after time with the tail when the top order have failed? Perform superhero style catches and runouts in the field?
He IS one of the most talented all-round cricketers in the World - he just does it without any fuss, all the while knowing that he could be dumped from the Test Team at any time no matter what he does if everyone else were fit.
/end rant
Agree with most of your other rankings though, just put Colly up a few places!
Complain about this postI agreee with most of the listings but don't understand why Bell is above Collingwood after all both had an average of one goofd innings however Collingwood contributes to the team a lot more than Bell with firlding and bowling overall. Monty should top the chart although i agree that KP is Englands best player however his consistancy was just bellow excerlant and games could have been won more easily if he had added bigger score when out for a duck and 20 ect. Matt Prior breajthrough talent who should keep for England in the forseeable future, Sidebottom has also established his place into the team. It will be intresting when Flintof come back to see who the coach drops if any maybe Harmason will have to go.
Complain about this postI think Gucci has the wrong end of the stick here. Why assess the team members against each other? If you want to assess performance of the team, it should be each on their own merits, and according to their own potential, surely?
Strauss: 5
Cook: 8
Vaughan: 8
Pietersen: 7
Collingwood: 9
Bell: 7
Prior: 8
Plunkett: 4
Harmison: 5
Hoggard: 7
Sidebottom: 8
Panesar: 9
or something like that. ....
Okay, scores out of ten always compare players each other. But this system allows ties - and a proper consideration of what each has achieved in his own right.
Of course if you want to have a Man of the Series for England, it would have to be Monty. But Colly (determination and positivity, runs and fielding and positivity), Ryan S (torchbearer when the other seamers were wayward and before Monty kicked in), Vaughan (captaincy as well as batting and guts) Prior (spirit, aggression and batting prowess worth a 9 - keeping not quite as accomplished) and Cook (despite failures at C-l-S) have all played exceptionally.
Interesting to see how well they keep it up v India.
Complain about this postColly only no.8 in list? Shurely shome mistake!
Complain about this postI think you've got it wrong about Collingwood - he should've been placed much higher than 8th and for me, my man of the series would be Ryan Sidebottom - great consistency and control and hardly giving away runs or for that matter wides and no balls (see Harmison and Plunkett's figures) and some useful runs at the tail - England should give him an extended run and full marks to Peter Moores for picking despite being outside of the 'Performance' squad.
Complain about this postIm not sure other than his hundred at Headingly, what else Michael Vaughan has done other than embarass himself off the field, He certainly should not be above Paul Collingwood or Ian Bell.
Complain about this postI think there is a captians bias going on here!
KP had a very good series but to judge him by the high standards he and we now set for him, his series was ordinary apart from the fact that he managed to pass 158. Despite that, I think he has still improved, usually in the second innings after a first innings failure.
Complain about this postThe significance of Michael Vaughan's return to test cricket with a 100 was massive for him and the team. That apart, his series contribution was unexceptional.
None of the rest of the existing England side except one, can be said to have enhanced their reputations and some of their reputations have suffered. The exception is Monty Panesar, whose performance was significant in that he has nailed down a front line position in the bowling attack for the next 10 years.
Alastair Cook had impressive form and his consistency is gratifying. However, it is hard to say that he has improved at all.
Finally two 'new' players emeged. Ryan Sidebottom has come from nowhere to possibly give England an additional bowling option for the next 5 years. After being next in line for the gloves for 2 years, Matt Prior got his chance and nailed it down with such authority that it is hard to believe he will not remain first choice for the next 10 years.
Setting a different criteria, that of the most significant development for the England side, I would rate them, in order of most significant;
1. Matt Prior
2. Michael Vaughan
3. Monty Panesar
4. Ryan Sidebottom
5. Alastair Cook
6. Kevin Pietersen
I think Monty unlucky not to be at number 1. Although Pietersen yet again showed his class. This guy really has got more people watching cricket and for a spinner the ammount of wickets he took was fantastic.
Complain about this postIm not sure other than his hundred at Headingly, what else Michael Vaughan has done other than embarass himself off the field, He certainly should not be above Paul Collingwood or Ian Bell.
Complain about this postI think there is a captians bias going on here!
My order
1 panesar
Complain about this post2 pieterson
3 collingwood
4 cook
5 sidebottom
6 prior
7 vaughan
8 bell
9 hoggard
10 hermison
11 strauss
12 plunkett
13 shah
Colly at 8th is silly, but really they fall into three categories:
First, those that did nothing to justify continued selection. In that category, Shah, Plunkett and Strauss - good players all, but had a terrible time.
Next, those that did enough overall - just two of them, Hoggard and Harmison. No blame for the Hoggster, he bowled well in the last match, but nothing stunning, and Harmison's much improved performance in the same game rather made up for earlier messes...
And then there's the rest, all of whom played really well. If I had to pick one player as "most valuable", it would be Vaughan; not for his contributions with the bat, but for the difference his captaincy made - without him, England couldn't win from a strong position. With him, they won the lot. Now if it was man of the series, it would be a toss-up between Colly, Peterson, Cook and Monty, with Monty probably shading it, but in terms of value to the team, nobody adds more than Vaughan - as good a captain as Brearley, but also a top-class batsman.
Complain about this postActually ridiculous
Complain about this postHoggard at 10?
Of all the bowlers, possibly except Monty, but only possibly, he is the England bowler who I would want in me team always
When they come against India, he is going to be the key player.
Maybe all of England's contracted players need some time in County Cricket, because it seems to me playing the odd 4-day county game and odd 1-day game plus test matches and international 1-day games is no replacement for experience (see Jimmy Anderson and Liam Plunkett).
Complain about this postGraham's comments are all pretty much on the money as they should be from such an experienced ex-pro. Perhaps we can entice him to add a comment himself to explain Collingwood not being at 5 or at least above Bell and Monty not being at number 1. Maybe he will admit his error or change his mind!
Complain about this postAlmost everyone seems to agree with these two differences in opinion.
The only other change is Hoggard moving above Harmisson despite him not playing that much over the series.
Pieterson most valuable player ? You're having a laugh!
Complain about this postGraham In listing Monty, KP and Cooke, 1,2 & 3, I am sure many Australian players, including Ponting and Shane Warne saw this potential coming to the top in 2005 and 2007. Warne has a huge instinct for backing young talent.
Complain about this postIf Colly was a home counties public schoolboy, the upper class cricketing fraternity would love the heart and talent he brings to the side.
Complain about this postListening to the gin-supping toffs commenting on test match special, goes someway to explaining why we are struggling to compete against a nation that has less than a third of our population??
They were more obssessed about the length of Sidebottom's hair than his ability to bowl! (That's the good old eggs and bacon crew for you. Is it any wonder the atmospwhere at Lords is so bad!!!)
For me, Cook should be at number one. In almost all innings, England got off to a good start and that was almost solely down to Cook as his opening partner (Strauss) was so off his game. Without these solid starts, the likes of Pieterson could hot have flourished down the order..
Not only that he showed tremendous discipline for such a young man and (if memory serves) never gave his wicket away cheaply once.
I’d also push Prior up Gooch’s list. Tremendous with the bat so far the down the order and often batting with the tail, and did well to deal with the wayward bowling of Harmison and Plunkett at Old Trafford.
Complain about this postThree comments.
a) Collingwood is a little under-rated here. He comes to the fore more in a crisis than in a run spree, and so against this opposition engalnd did not really need his special talents - though in the dead rubber third test he almost certianly prevented an embarassing collapse. So for that he most be rated higher - above Bell for sure, and maybe above prior.
b) Monty vs KP for the number one slot.... well I thnk Graham has it right here, but it's a close call. it might be better giving them equal billing - it will be interesting to reassess at the end of the India series.
c) The Michael Vaughan issue. It's good to see the points made that without his captaincy england managed to seize a draw out of the jaws of certain victory in the first test, whilst with him in charge they won the last 3 reasonably comfortably. He's a class act as cpatain, as can be shown by the fact that he's won more tests than any other engalnd captain, despite captaining a side that during his tenure has probably only fielded 2 players (KP & Flintoff) who would make it into any of the "top 4 england teams of the last 60 years" ... think about it.....think a little longer and even those two look wobbly....he's made an art form out of winning with a mediocre side, and yet people seem to dismiss his maginficent captaincy skills as, at best, of only incremental importance...
Complain about this postWhat is it about everyone's love affair with KP? How can Goochie say he is learning composure after his waft in the first innings at Durham, and then his dismissal with the finishing post in sight in the second?
Powerful hitter capable of turning games? Yes. Entertaining? Undoubtably. Someone you'd want in your team? Probably. Dependable? No. And for that you cannot claim he is England's MVP. Several years ago Lord Geoffrey dismissed Dominic Cork as a show pony, yet you know he will never waiver in his support of Pietersen, who shows exactly the same team-player characteristics.
Come the final reckoning I firmly believe that Ding Dong Bell will prove to be a better player. And Collingwood would sell his grandmother's false teeth before giving his wicket away. Unfortunately they are normal hard-grafters rather than extroverted flash-Harrys and so will never receive the accolades they deserve.
And the sooner England have the guts to pick the country's best keeper - regardless of his worth with the bat - the better the team will be. Prior did well, but his work behind the timbers isn't as good as others and certainly not up to Test standard.
Complain about this postGenerally agree but with the 2 exceptions which many have pointed out already. Firstly Collingwood should surely be put higher up. He is more dependable than any other, save Pietersen, to get a score that influences the whole game. Secondly, I fail to see why Bell is thought of as a cert. He has had an appalling Ashes, was 69 his highest score? and there were so many single figure scores too. No doubt he has talent but it is not showing enought o make him an instant choice. Why was there a difficult decision to play either KP or Thorpe in the last Ashes but one when both should have played and Bell left out I don't know.
Complain about this postAlso, lets not let Harmy off the hook. Sure he bowled well yesterday, but it doesn't balance out the embarrassing bowling by him prior to that, and I don't fancy his mental ability to cope with the greater pressure of a series against India.
But who am I, I don't even know them.....
Interesting read, but for me some glaring mistakes.
Cook - very promising but not in the top three, his batting average was lower than Collingwood's and nowhere near as good in the field.
Pietersen - At no 1 due to personality and one 'great' innings, but at times still didn't completely deliver.
Panesar - great bowling, still remember some poor 'catching' at times, would cost us dear against good opposition.
Prior - what more could he do, at last England have a no 7 who can stay at the crease help the batsman above him and take the strike from the tail. Second highest on average score.
But Collingwood at 8.
Get real, again fantastic batting when we needed it the most (better average than Bell and Cook, both rated above him?), best fielder by a long shot.
Why oh why?, is he still so under rated by the media and pundits alike. Just realise he is the backbone to the England side and without him England would not have won all the games this series.
My top three:
Complain about this postPanesar, Collingwood, Prior.
Sorry Goochie, but you've clearly got it wrong.
1 - Monty Panesar, by quite some way
Complain about this post2 - Ryan Sidebottom
3 - Alistair Cook
4 - Michael Vaughan
5 - Matt Prior
6 - Paul Collingwood
7 - Kevin Pietersen
8 - Ian Bell
9 - Matthew Hoggard
10 - Steven Harmison
11 - Andrew Strauss
12 - Liam Plunkett
13 - Owais Shah
I think the list is accurate except i would swap Collingwood with vaughan directly.
to me collingwood was a consistent player who i felt you could rely on to srtay in and get runs.
unfortuntaley i feel vaughean, although one of the best test captains around, just didnt score enough with the bat. he will coem good with more practice.
Complain about this posttoo harsh on collingwood, the man was a hero on more than one occasion.
Complain about this postI agree that Monty could become one of the 'greats'!!
Hi Graham
Just two points - Collingwood should be much higher and Panesar should be top. You're too young to remember Jim Laker so I'm curious to know whioch English spinner (unless you class underwood as a spinner) has been better.
Cheers
Keith R
Complain about this postThere is a valid reason for Hoggard being so low. The article is assessing the players' relative value to England over the series.
Unfortunately, due to his injury, Hoggard only really took part in one test. Although he did contribute to winning the last test, it was only the one.
Complain about this postHarmisson contributed a reasonable number of wickets to each of the wins, so for me, had more of an impact over the series.
Collingwood 8th, are you kidding me??? How on earth could you put Vaughan and Bell above Collingwood?
Complain about this postrubbish. the captain is the MVP, Michael Vaughan has come straight back into the side and shown what a first class captain he is. He has the same players to pick from that Freddie had in Australia yet they all want to play for Vaughan. I'm sure if Vaughan had been fit this winter then we wouldn't have been thrashed 5-0!! Vaughan is easily Engalnds most valuable player
Complain about this postAgree with most that Collingwood should have ranked much higher than 8, mainly because of when he scores his runs (i.e. when needed). Makes him much more valuable than Bell to the team (plus he's a far better fielder). Not the most elegant and stylish batsman, but then neither is Chanderpaul.
Hoggie should be rated above Harmless, despite his absence from most of the series.
I'd argue that Sidebottom probably should rank 3, with Monty and KP as the first 2. Probably for consistency over the series and especially for performing so well in generally adverse conditions, Monty deserves to be first.
Complain about this postI think the biggest reason why Monty should be Man of the Series is the other options available to England every time Monty performed- there was normally batting cover to some extent should Pietersen fail; but there were definitely times when, with Plunkett and Harmison struggling to find the strip, that had Monty had an off day England could have been put to the sword, even by such a feeble Windies team. But the fact of the matter is that Monty doesn't really do off days- he just has good days and better days.
Goochy's terminology, entitling Pietersen Most Valuable Player only underlines the reason for Monty being made number 1 in this list: whilst Pietersen's performances were commanding and his double hundred made at an important time, without Monty England would have been a completely different side. The control with which Monty bowls, even in the first innings, has enabled England to successfully play with only four bowlers for the first time in quite a long while. Long may it last.
Complain about this postCollingwood at 8th spoils this article. No way could he be considered Englands 8th most valuable player after this series and should be 5th at least.
KP at No1??? I love him to bits but he aint No1....
Complain about this postI can't agree with your placing of Harmison above Hoggard. Harmison has been a disruptive influence on England's bowling unit, with his inability to bowl line or length or show any control. As a result, players like Plunkett, who used to be quite promising, are picking up all the wrong signals from their "senior" bowling partner. It's no coincidence that Plunkett's bowling has deteriorated since bowling in tandem with Harmison. He's now delivering the same wides and uncontrolled stuff that Harmison has been bowling for ages. Personally, I wouldn't let him anywhere near the England side.
Complain about this posthow can you say pieterson was number 1? panesar was much better hence getting player of the series. we saw how stupid and rash peiterson is by throwing way his wicket on the last ball of the day, he still needs to learn
Complain about this postAndrew Strauss was a lucky man to get a 4th Test place and even luckier to get so many poor deliveries just where he likes them.I remain unconvinced and agree with Boycott that he needs to go away and get some runs at county level.After all, if mentally fit ,a certain Somerset lefthander would more than adequately fill that role and be the perfect foil to Cook
Complain about this postI cannot agree with Collingwood at 8th. He should be up in the top 5 nat least. As for Harmison, he should be 11th in my opinion. Move Monty up to first and slip KP down to 6th and then the ratings look about right.
The acquisition of Sidebottom and Prior were excellent choices by the selectors. Finally a bit of open-mindedness has allowed a resurgent and new player into the team.
Complain about this postI cannot agree with Colly at #8, he had a superb series albeit against a West Indies team that is no where near the calibre of the Windies teams of the eighties and nineties. Ian Bell is again my worry. Does not impose himself at all. He has bags of ability, he just needs to produce when the chips are down, and they will be at sometime against teams like Oz and SA.
Complain about this postKP is worth the entrance fee alone for his entertainment value and his run scoring. Monty will end up among the best England spinners of all time.
Glad to see Vaughny back among the runs
Andrew Strauss was a lucky man to get a 4th Test place and even luckier to get so many poor deliveries just where he likes them.I remain unconvinced and agree with Boycott that he needs to go away and get some runs at county level.After all, if mentally fit ,a certain Somerset lefthander would more than adequately fill that role and be the perfect foil to Cook
Complain about this postThe responses from the public show how well they know their cricket. Interesting opionions from Goochie, although Collingwood is way too low in the table, and so is Monty Panesaar.
1. Panesar
2. Pietersen
3. Cook
4. Collingwood
5. Vaughan
6. Prior
7. Sidebottom
8. Hoggard
9. Harmison
10. Bell
11. Strauss
Complain about this postJay
Paul, I think you're being a little unfair on Ian Bell, we were doing rather poorly in the first innings of the old trafford test and his 97 (deserved a century) gave us a respectable total and, ultimately, victory in match which, without his contribution, we could actually have lost. It may look like he nly scores when other people have put a big score on the board already but then he bats at 6, so against the present Windies attack it really is quite likely that someone will have already scored big, which is not really his fault.
Complain about this postBell above Collingwood. If Ian Bell is an international Test Cricketer then I am getting my whites out again. He only scores well when someone in front of him has scored highly too. Does not play well under pressure. Collingwood on the other hand shoes the kind of doggedness required to win test matches when the going gets tough. Also chips in with a few overs to give main strike bowlers a rest.
Complain about this postIf Collingwood played down south am sure he would have been higher up the list, just no place in the minds of these "experts" for a northern lad who doesnt like the headlines and just gets on with it, its called working class!
Complain about this postMost Valuable Player for who? KP wins from a spectator view because he always does something memorable such a century or play a shot a schoolboy who be told off for
Complain about this postKP may win matches when he's fortunate with his mistakes but Collingwood is a player key to winning test series
Man of the series - Monty panesar
Find of the series - Ryan Sidebottom
Mr. Dependable - Paul Collingwood
Whereas KP is fun to watch, he did get out slashing at the last ball of the day. A true test batsman is one who can steady the ship from 165-6 to 369-8. Paul Collingwood is a solid batsman who can score a lot of runs, often in difficult situations - much as Graham Thorpe used to do.
Complain about this postFirstly these ratings were on the basis of who is England's most valuable player NOT necessarily who did the most in this particular series so the fact that Hoggard didn't get many wickets in the series as a whole is irrelevant. He came back from injury and showed that he continues to be a good, reliable bowler. OK his batting is virtually non-existant and putting him in any higher than no.11 is a joke but the fact that you can always rely on him to put in a decent performance with the ball means that he must rank much higher than Gooch gives him credit for. Certainly higher than the unreliable Harmison!
Secondly Collingwood's ranking at 8 is downright ludicrous. He is one of our best batsmen, a useful additional bowler and exceptional fielder (fielding is a skill that is vastly underrated). As such he must be one of our top three most valuable players and certainly more valuable than KP!
So in order of VALUE to England in test cricket I would say:
1 Monty
Complain about this post2 Collingwood
3 Vaughn
4 KP
5 Hoggard
6 Prior
7 Cook
8 Harmison
9 Sidebottom
10 Bell
11 Strauss
12 Plunkett
13 Shah
Excellent analysis, except the first two positions that of Monty and KP. I believe the positions need to be swapped as Panesar came out to be the decisive factor in England winning the series 3-0.
Complain about this postClearly Gooch has rated Vaughan on his cricketing ability alone. The single most important factor to the team is his captaincy - should be number one.
Complain about this postThe low ranking of Hoggard may seem a little harsh but if we go by 'value' in the series, we should remember that he played only in the first, which we drew, and the last, when the series was already won. However, He should be above Harmison, who was more of a hindrance than a help for most of the time.
As for the rest, I agree with those that say Monty and Sidebottom should be the top two. For much of the series they constiututed a two man attack. Take either one out and we struggle to win the series, which is not the case if we remove one of the batsmen.
I would probably say that Cook should be the highest of the batsmen, despite there being four players with higher averages. The value of an opener is to set up the innings and in his five innings whilst the series was still 'live' he had two 100+ and two 50+, with his other also a respectable 42.
Barring Strauss, the rest of the batsmen are harder to rank beacuse all did a good job at various times. Bell and Collingwood both had excellent innings to drag us out of trouble, on both occasions ably supported by Prior, who also surprised many with the standard of his keeping. All three also contributed with the bat on other occasions when the going was a bit easier. KP and Vaughan both averaged over 60, which will put any player into the mix.
My ranking -
Panesar
Complain about this postSidebottom
Cook
Prior
Collingwood
Pietersen
Vaughan
Bell
Hoggard
Harmison
Plunkett
Strauss
Shah
Whoa there Goochy - are your eyes going aswell as your hair (sorry, cheap gag!!) Colly out performed Bell in just about every facet of the game this series and has to be placed above him. Admittedly, it is hard to split Prior, Sidebottom, Vaughan, and Cook, but if pressed I would probably reverse the order you have them in. Monty has to be top for me, with KP just about nicking second ahead of the chasing pack mentioned above.
Complain about this post- the Windies were poor, but you have to beat what's in front of you. I think this England side is starting to have a nice balance to it again - hat's off to the Mgt - more of the same please!
The idea that Collingwood is our most consistant batsman is not matched by the figures. I agree that his record in this series bettered Bell, but not by that much.
Cook, Vaughan and Peterson all performed better than Colly overall and rightly are considered higher than him.
As for Strauss he no longer looks the player who started so well in test cricket, despite his 77, and must therefore prove himself at county level before the series against India.
Complain about this postCan't believe Collingwood and Panesar are becoming such folk heroes. They both had good series against the WI and Collingwood should definitely be higher up the list but the only truely world class player we have is KP. You can't entertain like KP and never get out .... if you want a Boycott performance you need a Boycott! I thought Sidebottom and Prior performed excellently as well, although it was at home.
Complain about this postAs for a start, I cannot belive how colly has been ranked below Bell. He took catches, scored runs and also bowled well! What did bell actually do apart from underscore?
As for selection next test in the future Vaughan out----- Joe Denly of Kent in i say!
Complain about this postKP man of the series? You're having a laugh. He got himself out stupidly twice at Durham - the first time when England needed him to consolidate and play for the close - even his double century was made without any pressure, coming in at 254-2.
Complain about this postJust because Bell and Vaughan somewhat returned to form, and the emergence of Prior and Sidebottom was exciting (even if they are getting on a bit), the reliance of England on Collingwood solely as a batsman, and important fielder means he should be higher than 8th surely? He's transformed from a poor all rounder to a top quality batsman, often vital to the stability of England's innings. The throwing away of wickets by the likes of Strauss, Vaughan and Pietersen often means he is called upon for reassurance. He should be higher
Complain about this postNo doubt GG's opinion is indicative of a former's batsman bias/perspective on things.
I suggest the following:-
13. Shah
12. Plunkett
11. Strauss
10. Harmison
9. Bell
8. Vaughan
7. Hoggard
6. Prior
5. Sidebottom
4. Collingwood
3. Cook
2. Pieterson
1. Panesar
The easiest one to choose is No. 1 !!
The order of numbers 2 to 9, quite frankly, are open to debate.......but NOT No. 1.
Panesar must be there by a country mile.
Oh yes, and (as echoed by so many others) how can Hoggard be below the ever wayward Harmy? Ridiculous.
Posted by: Nick C | June 20, 2007 01:51 PM
Complain about this post(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
I've had a look at the first fifteen comments. You know Collingwood's better.
Complain about this postWhen we saw Monty in Australia last summer we could see his enormous talant.
Complain about this postLike Sir Ian you have to take KP as you find him, he is what he is, if he comes off, brilliant he can turn a match, if he gets out you just have to accept it.
Collingwood very solid as long as he continues to play within his capabilities.
Bell improving,learning, good potential.
Cook a great find for one so young.
Mike Brearely not a test class player but was the best England captain in my lifetime, he got the best out of a bad team, if he had the talent that is available to Michael Vaughan he would be recognised as such.
P.S. I was at the SCG when England beat Australia in the one day series and also when England took thje trophy in the second final. I will never forget it we gave the Aussies heaps. It was brilliant.
my best spinner in the world is monty manissar i hope that he keeps his best best performance always
Complain about this postColly and Prior deserve more. For Prior to have the second best average is a remarkble achievement for a guy that only just came into the side. Moreover, they both shored us up on a number of occasions.
Im afraid Goochy has succumbed to the KP bandwagon
Complain about this postMy sequence would be
Panesar
Collingwood
Cook
Peterson
Vaughan
Bell
Sidebottom
Prior
Hoggard
Strauss
Harmison
Plunkett
Shah
Harmison only redeemed himself in the last test and Peterson was a bit careless with his wicket. I think it is Harmison's place that is at risk when Flintoff is fit. He will be a good no 8......
Complain about this postPaul,
Complain about this postWhat are you talking about Ian Bell only gets runs when soemone else does. At Old trafford he saved our first innings in a game when without him we would have lost. He averaged 49 in the series and around 45 in test cricket. How can you criticse a player with that average.
Doesnt agree with all...
Monty 5 wicket haul @ home gound is not a big deal. I will say i expected his 5 wicket haul because it is home soil and west indies are poor against spinners. He has to prove in the overseas tour. If he does the same against india then i shall accept that.
Lets c
Complain about this postPieterson must wonder why on earth he bothers! He scored most runs in the series and tops the averages yet all Ihear is 'how impetuous he is'!! Typical English mentality, the thought of someone actually being world class forces us to find fault in them. Hasn't anyone noticed that the Aussies are the best team in the world becuase they have the best players? Why do we feel the need to persistently castigate our best player (by a long, long way!)
Complain about this posthas Graham Gooch got something against Monty or Collingwood? Or did he just not put much thought into his rankings?
Complain about this postInteresting new format for ratings! It does seem very difficult to pick 8-1. I must say I think Collingwood should be higher - his century at the Riverside was probably the most crucial in the series, in terms of Englands position in the match. Also Vaughn probably had a slightly too high position, but there was extra pressure on him to perform and he coped very well in the circumstances.
Complain about this postI think Graham Gooch has been very generous to the quick bowlers. Both Messrs Harmison and Plunkett bowled rubbish throughout the series. Thank goodnes Ryan Sidebottom turned up alongside Matt Hoggard for the final test. Good also to see Monty among the wickets.
Complain about this postWith the exceptopm of Andrew Strauss, all the batsmen performed at least once although to be fair this was the weakest WI side I have seen in over 40 years of watching test cricket
How is vaughan above prior? prior has come into the team for the first time, and for the first time since stewart retired we had a wk/batsman who looks capable at both jobs. he came in at two very difficult points, and although it is difficult to say he played match winning innings when coming at a low score for five wickets, without his valuable contributions England may have struggled to win three matches. top three for prior, at least.
Complain about this postBell scored all his runs in pressure free situations??? What about at Old Trafford where his 97 rescued England from a precarious 166-5 to where they eventually posted 400? Would they have won that game without that knock?
Complain about this postGraham Gooch's assessment is flawed, but then again it is a subjective assessment and hence prone to both bias and being influenced by highlights in performance - hence Pietersen no. 1 I guess! However, the assessments are not in context. When one examines the performances of players 'on the fringe' and hence under more pressure then we may make a more different assessment. The likes of Prior, Sidebottom and to some extent Collingwod (who seems universally unpopular with pundits) have stepped up to the mark despite being under pressure to perform - the same cannot be said of more established players (Strauss and Harmison for example). It would take an atomic bomb to remove Pietersen from the England side, yet this 'safety net' has not yet got through to him; he still throws away his wicket and lacks consistency. He is the most talented batsmen we have had in decades, but I suspect he will remain the most frustrating as well! Gooch, like so many has gone for the spectacular rather than thinking clearly about a performacne in context - had he done this he could not have failed to be more impressed by Sidebottom, Collingwood and Prior. Perhaps Gooch should recall the stresses and pressures of his early career - two ducks on debut wasn't it! And then think about how he performed when he was the backbone of the side- different wasn't it Graham!
Complain about this postI think I'd put Panasar above Pietersen mainly because in terms of runs we had 7 batsmen who all contributed at important times, being it at the start of an innings, rescuing a collapse or extending a lead. In terms of wicket takers Sidebottom came in and did well but Panasar performed all the time. Harmison and Plunkett did well to give the WIndies a chance.
I think Bell and Collingwood deserve more praise because they both ground us out of finely-balanced situations a number of times, although Cook was also excellent at providing a platform for an innings.
Complain about this post"The idea that Collingwood is our most consistant batsman is not matched by the figures. I agree that his record in this series bettered Bell, but not by that much.
Cook, Vaughan and Peterson all performed better than Colly overall and rightly are considered higher than him."
If you look at the batting figures for the series Collingwood was considerably ahead of Bell and, although Collingwood was fourth in the table there wasn't a great deal of difference between the first four. Then you factor in his fielding and bowling and his VALUE as an England player exceeds his more high profile team mates.
Complain about this postJudging over the West Indies alone. how can you put Collingwood and Prior so low?
Complain about this postCollingwood took as many catches as the wicketkeeper, Prior batted as a real bonus to the team effort, Cook is rated too high allthough a good long term prospect.
Sidebottom below Vaughan, no thanks, Panesar above Pieterson yes please.
Have to agree about KP he has it all including celeb charisma not unlike Sir Beefy can we get him to bowl more.. Hoggy and Sidebottom are always steady away with Hoggy bearing down on Brian Statham's England wicket haul. Collingwood has established himself well along with Cook,Strauss hit a bad patch as did Harmison but we need to persevere and see how they perform against India
Complain about this postI cannot agree with Kevin Pietersen @ No.1 . He scored over half of his series total in 1 innings, therefore 200-odd runs in 6 innings, and needs to be far more cosistent if he is to be considered as genuine world class, exciting as he can be. My No.1 would be Matt Prior. What a find ; a wicket-keeper who can score runs! He can only improve.
Complain about this postPlease note I have steered clear of the Monty Panesar band-wagon. As good as he is, I'd like to see him face more consistent and fluent batting sides on unhelpful pitches.
I think I would rank them more like this:
13. Shah
12. Strauss
11. Plunkett
10. Harmison
9. Vaughan
8. Hoggard
7. Bell
6. Prior
5. Cook
4. Sidebottom
3. Pietersen
2. Collingwood
1. Panesar
I thought Bell, Strauss and Vaughan were much poorer than you indicate, and I thought Collingwood was much better.
Complain about this postWhy does everyone think Pietersen is a selfish ego? HE is a fantastic team player, a decent fielder and often brings out the best in batting partners by his enthusiasm for the game. Sure, he has the odd rush of blood to the head, but who doesn't? He is a gift to the English game.
Complain about this postPietersen as the man of the series? Talk about taking the easy option. I'd say he under-achieved against a weak attack compared to what he's shown in the past against more quality opposition.
It would have been better to select from the players who excelled far beyond expectation - like in-from-the-cold Sidebottom or Monty Panesar, who was outstanding despite being favourite to miss out for the opening Test in favour of another seamer.
Complain about this postcook, monty and Collingwood should be above KP based on this series.
Complain about this postI'd put Vaughan at the top. Has anyone noticed what a difference he makes to this team
Complain about this post? Then Panesar, Sidebottom, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior.
little bit harsh on bell, he was world class for a lot of the time, as was sidebottom. i think maybe these were as good as if not better than vaughan. Kp did well but wasn't as great as people say, i mean he didn't tonne up every time he batted, yet monty won the series.
not bad goochie, maybe colly should be given more credit-he is a vital part of the stability in the middle order and contributed vitally to the 4th test win.
Complain about this post".....Collingwood (who seems universally unpopular with pundits)...."
Of course he is unpopular with the pundits, with his batting and bowling he just knuckles down and unspectacularly gets on with the job. If he wants to get some attention from the press he could get blind drunk and try to cross the Atlantic on a pedalo or paint a wide red stripe across his hair and play extravagent reckless shots with the bat so that he is regularly caught behind for a low score or bowl a few balls so wide that they go to second slip.........
Sorry. Rant over!
Complain about this postJeremy wrote:
.... and the emergence of Prior and Sidebottom was exciting (even if they are getting on a bit)
A bit harsh on Prior. There are very few sports where 25 would be considered getting on a bit, let alone in cricket.
If he continues to produce, he could easily have another 10+ years left in him.
Complain about this postAlways baffles me how some players only have to achieve once every bluemoon to be hailed as the greatest ever, while others simply soldier through and while not necessarily shine never let the side down.
Complain about this postExamples here are obviously Harmison, who finally managed to get 10 overs more or less on target in one match and everybody forgets the other 140 overs that were at best marginal and he is ranked above the generally reliable Hoggard. Or KP. Admittedly he did score 400 runs, but let's face it half came from a single innings where virtually everybody was scoring centuries! And against him we have Collingwood, no fancy batting or double centuries, which makes his average all the more impressive because it shows consistency. That, to me, makes him more valuable.
monty was wicked he should be no. 1
Complain about this postWhy is Collingwood ranked below Bell?
He scored 359 runs to Bell's 227, averaged 60 to Bell's 45, and scored two centuries to Bell's one. I think Bell is being rated on imaginary future runs, not his actual performances.
Collingwood is persistently under-rated by people who should know better. In his last twenty tests he averages 53 (level with KP). Bell averages 42 in his last twenty. Strauss averages 33. He's one of our top batsmen. Stop doing him down with faint praise.
Complain about this postWhy is Collingwood ranked below Bell?
He scored 359 runs to Bell's 227, averaged 60 to Bell's 45, and scored two centuries to Bell's one. I think Bell is being rated on imaginary future runs, not his actual performances.
Collingwood is persistently under-rated by people who should know better. In his last twenty tests he averages 53 (level with KP). Bell averages 42 in his last twenty. Strauss averages 33. Collingwood's one of our top batsmen. Stop doing him down with faint praise.
Complain about this postBearing in mind that this "series" has been little more than an extended net for a poor test team against a WI side that is "not fit for purpose", maybe GG should not have attempted to grade the players. Harmy and Plunkers' bowling was at times farcical. KP is beginning to look like a "flat track bully" and Vaughan as Captain and batsman was too peripheral for my liking. Monty was definitely the man of the series and Collingwood was the next. One double century doth not a MVP make but I'd put KP third and Siders 4th. Cook makes 5th, Hoggard 6th and Prior 7th. Vaughan makes 8th and you can fight amongst yourselves over the rest.
Complain about this postHaving already comented on Monty & Collingwood situation I will not repeat my observations.
Complain about this postHowever, anyone knocking Vaughan down to 6 or below doesn't know what he's talking about. The man was missing injured for the first drawn test and then Captained his country to 3 straight wins and under intense media pressure scored a century on his return and ended up averaging just under 63 whilst beating Peter Mays record of wins. Clearly his results in this series speaks for itself especially when put against both other recent captains efforts.
While averages tend to settle down over longer periods of time, I think people put too much emphasis on averages over such a short period of time.
Ian Bell 109, 97, 11, 5, 3, 2
Belly might have had an impressive average come the end of the series, but he effectively failed 2 out of every 3 times he went out to bat.
Complain about this postI cannot agree with KP being so high, most of his runs were scored with England already having being given a good start.
For me he should rank behind Cook and Monty.
I still have niggling doubts that Pieterson is primarily a selfish individual who is unable to adapt himself to what the team needs.
-----------------------------------------
Couldn't agree enough with this post. I don't know what Gooch is on placing KP so high. His dismissal last ball of the innings a couple of days ago highlights exactly what is wrong with him. I put him alongside Wayne Rooney in the footballing world. Wayne Rooney was the reason England failed to progress further in the world cup for being a selfish individual and getting sent off.
Complain about this postKP's behaviour is similar, he's the sort of player that could cost England something big.
Undoutably a huge talent, but if he was a huge talent with a brian then i'd like him one hell of a lot more, and there is no way he played better than Monty in that series...
I'd also doubt about Bell being above Collingwood, i'd also doubt whether Bell deserves a place in the team, i'd personally give someone else a try just to see whether Bell really deserves his place...
Well, I agree in general with Graham's comments but I have to say I would not have Pieterson as my number one. The West Indies bowling attack is at best average and at worst laughable (although watching Harmison and Plunkett spraying the ball around earlier in the series doesn't really give me much of a licence to criticise).
I would prefer to have to bat against the West Indies rather than bowl at them. In that respect I think Montys 23 wickets at under 20 apiece surpasses Pietersons 466 runs in the series in terms of achievement.
Complain about this postI must of been watching different test match series. To Graham Gooch. I would of thought a cricketer of his standing could appraised better than his list that he has shown. My selection placed in order
1
Panesar
Best spinner since the days of Lock & Laker. wants to improve on his fielding.
2
Collingwood.
Mr reliable, runs he scored & rescued Englands innings in the last Test match plus he is one the best fielders in the World & can bowl, I agree with Nasser Hussain that he should Captain of the one day tests
3
Complain about this postCook
quality left hander & is only 22 years, He will only get better. Very patient & ways up the bowlers
4
Pieterson.
Very gifted player & is great to watch, getting out the last ball of the day well !
5
Vaughn,
Sadly missed as captain in Australia, pleased he has given up one day game. very shrewed captain
6
Sidebottom.
Great consistency in line & length, nice to a very left hand bowler
7
Prior.
Very impressed with his aggresive batting & His wicket keeping he did well considering some terrible wayward bowling
8
Bell.
Very good batsman & fielder. I wish he would be more aggresive, I know he missed hard chance off Hoggard to catch West Indies best batsman in Chanderpaul
9
Hoggard
It was hard lines he got injured in the Lords Test, very reliable swing bowler.
10
Harmiston.
When he is good he's a World beater, when is bad he is bad. the last innings of the West Indies at the Riverside he was good. Had guts with the bat when staying in with Bell to get more runs on the board
11
Strauss.
He is class batsman going through a bad patch, I agree with the experts regarding his feet movement. He had some terrible decision against him in Australia. He will come good again
12 Plunkett
He was was very wayward in this series, The main trouble line & length, yet he can produce world class ball. He is only 22 years old. He will be a very good bowler given time & what I like about he can bat
Totally agree!!
Complain about this postAny chance of Strauss going to the same winter school that Cook visited. ie a few weeks with Mr Gooch.
Whilst KP is undoubtedly England's most valuable player, he certainly wasn't in this series. A couple of wonderful knocks but not as much consistency as Collingwood or Cook. Bell could be higher too. Easily England's most underated player.
Complain about this postMatt Prior batted well but missed several chances.
He looks good diving all over the place to save the wide balls from Harmison, but that is his job. Australia pick a wicketkeeper first and foremost and is he can bat that is a bonus. Catches and stumpings win matches and Prior is not up to the difficult ones.
Complain about this postwhat was gooch watching alsastair cook should be number 1 he was by far the best player in the series
Complain about this postDon't really agree with it.
Cook was out most valuable player in this series. It is important to have an opening batsman who not only sees off the new ball but scores runs aswell.
My Order would have been:
1. Cook
2. Panesar
3. Pietersen
4. Vaughan
5. Prior
6. Sidebottom
7. Collingwood
8. Bell
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Strauss
12. Plunkett
13. Shah
Prior has had a brilliant series. He has saved alot of runs down the leg side and come up with some brilliant runs and cameo knocks.
Sidebottom should keep his place, he is mint
Complain about this postA few things, about Bell. People leaping to his defence are seeming to point out all these averages when actually he got two scores over double figures and had a lower average then Sidebottom!
Collingwood got us out of so many holes and averaged higher then Cook or Bell!
Monty has to be top.
Hoggard 10th!!!!!!!! Is this a joke? He got some badly needed dicipline and consistency into attack when he came back and is rewarded with ninth!
This is my selection.
13. Shah
12. Plunkett
11. Strauss
10. Harmison
9. Bell
8. Cook
7. Vaughan
6. Hoggard
5. Pietersen
4. Collingwood
3. Sidebottom
2. Prior
1. Panesar
It isn't always about about totals of innings, it can be about context.
Complain about this postI have to agree with some other posters, Collingwood may go relatively unnoticed with his less flamboyant style, but he was one of the players of the series and has shown how important he is to the side. 2 hundreds and the fact that he is constantly our best fielder show that. He should definitely get the England ODI captaincy.
Complain about this postSo Kevin Pietersen let the side down not consistant enough. One big score only. What rubbish people write'
Pietersen since his test career started has scored 8 centuries and 10 fifties. His averages have been
52.5, 33.50, 36.00, 72.00, 49.57, 54.44, 66.57.
Paul Collingwood in the Ashes in Australia without that double hundred would have had a woeful average but people convinently forget that. I like Collingwood but he is not a match winner.
It is also easy for people to say because the opposition were rubbish it devalues KP's runs and he should have scored many more runs. Those same people do not say that the West indian batsmen were woeful and played shots a school child wouldn't play so Monty's wickets are devalued.
Both these players were brilliant both have flaws and are still developing.
Without the double hundred we wouldn't have won so convincingly, Without the freak incident he would have had another century.
His test average is 52ish his average for this series is 66 but it is still not enough.
He is our most valuable player. Was he the best in the series no I would give that to Monty.
Complain about this postHow can KP be more highly rated then Monty. You have to take 20 wickets to win a test match. Kp scores lots of high quality runs and is a genius with the bat and his contribution with the bat was as always impressive. However he has problems hooking as the Windies found out. Monty however goes from strenght to strenght. He will take wickets against India as he has done against every country he has played. He is our best bowler and as such our MVP. Goochy needs to have less bais for Batsman
Complain about this postEven allowing Goochie the benefit of the doubt for favouring a batsman there is no way the stats can justify having KP ahead of Monty.
Granted, KP was our leading run scorer but four other England bats were close to his average.
In terms of match winning contributions no question that Monty’s the main man:
1st Test (Draw) - KP: 26 and 109; Monty: 6 out of 10 wickets
2nd Test - KP: 226; Monty: 1 out 18 wickets
3rd - KP: 9 and 68; Monty: 10 out of 20 wickets
4th - KP: 0 and 28; Monty 6 out of 20 wickets
Incidentally, Monty’s ratio is almost exactly 1 in 3 of the wickets taken by England. Nuff respect as some may say…
Complain about this postfair and just assessment of the team,no olding back with you words ,just like when you had bat in hand,playing cricket
Complain about this postgreat ratings. all those people thinking bell is rubbish and doesnt score under pressure his 97 at headingley saved us and put us in control of the game as the total was only in the 300's. unlucky to not get a hundred and batting at 6 will always end up having less of a good average as he got stranded with the tail. Flintoff only averages 33 at number 6 and only gets runs in a lost cause like his 142 against south africa.
Collingwoods hundred at lords was shocking as well and if they dropped bell three times I'd like to see how many runs he got and i bet its more than 102. And he was also dropped a couple of more times in the next test match so he deserved to be rated down their.
Complain about this posti agree generally with Graham's summining up of the team. The balance has seemed really good and I hope that Andrew Flintoff is only considered as a bowler in future. Monty's control allows us to have 3 seamers working rather nicely together and allows us to play the extra batsmen. Batting at 7 or 8 did not prevent Shaun Pollock being considered one of the worlds finest allrounders and I am sure it would benefit Freddie. I would like to see Ian Bell moving up the order and Paul Collingwood, who I always consider to be our Steve Waugh, to bat at 6. By the way Graham, I think you my have got his ranking wrong, he has to be in the top five!
Complain about this postMatt Prior, Ryan Sidebottom, and Monty Panesar all deserve the top spot. KP's double ton was terrific, and Vaughans innings was as impressive as I personally have seen him, and Collingwood does deserve to be higher, as well, but the honours have to go to these three.
I saw Priors debut century live and I was utterly shocked at his attitude in a test match, smashing 4's and sixes all over the ground. Not bad with the gloves, either.
Ryan Sidebottom totally justified his selection with some beautiful bowling. Lots of wickets, lots of penetration. Beautiful stuff.
And Monty's just...Monty.
Complain about this posti agree generally with Graham's summining up of the team. The balance has seemed really good and I hope that Andrew Flintoff is only considered as a bowler in future. Monty's control allows us to have 3 seamers working rather nicely together and allows us to play the extra batsmen. Batting at 7 or 8 did not prevent Shaun Pollock being considered one of the worlds finest allrounders and I am sure it would benefit Freddie. I would like to see Ian Bell moving up the order and Paul Collingwood, who I always consider to be our Steve Waugh, to bat at 6. By the way Graham, I think you my have got his ranking wrong, he has to be in the top five!
Complain about this postVery sound opinions. I agree with thwm all.
Complain about this postAll of you seem very quick to criticise Ian Bell, which I think is horrific seeing as he is such an incredible talent. Yeh yeh, Collingwood has a higher average blah blah, he is getting old and I would guess close to retirement after the next world cup, Ian Bell will be in the team for many years to come. But I do agree that Monty should be top of the pile with Cook, not sure KP had his best test series. And if Plunkett starts bowling for England like he did for Durham today in the FP Semi-Final, he is going to be a match-winner for the country
Complain about this postI would place Paul Collingwood a lot higher than 8th in the rankings. When the chips are down Colly's yer man - he just keeps delivering.
Complain about this postsome interesting points but woodeskets form is certainly dropping
Complain about this postI agree with the many posts questioning Collingwood at 8. He deserves to be far higher, maybe at 4? I do however agree that Cook is an exciting talent - imagine Tresco and Cook opening! Monty has done us proud and I look forward to watching him against better opposition. Bell has got what it takes, but he needs to connect with those skills at the right moments.
Complain about this post
Complain about this postNaming Kevin Pietersen the number 1 Mr. Gooch has got it all wrong because the performances of Sidebottom, Prior and above all Panesar were way, way EXCEPTIONAL.
No doubt england has shown termendous performance to out class WI but they have need consistency and that too in other countries also. All players have to show the performance like KP, PCW and RSB. PCW must stand in captain in ODI.
Complain about this postInteresting choices, even though he was injured I'd have Hoggy further up, and given the pressure he was under and the balance of his role as no.3 and skipper, my man of the series would be Michael Vaughan.
Complain about this postWho are these idiots!!! that are criticising KP here is a player who scores big runs even against the best like Australia!!!!! still gets criticism yes he plays the odd silly shot but when he gets going he can change the course of the game without him against sides like Australia England would clearly struggle!
Complain about this postSurely u have got 1 and 2 the wrong way round.
Yes true they are both match winners but... Monty's wicket haul made him the most sucessful bowler of the series by far and, arguably, without him in the 'test of two bowlers' we may have drawn the game.
Taking 3 five wicket hauls in eight innings in a series and, basically, gettig the crowd on the edge of their seats everytime he comes on to bowl must get him in front of KP. Kp is true class but he failed in the last two innings and gave his wicket away in the first innings at the riverside.
Checking the 'stats' Monty is already up with the most sucessful spinners England has ever had and i think only Underwood has taken more wickets in his first 16 tests. Compeling series it wasnt but u still have to take 20 wickets to win a test, Monty threatened everytiem he got the ball AND he did get Chanerpaul out too.... nuf said
Complain about this postBell should definately be higher !! Before Vaughan and possible Vaughany definately.
Complain about this postSpot on Goochey. Curiously Freddie was not missed and whilst, of course, a fully fit and in form Flintoff woiuld be the first name on the team sheet this side perfomed pretty well without him.
Complain about this postGood column GG. I have to agree with the Bell/Collingwood arguement but one that really annoys me is everyone having a go at Pietersen. Here the consensus seems to be that everything that he did in the series should be forgotten because of one rash stroke. Clearly there are a lot of people who are still uncomfortable with Pietersen and will jump down his throat at any given oppourtunity. He scored 466 runs at an average of 66. He lit up an all together dull series with his batting. When people talk about this series in five years time, there are only two things that will be remembered, Montys bowling and KP's double hundered. People really need to start appreciating KP for what he is, a bit different and very much world class. I can't imagine the Australlian public being so dubious when Shane Warne (bit different and world class) was emerging. Please open your eyes and realise that this bloke is going to drag english cricket to new highs. Don't stifle him, celebrate him!
Complain about this postGood ratings. Personally would swop vaughan and sidebottom around and the same with collingwood and bell. Although collingwood was dropped more times than the west indies had blue skies, he did score runs and bell did not apart from one innings of 90 odd. come on england!
Complain about this postI have admired Goochie as both player and comentator for many years but can not agree with his ratings. Particularly with Bell above Collingwood and Harmison above Hoggy. I haven't missed a ball on the radio and feel that perhaps what Graham saw was not what I was described.
Complain about this postToo many players seem to have to learn the basic skills in Test Matches. Is the standard of coaching at County level inadequate? Do we need to improve those coaching standards? This should then result in players appearing in Test Matches with their technical abilities improved.
Complain about this postHave to agree with the comments re Collingwood. Surely England's most dependable batsman when it's all going wrong. Prior also had a wonderful series averaging nearly 65 in a high pressure batting slot. Our bowlers were flattered by some truly abject batting.
Complain about this post1. Monty
2. Collingwood
3. Prior
4. Cook
5. Pietersen
6. Vaughan (for his batting)
7. Sidebottom
8. Bell
And the rest need to improve...
Kevin Pietersen No1. On the basis apparently of one outstanding knock. That is rather silly isn't it, OK he is good and has to my surprise been worth a place in the squad but not our best or most valuable batsman and certainly not our most valuable player. Batsmen are valuable if they NORMALLY score well KP is very erratic.
It is always bowlers who win matches not batsmen, you win by bowling the other side out twice. No matter how many runs you score you cannot win without bowling the other side out.
Man of the match and most valuable player should therefore normally go always to a bowler!
Complain about this postWhere five England batsmen averaged above 50 in the series I'm not sure it was that difficult to score runs against a very average WI attack. KP as MVP, sorry, as Jeff Boycott would say my mother could score runs against this robbish. Clearly MVP is Monty for taking 23 wickets before the end of June!
Complain about this postOne reason for the debate here is that there were a number of players that had good series (admittedly against opposition that didn't always look to be giving 100%), with only Monty (all series) and KP (nearly 500 runs in a 4 test series) being exceptionally good, Strauss, Harmy, Plunkett being poor compared with their potential.
Hoggy can't really be rated higher than 9th, as he only really bowled in 1 test (+ 10 overs before his first test injury). The players ranked 3 to 8 all had good performances at times, so it is possible to make a case for a number of them being ranked a bit low. My personal opinion (based solely on this series) would put them as follows:
Complain about this post3 Sidebottom: An unexpected asset. Brought in as a line and length bowler and proved to be a good wicket taker in the right conditions.
4 Prior: Answered all the questioned asked of his batting. Keeping OK but could improve with experience
5 Collingwood: The backbone of the batting lineup plus top fielder
6 Vaughan: Scored runs and captained the side to 3 of 3 victories
7 Cook: Probably the 2nd most gifted batsman in the team (behind KP). In most series, his performance would have led to higher rating, but others were of (slightly) more value to the team
8 Bell: Another talented batsman and had a couple of very good innings. Needs to be more aggressive in temperament, and look to dominate the play a bit more. Also, still has too many single figure dismissals
I agree by and large with Gooch, but must admit I'm baffled at the fact that Collingwood is 8th. A constant presence in the England field and backed up with two centuries, the one in the fourth test holding the first innings together to set up the victory. I would like to have seen him higher up the list.
KP fully deserves his position an number 1. Another step up from a very classy batsman. I think a lot of the criticism Pietersen attracts borders on racism for his South African roots. I thought his introduction into the 2005 Ashes premature, but a test average of above 50 speaks for itself. The public by and large though seem far more prepared to criticize the occasional lapse than to lavish deserving praise when he sets the tone for an English victory. I'm still recovering from the indignation I suffered reading the comments on this website following the Australia match at the World Cup when numerous individuals condemned Pietersen's century as 'playing for his average'. Without KP we would have been even more humiliated both against the Aussies and in the tournament as a whole. We should not have one criteria for KP and another for the rest of the England side. It's time for a lot of people to buck their ideas up, accept that confidence can be a huge asset in cricket and support or criticize Pietersen on the basis of his performances, not his personality.
Complain about this postThe WI have problems, so did Aus a few years ago, and so did we. Its how those problems are addressed that will put the maroon cap back where it belongs.
Imo, this side had the minimum preparation before Lords, they were on the back foot from the off, the team don't seem to be looked after well by their managers (viz the late arrival of the 1 day replacements, no time for them to settle in) and former greats snipe endlessly at the developing players.
R4's excellent commentary team sums it up - Cozier belittling the chaps on the field and ruing ages past, and Sir Viv looking for positives amongst the carnage. One will help, the other drive the game down even further.
So, new (and very preferably non WI) management, a more realistic itinerary and a fundamental understanding of what is required. It'd have to be someone of Duncan Fletchers calibre and he did the same with the floundering England.
And is Lara gone? I'd hope not, the WI need steel and experience to add to the excellent Chanderpaul, BL is the answer, at least in the short term.
Complain about this postLudicrous choice for No 1 I'm afraid Goochie. Panesar, Cook and Collingwood all more influential in the series despite two excellent innings by Pietersen.
Complain about this postcould someone please explain to me what mr gooch is talking about when he mentions monty's variety....
Complain about this postmonty should havve been first not kp after making england win
Complain about this postWhat do you guys think about England's chances later this summer against India because there boviously going to be tougher opponents than the windies and recently they have'nt been losing serieses abroad.
Complain about this postI Reckon Monty Shud Be Number 1 Because All The Top Teams Have Quality Spinners And England Finnaly Have The Missing Piece Dont Get Me Wrong Kp Is A Top Quality Batsmen But I Believe Englands Success Lies With Monty
Complain about this postI think that Goochie has summed up the current scenario pretty accurately, however personally on current performance I do not believe that Strauss should be in the Test team, and KP should not be No1 choice for the very reasons that his attributes were made. The Test team does not have sufficient strength against quality opposition, for KP to be so cavalier, and most certainly must learn innings control, rather than his pathetic 1st innings fiasco at Durham, that was appalling, for someone of his calibre. Goochie gave us many wonderful hours of cricket once his test debut was over,and he will always have my admiration for dropping himself when the need arose. Shame a few more haven't got the courage to do that.
Complain about this postMonty was the difference between the sides, and the man of the series for me. Definately England's most valueable asset.
Complain about this postNearly right!
13. Shah
Complain about this post12. Plunkett
11. Strauss
10. Hoggard
9. Harmison
8. Bell
7. Vaughan
6. Collingwood
5. Prior
4. Sidebottom
3. Cook
2. Pieterson
1. Panesar
Pietersen averages 66 and Prior 64; Pietersen No1 and Prior No6? Gooch appears to have joined the majority with this fawning over Pietersen who, whilst undoubtedly a quality player, is not the Messiah of English cricket
Complain about this post12= shah
12= plunket
11 Strauss
10 Harmison
9 Bell
8 Hoggard
7 Prior
6 Vaughan
5 Collingwood
4 Sidebottom
3 Cook
2 Petersen
1 Panesar
Hopefully Tresco can replace Stauss and Harmy needs to prove that his radar has been fixed in the first test if not call up another county seamer Tremlett or Shreck
Complain about this postmy biggest query is why is everyone slating plunkett hes a good player and hit about 50 runs with pieterson in the third test a lot better than the rest of our tail enders.
also pieterson was not the best player no way cook hit a century in nearly all of the tests! monty took so many wickets he got into the worlds top ten bowlers playing 4 test series which is amazing! my order is
1. monty
Complain about this post2. Cook
3. Pieterson
Strange that Gooch has put KP top. He's certainly a hugely gifted player, but by his (admittedly very high) standards he had a modest series, too often giving his wicket away to careless shots. ENgland need more from their premier batsman.
Monty gives England the ability to finish games off, something they often haven't had. He'll make a big difference over the next decade.
Complain about this postIf Geoff Boycotts mother could score of these guys she could also take their wickets. Monty did take a lot of wickets thanks in no small part to appalling shot selection
Complain about this post3-0 against a B team is not bad, but against Australia or South Africa England are still a long way behind. After the 5-0 mauling its easy to beat the West Indies who at the level of a second rate state team in Australia . NO offence to the Australian state competition. Even most of the aussie seconds state teams could give England a run for thier money.
Complain about this postEngland are getting into the position they like. Fooling eveybody into believing that they are a top team, dream on england....the fact show that you lost the ASHES 5-0
Mr.Graham Gooch: I am not debating your ranking / sequencing methodology - however I feel that Paul Collingwood has done well in a test match environment but has been rather ineffective in a limited overs (50 overs) match. Collingwood has a sound defense and is capable of occupying his crease for a long time. In limited overs matches, collingwood has not done well; he is not an aggressive player and his selection as a captain is questionable.
Complain about this posti was amazed that strauss kept his place all through the series. there is no doubting his ability but how long is it since his last ton........surely it was worth giving shah a run in the team once vaughan was back
Complain about this postlet strauss go back to county cricket to find some form......he will come back a alot stronger for it.
I think you are all being harsh on bell because he was forced down the order from no.3 to no.6 and asked to perform. His replacement Shah did nothing but Bell was still left at 6. Vaughan came back to the squad after a long absence and was immediately given the no.3 spot. Bell tried his best down the order but he had never batted there before. I wont take anything away from the others though, the whole England top 7 performed but for Strauss.
Complain about this postBell has batted at 6 before three centuries last summer I don't think Bell did badly it would be better if each layer was given a numerical rating.
Complain about this postThe most useful informations are included in bbc site. But the sports informations are not covered all countries info. In particular Cricket. Please take the feedback for develop the bbc site for sports information.
Complain about this postI do not agree with Goochs ratings.....
Complain about this postFor me the top 5 would be as follows based only on their performance in this series and not on their contribution or importance to English cricket
Monty Panesar
Alistar Cook
Paul Colingwood
Michael Vaughan
Matt Prior
followed by KP
This once again is my voew based on the performances of the players in the series against West Indies.....hence KP is that low down.....otherwise I agree that he is the most important player in the English team whether in ODIs or Tests