Second Ashes Test - player ratings
These are my ratings for the 22 men who played in the second Ashes Test at Lord's, as England completed a rare win over Australia in a memorable Test at the home of cricket.
ENGLAND
Andrew Strauss - 9
A wonderful century on the first day set the tone beautifully, and it looked even better when Australia folded so rapidly on the second day. His captaincy is fast improving, though he perhaps let the game drift a little on the fourth afternoon with some defensive field placings.
Alastair Cook - 8
Scored quickly in both innings on a ground that has served him well in the past. Looking much better outside off-stump and dealt with the short stuff really well. It's the straight one that's the only problem.
Ravi Bopara - 4
Got a pretty good ball before he had really established himself in the first innings, but made very heavy weather in the second innings with little pressure on England - and frankly looked a little out of nick.
Kevin Pietersen - 6
There is no doubt that the various injections Pietersen has had to ease the pain in his Achilles is affecting the way he moves at the crease. Still, scores of 32 and 44 meant this was no total disaster for KP.
Paul Collingwood - 6
Perhaps the most culpable batsman in the first innings, when he clearly gave his wicket away, he then helped step on the gas when England were stalling on Saturday. Remains a key figure this series.
Matt Prior - 8
Batted quite beautifully late on the third day, with consummate timing and placement. Had one of his best matches with the gloves and is beginning to justify the selectors' faith in his all-round ability.
Andrew Flintoff - 9
Produced some outstanding spells of uninhibited pace-bowling, despite being far from 100% fit. His 10-over burst on the final day, in which he took three wickets, will live long in the memory.
Stuart Broad - 7
Took the massive wicket of Ricky Ponting straight after lunch on day four and also struck twice in quick succession with the short ball in a fine spell on Friday.
Graeme Swann - 8
Came into the match under plenty of pressure, but silenced those doubts with four wickets in two very fine spells late in the match. His life was made easier by the discipline of the seamers.
James Anderson - 8
Memorably removed four of Australia's top six on Friday as he swung the ball both ways and created so many doubts. Unlucky not to pick up a wicket or two in the second innings.
Graham Onions - 7
Lightly bowled in the second innings, when he seemed to have an injury, he played his part earlier in the match - removing Simon Katich in Australia's first innings, and taking the last two wickets.
AUSTRALIA
Phillip Hughes - 4
The only Australian player with an active Twitter account, Hughes is also their one batsman yet to make a score of any note. A bit unlucky in the first innings; looked out of his depth on Sunday.
Simon Katich - 6
Began to dig the Aussies out of a hole in the first innings before falling to a poorly judged pull, and could have probably left the one he nicked to gully early doors on Sunday.
Ricky Ponting - 4
From the moment he was controversially given out cheaply on the second day, Ponting's self-control disintegrated. Cut a moody figure, dropped an easy catch and batted too freely on day four.
Michael Hussey - 6
Batted well on Friday before falling to a brilliant delivery from Flintoff, but looked badly out of nick in the second innings - even though it was a bad decision that ended his involvement.
Michael Clarke - 9
A tremendous century on Sunday gave thousands of English cricket fans a sleepless night and he batted on for another hour on the last day before falling to Swann as he tried to step on the gas.
Marcus North - 3
Played a dangerous shot born of desperation attempting to get off the mark in his first innings - and paid the price - and was an easy victim for Graeme Swann second time around. Poor show.
Brad Haddin - 8
Tremendous innings when all before him bar Clarke had crumbled on Sunday, and also batted better than most on Australia's freaky Friday. A shame about the 31 byes he conceded.
Mitchell Johnson - 5
Hit for 200 runs, Johnson's radar was wonky. Somwhere along the line he took three wickets but that's not what people will remember from this display. Nice knock in a losing cause on day five.
Nathan Hauritz - 7
A dislocated finger curtailed his bowling in England's first innings, but he bowled brilliantly after lunch on day three to remove Cook and Strauss. Produced a brave innings on Saturday morning.
Peter Siddle - 7
Has adopted the Merv Hughes mantle as Australia's enforcer, but is yet to pick up a significant haul of wickets. Batted really well at number 10 on the third morning, but could yet find himself dropped.
Ben Hilfenhaus - 7
Easily Australia's best bowler at the moment, and was rewarded with four wickets in the first innings. Signs, however, that he lost just a little enthusiasm and direction late on the third day.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I agree with most of the marks here but seriously...if you're not going to give Flintoff 10/10 on this occasion, when are you? That was probably the most hostile, quick spell of pace bowling i have ever seen in my life. Flintoff was the reason we won this test match - brilliant play from Strauss, but Flintoff was always a mark above him.
Complain about this comment
For once I think the rankings are about right. It might be argued that everyone has 1 point too many, barring perhaps Strauss and Flintoff.
As the rankings stand, I'd have given Haddin 7.5 as his impact in the test was slightly less than that of Prior. Both their second innings knock were of about the same value to their teams at the time but Prior's keeping was much better.
Complain about this comment
I think you may get a bit of stick from some of the 606 posters for Broad's score of 7!
Re: Flintoff not getting a 10/10. A five for.. is seen as the same as a ton, so should = Srauss, not just because its Freddie!
Complain about this comment
Stuart Broad 7?, one of the most overated players in the England set up for years, his bowling average is dire yet he seems undroppable, the cynic in me thinks he is so favoured because he is a nice public School pretty Boy with a famous Father
Complain about this comment
The one thing I would say about Broad. Two lower middle order wickets, a stunning catch and the wicket of Ponting second time up is probably at least as good a return as what we could have expected from Harmison, so well done to the selectors for sticking to their guns.
Complain about this comment
petdark, forget his average as that's spanning his entire career. He bowled some excellent spells, one of which is highlighted in the markings, and it is only the internet selectors that seem to have a problem with him
Now that Collingwood is back in form, you need someone else to have a go at, and Broad has inexplicably been criticised this match every time he went for 4
Complain about this comment
oh and Collingwood deserved a 7 as well. He and Prior were excellent in shifting the momentum back towards England in that partnership
Complain about this comment
Surely every win over the Aussies = 10s all round for the English boys? And why not give the Aussies 10s as well for being so wonderfully lame.
Complain about this comment
Broad clearly /is/ the weakest link in the England bowling attack.
Whether that means he should be dropped, or not, depends on whether there is someone better to replace him.
With Flintoff at 7, the batting looks weakish, which explains why the selectors want Broad at 8.
If Flintoff were not fit (or when he retires) I can see how Broad gets a spot in the team. If we revert to a 4 man attack, he isn't one of the best 3 seamers in England. And as an all-rounder, he isn't good enough with either bat or ball. Yet.
I hope that he will, in time, be better than Flintoff. His start to his career suggests a glorious future, if he can develop his game...
Complain about this comment
J'n'S: I very much diagree with the Strauss vs. Flintoff. It was a great spell from Flintoff, and to finally end up on the Lords honours board for his bowling with only his third 5-wicket haul ever is a nice fairy-tale ending to his Test career, but let's keep things in perspective: his 2 top-order wickets were contentious at best because of the umpires and 2 others were tailenders (good deliveries, but still: tailend wickets). The scorecard doesn't make those distinctions, granted, but for MotM one can and should take that into account.
So I'm not drinking the St. Freddie Kool Aid, Strauss was the real reason England won and should've been Man-of-the-Match. His 161 was by far the most impactful for the match outcome put Australia on the back foot straight from day one and ensured that England could bat with confidence instead of pressure in the 2nd innings.
Complain about this comment
Broad clearly /is/ the weakest link in the England bowling attack.
===
outbowled Onions in the second innings, and two crucial wickets (with other half chances created through his short ball) in the first
I think I remember you saying he was out of his depth on Friday, if this is a performance of someone out of their depth, it is easy to see why he is being selected
Complain about this comment
Broad isn't picked because he is a public schoolboy, nor because he has a famous father. He is picked because he is a young bowler with lots of potential, a superb fielder and a very good lower order batsman who, along with Swann, provides vital lower order runs.
The selectors know that when he reaches his peak he will be a vital bowler for England.
Complain about this comment
J'n'S is right. it's utterly impossible to conceive of anyone having a match better than Flintoff's, what with his match figures of 4, 30 n.o., 1-27 and 5-92. Indeed, I doubt these have ever been surpassed by any all-rounder in the history of the game ever. Therefore he should have had 10.
Complain about this comment
oh and Collingwood deserved a 7 as well. He and Prior were excellent in shifting the momentum back towards England in that partnership
-----------------------
Yes. I must have missed that. He was an excellent foil for both Prior and Flintoff's innings and still scored at well over a run every two balls himself.
If either he or Prior had gone cheaply, we may have been in a bit of bother, so an innings of equal importance.
Complain about this comment
gmp999 et al.
I know cricket and football don't mix well on these forums, but quoting Freddie's figures as a negative is like stating that Ronaldo not scoring every game renders him useless. It's not all about numbers, it's about influence. And Freddie scared the Aussies to death. That spell will be remember for some time to come.
He's worth a 10 all the way. And rather than saying him and Strauss should both = 9, why not give Straussy a 10 too :)
C'mon chaps, we just hammered the Aussies, let's not get too downbeat!
Complain about this comment
A little Anglocentric for my taste: I don't think England were that good across the board. There were some exceptional performances from individuals on both sides, but plenty of mediocre ones too. Is the '5' key broken on your keyboard? I think KP, Broad, Anderson, Onions could all be one point lower and Hilfenhaus deserved an 8.
PS: Freddie cannot be given a '10' for that all-round display. What would you award an all rounder who takes loads of wickets AND scores big runs in the same game? He failed in England's 1st innings and got out to a poor shot. At the time, it looked like it could be important to the outcome of the game. But certainly a '9'.
Complain about this comment
"outbowled Onions in the second innings, and two crucial wickets (with other half chances created through his short ball) in the first"
Only if you look at the stats.
His ball to dismiss Ponting was nothing special, and he did little with the ball this morning (I was there). Onions, on the other hand, got only 9 wickets, and took the ball later. He wasn't great, but if he'd had the newer ball, and the number of overs Broad had, who knows.
As for his wickets in the first innings... Well, if bang-the-ball-in-short-and-hope-they-make-a-mistake is the tactic...
Don't get me wrong, he's good. But there's nothing I've seen of him to suggest he's anywhere near the bowler (yet) that SiBo or (whisper it quietly) Harmison is.
"I think I remember you saying he was out of his depth on Friday, if this is a performance of someone out of their depth, it is easy to see why he is being selected"
He was out of his depth at Cardiff, and he bowled a lot of legside dross last night.
If he plays, I hope he does well, but I don't believe he's the 3rd best seamer in England.
Complain about this comment
Doh! 9 overs, not 9 wickets!
Complain about this comment
Again where is freddie's 10 out of 10?!?!?
Would of made a better than a run a ball 50 in the second innings if they had not declared as early as they did (not critising the timing of the declaration, which was spot on). And words cannot describe how good that bowling performance was with the expectation of a nation on his back.
Is it too much to suggest that this could become Freddie's Ashes ala Beefy in 1981??
Complain about this comment
Strauss 9
Cook 7.5
Bopara 4
Pietersen 5
Collingwood 7
Prior 7.5
Flintoff 10
Broad 6
Swann 8
Anderson 8
Onions 5
Hughes 3
Katich 6
Ponting 5
Hussey 5
Clarke 9
North 4
Haddin 7
Johnson 6
Hauritz 8
Siddle 6
Hilfenhaus 8
Complain about this comment
"Bang the ball in short see what happens" - well, if I remember rightly, the aussies put quite a few in the air down - you'll see as well if you watch those sessions again, so perhaps this "tactic" wasn't so bad? Over-bowled them in the end, but you cannot argue with the results
Who didn't look out of their depth at Cardiff?
Complain about this comment
Sorry you can't just gice a 10 because it is Freddy - Good spells of 10 proportion, but not although the game. A Fine Nine!
Complain about this comment
It was Strauss and Cook on day one that set up this victory for England and Strauss was robbed of the MOM award.
Flintoff bowled brilliantly today, but it could be argued that it was Anderson's bowling in the first innings that ultimately did more to decide the outcome of this match.
http://sportingchameleon.wordpress.com/
Complain about this comment
Kapnag - But ultimately, the question is "Would Harmison or SiBo bowl better if given the chance?"
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think the answer to that question is yes.
Complain about this comment
Would harmison have covered all that ground to take that catch? The catch that broke that partnership and started the Australian rot?
Is Harmison capable of sticking around at the crease for over an hour?
Has Harmison had the last 4 years to prove he should be England's front line bowler? Yep. And yet he's out the team...
Complain about this comment
collingwood 6 ? a nice fifty and a few smart catches more than that if you ask me
Complain about this comment
"Would harmison have covered all that ground to take that catch? The catch that broke that partnership and started the Australian rot?"
Don't know. Neither do you.
"Is Harmison capable of sticking around at the crease for over an hour?"
Yes.
Ultimately, you select your bowlers on their bowling ability. Harmison is neither a rabbit with the bat (though he's not in Broad's league) nor a disaster in the field.
But he's (IMHO) a better bowler, TODAY, than Broad.
Complain about this comment
He is a better bowler on his day, it's just a shame that those days rarely tend to be when he's playing for England
Complain about this comment
Harsh on Collingwood (although you are right about him being a key figure), was he really less effective than Broad or Onions? And did Prior really do enough to get a full 2 more marks than Colly?
Complain about this comment
"He is a better bowler on his day, it's just a shame that those days rarely tend to be when he's playing for England"
Indeed.
But he's had more good days with the ball than Broad has.
I mean, seriously, how many good days with the ball has Broad had?
Anyway, forget Harmison. What about SiBo? Hoggard? JAR Harris?
Complain about this comment
If Freddy is fit they won't change the side, so Bopara and Broad are safe!
Complain about this comment
Must say that I agree with Silk on this one. Broad is a decent bowler and a good prospect. I was there yesterday and thought his afternoon spell was the best of all the bowlers except Freddie.
Problem is that he seems to be someone who is learning the art of bowling whilst playing Test cricket, and that doesn't seem right to me. He is still very young and might benefit from a year or two playing regular county cricket and learning how to take wickets consistently.
Right now, Harmison for all his faults is a much more threatening wicket-taker than Broad. Whilst on his bad days, he can be infuriatingly poor, on his good days he is capable of bowling teams out. Broad, at the moment, is not.
Complain about this comment
The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs. It was clear from the Aussie second innings performance that the wicket wasn't deteriorating. He should have put the Aussies straight back in, the follow-on is a huge psychological advantage, as well as helping to guarantee a result.
Complain about this comment
"The only one I disagree with is Strauss"
Did he not win the game by 100 runs?
Was he not, in fact right?!
Complain about this comment
dave_h - you know that Strauss's decision meant that we won, right? We will never know what might have happened had the follow-on been enforced but his decision was clearly not the wrong one!
Complain about this comment
Daveh we won, so he was right!
If they had followed on they might have won, who knows!
Complain about this comment
I wrote on another blog that Flintoff hardly ever gets 5 wickets in an innings! Good for him for doing so in what sounded like a superb spell of bowling. Marks about right though Strauss had a shout of a 10 for carrying England in the first innings. Australia's bowlers a 5 and three 6s not 7s.
Personally though I would take a mark off Flintoff for his bloody egotistical celebration after every wicket!! 'Look at me I'm just the most brilliant cricketer who ever lived' screaming out of every pore!! Mind you I just want to see a quick handshake/pat on the back then back to your mark. Far more fitting IMHO.
Complain about this comment
I agree with everyone compaining about Collingwood only getting a 6. He's taken so much flak for so many years because he's not a particularly aesthetically appealing batsman but he has the mental strength at the crease and I think if you look at the partnerships England build he is very often the foil at the other end allowing the more flamboyant batsmen to score runs with confidence.
Gave his wicket away rather cheaply in the first innings but was instrumental in picking the 2nd innings back up after Pietersen and Bopara made life in the middle look very hard indeed...
And throw his undeniable quality as a slip (or indeed anywhere else) fielder into the mix and you'll find he played an essential role in this test!
7 at the very least!
Complain about this comment
A bit of heavy bias on the england but we won, so who cares.
Would give Broad a 6 max. Plenty of short stuff that caused few probs for the top order. Didn't really look like taking a wicket til ponting dragged one on. Selectors' faith has lasted long enough with him and time for someone else. Potential, yes. Current form, no.
I really worry for the post freddie era.
Complain about this comment
Can't see how Johnson deserves any points at all. Worst bowling I've ever seen in a Test Match, or even on my local village green come to that. Strauss & Cook must have thought they were in heaven.
As for Flintoff's bowling. Yes he was hostile but as was pointed out above he got some cheap wickets. If he desrves 9/10 what would Bob Massie have got in the 1972 Test (16 wickets in the match) against a rather useful England batting line up. 20/10 ?
As for gmp999, how old are you ? About 6 ? Go away and read your cricket history !
Complain about this comment
Firstly, Collingwood can not be marked equally to pietersen. An valuable 50 and a number of fine catches surely mean he should be at least a 7.
Also, i'm not sure of this but i heard johnson has had a family issue which is affecting his game?
Also you can't compare broad and onions as onions played much of the game with a elbow injury meaning limited bowling. Although i feel harmy sould be in the team, i think you can't drop any of the bowlers after bowling the aussies out for such a meagre total in the first innings.
But the batting is a problem. I fell bopara should be dropped, but there is no who can fill the void. Bell got a golden duck for the england lions vs australia, and was hopeful in his last test run , and in 2005. So the only option i can think of is key, wo isn't test class. So we have to hope bopara comes good.
Complain about this comment
Fletchcrik - I don't think gmp was being serious...if he was god help him!
Complain about this comment
sorry meant hopeless rather than hopeful when referring to bell
Complain about this comment
How can you give ravi and kp such high scores that afternoon session when they batted togther was the most boring cricket I have ever seen I was almost ill through the boredom my mind counldnt take it I would give both a 1.
Complain about this comment
Mostly agree with the ratings although Hilfenhaus should have got an extra mark. Feel sorry for Siddle if he gets dropped as he hasnt done much wrong, it should be Johnson , but just like Broad, Johnson is useful with the bat and can pick up a few wickets. I dont know why people are getting fixated over Broad - he'll play in every match. The real bowling change needs to be Harmison in for Onions. As i suspected, Onions looks good trundling along on the county circuit but no where near Test level. Harmy is in form and,as the great freddie has shown,the Aussies dont like aggressive,in your face bowling. As for the batting, Bopara looks shakey at 3 but I am struggling for a replacement - any ideas ?
Complain about this comment
The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs.
-----------------------------
What a totally stupid thing to say. Batting again is the thing to do if you have the killer instinct. Just ask Ponting.
He doesn't lack the killer instinct yet has had 9 chances to enforce the follow on as captain, and only chosen to do so twice, and both times in matches that were severely effected by the weather. Every time he has chosen to not enforce, Australia have won.
Even when he had a 400+ lead against England in the first test of the last Ashes he batted again. Ground us into the dust and destroyed us for the rest of the series.
Complain about this comment
Bopara getting 4 is very generous considering he batted like a constipated shrew second innings, was given a very generous life by Ponting, and then fielded poorly during the Aussie run chase, lots of misfields. Collingwood did give his wicket away first up but came back with real impetus in partnership with Prior, making up for the inexplicably slow Bopara-KP partnership, and then his fielding was as superb as ever.
How anyone can still criticise Strauss's decision not to enforce the follow-on is beyond me. Clearly all the temporary cricket watchers (aka the football fans) don't know very much about Lords!
Complain about this comment
The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs.
-----
Why does enforcing the follow on show killer instinct? That's right, it doesn't.
Strauss did what was right, i.e. get the runs on the board when the weather was at its best according to the forecast.
My only criticism of his captaincy was not putting short legs/silly points in more and really getting in their faces, especially when Clarke was out his crease so mouch to Swann. That aside, he did well.
Complain about this comment
Ratings - EASY
Strauss 10
Cook 10
Bopara 10
Pietersen 10
Collingwood 10
Prior 10
Flintoff 10
Broad 10
Swann 10
Anderson 10
Onions 10
Hughes 10
Katich 10
Ponting 10
Hussey 10
Clarke 10
North 10
Haddin 10
Johnson 10
Hauritz 10
Siddle 10
Hilfenhaus 10
Can we have a repeat for the rest of the series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs.
----
A captain should be judged on the outcome of the game - I wasn't convinced at the time, but Strauss obviously wanted to give the bowlers plenty of time to take ten wickets (perhaps bearing in mind Lord's last year when SA comfortably batted out 2 days), there was a question mark over the weather (bad forecasts didn;t really materialise), and he clearly felt conditions to score quickly and give more time to take the wickets were more promising on day 3 than they might have been on day 5. I was glad of not having to watch us struggle to reach a small total on Day 5!
In the end we won reasonably comfortably, so he made the correct decision.
Marks a generally fair. People calling for Freddie to get 10 out of 10 are a bit over-excited - Strauss and Anderson did as much if not more to put us in a winning position, though Freddie put in a Herculean effort to finish the job, as well as contributing a useful knock at the end of day 3. Ton and a five-for needed to bag 10 out of 10 methinks.
My only gripe is 8 for Haddin - batted well but a wicket-keeper should be judged on his wicket-keeping as much as his batting and he was poor. Take away 31 byes and your looking at a winning margin of 84, England probably having to bat longer, less time to survive or fewer runs to chase with all the psycological implications. These things matter and he should have been given 6 or 7 for a poor display behind the stumps.
Bopara was poor but deserves more of a chance - how many did Bell have, including all 5 tests in 2005 when he only contributed to fifties in the 3rd Test? Not so long ago Bopara scored 3 Test hundreds consecutively, and don't forget that was coming back into the side following 3 consecutive ducks. Don't underestimate his mental strength and give him the chance to score some runs in a confident, winning side.
Complain about this comment
Strauss should have got less? It's an absolute travesty he didn't win man of the match...
He scored over 1/3rd of Englands runs in the first innings, he switched the bowlers around well, he stopped Haddin scoring as quickly as he would have liked on day 4 as the longer the match went on and the pitch deteriorated it would be harder for the Aussies and he didn't enforce the follow on which was absolutely the right decision with the amount of time left in the game and the weather conditions on Saturday (sunny and good for batting).
Whoever posted that he shouldn't have got 9 is clueless! There was potentail for him getting 10.
He nicely teased the Aussies in thinking they could get 520 as well which meant they didn't go in to their shells...
He will be a quality captain as he is more intelligent than most before him, that is what a captain needs, intelligence and leading by example - he does both very well...Don't always think it is best to attack with short legs etc. By taking the game in to the 5th day really helped England - we got the weather conditions today and Aus still needed over 200, if he had been attacking on day 4 they may have only needed 150 on Day 5 and I think we'd have lost...
Complain about this comment
A few typo's there - meant to say:
'marks ARE generally fair'
and 'Take away 31 byes and YOU'RE looking at a winning margin of 84'!
and 'TWO fifites in the 3rd Test'
Apologies to people who get annoyed by that sort of thing, typed in a rushed break from work!
Complain about this comment
A great win for England and only one change should be considered replace Broad with Harmison if onions is fit
Complain about this comment
after reading this, I'm convinced I'm one of very few who think Flintoff's performance was good.. but far from equal to the accolades he's getting given
He's meant to contribute with the bat - which he hasnt done (granted he was not out in the second innings)
If Swann was given more than 1 over in the first innings, he would have undoubtedly had more wickets in the match than freddie
Strauss scored nearly 200 runs in the match - and England won by around 115.. he was a far more influencing factor
Not to mention that the 1st innings opening partnership with Cook more or less crippled the Australian morale from the get-go..
I think a lot of people are quite blinded today by the "farewell" factor
Complain about this comment
Gotta put Harmers in - leave Onions to stew for a while on the circuit - he is a bit of a county trundler after all (tho a good one). And bring back Rampers just for fun - he'll get more runs than Bopara for sure! A tweak or too is needed or the Ozzies will know just what to expect.
Complain about this comment
As ever England support seems to swing between wild optimism and deep depression
England played an excellent test overall, the Aussies were only in it twice, when they took wickets at the end of the first day, and then when Clarke and Haddin were playing well together.
To moan about slow scoring by KP and Bopara or to pull the performance of Broad apart is pedantic to say the least. KP is obviously struggling with injury/form, and he still gets runs. Bopara and KP didn't play fluently but so what, there was plenty of time left and what would people have said if they'd got out slogging early on?
Broad was obviously bowling to a team plan, variety is a key in any bowling attack, he was the bang it in short bowler, that was his role. Anyone saying it didn't work how do you explain the five wickets to short balls that the Aussies succumbed to in their first innings?
All the bowlers made significant contributions at key times which is refelcted in there stats at the end of the match, to turn it around so much after Cardiff was a superb effort. This is one of the few times that you can say that England bowled as a unit in recent history.
Flintoff's contribution was excellent but the other bowlers did pretty well, Jimmy Anderson's five fer seems to go un-noticed, Swanns bowling in the last innings was very good. Onions did a good job of getting those last two annoying wickets in the Aussies first innings.
My only worry apart from injuries to KP and Freddy is that Bopara looks a bit overawed by the whole thing, however I don't think Ian Bell is the answer, he and Harmison should be forgotten about imo. Both are mentally weak, as proven by their peformances in the past, perhaps some of those calling for their return should look at their stats over the last 10-15 test matches that they have played in, perhaps then you'd be less keen to point out Broads figures.
Complain about this comment
I think Harmison should come into this side because without Flintoff, I believe when the crunch period of the game comes England have fairly weak penetrative bowlers.
Complain about this comment
Enforcing the follow on would have ground our bowlers into the dirt on a batting wicket..remeber SA last year...perfectly correct decision from Strauss
#37.go away and watch croquet!
Complain about this comment
J'n'S : Have a look at Donald v Atherton, Trent Bridge 1998. Fantastic theatre and the most hostile fast bowling since the demise of the West Indies' quicks.
Complain about this comment
Boredatlords:
Jimmy didn't get a 5fer. He got four, although I would argue that the first innings wickets were more crucial to the end result than those taken in the last hour this morning.
Complain about this comment
A small point that people haven't mentioned, Hughes was dropped by flintoff (Anderson was bowling) early on. I think this was forgotten because Flintoff got the wicket soon after (and freddy's mistakes are often overlooked), but i think the drop affected Anderson's bowling yesterday.
Overall great win for England. Hopefully we can carry it forward to the next tests.
Complain about this comment
Jimmsgal you are quite right, my error!
My general point was that this was a team performance, pretty much everyone chipped in, with wickets, runs or some good catching. Its tempting to focus in on Flintoffs bowling, or Boparas batting too much either way.
The suggestions that we should start dropping players after pretty much dominating a test match dumbfounds me. The comments about Broad and Onions being dropped are just plain silly, both played there part and should be retained. Or perhaps we should start dropping players when they don't perform brilliantly every match, that'll work, just like in the eighties and nineties for England.... oh no wait...
Complain about this comment
Boredatlords
Not sure I agree with that - a really good team should consider making changes even when they win, especially if there is someone else banging down the door, as Harmison is.
I would not suggest dropping Bopara for two reasons: first, he made three centuries (albeit vs the Windies) very recently, so deserves at least one more chance; and secondly, there is no outstanding candidate to replace him. Had bell made a century for the England Lions, things would be different.
Broad, on the other hand, has not made a significant contribution in terms of wickets for quite a while now so is definitely living on borrowed time. I don't think selecting him again would be a disaster, but when you're got an in-form Harmison waiting in the wings, using him has to be a real option. Onions, if fit, deserves another go - he has had more success than Broad in the games they have played together.
Complain about this comment
Freddie should be 10, not particularly because of his wickets, or his potentially vital knock at the end of Day 3, but because the impact he had on his teammates was almost physical. Pietersen should be 5 - I know he's injured but his second innings was pitiful.
To the people queueing up to get on Broad's back, he has just become the second quickest man to 50 wickets. The first? Sir Beef himself. He is still bowling important overs and taking important wickets. If Jimmy and Fred are bowling better - fantastic, long may it continue - but why should someone be whinged at? Our attack is looking great with GBH, Monty and Sideshow in the wings - let's be glad! Even in 2005 our back up seamer was Colly, now we have more depth and more variety than ever before. Let's stop trying to kick our most promising youngsters before they can stand - and that goes for Ravi too. He is definitely struggling, and perhaps he needs a rest, but he's shown enough already to justify a little respect and patience from part time fans.
Complain about this comment
I bet a lot of the people who are on here calling for Broads head are the same types of people who were calling for Flintoff's head when he first started his test career. Flintoff did not burst on to the scene with any great deal of gusto. Certainly not compared to the heights he has achieved today. Yet the selectors did show faith in him (mostly) and that faith has been paid off. Broad is young and everyone has a few wobbles in their first ashes series. i think he was poor in Cardiff, but certainly much better at Lords. I say give the guy a break, pat him on the back for a well played match, and see how he gets on at Edgbaston. The best thing about Broad is how he learns and develops. he has an old head on his shoulders and is the natural replacement for Flintoff when he leaves the team. The only person who has a serious question mark over them in my opinion is Bopara, but i still wouldnt drop him for the next test. Bell is waiting in the wings though and I always fancied him regaining his test place at some point. Id hate to have Australia's head ache though. Id drop at least a point off of Johnsons score. His bowling was cringeworthy at times.
Complain about this comment
1934 was the last time that England beat the Auzzies at Lords. This Test was as fabulous match & a wonderful advert for cricket.. thank you to both sides! Yes there were good and not so good performances but in essence their was everything. Runs, wickets, drama, tension passion, determination, grace, guile and guts. The game ebbed and flowed and could have gone either way. Every time I seem to log-on to hear what was happening it was difficult to not listen for hours! Let us all hope that this Series continues in the same vain as the first two Tests. I'm off for a lie down in a dark room to recover...until the next test..
http://jonnyontheball.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/jonnyontheball
Complain about this comment
" I bet a lot of the people who are on here calling for Broads head are the same types of people who were calling for Flintoff's head when he first started his test career"
Flintoff was dropped, went away and came back better.
Just an observation.
Complain about this comment
Oxfordfoxfan
I don't think Broad is the second quickest to 50 wickets, rather the second youngest, which is a completely different stat and one defined by how often he has been picked in his youth.
KP's 'pitiful' 2nd innings knock still contributed 44 runs and saw us through a difficult patch to give Prior and Collingwood a platform from which to kick on.
Oh, and Colly only played one game in the 2005 Ashes, when he was brought in as a batsman, not a bowler. The next seamers in line for that series were Tremlett and Anderson.
Complain about this comment
Yes great spell by Flintoff and 9/10 but not MOM - Strauss, even Anderson or Swann worth a thought.
Broad must stay - he is the future and even if he is not Flintoff yet he ticks most boxes already. As Holding said he needs to focus more on doing the basics, bowling faster and making the batsmen work not experiment too much. Onions is a steady Eddie who I think can step up if asked but can move aside if the pitch promises to suit Harmy. Bopara however is the doubt.
Complain about this comment
Isn't great that people have different views over which England player should be man of the match? English cricket is in a healthy state!
I thought it was great that we batted very well in both innings and did not rely on KP at all.
Strauss and Cook were great. I wonder what Vic Marks thinks of Cook now since he said he would not cross the road to see him bat in May?
Flintoff was great too. Prior is becoming a vital member of the team- good batting, sharp keeping and spoke very well at the interviews during the test.
Anderson's batting and fielding have greatly improved-he is still young and his bowling will only get better.
Broad-still very young and he handled the criticism of the 1st Test very well I thought. Bowled well on Sunday and his enthusiasm and athlecism is an important ingrediant.
Onions in his first Ashes test did well too I thought. He can only get better.I think he is good enough for test cricket.
How poor are the Australians though? Johnson's bowling was terrible, Haddin's wicketkeeping is atrocious. They will not be #1 in the world for long. You wonder how they beat S Africa?
Complain about this comment
Isn't it time Pattinson had another go ?
Complain about this comment
6 for Collingwood is a bit low, he looks in top form with 3 x 50s in the series, + his fielding was good.
Kev deserves a 7, as her took a great catch and chipped in twice.
Complain about this comment
How poor are the Australians though? Johnson's bowling was terrible, Haddin's wicketkeeping is atrocious. They will not be #1 in the world for long. You wonder how they beat S Africa?
===
Strangely enough, Mitchell Johnson was the main reason, along with some destructive batting by Hughes
Never write them off. England had the best of the conditions and played better for 3 1/2 days, but Australia were still in with a chance before play this morning. Any other team would have surrendered last night
Complain about this comment
With KP, Fred and Onions all on the injury list, I would not advocate changing anything as those potential absentees will be enough to think about. And actually, we won with the same team bar one who made a complete horlicks of it at Cardiff. You simply can't say what will happen from one game to the next, but if you preserve and reinforce your team ethic by being loyal, you have a much greater chance of success. Ask Michael Vaughan about 2005.
As for Broad, the role of the all rounder is undervalued unless you do a Botham. Not many guys can do that, and in the same way that Gilchrist has changed the view of wicket keepers, the role of the all rounder looks puny at times compared to Sir Ian. He was the youngest player to get 50 test wickets. The second youngest was.......erm, actually, it was Stuart Broad. Get behind the lad.
Complain about this comment
And as for Mitchell Johnson - he could barely hit the cut square at times, but I bet the Aussies aren't going to ditch him because they tend to stick by their guys.
Complain about this comment
"The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs."
As has been said numerous times here, Strauss did exactly the right thing in not enforcing the follow on, but obviously ordering the England batsmen to go for their shots and put up a big lead quickly on a day when the wicket was ideal for batting. Strauss knows a thing or two about Lords y'know. You could see by his face when Bopara and Pietersen were batting that a slow scoring rate wasn't part of the plan! I wonder if Bopara would have scored a few more in the second innings if not for the fact that Pietersen seemed to be really struggling with his achilles problem and couldn't make the quick singles or turn ones into twos.
Also it seemed that he was definitely looking out for a chance to declare in the evening of day 3 though decided that if he did then Australia would simply take the light so decided to go for as many runs as possible and declare overnight...that shows that he's learning from what's happened in previous matches. It's that ability to learn more than anything else that makes a good captain. It seems to be coming with bowling changes and most importantly bowling partnerships (Anderson and Flintoff with the new ball in particular) as well now, which is a positive sign.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if Bopara would have scored a few more in the second innings if not for the fact that Pietersen seemed to be really struggling with his achilles problem and couldn't make the quick singles or turn ones into twos.
===
Agree with this. Bopara had to turn a lot of runs down because of KP's troubles, leaving him to face the music, and not make much progress run wise
Difficult situation, although he wasn't timing the ball that well, it has to be said
Complain about this comment
A 50, some great catches and Colly even bowled a maiden over in the second innings to rub salt into the wounds of the aussies!
I would give him a 7.5 in this match.
Stop marking Colly down!
Complain about this comment
i dont think a sports person has ever been as over rated as freddie. sure he is a great character and occasionally bowls well, but he is nowhere near a great. To be considered a great you need to play well for youer entire career, not just in front of your home crowd once or twice.
also, I wonder how the rest of the english bowlers feel after freddie hogging the glory today. sure they will say its a team effort, but if any of them have an ego then today it will have taken a hit.
anyway, as an aussie I must say well done england, thats one test more than I thought you would win this series. congrats and bring on the 3rd test!
Complain about this comment
Freddie has been injured throughout most of his career. It would have been very interesting to see what his stats and figures would have been had he remained injury free (and i mean literally injury free. Crawling along with the aid of cortosone injections does not count). Stats dont really do the big man justice. He can turn a game on its head just like that with the ball or bat in his hand.
Just one more thing on Broad: True, the selectors dropped Flintoff at the start of his career. But I think that the best experience Broad is going to get at the moment is in the test arena. Bumping people back to county cricket works when they are out of form, not learning the game, which is what broad is doing. He will progress far quicker in tests than he will in county. Once he has matured then we should have another look at him and see if he needs to go back to county to perfect his craft (like anderson). But at the moment id say he has to stay.
Complain about this comment
I'm all for keeping faith with a winning team and not dropping players for the sake of it....however, there is also the truism that you play your BEST side, and if you can strengthen a team in any way, you do it.
Harmison must come in, firstly because it makes sense to have two 90mph plus bowlers who can rattle the Aussies rather than one; secondly, if Freddie's knee happens to give out halfway through a test match, our back-up bowlers don't look as though they can pose enough of a consistent threat to worry the visitors' batting line-up.
Onions may be the unlucky one, as he is obviously injured AND has barely had time to get used to the up's and down's of test cricket; but personally, if Graham's fit, I'd leave out Broad. Unlike Onions, who already has a match-winning performance under his belt, he has had enough time in the test arena to have made at least one major bowling contribution, which he hasn't. He's got great potential, but like Anderson early on, he needs to go back to the ranks and work a few things out. I'm sure he's talented enough to mature into a really good bowler, but he's not quite there yet, and for every good spell he bowls, two or three others are real help-yourself stuff.
Complain about this comment
Roll on the footy season so I don't have to read daft comments from part time cricket fans such as:
Collingwood was our back up seamer in 2005. What?!?!
Strauss showed a lack of killer instinct not enforcing the follow on.
Bring Ramprakash back for Bopara. Give me strength!
Can't believe what's happened to Mitchell Johnson - he was amazing in SA over the winter. Massive difference so far but it's bit early to write him off just yet. I heard Alec Stewart ponder before the first test whether Johnson would be able to bowl with the Duke or adapat to English conditions. Hats off to Alec, he's been right so far.
Complain about this comment
kezent,
1. If your "entire" career is frequently interrupted by injuries, your form is bound to dip.
2. Don't think he was "hogging the glory", fans and teammates were handing it to him.
3. If you get the chance, ask some of his test opponents if he's overrated (and a decent bloke).
Must agree with one thing though, your use of the word "character".
Cricket, or any sport, is all the better for characters - it may be big business now but first and foremost, it's entertainment.
He will be missed by the world of cricket, not just England.
Complain about this comment
The main Aussie bowling threat before the start of the Ashes "Michelle Johnson" went for more than 200 runs & thats the story of the match along with Freddie's brilliant spell on day 5.
He truely deserves a 9/10, along with Straussy whose 161 in the 1st innings drifted the game England's way.
Complain about this comment
4. At 2:17pm on 20 Jul 2009, petdark1 wrote:
Stuart Broad 7?, one of the most overated players in the England set up for years, his bowling average is dire yet he seems undroppable, the cynic in me thinks he is so favoured because he is a nice public School pretty Boy with a famous Father
-------------------
The cynic in me thinks this might be precisely why some fans seem to have taken such a fierce dislike to him. Inverted snobbery is still snobbery.
I do think an 8 is maybe a bit generous to Matt Prior though. Fair enough it was a decent knock in the second innings following an uninspired start to the series with the bat, but personally I thought he looked rather untidy with the gloves for much of the match.
All minor gripes though. Overall it was a great team performance and result. Well done England.
Complain about this comment
Good team performance to win the match. Player ratings pretty much on the ball.
Areas that could be improved -
1. the number 3 position, Bopara not looking comfortable. He's a talented player and deserves the opportunity but is this the right time to have him at number 3?????
Replacements in the wings - none!!!! Certainly not Bell or Key or Shah. Ramprakash!!!!! Please NO, NO, NO!!!! Bring in a talented youngster - not the answer, no guarantee he'll succeed.
One solution, drop Bopara down to no 5 - may make things easier for him to settle down, then again if England are 260 for 3 after 80 overs he'd have to come in and face the new ball!!!!! Colly at 3 would add stability, he gets his head down, fights it out and seldom gives his wicket away (ok there was that first innings but that was the exception to the rule!!!)
2. A bit more penetration in the bowling. Anderson for swing, Flintoff for pace 7 agression OK, Swann for spin OK, Broad and Onions - replace one of them with Harmison. Harsh maybe??? Yes, but the series has to be won - Broad is talented and improves all the time but is not at his best yet. Onions has done all that has been asked of him in three tests. But an in-form Harmison bowling well with pace and awkward bounce could break the back of the Australian batting and win a test.
Other than that carry on the good work.
Complain about this comment
After the dust has settled on his retirement, I wonder if Fred will look back at the video of this test match, especially the 2nd innings, and think "If I pitched it up a little bit further and a little more often and I would've had a lot more test wickets to my name"
Complain about this comment
"I do think an 8 is maybe a bit generous to Matt Prior though. Fair enough it was a decent knock in the second innings following an uninspired start to the series with the bat, but personally I thought he looked rather untidy with the gloves for much of the match."
Couldn't disagree more! First, Prior's start to the series with the bat was good - he played a pretty important knock in the first innings at Cardiff (although he admittedly let himself down in the second innings, along with all the top order bar Paul Collingwood MBE). Secondly, he was very good with the gloves in this Test match - just compare his performance to Haddin, who dropped a catch and conceded 31 byes. Lords is a tough place to keep and Prior did well.
Complain about this comment
I think when Flintoff looks back he' ll probably wish that he didn't have a dodgy knee/ankle/foot etc. I don't think he is over rated, its just like virtually every other modern fast bowling all rounder (Oram, Bravo, Watson et al) he has suffered more than his fair share of injuries which can have only negatively effected his performance and mindset, is it a coincidence that he bowls his best when he knows he has only got the one last series to get through with all the niggles and aches, I think not.
It really does make me want to cry when people seriously mention Harmison as an England bowler again. Just brake down his stats and assess them for what they are, mediocre. Yes he bowled out a couple of sides on very bowler friendly wickets, but that was in the past. Exactly what did he do in the Lions game that made you want to forget his poor attitude and poor performances for England over the past three years? Bounced out a batsmen who the current bowlers have managed to bounce out aswell?
Onions gets dropped from the side after taking plenty of wickets against the West Indies for a tactical selection of an extra spinner which fails miserably. He gets picked for this match where he takes a respectable 3 wickets at 30.33 in not many overs in a winning side, yes lets drop him and bring in a bloke who couldn't be bothered to get fit to play for England. It doesn't make sense in the long term, it doesn't even make sense in the short term.
Broad is the weakest bowler, but whilst you shouldn't pick bowlers on the runs they can score neither can you ignore them. The Aussies are desperate not to drop Johnson as he is also a useful batsmen. Lower order runs were crucial in 2005 for both sides. With five bowlers and Flintoff's poor batting having Broad and Swann coming in strengthening the tail cannot be underestimated. If Monty wasn't so clueless in the field and with the bat he may well not have been dropped so quickly.
The five bowlers who won this match should all be retained, between them I believe they can take 20 wickets. In English conditions the two sides are very evenly matched and as with this match the series will in effect be lost by the side that has a couple of bad batting performances.
Complain about this comment
While I agree with most of the ratings I think that Strauss is too high, his poor captincy yesterday afternoon almost let the game slip away, taking that into account I'd have given him 8.
My main issue though is with the Aussie bowlers, they were as bad as the England ones last week but the lowest got a 5! The highest any of them should get is a 6 im my opinion, they are all average players (at best), the only internation team any of them would walk into would be Bangladesh!
Complain about this comment
"Exactly what did he do in the Lions game that made you want to forget his poor attitude and poor performances for England over the past three years?"
Well, to start with he took 6 wickets, including Hughes twice, Katich, Hussey and Ponting on a pretty good pitch.
As for his poor performances for England over the last 2-3 years, he STILL averages much better than Broad over that period and Broad doesn't have a history of top class performances or great recent form.
Unfortunately (because I think Broad is a real tryer), the off-form version of Harmison we have seen over the last few years is better than anything we have yet seen from Broad. I agree that you cannot ignore batting form, but you can't pick a bowler purely because of it either.
Complain about this comment
Stuart Broad has had so many more chances than other seamers in the past 5 years. Kabir Ali only got one test for goodness sake. Why does Broad deserve special treatment?
2007/08: 3 tests, 9 wickets @ 38 with a strike rate of 80
2008: 6 tests, 15 wickets @ 46 with a strike rate of 81
2008/09: 6 tests, 14 wickets @ 36 with a strike rate of 73
2009: 4 tests, 12 wickets @ 38 with a strike rate of 59
Not exactly playing exhalted opposition either. Seems to be he should be putting in the hard yards in county cricket just like every other bowler is expected to. At the moment he's getting a free ride in the England team, apparently undroppable.
I'm not saying he doesn't have potential, but why aren't we picking players on merit?
Complain about this comment
Chris Broads son's bowling is a joke.
An average of 40 and a strike rate of 80 says it all.
Dont give me all this pony that he is young and inexperienced, he has played 18 tests which makes him fairly experienced but he's still rubbish.
Complain about this comment
I agree with almost all your scoring on this occasion, except Collingwood - I think he is often underrated and deserves at least a 7 for his contribution overall, including his batting and brilliant fielding performance.
Complain about this comment
To the Stuart Broad critics / Steve Harmison supporters, I can surmise only 2 theories ...
i) you didn't watch the match as Broad bowled better than Graham Onions
ii) you've been in a cricketing coma since 2005 and have had the good fortune to miss Harmison's bowling performances for England
Complain about this comment
I would like to add another rating, England's fielding 9, Aussie fielding 4. That catch Broad took was awesome, a sideways/forewards diving catch at full speed (he's def quick)is really difficult, at least thats my experience, but this young bloke looked like a cheetah hungry for his prey and he wasnt gonna let it slip away;) That completely changed the momentum since the Aussies got two batsmen in who were approaching half centuries and also a century partnership and at that moment they were by no means out of this match, I would almost say it started to look like evenly balanced.
I understand the critics Broad gets but you should also take his quality as a fielder into account. Usually bowlers arent the best of fielders but England also got a fine catcher in the slips and Anderson who must be one of the best fielders of all the bowlers in the world. When I usually watch England field it looks woeful but I reckon nowerdays they really got a good fielding side.
Complain about this comment
Biased ratings in my opinion. Broad and Onions the same rating Hilfenhaus! No! He was miles better then those two seeming he was the only seamer for us who consistently bowled a good line/length.
Complain about this comment
Stuart Broad is a fairly expensive "work-in-progress" (re. Jimmy Anderson two years ago). Obviously highly thought of by the management, took the vital wicket of Punter and was dead unlucky not to ball Clark for 0. Something about Broad's long-term potential that I like and should be persisted with. Unless of course the Edgbaston wicket is lightning fast with steep bounce (wouldn't that be exciting) ... Steve Harmison would come into the new-ball equation.
Complain about this comment
Test Cricket is bowler's game and ODIs are for batsmen.
In that respect, Freddie deserves a 10, Anderson should get a 9 and Strauss getting a 9 is fair enough.
Complain about this comment
Obviously Strauss and Cook benifited from worse Australian spell of bowling I have ever seen.
People complaining about Colly's rating I think it's fair because of the shot he played in the first innings.
KP I would give a five as he was average. He has 9days before the next test.
If he is not fit he shouldn't play
And no play should get a ten in this test match.
Complain about this comment
How on earth has KP been given a 6?
He may have got some runs on the board, but his batting was awful on the whole. Almost as bad as Bopara's.
Onions doesn't deserve a 7 either.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for all the replies. To pick up on two of the more salient points, firstly Stuart Broad. He contributes hugely to the team, not least with his batting and is certainly a genuine all-rounder of the future. His catch at fine-leg on day two was the catalyst for a whole run of wickets. I think he will continue to chip away with big wickets all series. (remember be got Ponting out here).
Flintoff - why no 10 you ask. A 10 is by definition a perfect score. If I was marking him purely for his bowling on Monday then he would get a 10. But he did drop a catch somewhere along the line, and did not play a great shot for his dismissal in the first innings. If you have read my other blog today you will see how much I rated him though!
Complain about this comment
Yes Oliver, he will chip away with wickets at an average of 40 and a strike rate of 70.
He is in the side as a bowler and his statistics do not back up your arguement.
He doesnt warrent a place as other prospects with better records, a al Plunckett and Mahmood were discarded for less.
Complain about this comment
I think you are either being a touch harsh on Bopara, or a touch generous to KP here. I thought on reflection there partnership on Saturday afternoon was a pivotal one, seeing off the most hostile and consistent period of Australian bowling in the match. Sure neither looked in great form, but both hung around.
Personally I wonder in some ways if KP being unfit for Edgbaston wouldn't be a bad thing. Bopara could drop to 4, and either Bell could go in at 3 or one of Stephen Moore or Joe Denley could come in either at 3 or as an opener and allow Strauss or Cook to go in first wicket down. I think that might make the middle order look a little more secure, if a little more inconsistent. Another option might be pushing Colly up to 3 and swapping with Bopara, though I think Colly is looking great at 5 at the moment. But the middle order is the one aspect of the England team that looks likely to cause England a problem.
Last point, Harmy in for Onions. No disrespect to Onions, who put in a hardworking performance, but I think right now KP and Freddie seem so critical to England's chances. I think England could do with putting in one more player the Aussies are wary of.
Complain about this comment
The 2 B's or not 2 B's.
Broad and Bopara, maybe a little patience needed?
Nobody seems to be sure of either, but given their age and their potential (on which most DO agree) do they not deserve a little more time? Particularly as there are no obvious replacements.
Harmison? Maybe. On his day, he is awesome, but he has had a few chances and I think Broad deserves the same.
And all this talk about statistics, leave it out; "there are lies, damned lies and ....".
Bowling is more about combinations than batting, often in pairs.
Case in point is FF, stats belie his contribution, often having to plough a lone furrow, when his great gift is frightening the bejasus out of a batsman, leading to a wicket for his colleague.
Complain about this comment
....about right. I have got to say that today at lords was one of the most incredible spell of bowling I've ever witnessed. I was there at the Oval on that gloomy Sunday too when Fred also took 5'for. I guess it is not me that is the lucky omen but the big man loves the big occasion.
We love you Fred.
Complain about this comment
33. dave_h wrote:
The only one I disagree with is Strauss. Yes, his ton and a half set England up for the win, but failing to enforce the follow-on for a second time, shows that he lacks the killer instinct a captain needs. It was clear from the Aussie second innings performance that the wicket wasn't deteriorating. He should have put the Aussies straight back in, the follow-on is a huge psychological advantage, as well as helping to guarantee a result.
-------------------------------------------------------------
erm, remind me again, who won the match?
We won by 115 runs. That's a pretty emphatic endorseement of Strauss's decisions, don't you think?
P.S. What results have enforcing the follow on guaranteed in recent years? ;)
Complain about this comment
To Betty S. Have you considered therapy for your Stuart Broad issue? You've now spent over a year posting comments with a single theme! You haven't even ever managed to call him Stuart ... its always Broad or Chris Broad's son!
Complain about this comment
Supreme performance from Freddie -doesn't he just love beating The Aussies .
IMHO Stuart Broad had a better game than at Cardiff and although he gets a little excited and bowls too short on occasions we must persevere with him as he will only get better and his batting is a bonus ........for all the people who want to compare his average at the moment .....please wait , as it will get better ........
And where are all the people who were calling for Matt Prior's head and pushing James Foster's claims ??...........Matt Prior is a talent and is almost worth his place in the team on his batting alone , and his non too shoddy glove work makes it a no brainer .........leave him alone .
All in all an excellent all round team performance ..........but I'm still not convinced by Bopara's presence at number 3 , KP should bat 3 with Ravi at 4 or 5 ..........or bring back Ian Bell ?
Complain about this comment
I find some of the criticism of Stuart Broad in particular somewhat bizarre. He is young, still improving and is probably one of the first names on the team sheet. He has put on at least a yard of pace since last year. In both innings he was clearly bowling to a plan - and doing it well. Sadly, I thought that Onions was found out a bit as lacking variety - he is the one who should make way for Harmison. I thought Lord's would be ideal for him but he failed to deliver. Clearly the stand out quick bowlers were Anderson in the 1st innings and Flintoff in the 2nd - but in terms of delivering the plan it was Broad who backed up the main man in each innings. Onions will develop further but he is not quite ready at the highest level. I hope he will come again.
Anyway, isn't it churlish to criticise? We beat Australia at Lord's. In a nice piece of symmetry, my mother was there in 1934 and I was there this time (albeit on the Sunday)
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one who would have given Freddie an 8 and given the man of the match to Andrew Strauss? Freddie's 1st innings batting contribution was paltry at No.7 and in the second innings he had licence to hit and made a small contribution. He dropped what could have been a vital catch and he skittled out some tailenders to contribute to his 5 for. I am not saying it wasn't a good performance, but it isn't in the same category as Bob Willis at Headingley or Ian Botham at Edgbaston in 1981. However, Strauss scoring 161 and batting for the whole of day 1 set the tone for England to capitalise on. He was also brave, but now proven right, to not enforce the follow on and he took a couple of fine catches.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Freddie, currently living in Melbourne and endured close of play at 4am for 4 days, thanks to a truely inspirational and brilliant 10 overs, tucked up by midnight and slept very soundly.
Don't think anywhere near enough has been made of the 'Feddie' effect. As Ponting suggested after the match, Freddie's pace and hostility were West Indian 70's and 80's 'like' and genuinely worried ALL the Aussies.
On Harmison, on his day he can do the same. Whether given the chance he would is the tough question. Aussie press is hoping he doesn't play as they see a weakness in their line-up around what they call 'chin-music'. I think it's safe to say that the Aussie first innings at Lord's was their duffer for the series and the 20 wicket question is still a genuine question. If anyone can put a fire in his belly which won't blow out after four overs I say get Harmison in. Onions or Broad? Sorry has to be Onions.
Complain about this comment
13. At 2:32pm on 20 Jul 2009, gmp999 wrote:
"..Flintoff's, what with his match figures of 4, 30 n.o., 1-27 and 5-92. Indeed, I doubt these have ever been surpassed by any all-rounder in the history of the game ever."
Botham at Headingly in 1981. 50, 149no 6/95, 1/14 - England win by 18 runs. THAT was a 10/10 performance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Your ratings are generally spot on, except I'd elevate Srauss to 9.5 and drop Broad to 5.5. Although Freddie's last day bowling was phonomenal, subjectively, it was mainly against the tail and his 1st inns contribution wasn't so great. Maybe we're rating him highly for sentimental reasons - and on this occasion, I can see why that's acceptable!. However, rating Broad at 7 is very generous and unacceptable. The guy only produced 2 good spells of bowling in the whole match. Every other time he was getting pasted for 4 to different parts of the ground. What was the short pitched stuff about on the 3rd morning? Maybe, this is a sign that Broad has made 'the club' - that aloof group of players who never seem to be dropped no matter how they play? I do feel though, that the guy has an international future and should be given further chances if his bowling improves, but it's not been at the required level for a few tests now. So Broad either improves his bowling at Edgbaston or faces a spell back with the counties.
Complain about this comment
#37.go away and watch croquet!
Jovialstelladave - go and watch Borat to understand concept of wind up in last line!! However my original point stands.
Complain about this comment
Fletchcrik, #40.
Presumably if you had been one of Robin Hood's Merry Men you would have followed Little John around all day saying "But he's actually quite tall. I don't understand."
Complain about this comment
A good win but there are plenty of swallows to come. We had the rub by winning the toss and for two days batting conditions were helpful. As soon as the sun goes in at Lords there is likely to be lateral movement. I was there for most of the match and I can assure you that we deserved our victory. There have been plenty of occasions where the Aussies have had the rub and all the right decisions - don't forget the four bad decisions that Strauss had in Australia last time. What was disturbing was the catch at mid-on that clearly did not carry - clearly different from the Strauss catch at slip where in the past the batsman would have looked at the fielder and got the nod. What was particularly sad was that although it is possible that the fielder could not be certain about the ball bouncig first the other fielders could clearly see it wasn't clean but still continued to appeal and claim the catch. Technology will have to be used more.
I heard many on five live complaining about not enforcing the follow-on.- Benaud and Botham joining in- but on that morning the ball was doing nothing when Onions took the last two wickets. Our bowlers had had a long session and the weather forecast for the following day was cloudy with showers but warmer.
The Aussies definately thought they could break cricket history on this flat Lords wicket by scoring more than a 100 runs more than the last winning scoring in a fourt innnings and by the last morning they were still confident of scoring over 200 runs with only five wickets remaining. Well we now know that all those doubters who were phoning in to five live yesterday morning should no longer doubt Strauss. It should be more difficult to criticise our captain. Bring on Harmy especially if this is going to be another damp Summer.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Prior's eight, but saying his keeping behind the stumps was one of his best performances yet is very far of the mark. A number of drops on each day that he took to the field meant he was putting himself under pressure for the keeping position, but like many times before his work with the bat-an innings heavily underrated in the context of the match-got him out of trouble.
Complain about this comment
not bad Ollie I would mark down all those Aussies who continued to claim a catch that clearly did not carry, sometimes the catcher cannot know as the ball is under him but the others could see. See you at the next game
Complain about this comment
In regards to the Stuart Broad argument:-
1) You don't change a winning team unless there's injuries
2) Broad does take wickets- at least more than Onions
And Finally...
3) If Strauss and Andy Flower thought Harmison was better than Broad then Broad would be in the side
Complain about this comment
In regards to the Stuart Broad argument:-
1) You don't change a winning team unless there's injuries
2) Broad does take wickets- at least more than Onions
And Finally...
3) If Strauss and Andy Flower thought Harmison was better than Broad then Broad wouldn't be in the side
Sorry for the typo!
Complain about this comment
Where's the Aussie finger? Where's the flags?
Complain about this comment
Rudi Koertzen - 10
Missed Freddies no ball on the Katich dismissal, and followed up with another beauty when dismissing Phillip Hughes after a dubious Andrew Strauss 'catch'. Considering the Aussies were beaten by a mere 115 runs, this was arguably the greatest contribution towards victory. Lets hope he isnt replaced for the next test.
Complain about this comment
some of the comments on here are crazy. one match does not a great/rubbish player make. broad's test career is developing nicely - he is very young and will be occasionally inconsistent. the best thing about this test was how the bowlers operated as a unit. the best since 2005? quite possibly. that's why we won the ashes last time and if we keep it going like that we will again. fred's bowling was brilliant, but it's about time he came up with the wickets - you know you won't get a great deal of runs from him. as good a spell as i've seen in recent years. strauss deserves all the plaudits for his innings and declaration timing. that was a really tricky one and he got it spot on in the end.
finally, giving players arbitrary ratings is ridiculous and irrelevant. just describe with words please!
Complain about this comment
Strauss 8 - Excellent performance with the bat but lucky to win with those tactics
Cook 6.5 - Par performance from cook.
Bopara 2 - Yet to find his mojo. I'd give him another bash lower down the order
KP 2 - By his standards he is well out of nick
Colly 7 - Par with the bat, our best fielder
Prior 8 -Can he become Englands Gilly? with the bat he can take the initiative away from the opposition very quickly
Fred 9 - MOTM
Broad 5 - Quiet
Swann -7 Par performance
Anderson - 7 Unlucky not to get better figures
Onions - 6.5 Par performance - crucially removed Katich
Complain about this comment
I like Stuart Broad as a cricketer but lets be sensible about his performance. Average with the bat and generally unthreatening with the ball with a lot of pointless short stuff chucked in.
Would give him a break for a while and bring in Harmison as the Australians are struggling with pace and bounce and Broad will come again.
Complain about this comment
Johnson's shocking bowling (I rate 1 or 2 not '5'- his runs didn't make squat difference to the match)and awful top order batting from Aus who (Clarke and Haddin apart) need 3s or 4s at best. Ponting's awful captaincy in pretending Johnson wasn't getting carted around takes him to a Zero. Strauss's bad captaincy -defensive fields when on top and looking for wickets, not enforcing the follow-on which almost gifted the game to Australia should take him down to 6 or 7. His 161 was the match-winning knock and I thought he deserved the MOTM award. The Flintoff decision was knee-jerk. Bopara's rating is the only accurate one among the batsmen- why is that? And as a caller to Five Live pointed out he was not helped in the 2nd Inns by the half-fit Pietersen's inability to run singles with him.
Complain about this comment
I'm really struggling to see what else Flintoff could have done to get a 10. Perhaps he dropped that point for neglecting to solve the middle east crisis whilst he was putting on his Herculean cricketing display? Poor show.
Complain about this comment
if broad has bowled short, it is not because he is incapable of directing the ball, it is because of a plan the captain and staff have come up with. you can't blame him for that. broad also beat the bat on many occasions as did Onions. they both took wickets. they both contributed to the team performance. they were willing, full of desire and made things happen. what more do you want?! bringing in harmison is ridiculous unless there is an injury.
the only player who didn't really contribute to this team is bopara and they won't drop him now. if they were going to blood another batsman, they would have done it against the windies. England look to a stable selection policy these days, it's not the 50's any more! they give players a chance to prove themselves over a number of games and i think that is right. bell is waiting in the wings in case of injury in any case. leave the team be for the next test.
Complain about this comment
Barry_Strewth_Crikey has it right.
Koertzen deserves ten, if you're a supporter of england, and a massive zero if you would like to have seen an australian victory. Or in fact, a fair cricket match. His performance was the only one out there worse than Johnson's and I find it quite unbelievable that it hasnt received more discussion. By the same token I find itdisgraceful the lack of respect shown to Ricky Ponting. He is one the greatest batsmen to ever play the game and is the Captain of Australia. It is generally tradition, when playing cricket, that the fielding team applaud the opposing Captain as he comes on to bat. In England, this is not only forgotten, but the crowd boo, and yell abuse. Embarrassing shameful behaviour. He has also been incredibly restrained in the face of very trying circumstances. First Test, Andrew Strauss guilty of very poor sportsmanship in the time wasting farce. Agreed, it did not cause the outcome, but I think we all expect more from the captain of england. And contrary to the media reports here, he only responded to numerous questions attempting to get a rise out of him, during the press conference.
In the second test, not only did he have to deal with one of his bowlers suffering a dislocated finger, another physically ill on the pitch, and a third misfiring, but add to this the breath-takingly one-sided performance by the 'umpire' Koertzen, (the aussies must now know how chelsea felt!) and also, again, a complete lack of sportsmanship by the england captain. To claim his catch in the second test is nothing short of cheating. He has since conceded that it may have touched the ground, yet it reflects a weak character to again show complete contempt for the spirit of the game. How would we all respond if Ponting had done the same thing? There would be an execution by media, and yet, you give Strauss a 9 out of ten? And in the face of all this, you STILL condemn Ricky Ponting, because he wasnt flashing his pearly whites from dawn till dusk?? Give the man a break. He has contributed more to the game of cricket than any other man playing in this test match series and showed impressive graciousness and magnanimity in the face of some horrendous adversity. And despite all this against them, the Australians fell 115 runs short. Had three of the top four batsmen been judged correctly in the second innings, it could have been a very different picture yesterday. Perhaps it made no difference. On the face of it, England certainly were the better team. But the better team does not always win - as seen in Cardiff. All the fans want, is that both teams have the same chance. And this chance was denied to the australian team.
To return to the Chelsea Champion's League comparison, the grotesque childish behaviour of several Chelsea players, has been repeatedly explained away as passion, and desire to win. Their coach has defended their actions, their fans have issued death theats to the referee.
Are we supposed to believe that the Australians are less passionate, have less desire to win?
So we must ask, why, when accepting defeat in a similar situation of a poor officitaing performance costing the game, with graciousness, is the Australian captain so vilified? The fans and players have not focussed on these issues, but rather conceded the better team won, and blamed themselves for not taking the chances they did have. The Australian media today are full of praise for the performance of flintoff. Did the british press see the skill in Iniesta's goal for Barcelona? Bizarre.
Complain about this comment
BillyWhizz, don't just give them all a 10, why not a knighthood for 9 of them and a peerage for Fred and Strauss?
Seriously though, memories are short. The same players were at Cardiff weren't they?
At Lords Australia put in a sub-standard display in most facets of the match. The bowling was abysmal at the start of both innings and the batting (for the most part) was not committed enough and did not reflect the match situation.
Why Stuart Clark cannot get a game is interesting. He has been the most disciplined and reliable bowler in the Australian attack for some time. I think his non-selection probably reflects Ponting's apparent lack of faith in him.
Anyway, roll on the next test. It is good to see some spirit back in the England team and supporters. It makes life much more interesting than when we just flog you and you roll over!
Complain about this comment
Spiritofstoggers
Have you recently undergone a lobotomy?? You rant is bizarra, but I will pick out on or two of the most ridiculous comments:
"It is generally tradition, when playing cricket, that the fielding team applaud the opposing Captain as he comes on to bat. In England, this is not only forgotten, but the crowd boo, and yell abuse. "
I have been to a number of Test matches in Australia and never once has the opposing team or captain applauded when the England captain comes out to bat. I think you made that up.
"a complete lack of sportsmanship by the england captain. To claim his catch in the second test is nothing short of cheating. He has since conceded that it may have touched the ground"
Get it right - he conceded that the tv replays made it look like it had touched the ground. And what about Hauritz claiming his catch?? That was much more clear-cut, yet all the aussies claimed it even though it clearly hit the ground.
"Ricky Ponting, because he wasnt flashing his pearly whites from dawn till dusk?? Give the man a break. He has contributed more to the game of cricket than any other man playing in this test match series "
Even australian fans have never warmed to Ponting. I'm afraid he's just not a very likable chap - the rant at Trent Bridge when he got run out by Gary Pratt is a case in point. We English are more than happy to give credit to aussie players - we always liked Shane Warne, even though he did far more damage than Ponting over the years.
"Did the british press see the skill in Iniesta's goal for Barcelona? Bizarre."
Yes they did. And they vilified the Chelsea players for acting like a bunch of Pontings.
Complain about this comment
Please Spirit of Oz, forget the umpires............it will balance out at the end of the series. You are coming across as whinging.......surely not? Ponting had been in charge for years of a team that mastered sledging and has a reputation for it. He has become the panto villain for this reason and this reason alone. It is not in the Brits cricket culture to do the same (altho we are learning)
I agree Ponting captained as well as he could in the face of some trying times and showed graciousness in defeat.(Maybe Oz needed another all rounder in the team to help him out but that's your selection policy) In fact we know Ponting is a great player and I will do a little booing if it puts him off his game a tad........it's hardly death threats is it...........and besides Chelsea aren't England or remotely representative of England
Complain about this comment
#132 it is very surprising that Clark isn't being played- we thought you had found a replacement for McGrath in the last Ashes series with him. It seems your team is bowing to 90mph-bowlers-only-itis- the game's sad new fad. McGrath rarely ever got past 85, and I doubt Alderman reached that when he was destroying us in '89. Swing/seam and control of line and length are what's needed here not erratic pacemen. Oliver Brett gets a 4 for his ratings. For our team, interesting that while Broad and Anderson were getting their usual pasting in the 2nd Inns Harmy took 6-28 and most sensible people were saying he should have played even in Cardiff! By the time he gets picked he will be surely out of form again. Oh my Lord how constantly 'behind-the-eight-ball' (to put it politely) selectors are!
Complain about this comment
Actually the ratings are all right if they are marks out of 20, which they must be. Sorry Olly for panning you unfairly.
Complain about this comment
4 petdark: Broad is in because CMJ -aka master of the universe- likes to say: " the tall Broad comes in, his beautiful blond hair flapping in the breeze" he gets positively erotic sometimes about him! Notice anyone under 6ft gets labelled 'diminutive' by him, too. which brings me to my TMS ratings: Aggers- usual solid self- scores 8. Blowers (9)- having an Indian Summer after a few ropey years, especially good with Tuffers, who gets a 7.5 -would be higher if he could learn a little impartiality (the listeners are the fans and don't need a cheerleader) i.e. no 'we' meaning 'England'. CMJ- 6- has developed the annoying habit of preempting runs acrrueing form scoring shots i.e. "X hits it through cover for 3" - he usually guesses wrong anyway. Chappell- almost always right in his judgements -9.5 -I disagree with him over Hauritz, though. Fraser- 3- dull as ditchwater and as intelligent. Maxwell- 7- solid if a bit mechanical-sounding. Ok done!
Complain about this comment
#135 Yes flameComponent I think you're right. Our selectors seem to want the extra bit of speed, but it doesn't always yield the dividends. It's a bit like the selectors' search for thir Holy Grail, the all rounder they have been seekin for for years. Watson keeps getting thrown up as the answer, but his body doen't seem to be capable of holding together long enough to last in test match cricket. Johnson bowled really well in the home and away series against SA and his batting still looks good. I hope he finds some form for the next test though. You haven't seen the best of him yet.
Complain about this comment
Re: Stuart Clark - Athers wrote in the Times this morning that the reports coming out of the Aussie camp are that 'he has lost his nip'. Dunno exactly what that means or how true it is, but I have also been surprised that he can't get into the side.
Complain about this comment
I saw an interview with Otis Gibson recently where he said about Stuart Broad something along the lines of: "He is a gem of a cricketer who is very adaptable and do any job he is given". To me this says he is a young lad who might get considerably mucked about in his desire to be a team player and please his superiors. Nasser has said that he needs to work out what kind of bowler he wants to be. How is he being helped in this?
He has taken on the role of new ball bowler with Jimmy Anderson and done a pretty good job up until Cardiff. He has got the big wickets against the Windies (Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul). This can't all be down to luck.
Personally I think he looks so much better when he gets his line right. Most dismissals come from lbw and bowled, yet he does not give himself that chance as often as he should.
Complain about this comment
GHBRich & sunnypompey,
You will see that I acknowledge england were the better team, and credit to them. Flintoff bowled superbly, Broads catch was the catch of the series thus far, and Strauss innings - well - brilliant. You also see that I mention these decisions may not have influenced the game, and I am the first to say that when playing this poorly, it's better not to win, as losing promotes introspection, and therefore, ideally, improvement. Katich shot was awful, Hughes looked uncomfortable, and Hussey - very tough call for the Umpire to make in any case.
Not at all the intention to whinge, apologies if that's how it came across, but rather to raise the issue and keep it in the discussion. Umpires are part of the game, and therefore so are incorrect decisions. But this was rather extreme. Hopefully it does balance out, as it seemed to in Cardiff where Bopara was unlucky against us, should not have been given out, and then another should have but wasnt. That is part of the game aswell.
This test was unusual. Enough said, however, and most Aussies I know also as you say, do not warm to Ponting for whatever reason. You may have misunderstood, or I may not have been clear, but I dont compare the chelsea death threats to crowd booing. It was more of a comparison of the aggrieved, in the sense that the Australian fans are here compared to the chelsea fans, and their response to the situation. The aussies accept responsibility. Of course england are not chelsea. England's footballers are probably the least likely to dive, and moan in europe, if not the world, and it's great to see them deliver. They deserve it.
Selection? You are totally right - the australian team was ill-equipped for the task, and with no plan-b should a bowler misfire.
GHBRich, I am sorry if you feel something has been made up, but every match I have ever played, that was the scenario. Thats the Australian culture. Respect for the captain.
RE Strauss' 'catch' - I guess we agree to disagree, and with Hauritz, there were only motion blurred images. You may again be correct, yet there was either way a lack of consistency. That is the main problem here. Consistency.
Please understand though - full credit again to the england players on the whole. Personally I believe Anderson deserves more credit. An allrounder for sure, and has improved so much over the last 2 seasons. Its all to play for, going to be an amazing next three tests, and I wouldnt be at all surprised if England win the series. And if that proves to be the case, I am certain it will be deserved. The aussies need to lift their game.
Complain about this comment
The Andrew Strauss-Alastair Cook partnership for the first wicket on Day One was massive. It set the tone for England's historic success. Well played.
Dr. Cajetan Coelho
Complain about this comment
After narrowly missing out on scoring a century at Lords in the 2005, Ashes series, Australias Vice Captain, duly converted on this occasion and in the process got his name inscribed upon the famous Lords honours board.
Clarke looked destined to make a 100 back in 2005 but the right handed batsman chopped a ball from Matthew Hoggard onto his stumps.
http://www.odds.eu.com/england-v-australia-3rd-test-match
4 years later Clarke walked in to bat with his team in all sorts of trouble with their score on 128-5 but he appeared unfazed as he struck some glorious boundaries all around the wicket to give Australia an outside chance of pulling of what would have been a miraculous victory.
http://oddsbet.typepad.com/
Even though Australia did fall short of victory by 115 runs, Clarke can be very proud of his innings, it truly was one of the great knocks at Lords.
Much will depend on Clarke if Australia are to bounce back in the remaining 3 Test Matches and retain that precious little urn.
Complain about this comment
Good ratings, no complaints there.
And yeah, Freddie derserves a 9 but no 10. Im sure the 5 wickets will ease his ratings pain.
Complain about this comment
i thought the marks were pretty accurate, Johnson was lucky to get more than 2, its ok smacking a few boundaries in a lost cause but when you bowl the opposition in to that position you are not doing your job
i would say lay off Broad, i think he is a little confused as to his role in the bowling line up, in 05 all 5 bowlers new their role, he is not sure if he should be Hoggy or Harmy and is just putting it there,
if the pea heart Harmison comes back it has to be at the expense of Onions
only someone who watched the tv could give Blowfeld 9 out of 10, he gets everything wrong, the idea is to paint the picture report on what happens and possible be funny, you have absolutely no idea what has happened after his ramble, Tuffnell is a good addition, put Blowfeld out to grass he was dreadful 15 years ago !
by the way Warne was brilliant in the tv box
Complain about this comment
Spirit Of Oz, I dont think you quite dug out that yorker from GHBRich but I am sure he has, as I do, plenty of respect for you and the playing Ozzies. I played league cricket here for many years and dont remember particularly clapping the opposition captain in any more than any other player so maybe we are recalling cultural differences rather than a genuine lack of respect. Ponting though has bought some of the nonsense you hear upon himself but the tougher the opponent the greater the respect he gets. When the man retires you will get plenty of column inches acknowledging that the man was in charge of the greatest Auusie era.............but now the game is on...........it's going to be tough cricket ahead and there will be lots more talking points ahead. Maybe yuo should conduct a marks out of ten for Ponting as a Captain just so we keep in tune to the origins of this blog.
Complain about this comment
Harmison is a risk. The fact that Freddie is half-crocked is all the more reason to keep Harmison OUT of the team - he is not reliable. He may steam in and clear three wickets out in one go, but he may bowl pies for an entire innings and put us out of contention. Have faith in the team we have, Harmison has a lack of application, concentration and has spurned numerous opportunities in the past.
And as for my replacement seamer comment earlier on (#64) - Colly came in for Simon Jones - he may have batted more than bowled but he replaced a seamer. If we lost a frontline bowler now, we would bring in a specialist, international bowler, even if we were playing for a draw again...
Complain about this comment
Oxfordfoxfan
Colly came in as a batter, not a bowler - he bowled 4 overs in that match - fewer than he bowled in the recent Lords game. What we did is change the balance of our team as we were playing for the draw. I suspect we would do the same now, except for the fact that Freddie's injury would not now allow him to play as one of 4 bowlers. Colly coming in for Jones was in no way a reflection on the quality of our reserve seamers in '05.
Complain about this comment
#145. Blowers is class. If you enjoy Sky's commentary then you won't appreciate him. #147 Broad's current Test bowling average is 40.04. His first class average is not even under 30. He should be laid off from the england test team until he's brought that first class average down rather than people 'laying off' him -maybe someone could show him a video of McGrath's bowling or Gus Fraser (whose bowling I admired if not his current incarnation as a pundit). Harmy is 'risky' but risk is better than the certain failure of Broad's bowling in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Just one more thing regarding the last Test: Australia may well have won if Clarke hadn't broken his bat towards the end of Day 4 with that off-side flay. Then, the decision to go off for bad light when they had the momentum (an echo of Hayden/Langer in '05 at the Oval) was a bad one. The bowlers were tiring and they could have got the target down to 170 or 160. At the beginning of Day 5 their target had become a mountain again.
Complain about this comment
149 - what is class about getting players names wrong, the score wrong you have no idea what is going on when he has the mike, yes i did enjoy skys coverage Warne in particular but cant stand Botham, Gower, Willis etc
TMS is superior apart from one Bafoon !
i am sure Broad has seen Mcgrath and Fraser videos but not when they were his age, as he seen a Harmison video where he cant hit the strip, he cost Hoggard his test place with the tripe he served up in NZ
Harmison would have been long retired if not for the 20 - 20 money
move on if we get rid of what most people think is real talent as early as this we would never have given Gooch another test
when things get tough you need heart aswell as talent, Broad has a big heart Harmisons is yet to be discovered
Complain about this comment
5 for Pieterson 7 for Flintoff. Otherwise ok
Complain about this comment
If anyone should be dropped it should be Onions for Harmison. Youve gotta take 20 wkts and Harmy is in tremendous form at the moment.
He will love to perform at home in his good mate Flintoffs last Ashes series and I can see him contributing big time.
A Flintoff deserved a 10, just for the sheer matchwinningness of his performance, apart from that I agree with the ratings. Fedupwithelves ^^ is surely taking the mickey, a 7 rating?? LOL!
Complain about this comment
A great feast of entertaining cricket over the past 5 days. Unfortunately tainted a little with a few questionable umpiring decisions again, but few (even with green and gold tinted galsses) could argue that Australia were comprehensively outplayed in this match and deserved to be beaten. Two fiercely competitive and evenly matched teams on the show of the 1st two tests. Ended a lot easier and tamer yesterday than I thought it would. Was expecting more heart palpitations I have to say.
Some selection dilemmas for both teams in the lead up to Edgbaston. England with injuries to Freddie, KP and possibly Onions. The form of Bopara. Pressing claims from Belly and Harmy. Australia with the form of Hughes and particularly Johnston and how to shoe horn Lee, Clark, Watson or MacDonald in without affecting the balance of the team.
My scores;
England
Strauss: 9 - Match winning innings on day one and set the tone for a fabulous result. Never looked in trouble. Scored some valuable runs in the 2nd at good pace as well. Set much better fields (than Cardiff) and inspired bowling changes resulted in quite a few wickets. Certainly out captained Punter this time (1-1).
Cook: 8 - Much better game at one of his favourite venues. Scored quickly in both innings and will take confidence into the next game. Deserved a ton on day one. Got to watch those straight ones though!
Bopara: 4 - Looks completely out of touch at the moment and clearly feeling the pressure to deliver. Needs to think before throwing down the stumps in impossible situations. Some valuable over throws conceded. Would like to see him at 4 with KP at 3.
Pietersen: 6 - Clearly the achilles injury is affecting his form and confidence. Not the pomp and swash buckling style we are so used to. Still scoring some valuable runs though despite his injury and well worth his place in the side. Good catch to get rid off Katich.
Collingwood: 7 - Poor shot selection in the 1st innnings led to a middle order collapse just before the new ball. Turned it around in the 2nd innings though and helped force the pace of the game. Always good in the field.
Prior: 8 - Got another peach of a delivery in the 1st innings (similar to the Cardiff dismissal) to knock over his stumps. Aggressive batting took the game away from Australia in the 2nd innings and unlucky to get run out to a direct hit from the boundary. Good game behind the stumps and shaded his dual with his all round performance against Haddin this time around.
Flintoff: 9 - The talisman of the side, who rightly deserves plaudits for the way he bowled in both innings and some valuable runs at the 2nd time of asking. Causes real panic in the Aussie line up, which assisted Jimmy's wickets in the 1st innings and then helped himself in the 2nd. Strauss would have had to rip the ball out of his cold dead hands to stop him bowling yesterday. He milked the crowd wellgot the place buzzing which helped pile more and more nerves on the Aussies.
Broad: 7 - Started shakily with the ball but came back to claim 2 vital wickets late in the day on day 2. Bowled much better lines in the 2nd innings and was unlucky not to pick up more than the Punter. Great diving catch to take Katich. His batting is looking a little off at the moment though. Much better match than Cardiff.
Swann: 8 - First failure with the bat this series, but then that's not his main job. Great, tight and attacking bowling in the 2nd innings and was excellent value for his 4 wickets. Looks like a great addition to the team. A real character.
Anderson: 8 - A match winning performance in the 1st innings. Turned the game England's way again with some great swing bowling. Great pressure at the start of day 5 with a maiden, helped set the tone, returning the favour for Freddie. Let's not forget the valuable runs he scored at the end of the 1st innings as well. Great partnership with Onions, where all were falling around him. No quacks in 51 now.
Onions: 6 - Three valuable wickets in the first innings and involved in a great last wicket partnership with Jimmy. Certainly looked better than a no.11 there. Possibly injured in the 2nd innings. Will be under pressure from Harmy for that 4th seemer role though.
Australia
Hughes: 4 - Another poor day at the office for this prodigous talent. Looks totally uncomfortable against the ball that tucks him up. Unlucky to be given in the 2nd innings, but with the chances he was offering I doubt he would have lasted much longer anyway. Certainly more than enough doubt that the ball touched the ground! A real concern for the Aussies and a cheap wicket for England at the moment. May have to make way for Watson at the top of the order, but that would be very un-Aussie-like in selection policy.
Katich: 6 - Gritty performance again from the opener. Gave his wicket away in the 1st innings (albeit to a great hold by Broad). Unlucky to be given out off a no ball but a silly shot at the time didn't help his cause.
Ponting: 4 - The pantomime villain to the barmy army. He really doesn't like batting at Lords does he. What anyone says about his 1st innings dismissal, he clearly should have been out at the end of that ball anyway. His stumps would have been flying everywhere. Unlucky inside edge got him in the 2nd when he looked to be set for another big one. Missed run out of KP and dropped Bopara in 2nd innings, turned the game further England's way at a pivotal stage. Was out captained and will be bitterly disappointed with his own performance here. Watch out at Edgbaston!
Hussey: 6 - Looked to be getting back into some form in the 1st innings before shouldering arms and losing his off stump. Timing of the ball was beautiful to watch. Was scratching around in the 2nd before being wrongly given out to a turner from Swann. Good in the field.
Clarke: 9 - Stood up for his team when they really needed it. A real (future) captain's knock there. Some shot making to make you salivate and certainly got us thinking they may be in with a chance. Did give his wicket away cheaply in the 1st innings though, when his side were under immense pressure. Will surely be the skipper when these teams next lock horns again down under.
North: 3 - Dreadful game from a very talented individual. Scratched around for 14 balls to get his duck in the 1st innings and looked ill at ease in the second before losing his stumps to a straight one from Swanny. Bowling looks decidely pedestrian and far from dangerous at present. Could be the one to make way for Stuey Clark to get back in the team, with Haddin moving to 6 and MJ at 7 (very similar to Prior and Flintoff for England).
Haddin: 7 - Solid performance with the bat in both innings. Can be so destructive when he gets going. Will be gutted to have surrendered his wicket so cheaply on the last morning. Silly shot selection to throw away his wicket in the 1st innings as well. Bit clumsy behind the stumps in both innings (which dropped him to a 7).
Johnson: 5 - Clearly a great talent, who is underperforming at the moment. His radar is well and truly off (although showing signs of his class with his wicket taking balls and batting). Presents a real selection dilemma to the Aussies and on current form is upsetting the balance of the team. His performance on the 1st day was costly. Fantastic knock in the 2nd innings may install some confidence for the rest of the tour though.
Hauritz: 7 - Unlucky to cop one on the finger from Strauss, which restricted his efforts in the 1st innings. Came back strongly with the bat in the 1st innings and bowled really well to take another 3 wickets as England appeared to be getting away. Brave effort and clearly deserving of his place in the side on a turning Edgbaston wicket.
Siddle 7 - Another solid display by the fiery paceman. Sometimes feel he needs to control his aggression a bit more though. Valuable 35 ruuns in the lower order in the 1st innings, getting Australia so close to avoiding the follow on. Will be very unfortunate if he is dropped, but also looks like a possible candidate to make room for Lee or Clark (if the selectors persevere with Johnston - which I expect to happen).
Hilfenhaus: 8 - Pick of the Aussie bowlers again in the 1st innings. Swinging the ball around and unlucky not to end up on the honours board. Looked a little down in the 2nd innings. The only true bunny with the bat in both sides by the look of it.
Overall
England: 80/100 (up from 56 at Cardiff)
Australia: 66/100 (down from 76 at Cardiff)
Bring on Edgbaston I can't wait.
Complain about this comment
Definitely Sky on MUTE, TMS commentary ON Club here... despite the out-of-synch modem feed of pictures to PC. When the feed is struggling, sometimes the commentary is a full ball behind the SKY , frustrating ... but there you go.
Don't mind the Sky commentary team - Shane Warne was good value and Bob Willis in particular on the Ashes verdict. The vapid commercialisation, constant ad-breaks ... at the fall of every dramatic wicket, at the end of every over... continue to grate.
my England ratings:
Strauss - 9:
Led from the front. For the first time I am fully convinced about his undisputed leadership and captaincy of the England team.
Cook - 7: Put away the bad balls in that vital 1st innings stand. Beware if Johnson rediscover's his form with the new ball.
Bopara - 4: Not looking so clever here is he ... against hardly a world-class attack. Were the West Indies really that bad? Needs a score in Birmingham and I would bat him no higher than 4.
Pieterson - 5: Injury is a major concern for England's star batsman.
Collingwood - 8: Super all-round contribution. How about moving Corporal Bloc up to number 3 at the fall of an early wicket?
Prior - 8: Kept wicket OK, second innings knock was vital - might have been a century but for the unlucky run-out. Underlines the importance of the batsman/wicket-keeper in modern test cricket.
Flintoff - 10: Great, inspirational, hostile new-ball pace bowling are Test match-winners. Read Walsh/Ambrose, Donald, Younis/Akram, McGrath and Freddie Flintoff.
Swann - 8: Will continue to be handful for the Australian left-handers for the rest of the series. Bowled beautifully in the second innings.
Broad - 7: A fairly expensive "work in progress" at the mercy of exploratory strategies from captain and coaching staff. Took the vital wicket of the Australian captain and unlucky not to bowl Michael Clark for 0.
Anderson - 8: His new-ball probing combined with the pace and hostility at the other end looks an irresistible combination at the moment.
Onions - 6: To build on this 1-0 lead England need to take 20 wickets against a powerful batting line-up. Does Onions have the nous to penetrate against well-set top order Australian batsman on a flat wicket?
Complain about this comment
Broad needs to be dropped. He's only in the team because of his background.
Bring in Harmison in his place.
Complain about this comment
The second Ashes test player ratings given by Oliver Brett are very good as the marks given to each player signify their impact on the game at Lords which the home side won deservingly. Coming to the Australian players, I'm particularly disappointed with Philip Hughes, Michael Hussey and Marcus North, whom the marks given should be even more less. Hughes in the absence of a reserve opener in the squad should be more selective with his stroke selection and be more patient in building his innings. Importantly he should show signs that he has the quality in him to make the Aussie think-tank believe that Mathew Hayden's absence would not be felt for long. He should improve his onside play. Coming to Michael Hussey, I believe that at times he is guilty of being too circumspect inspite of having all the shots in the book. In the first innings when he was looking good for a big score, he shouldered arms to an incoming delivery from Flintoff, which he shouldn't had considering that the all-rounder had changed his angle, operating from round the wicket. Hussey should be more positive in his strokeplay especially at the start of his innings where one feels he is overcautious. His footwork against the off-spinner needs to improve. Marcus North is a quality batsman (evidence of it was in Australia's tour of South Africa) however the returns against their traditional rivals have hardly suggested that. He needs to put price on his wicket and be careful with the shots he plays especially early in his innings and should repay the faith which Ponting and the selectors have shown in him. As far as the bowling is concerned, I'm terribly disappointed with Mitchell Johnson as his poor efforts on the first day with the new ball was where England took the game away from the visitors as more than 100 runs were scored in the opening session without any loss. The left-arm pacemen simply could not find the right line and length giving too much width and leaked runs, making life easy for the England openers.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS