BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 140 comments are related to an article called:

Brisbane ratings

Page 1 of 3

comment by Montyin (U6721043)

posted Nov 27, 2006

Strauss doesn't deserve a rating of 4. To get out in the same way twice is criminal. Collingwood also seemed rather chuffed with his 96 runs rather than showing remorse in the shocking way he lost his wicket.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

I agree Straus played a diabolical game, as a proffesional it is innexcusable to make the same mistake twice in the same match. The bowlers should also be rated much lower, just look at the scorecard SHOCKING!!!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Kevin Shine's gone a bit quiet after his "Harmison will be fine for Brisbane" quote. Shine should be sacked right now. Since he's taken over, we've witnessed the worst 6 months of "international" bowling ever seen by an England team.

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721029

posted Nov 27, 2006

Both Fletch and Shine should go. They can take Gilo with them as well the useless lump.

However, as well as Freddie bowled, he is struggling to justify the number 6 slot in the batting with his current form. There is no doubting his ability, but somehow he needs to get a big score.

Strauss, well he is a bit of a prat, I thought Cook deserved a better score and Collingwood I wouldn't have given that high especially after his ridiculous dismissal.

Freddie and Colly should both be ashamed of how they got out at the end of the fourth day. Had colly and KP survived until close, ready to resume on the 5th day, England may have got a bit lucky and survived. As it happened Colly went for an agricultural heave and Freddie, god only knows what he was thinking!

Team for next test;

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Collingwood
Pietersen
Freddie
Gojo
Mahmood
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

We gotta take twenty wickets so with serious pace and an excellent spinner (not the word SPINNER, for Gilo fans), we have a chance.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

The most annoying thing to me is that the Aussies were visibly tired and bowling without any idea during Collingwood and Pietersen's partnership,proving what a good wicket it was when the new ball was seen off,making Strauss look even more idiotic with his stupid shot selection,i'd give him 1.The other ratings for England were fair apart from Harmison who i'd give 1 to.At Test level bowling of such poor standard like that is not acceptable.
However i don't think there will be any wholesale changes for the next couple of tests with the exception of playing a second spinner at the expense of Anderson,and to be honest i can't see Fletcher dropping Giles at all.Personally i wouold have had Stuart Broad and Chris Tremlett in the squad,hopefully Broad would have the same fire in him that his Dad had in 86/87.
Finally,with all Englands bowling troubles what is the point of Kevin Shine,Harmison,Anderson,Mahmood are so insonsistant and He's been criticised by Chris Broad for turning his lad into a clone,he's no Troy Cooley,thats for sure.What a blow it was losing him to the Aussies!

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721029

posted Nov 27, 2006

True swinger, Colly and KP were batting beautifully, with no real issues.

Then bang, nervous 90's strike again, Collingwood had a rush of blood and it was pretty much all over.

The funny thing is, despite how they played well, I get the impression if they felt they could win, Freddie and Colly wouldn't have played the shots they did and maybe they thought the game's gone, might as well have a wallope.

I hope i'm wrong, but neither looked at all perturbed by their dismissal's which I found very disappointing.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

give saj mahmood a chanc, he has the pace and bounce for these wickets, steve harmison was useless. plus saj can bat if given a chance. James anderson lacked point or penetration

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

I thought Giles had a pretty decent match given the pitch. Kept things tidy with the ball and batted well.

I'm not sure why he is getting so much flack, when it was the seamers (and the top order) that let us down.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

The First Test

The first test is over, a release from the pain
Of the Aussies walking all over us again
To beat them you have to be on top of the game.
We weren’t so we lost , but who is to blame?

Was it Straus and Flintoff’s addiction to hook
Or perhaps Harmison forgetting to look
Where the stumps where Or were we just undercooked
Not being aware of the toil jet lag took.

Pietersen and Collingwood restored some pride
Two sixes in a row might just turn the tide
And Warnie was looking for somewhere to hide
We need more of the same next test Adalaide.

Whatever the cause first blood to them, daja vu
We lost the first before and after won two
So stick with it lads we are right behind you
Bring back the little urn, you know you can do

Joe Forshaw Perth WA.

| complain about this comment

comment by NGBlade (U1071525)

posted Nov 27, 2006

The difference between England now, and England two years ago is obvious: Troy Cooley.

The members of the ECB who didn't give him the contract he deserved should resign immediately.

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721029

posted Nov 27, 2006

Perhaps If Gilo could actually bowl and spin the ball and get more than one wicket and a few runds he wouldn't get so much stick. The fact is, he is so poor compared to Monty it's untrue and that to retain the Ashes England need to take twenty wickets and win the match, something they are not likely to do with Gilo as their premier spinner.

As for keeping it tight, don't make me laugh.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

The Whole series seems pretty irrelevant now as it doesn't look like England can bowl Australia out twice in a match even with Panesar and Mahmoud.

I suppose the most excitement we can hope for is after Australia win the next two test they might opt for some of the next generation like Tait and Johnson.

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721029

posted Nov 27, 2006

I'm with you blade on that issue. The fact they refused him a pay rise was absolutely shocking and the idiots who made that decision should sacked for incompetence.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Harmison should be rated much much lower. He was supposed to be spearhead / veteran / bogey man of the English pace attack ; As it turned out he was taken out of the attack, not by Aussie batmanship but by his own personal failure and had a huge contribution to the poor psychological state of the English team
Compare him to Lee who is rated only 1 point higher.
The Aussies weren't scared of sending Lee out to bowl and Lee picked vital wickets.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Well im shocked that we didnt win, after all, we did have gile's "superior" Batting to fall back on, where did it all go wrong ???????

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Yepp, the loss of Cooley was a big one...:-(......I remember feeling sick inside when I heard of him going ( and especially WHERE he was going to...Surely, with all the money they made from the Ashes DVD's and books etc, TC should have been given much deserved payrise......

Come to think of it, I guess it'll be paid for anyway's now...The unsold stuff may as well be taken off the shelves and skipped......

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

I take your points that Strauss and Harmison should both maybe get a lower rating. Actually I did initially have a 3 for Strauss before relenting. Harmison did improve little by little, but it wasn't enough. If he can only bowl a little straighter and work up a bit of pace, he WILL get wickets over here!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

I think Strauss should be a 1 or a 2, when we needed him to keep cool and just bat it out he lost the plot and started the downfall

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

There are a lot of people chucking in the towel far too early for my liking. Don't they realise that we are employing the same tactics that won us the Ashes in 2005? Loose the first test by a country mile, get Glen McGrath & Co spouting off about a 5 - 0 whitewash and then when the false sense of security is well established blitz the beggars! Nice one Freddie!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

I can't believe I've just heard Duncan Fletcher say that Harmison has got a technical issue with his bowling.For Gods sake,WHAT IS KEVIN SHINE DOING!!!!!!!!!!!
And does anyone agree that Ricky Ponting is the most dislikeable man in world Cricket.During our long period of being beaten by the Aussies Border,Taylor and Steve Waugh always seemed to have some class about them in the way they acted and just were not SO ANNOYING!!!!!

| complain about this comment

comment by jkb1979 (U1165247)

posted Nov 27, 2006

People who are complaining about Ashley Giles playing are just whingers who need to grow up. He played out of his skin in this match for someone who has not played properly (a couple of warm up matches don't count!) for over a year. This was not a spinners wicket and his batting was very good, I imagine Panesar would have probably made a pair and let a few fours through his legs, dropped a catch and might (only might) have taken 1 or 2 more wickets if he was lucky and the Australians overdid attacking him on such a seamers wicket. You can't complain about Giles when Harmison and Anderson were so poor, not to mention Strauss not learning from his mistakes (3 times now he's been out hooking on this tour already). Panesar deserves a chance I agree, he is a good bowler and he might get it at Adelaide, also Plunkett is a better player (all-round) than Mahmood, so if Anderson and Harmison keep playing how they did, both could be out and then we need to give Liam a chance before Saj. Flintoff bowled well, but his batting was bad, 2 bad dismissals, but he will bounce back. Cook looks like he is making progress and Bell looks a lot better than last Ashes (perhaps a bit unlucky to be given lbw to one that was sliding a bit down leg-side and just clipping the outside of the leg stump - seen many turned down, after all batsmen are meant to get the benefit of the doubt!) but Bell does need to learn to pick Warne. Jones justified his selection, he didn't make stacks of runs, but he did pretty well and made no mistakes behind the wicket. The team need to perform better and make those improvements quickly!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

think you'll find Jimmy ran out Hayden not Langer, also dont agree about Jimmy should have took that catch, be thankful he managed to even attempt to make that catch i cant see Harmison or Monty getting there as quick can u? the catch Freddie missed off Jimmy was easier yet it's not mentioned.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Everyone keeps making a really big issue out of Troy Cooley being allowed to leave the England coaching team. I don't doubt his ability as a coach for a second, but I'm willing to bet that Kevin Shine has just as many qualifications and knows just as much about biomechanics as he does. Some of this over-reaction suggests we're in danger of falling into the football trap of sack the manager/coach every time something goes wrong. Ultimately, responsibility for their own performance should lie with the players. Harmison says he 'froze', on the opening day in Brisbane - if so, that isn't Kevin Shine's fault. One wonders, however, why he didn't freeze at Lord's last year.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Australia won the test match from the first ball England didn't look comfortable at all although Pietersen and Collingwood played really well to keep the England attack going but you got to give credit to the aussies they showed their experience and Ponting was amazing and a joy to watch!!!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

harmison got a higher mark than strauss & the same as ali cook? what match was oliver brett watching? harmison deservec a 0 out of 10.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Strauss was severely culpable in his two dismissals. How much has losing the captaincy to Andrew Flintoff upset him, I wonder?

Steve Harmison started with a dreadful first spell, but got better. It was interesting that Rickie Ponting's declaration seemed to coincide with a Harmison spell where he appeared to have everything working again.

Really it's hard to fault the numbers, although the comment on Geraint Jones seems a little harsh given the number of glaring Read errors since his return. Perhaps it is time for a BBC truce on this issue and to back the XI on the field rather than increasing the pressure on them? It is interesting to see that Jon Agnew, not exactly a Jones fan, has publically supported him after the Test.

The biggest worry seems to be the lack of penetration by Hoggard and Anderson. Harmison can fall back on extra pace, but Hoggard cannot and, though steady, didn't threaten at all. Anderson seemed to play 30% below what he had done in the Champion's Trophy and the warm-ups. There must be a real case for playing either Mahmood or Panesar for Anderson in Adelaide.

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721029

posted Nov 27, 2006

Personally, I think Cook is an excellent player and should be England's opener permanently from now on. He played well, looked comfortable at the crease, and seeing as it was his first Ashes match, in Australia on wickets he never played on previously I take my hat off to the guy.

Do we miss Tres, possibly, but not for much longer I would be willing to bet with Cook at the top of the order.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Bring back Monty

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Troy Cooley going / being allowed to go is not the issue. If he wanted to go, we could hardly have stopped him. The issue is that since Shine has come in, the England bowlers have gone backwards - and worryingly it's not just the young lads like Mahmood and Plunkett - it's the supposed number one striker Harmison. Even worse, there are reports that Shine is
trying to change Stuart Broad's action - wonder whether we'll ever see Broad again.

Rather than try and make clones or "designer bowlers" with actions that are "safer", it might be worthwhile accepting (as Troy Cooley did in an interview in 2004) that bowlers will get injured and let them proceed with the actions that have seen them selected in the first place - i.e. the actions that have made them successful!

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

jkb1979, i agree with you. the 47 runs and one wicket giles took made a huge difference to the outcome of this test. monty should be shakeing in his boots!

I dont understand how you can play a 'spin' bowler who doesn't turn the ball. why not bring mark ealham back. he's better with the bat than giles, and does more with the ball. or, more sensibly, play monty, a 'spin' bowler who has the potential to take five aussie wickets in an innings and win england a test match

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Harmison deserved one on ten, he was shocking from start to finish. Anderson bowled well in spells and I feel will get better as the series goes on, remember he like giles has hardly bowled all year. Flintoff needs some runs in the next test and strauss needs to start showing some dedication to the cause. I feel we can bounce back in the next test, but it will be very important to win the toss as it played a massive part in the first test.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Nice to see a balanced argument from get_rid_of_gilo showing respect for those with an opposing point of view--that's what we Brits are all about.
What is really "pratish" is to suppose that the Panesar v Giles debate was of any great significance in a test match at the Gabba where, apart from SK Warne, no spinner has much success.
THe real issue is the combined figures of our 4 quicks (8 for 623)-vs their 3(16 for 345).
Even the great Warne only took 4 for 150.
Mind you...I can't see that bringing Mahmood or Plunkett in at this stage would be a wise move. Neither has pulled up trees in the past and, lest we forget, one of the greatest sins of past England teams was the hire and fire mentality.
One more chance and then out with the knife if they don't cut the mustard

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

"What is really "pratish" is to suppose that the Panesar v Giles debate was of any great significance in a test match at the Gabba"

I completely agree.

Indeed neither of the big selection decisions (Giles and Jones) had much effect on the game, the failure of the seamers and the top order is where the problems were.

| complain about this comment

comment by jkb1979 (U1165247)

posted Nov 27, 2006

I think some people should stop taking my comments out of context. You have got me all wrong! I am not an Ashley Giles fan, I just agree with Jonathan Agnew that Giles was the better choice for this pitch. I didn't say Giles was amazing (just that he played well CONSIDERING he hadn't played in ages and my comment was that I think it is unfair for everyone to slate him when he didn't do anything wrong himself). Actually, I think it might have been better to play another batsmen instead of Giles and have no spinner at all. Anyway, I DEFINTELY agree that Monty is a much better bowler, but on that sort of wicket a spinner won't get that much out of it. I have also had enough of this Monty worship, he is a great guy, but he is not a god. I do however think that Monty should probably play in more tests in this series than Giles, but this first pitch was not so well suited to Monty and I think it was wise to not play him, cos if he got smashed around the park (which was quite likely the way the other English bowlers performed), it could have dented his confidence and as I know people who know Monty, I know his head does drop sometimes if he does not get the results, cos he feels he is letting the team down, Monty will always try his best and I applaud him for this, we need more players who give their all every time, but I think saving him for pitches more suited to him was a good idea. I hope Giles does not keep him out of the side when the pitches are more suited to spin, cos I agree that Giles cannot turn it very much at all! I also would like to point out I am not a negative person at all, if you think I am, you don't know me at all, I am an avid Kent fan, so have seen many poor performances over the last seasons, but yet I am still positive for next season (maybe optimistically). Was very sad to see Ealham go and the way Kent treated him, it was their own fault and I agree he could score more runs and bowl better than Giles! I think England have got a good chance still and I hope to see them continue to improve as they have done through the first test, just a shame, they started so poorly, but we know what happened in Ashes over here :)

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721573

posted Nov 27, 2006

Well, from a reasonable argument gilo, you manage to negate your argument by being rude.

Would Monty have made a difference, hard to say really, personally I think he would have done, but you never know.

I will nail my colours to the mast in the fact I think Giles is a poor international cricketer and lucky to be anywhere near England's Test XI, but he is.

Strauss really needs to rein himself in from the Hook/pull shot, or at least follow Cooks example by getting over the ball better.

Collingwood and Freddie, need to stop playing injudicious shots near the end of the days play, England could have been 300-3 in stead of 270 odd for 5, and maybe in with a shout of saving the game.

However, the test is over and England need to concentrate on the next 4 and see if they can compete.

I have my doubts, mainly because I cannot see where 20 wickets are going to come from, and that's assuming the batsman can rack up enough runs to defend.

I though GoJo had a reasonably good game with the gloves, and not too shabby with the bat, and certainly kept better than Read has done of late, mind you, he didn't have to cope with the turning ball from Gilo as it rarely does.

Harmison, Hoggy and Anderson are a real worry though.

| complain about this comment

comment by jkb1979 (U1165247)

posted Nov 27, 2006

Thanks to agedtrundler and RedRedRobin for your comments. I was not meaning to make a case for either spinner, just a point that Giles played well considering the amount of cricket he has had this year. The seamers were majorly culpable and Strauss needs to learn not to hook or how to play it on these bouncier pitches. I wasn't advocating a hire and fire mentality. I agree we should keep faith with the main core and I know Harmison CAN do it, he CAN be one of the best bowlers in the world. Anderson deserves a run and he is still young and improving. Liam and Saj know they must wait and barring injuries, neither should play until the 4th test as we must give the players a chance to redeem themselves first. Consistency is the important thing.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

RedRedRobin, Giles offered no attacking option.He was a "safe" selection. He batted ok but he was picked primarily as a spinner, yet he didnt turn the ball, didn't trouble the aussie batsmen, and didn't take enough wickets. Panesar needs recalling, and use KP as a secondary spinner.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

A bit of a lengthy dissertation jkb 1979 but nevertheless--I agree 100%.
Monty should be a definite pick for Sydney. For the rest, depends on the state of the pitch and the series.
In the end though, series in Oz get won by solid top order batting and quick bowling

| complain about this comment

comment by BQ (U6563871)

posted Nov 27, 2006

Various comments come to mind. Firstly regarding the ratings, I think Strauss deserves less than 4 as he failed completely in both innings, getting out to the same shot twice, which is unforgiveable especially in the second innings. I also feel that Jones could be marked down a bit for his lack of runs, and Giles for his lack of spin and economy. Next we're back to selection - most of the side is the right side. The top six are letting us down, so the Jones/Giles runs issue is a red herring. The batsmen above them are the best that we have available and must improve. I am concerned about the fact that Giles couldn't turn it whilst Pietersen could. Perhaps it's time for Dalrymple to be moved over from the Academy, and teamed up with Monty, at the expense of Anderson and Giles. I also fail to understand why Yorkshire's Adil Rashid wasn't in the Academy squad - a leg spinner who not only takes wickets but scores centuries. I can't help feeling that if he was Indian, Sri Lankan or Pakistani, he would be in the senior squad if not playing test cricket. Ho hum.

| complain about this comment

comment by U6721573

posted Nov 27, 2006

I agree Northwest, Giles should never play ahead of Monty again. Only, and only if the pitch is conduscive to spin should Gilo play in addition to Monty, quite possibly there is an argument for KP to be the second spinner and Gilo to be jettisoned altogether. This will of course not happen while Fletch is in command, but as a coach I don't expect him to be so blinkered and look at other options, no matter if they seem a bit out there.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Jones played "without an obvious wicket-keeping error"? Implying that he made lots of errors that you didn't notice?

You should watch more closely, because his keeping was flawless.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

I think a very accurate breakdown of a rather unusual test. The only eyebrow-raiser... Harmison. You were kind. Flintoff said Harmy always gives his best. Well, if this is his best... The guy has issues; he doesn't need a bowling coach he needs a therapist. Before the Ashes began my friend made the rather cruel comment: "We just need self-Harmison on song". From the first ball, he was horribly out of tune. He is the bloomin' conducter of the attack. Pass the baton onto Hoggard or at least let him open the bowling.

| complain about this comment

comment by Arsenal (U4441664)

posted Nov 27, 2006

Aren't Englands ratings awfully high for a side that got a good thumping

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

OK, I think that we should have played Monty - from a psychological point of view it looked a very negative move. However I think it's time to give Ashley Giles a break. It's not his fault he got picked and ultimately was by no means the worst performer with either the bat or ball. If we want to give those awards out then step forward Strauss, Harmison and Anderson.

Whoever's picked for the next test things don't look hopeful. At least after the first test defeat in 2005 we looked like we could bowl them out. This time I can't see where 20 wickets are coming from. We only bowled them out once here, for 800 runs! Next test though I think we have to go with Panesar, Mahmoud, Hoggard and Harmison. Monty's a more attacking option than Giles. Anderson was just too ineffectual so Mahmoud deserves a shot. You can't drop Hoggard, and Harmison should be given one last chance to redeem himself. If he doesn't take it, for his own sake and for the good of the squad he should be sent home. I can't see what better options we've got in the batting so I'd keep that the same, and given that Jones got the gloves for the first test I don't see on what basis we would change that.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

"he doesn't need a bowling coach he needs a therapist." But he's got a therapist (Steve Bull-"sports psychologist")and a coach and a nutrionist and and and..
Perhaps he's getting too much "help".
I have a feeling that the late, great F.S.Trueman would have prescribed a "kick up the arse and lots of hard work" --wise man was Fred.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

The point here is that Panessar and Giles should both be playing. Giles is important to us as he gives extra depth in the batting - especially as Flintoff is yet to find his proper batting form.

If we'd have played Monty instead of Anderson this would have given us an extra dimension on any wicket - certainly more than a 4th seamer does.

We've got Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison as well as Collingwood as a backup bowler. Why not play Monty and Giles all of the time - regardless of the wicket.

I believe that this would have made us far more effective in this test - hopefully they'll do this at Adelaide.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

Harminson 2.

| complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2006

My ratings would be:

Strauss-4
Cook-6
Bell-6
Colly-7
Pietersen-7
Flintoff-6
Jones-7
Giles-5
Hoggard-6
Harmison-4
Anderson-5

Oliver Brett, i know you obviously do not like Geraint Jones and would prefer Chris Read in team but can you try not to be so biased against him because it is just ridiculous. Jones's keeping was flawless, conceded only 2 byes in 200overs and 800runs conceded to Australia, which was a great effort considering how wayward our bowling was, especially Harmison and to a lesser degree Anderson.
Also Monty has to play in 2nd test, ahead of Anderson.

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 3

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead