England v South Africa - Player Ratings Tests 2017

[Psyduck]

Cook 6
Jennings 5
Ballance 5
Root 9
YJB 7
Stokes 6
Mo 10
Dawson 5
Wood 5
Broad 7
Anderson 6

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

LOL!

Anyone who gives Ballance and Stokes the same scores is deluded. I assume you didn't watch any of the Test?

Collingwood, 82mph? When? And Broad was up around 87mph at times too so I assume my point abut you not watching was probably accurate.

Wood gets more than Broad? How?

Broad bowled much better and batted much better. Otherwise perfectly sensible though. Wood didn't even do a good horse celebration this time.

[luckyluke]

I think all the ratings are pretty low considering we absolutely twatted South Africa

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by luckyluke

I think all the ratings are pretty low considering we absolutely twatted South Africa

Should the ratings consider the calibre and performance of the opposition ?

[luckyluke]

I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2008?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by luckyluke

I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2012?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.

So to summarise we should accept mediocrity, pay our money, shut up and accept we are going to win now and then against poor teams but not against average/better teams. Then repeat over and over.

Are you Andrew Strauss ?

[Summer of 77]

Originally Posted by luckyluke

I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2012?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.

Absolutely spot on. In fact, part of the fun of supporting England is their constantly mercurial character...which, to be honest, has been the case ever since Test cricket began. You never know what you're going to get, which is surely manna from heaven for a sports fan?

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

Should the ratings consider the calibre and performance of the opposition ?

Only when one wants an excuse to discredit a commonly derided England player.

[luckyluke]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

So to summarise we should accept mediocrity, pay our money, shut up and accept we are going to win now and then against poor teams but not against average/better teams. Then repeat over and over.

Are you Andrew Strauss ?

Do what you like mate, but there's enough crap going on in the world to castatrophize about without adding the cricket to the mix, so in the interests of your general well-being I'd advise cheering the **** up.

[mustardcharlie]

Might I just say I have nothing against Broad, Stokes and Anderson. They were innocuous. Stokes got a 50 and sub 10 and Ballance got about the same. Stokes bowled tripe. Dawson? Tell me again why he got picked ahead of Rashid. Mo fully deserved the MoM ahead of Rootster. Yes 190 to his name but I thought his captaincy was rather conservative. Jimmy and Stu were getting it up around 85-87 at times but a lot of it was low eighties.

Given that "there has been some weather about", Trent Bridge should be a serious Test. Bonehead Rabada is sadly out. If the sun comes, the seamers should be rubbing their hands in glee. "Ha, Mr Amla isn't it? I'm sure you know where my first ball is going hehehe"

I also rejoice in kicking Saffer butt. 211 runs is a big win. Other sides will not be so lenient, if we lose 4-6 wickets in a morning session.

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by mustardcharlie

... Dawson? Tell me again why he got picked ahead of Rashid. ...

Judging from recent discussions on the "spin conundrum" thread, this question should be split into two questions. Firstly, why was Rashid not picked? Answer, because the selectors think he's not good enough. Secondly, why was Dawson picked? Well, you saw the pitch. The seamers were largely ineffective, especially in the second innings, so a second spinner was a no-brainer, and bearing in mind the answer to question one, it obviously had to be Dawson, who didn't do badly in the previous test.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

Judging from recent discussions on the "spin conundrum" thread, this question should be split into two questions. Firstly, why was Rashid not picked? Answer, because the selectors think he's not good enough. Secondly, why was Dawson picked? Well, you saw the pitch. The seamers were largely ineffective, especially in the second innings, so a second spinner was a no-brainer, and bearing in mind the answer to question one, it obviously had to be Dawson, who didn't do badly in the previous test.

To be fair to the seamers, they bowled 10-3-24-2 second innings, so did just fine, but obviously conditions suited the spinners more and given the magnificence of Ali, they didn't get much of a go. If we'd lost the toss and bowled first, we'd have probably used the seamers more in both innings than we did. Otherwise agree though, certainly around the rationale behind the selection.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by mustardcharlie

Might I just say I have nothing against Broad, Stokes and Anderson. They were innocuous. Stokes got a 50 and sub 10 and Ballance got about the same. Stokes bowled tripe. Dawson? Tell me again why he got picked ahead of Rashid. Mo fully deserved the MoM ahead of Rootster. Yes 190 to his name but I thought his captaincy was rather conservative. Jimmy and Stu were getting it up around 85-87 at times but a lot of it was low eighties.

Given that "there has been some weather about", Trent Bridge should be a serious Test. Bonehead Rabada is sadly out. If the sun comes, the seamers should be rubbing their hands in glee. "Ha, Mr Amla isn't it? I'm sure you know where my first ball is going hehehe"

I also rejoice in kicking Saffer butt. 211 runs is a big win. Other sides will not be so lenient, if we lose 4-6 wickets in a morning session.

I've watched a lot of Broad and Anderson bowling over the years. I would say that bowling in the low eighties is pretty much standard for them both.

[JRC67]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

Judging from recent discussions on the "spin conundrum" thread, this question should be split into two questions. Firstly, why was Rashid not picked? Answer, because the selectors think he's not good enough. Secondly, why was Dawson picked? Well, you saw the pitch. The seamers were largely ineffective, especially in the second innings, so a second spinner was a no-brainer, and bearing in mind the answer to question one, it obviously had to be Dawson, who didn't do badly in the previous test.

Dawson seems to have become the bete noir of cricket purists who believe a spinner should only be able to bat at 11 and be broadly comical when fielding. Not too sure how well studied he has been by some of his critics, I've seen him bowl one in County Cricket so really have no real opinion. When he Captained the U19s it was as a specialist spinner and he did return the best ever U19 bowling figures. When he got in to The Hampshire team his batting improved and at times he was behind others as a spin bowler. I do believe he actually has the best test average of all English spinners currently playing professional cricket, so I'd say he had a reasonable start to his career. I'll keep an open mind until he's played a couple more tests, but he in the final India test he looked good and after a nervous first spell bowled quite well for an English spinner at Lords. He managed to get some reasonable turn in both innings which surprised me a little.

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by JRC67

Dawson seems to have become the bete noir of cricket purists who believe a spinner should only be able to bat at 11 and be broadly comical when fielding. ...

I'm fairly sure there are no such people as the ones in bold.

[billyguntheballs]

Originally Posted by luckyluke

I think you, and several others on here, need to live in the moment a bit more. Instead of droning on about how we lost to India or scaremongering about the forthcoming Ashes, why don't you try to enjoy England's 200 run win over a team they haven't beaten at home since a dead rubber in 2008?

Until we have a team packed with the modern day equivalents of Garner/Holding/Marshall etc and McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, I'm afraid we are going to lose some test matches and series from time to time, and undermining every good performance with whinging about past or future series isn't going to change that fact.

We can only hope that the selectors play the best team we have available for each game and that team does the best that it can, enjoy it when it comes off, and take it on the chin and reassess if it doesn't.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally Posted by Ali TT

I've watched a lot of Broad and Anderson bowling over the years. I would say that bowling in the low eighties is pretty much standard for them both.

Yeah, I haven't really since Braod be all that fiery since 09.

Jimmy's always been on the lower side of the pace scale but his swing and accuracy always made up for it and to a certain extent, still does.

[billyguntheballs]

As for the Rashid v Dawson question, I feel it should not even be a question. Rashid is England's most in form bowler when it comes to ODI cricket and he has been doing pretty well in tests too. On top of all that, he is a very good batsmen when he has enough time to bat, so why Dawson was picked is beyond me or anyone with an ounce of sense.

[blackeyedangles]

Would definitely pick Rashid over Dawson. I think there was a line pushed that Dawson would bowl tight while Moeen bowled loose and took wickets (as is his way) but given that Dawson didn't bowl all that tight you're better off with the wicket-taker and the variety if you have two spinners.

[luckyluke]

Originally Posted by blackeyedangles

Would definitely pick Rashid over Dawson. I think there was a line pushed that Dawson would bowl tight while Moeen bowled loose and took wickets (as is his way) but given that Dawson didn't bowl all that tight you're better off with the wicket-taker and the variety if you have two spinners.

Yes, on the basis of one test let's chop and change again. I'm a bit worried about this Y2K bug

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by billyguntheballs

Yeah, I haven't really since Braod be all that fiery since 09.

Jimmy's always been on the lower side of the pace scale but his swing and accuracy always made up for it and to a certain extent, still does.

Both have relied on control and movement over pace in recent times. Yes, they could reach the nineties in times gone by but those who bowl that fast for extended periods don't have lengthy Test careers. Look at Mitch Johnson and Dale Steyn.