Ashes Report Card

Ashes Report Card

Post by Sears Towe » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:56:32


Since I did not see this from the usual suspects I thought I will start one

AUS

Langer   B-
Hayden  D-
Ponting   C+ (Captaincy  C-)
Martyn   D
Clarke    C+
Katich    C-
Gilchrist  D
Gillespie  F
Warne    A+
Lee         B+
Mcgrath  A
Kaspa     E

ENG

Trescothick  A-
Strauss         A-
Vaughan       C+  (Captaincy B+)
Bell              D-
Pietersen      A
Flintoff         A+
G Jones       B-
Giles            C-
Hoggard      B
Harmison     B-
S Jones       A

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Rooki » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:32:53

Quote:

> Since I did not see this from the usual suspects I thought I will start one

> AUS

> Langer   B-
> Hayden  D-
> Ponting   C+ (Captaincy  C-)
> Martyn   D
> Clarke    C+
> Katich    C-
> Gilchrist  D
> Gillespie  F
> Warne    A+
> Lee         B+
> Mcgrath  A
> Kaspa     E

> ENG

> Trescothick  A-
> Strauss         A-
> Vaughan       C+  (Captaincy B+)
> Bell              D-
> Pietersen      A
> Flintoff         A+
> G Jones       B-
> Giles            C-
> Hoggard      B
> Harmison     B-
> S Jones       A

Too harsh on the Aussies or too generous to England.  Ponting and
Langer performed comparably to Trescothick and Strauss.  Gilchrist only
averaged 3 less than G Jones with the bat and was probably slightly
less inept behind the stumps so a B- and a D not fair.  You missed out
Tait who I would give a C+.

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Luke Curti » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:43:13



Quote:
>Since I did not see this from the usual suspects I thought I will start one

>AUS

>Langer   B-
>Hayden  D-
>Ponting   C+ (Captaincy  C-)
>Martyn   D

He did have a couple of bad decisions but didn't hugely impress.

Quote:
>Clarke    C+
>Katich    C-
>Gilchrist  D

He keeping looked good most of the time, a couple of difficult dropped
chances but his batting singly failed to spark. D

Quote:
>Gillespie  F

Woeful, how he made the 3rd test is a mystery to me. F

Quote:
>Warne    A+

No disagreement there, Excellent. A+

Quote:
>Lee         B+

Best Aus fast bower IMHO, extreme pace genuine wicket taking balls,
some times a bit off colour but generally very good. B

Quote:
>Mcgrath  A

he didn't play 2 games, was obviously unfit for one test and in the
last test looked out of form in the last test, only at lords did he
perform and that was on a surface that could have been specially
prepared for him. B-

Quote:
>Kaspa     E

>ENG

>Trescothick  A-

I was completely, totally and 100% wrong, and I am delighted!
I wrote that I expected Tres to be completely found out and end up
with a single figure average, Instead he generally made a reasonable
stars, took the attack to the Aussies and got the runs on the board,
pity he never went on to make a century but otherwise very good   A-

Quote:
>Strauss         A-

Started poorly, looked hopeless against Warne but to give him his
credit he came back strongly, only man with 2 centuries on either side
B+

Quote:
>Vaughan       C+  (Captaincy B+)

looked a lot better that the last year or so, some absolute beautiful,
effortless stokes, looks like his best form is coming back. B

Captaincy: Excellent, had the plans and put them into effect, and they
generally worked (IE Gilchrist). Not frightened to change the bowlers
quickly if they were not going to plan. Only criticism is the way the
Aus lower order were able to get runs  A-

Quote:
>Bell              D-

had a couple of good supporting innings in the Old Trafford test but
pretty clueless the rest of the time. D

Quote:
>Pietersen      A

Great batting as expected but the very poor catching was rather a
shock after his great catching in the ODI series  B-

Quote:
>Flintoff         A+

His 53 no balls in the series are a little bit of a worry but
otherwise excellent, A+

Quote:
>G Jones       B-

several very useful innings but several very expensive dropped catches
D+

Quote:
>Giles            C-

I expected him to be hit out of the attack on a regular basis, instead
a few useful wickets and some vital runs as well, only 22 runs short
of what Martyn got! <G>    B-

Quote:
>Hoggard      B

Lethal when the conditions suited him and tight when they did not,
very good performance, B+

Quote:
>Harmison     B-

Unfortunately it looks like he is always going to be measured up
against that West Indies winter and never quite equaling it. Not
accurate enough with far too many legside balls but 17 wickets is not
to be sniffed at. C+

Quote:
>S Jones       A

Gets better and better, lets just hope he is not going to have regular
problems with injuries. A-

--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World  - Vila in typical panic mode)

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Geoff Muldoo » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:39:45


Quote:
> Since I did not see this from the usual suspects I thought I will start one
> ENG

> G Jones       B-
> Giles            C-

Harsh on Giles who did all that could be expected from him (given the
limited turn in his bowling) and *way* over-rating GJones who's keeping
was so atrocious that his moderate-only batting form cannot compensate.

Geoff M

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by pash4life197 » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:18:50

yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
have put forward that australia played well below their best and
england played their best.
 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by pash4life197 » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:18:53

yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
have put forward that australia played well below their best and
england played their best.
 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by John Hal » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:11:41


Quote:

>yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
>interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
>dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
>overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
>performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
>have put forward that australia played well below their best and
>england played their best.

Apart from the first Test, the English batsmen's problems were primarily
caused by Warne. We can't know how Australia's batsmen would have done
if England could have replaced Giles with Warne in their attack, but
it's reasonable to assume that they would have done substantially worse
than they actually did.
--
John Hall     "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
              "Well, actually, they're American."
      "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
                                  Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Mike Pric » Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:46:20



Quote:
>Langer   B-

B+
 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Mad Hamis » Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:25:16



Quote:
>Since I did not see this from the usual suspects I thought I will start one

>AUS

>Langer   B-
>Hayden  D-
>Ponting   C+ (Captaincy  C-)
>Martyn   D
>Clarke    C+
>Katich    C-
>Gilchrist  D
>Gillespie  F
>Warne    A+
>Lee         B+
>Mcgrath  A
>Kaspa     E

I'm somewhat puzzled how Gilchrist can rate higher than Hayden.
Ditto for Katich, although he's got a slight argument in his favour
with 2 50 rather than 1 100.
B+ is probably slightly high for Lee as well as his main job is taking
wickets and he failed that fairly badly overall.

Quote:

>ENG

>Trescothick  A-
>Strauss         A-
>Vaughan       C+  (Captaincy B+)
>Bell              D-

Bell rates the same as Hayden?

Quote:
>Pietersen      A
>Flintoff         A+
>G Jones       B-

Jones rates as well as Langer?
Hell Jones' keeping has to have him down very low.

Quote:
>Giles            C-


- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>Hoggard      B
>Harmison     B-
>S Jones       A

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Fish Womp » Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:53:52

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:11:41 +0100, John Hall

Quote:



>>yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
>>interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
>>dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
>>overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
>>performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
>>have put forward that australia played well below their best and
>>england played their best.

>Apart from the first Test, the English batsmen's problems were primarily
>caused by Warne. We can't know how Australia's batsmen would have done
>if England could have replaced Giles with Warne in their attack, but
>it's reasonable to assume that they would have done substantially worse
>than they actually did.

And England wouldn't have gone so flash if Australia had had Flintoff.
So what exctly does that prove?

fish

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>--
>John Hall     "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
>              "Well, actually, they're American."
>      "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
>                                  Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Paul Robso » Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:00:10

Quote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:11:41 +0100, John Hall



>>>yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
>>>interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
>>>dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
>>>overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
>>>performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
>>>have put forward that australia played well below their best and
>>>england played their best.

>>Apart from the first Test, the English batsmen's problems were primarily
>>caused by Warne. We can't know how Australia's batsmen would have done
>>if England could have replaced Giles with Warne in their attack, but
>>it's reasonable to assume that they would have done substantially worse
>>than they actually did.

> And England wouldn't have gone so flash if Australia had had Flintoff.
> So what exctly does that prove?

True. But IMO if you took Warne & Flintoff out of the respective teams
and played ten a side, England would have been the less damaged team.

Flintoff's contribution was huge ; but Warne was really the one serious
threat Australia's bowling had, after T1.

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by John Hal » Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:02:44



Quote:
>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:11:41 +0100, John Hall



>>>yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
>>>interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
>>>dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
>>>overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
>>>performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
>>>have put forward that australia played well below their best and
>>>england played their best.

>>Apart from the first Test, the English batsmen's problems were primarily
>>caused by Warne. We can't know how Australia's batsmen would have done
>>if England could have replaced Giles with Warne in their attack, but
>>it's reasonable to assume that they would have done substantially worse
>>than they actually did.

>And England wouldn't have gone so flash if Australia had had Flintoff.
>So what exctly does that prove?

Not a lot. All I was trying to say is that you can't judge how well
batsmen have performed in isolation, but need to take the quality of the
bowling that they faced into account.
--
John Hall     "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
              "Well, actually, they're American."
      "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
                                  Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Fish Womp » Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:25:17

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:00:10 +0100, Paul Robson

Quote:


>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:11:41 +0100, John Hall



>>>>yes think you are being a bit lenient on the english. i think its
>>>>interesting looking at the aussie batsmen vs the english batsmen, I
>>>>dont think the english batted that great over the summer. Probably
>>>>overall an average (maybe slightly better than average
>>>>performance)...which really challenges the notion that a few posters
>>>>have put forward that australia played well below their best and
>>>>england played their best.

>>>Apart from the first Test, the English batsmen's problems were primarily
>>>caused by Warne. We can't know how Australia's batsmen would have done
>>>if England could have replaced Giles with Warne in their attack, but
>>>it's reasonable to assume that they would have done substantially worse
>>>than they actually did.

>> And England wouldn't have gone so flash if Australia had had Flintoff.
>> So what exctly does that prove?

>True. But IMO if you took Warne & Flintoff out of the respective teams
>and played ten a side, England would have been the less damaged team.

>Flintoff's contribution was huge ; but Warne was really the one serious
>threat Australia's bowling had, after T1.

This is why, particularly in T2 and T4, Australia came back into the
game in the second half of the match. They also did this in T3, but
Warne didn't get a wicket in the England 2nd innings, the recovery to
save this Test was due to the staunch batting effort, and perhaps
England's bowlers being less effective later in the game.

It stands to reason. Quick bowlers as a rule benefit more from a fast
track, which is most likely early on, while spinners like an older
pitch. Australia almost always scored more runs in the 2nd innings
than the first, while England were the opposite.

With hindsight, maybe Australia should have used MacGill at some
stage, with the quicks going so poorly.

fish

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Calvi » Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:43:35


Quote:
> With hindsight, maybe Australia should have used MacGill at some
> stage, with the quicks going so poorly.

I agree, and while one can't really blame selectors for hindsight
selections, why was he never seriously considered?

cheers,
Calvin

 
 
 

Ashes Report Card

Post by Andy Le » Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:08:14



Quote:


>> With hindsight, maybe Australia should have used MacGill at some
>> stage, with the quicks going so poorly.

>I agree, and while one can't really blame selectors for hindsight
>selections, why was he never seriously considered?

>cheers,
>Calvin

You do know he played in the County game against Essex where he was
duly thrashed round the park