England vs NZ series ratings

Here are my ratings for the england vs nz series

England:

Cook-5
Compton-8
Trott-7
KP-5
Bell-7
Root-5
Prior-7
Broad-5
Finn-5
Anderson-7
Panesar-5
Bairstow-3

NZ

Fulton-7
Rutherford-7
Willamson-8
Taylor-6
Brownlie-2
McCullum-7
Watling-5
Southee-6
Martin-8
Wagner-9
Boult-10

Compton : After scoring two hundred he failed in the next three innings he failed so giving him 8 above Fulton, Rutherford. Ummmm I am bit shaky.

Bell and Prior have same points? Prior has an average of 103 is 75% more than double that of Bell, still same points. I would have given Prior 9 and Bell 6.

Again Root and Broad have same points. Root has just scored 88 runs and Broad not only had scored 38 runs but had taken 11 wickets. That 38 runs also include his marathon innings of 7 runs on the final day of last test match where he proved handy and helped Prior to save the match.

Rest I too have same ratings.

I would give Cook a six and Bell, a 5 maybe. Prior deserves an 8-9 also.

As for the bowlers. Broad was our best, so deserves a 7 ish.

As for the Kiwi's. A 10 for Boult?

Cook-6 - Marks for some good batting in the 1st test, then as soon as McCullum called him "2nd best batsman ever" started getting out to loose shots. Captaincy perhaps a little over-cautious

Compton-8 - 2 centuries should have guaranteed him the openers' berth for the English summer

Trott-7 - super consistent

KP-5 - one scratchy 50 before being injured out

Bell-7 - gained a couple of points for is 2nd innings in Wellington

Root-5 - a bit of a come-down after his fairy tale

Prior-9 - kept well, plenty of runs, and saved the day in Auckland

Broad-6 - returned to form in Wellington, and did what was required to survive in Auckland

Finn-5 - seemed to lose form from the ODIs, struggling to find the right length. Has improved his batting though.

Anderson-5 - looked off-fitness and form, was out-bowled by his opposite numbers

Panesar-4 - picked up some lucky wickets which slightly flattered his figures, though contained well at times. Showed his limitations on pitches lacking turn and bounce.

Bairstow-2 - lack of cricket really showed when chucked in the deep end in Auckland

NZ
Fulton-9 - It wasn't elegant, but he scored runs. And us Kiwis will gladly take that

Rutherford - 7 - great start before fading a little. But lots of promise for the future.

Willamson-8 - a solid series where he looked older than his 22 years, scored useful runs cemting the #3 berth, and his off-spin was more than useful

Taylor - 4 - Still looking unsettled after losing the captaincy and taking time out mid-season

Brownlie-4 failed to convert his starts. And probably dropped the match the last over before lunch in Auckland. Will be looking over his shoulder when Guptill returns to fitness.

McCullum-9 - 3 quickfire 50s in 4 knocks, and a series average of 82, plus some innovative captaincy. Would have liked to convert a 50 to 100, and will regret not declaring 20 minutes earlier in Auckland.

Watling-7 - some dogged batting, and useful keeping, though still has room to improve. Has done enough to hold his spot

Southee-7 - bowled well in Auckland and in patches in the 1st 2 games, and picked up some useful (and quick) runs.

Martin - 6 - out-bowled Panesar, and useful lower order runs should see him tour England even if Vettori goes too. Will be diasppointed not to have gotten wickets in Auckland

Wagner-7 - probably moved ahead of Bracewell in the seam pecking order, bowling a few excellent spells and really enjoying the tussle with his countryman Pietersen

Boult-8 - improved through the series, with a superb 6-for in Auckland. Had NZ's catching been better on day 5 he might have swung the result.

CF - have you used a random number generator to come up with those bizarre ratings?

its how i felt the players performed....feel free to make your own..

I'm pretty much with Pete's scores and comments above. Don't think I would be more than 1 point different either way on any of the players.

VTR wrote:CF - have you used a random number generator to come up with those bizarre ratings?

Cook-5
Compton-7
Trott-5
KP-4
Bell-7
Root-6
Prior-9
Broad-6
Finn-6
Anderson-7
Panesar-6
Bairstow-4

Not big on ratings for cricket. But anyone who doesn't rate Prior as the top ranked player for England hasn't been watching.

alfie wrote:Not big on ratings for cricket. But anyone who doesn't rate Prior as the top ranked player for England hasn't been watching.

This.

Think Broad is getting a bit of a bad rep here. Took the same number of wickets as Boult at only a slightly higher average and only Wagner took more wickets (12 to 11) but Wagner's came at a higher average. He wasn't as consistent as Boult and had periods of being tonked about a bit, but I think he deserves at least a 7. I pretty much agree with the rest of Pete's scores though.

Prior was by far and away our best player on this tour, he really has come on very well not only in his batting, but also with his glovework.

Monty would get the worst rating for me for England players. (Bit harsh to judge Bairstow considering he'd only had 1 innings since August in First Class cricket)

Monty was a huge disappointment. Completely outbowled by Martin (who wasn't special, just pretty average imo) and has really cast doubts over whether he is the 2nd spinner now. Might be time to promote a youngster to that position.

What is the condition of Swan. Is he fit or will take time. I suppose he will be in a warrior role In the Ashes Had he Recover. On Monty remark He was successful In India But he doesn't look handy in odd condition so taking him for ashes would be shaky. At last NZ team has groomed a lot. They were better than England in All department.

Spanish Dave wrote:Cook-5
Compton-7
Trott-5
KP-4
Bell-7
Root-6
Prior-9
Broad-6
Finn-6
Anderson-7
Panesar-6
Bairstow-4

Only a 5 for Trott, that is very harsh. He averaged 56, while scoring both a ton and a 50, while only registering one score below 37.

I agree pretty much with Pete, except I would bump Broad up to a 7 at least, possibly an 8 - easily England's best bowler on what were pretty flat wickets, and his last day innings deserves a lot of credit given how his batting form has been recently, and how out of character it was.

How anyone could rank any England bowler above him is a mystery.

I would also be tempted to give Boult a 9 - I thought he was superb throughout. It's not his fault his fielders let him down right at the end.

Mike - I would have given Broad a 7 but deducted a point for his performance on the fourth morning of the last Test.

I don't know if you picked up my comments on that thread but he was shamefully petulant. Too often Broad would remonstrate with the fielders - and ''easy target'' Panesar in particular - for being in the wrong place but only after he had bowled and the ball been struck. As a coach, I'm sure you would have been unimpressed, more likely livid.

Experienced wise heads can also mean grumpy old sods!

If Anderson gets a 7 over Broad and Finn with 5, I think Bairstow should at least get a 9 and Fulton a 2.

My post above is not exactly a criticism of James Anderson although he had an underwhelming series.
Hope you all get the drift.

England:

Cook- 6
Compton-8
Trott-7
KP-5
Bell-6
Root-4
Prior- 9
Broad-7
Finn-5
Anderson-6
Panesar-4

NZ

Fulton-8
Rutherford-7
Willamson-7
Taylor- 4
Brownlie- 3
McCullum-8
Watling-5
Southee-6
Martin- 6
Wagner-7
Boult- 8

Here's cricinfo's summary series stats, some interesting reading
http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-england-2013/content/current/story/626971.html

I am with you msp. I think this thread starts with Pete's ratings which are well thought and contain an explanation for the ratings.

VTR wrote:I am with you msp. I think this thread starts with Pete's ratings which are well thought and contain an explanation for the ratings.

Pete's ratings is genuine one, with explanation for each rating.

guildfordbat wrote:Mike - I would have given Broad a 7 but deducted a point for his performance on the fourth morning of the last Test.

I don't know if you picked up my comments on that thread but he was shamefully petulant. Too often Broad would remonstrate with the fielders - and ''easy target'' Panesar in particular - for being in the wrong place but only after he had bowled and the ball been struck. As a coach, I'm sure you would have been unimpressed, more likely livid.

Experienced wise heads can also mean grumpy old sods!

Afraid I didn't watch any of the last test beyond the first day, the 2nd morning and the final day, but I'd hoped Broad had gotten over his petulance. As a coach I'm big on players taking responsibility - if you bowl a ball and it gets hit for 4, that's your fault, not that of the fielders; if you get out, even via a bad umpiring decision, it's because you've made your own misjudgement; etc. - once you start making excuses or blaming others then that's a major obstacle to improving and learning from your own mistakes (for similar reasons I am really not big on those who talk about "god's will" during a cricket match).