First test ratings ENG VS NZ

Here are my ratings for the first test

ENGLAND

Cook-7
Compton-4 (not a test match batsman IMO)
Trott-7
Bell-6
Root-8
Bairstow-5 (struggling at test match level)
Prior-3
Swann-7
Broad-10 (2nd innings was unplayable)
Anderson-7
Finn-5

NZ

Fulton-3
Rutherford-4
Willamson-9
Taylor-8
Brownlie-4
McCullum-3
Watling-4
Martin-5
Southee-8
Wagner-7
Boult-7

Swann hardly done anything but get a 7? A few I disagree with, like a 10 for Broad but good work

Broad 10 Anderson 7 ? Seriously ?

Williamson 9 ?

Sorry , shouldn't be picky , but really ...

I wouldn't get wound up by it alfie, this is par for the course. I remember him giving Ojha a 10 in a Test India lost! They are clearly deliberately ridiculous in order to get a reaction.

VTR wrote:I wouldn't get wound up by it alfie, this is par for the course. I remember him giving Ojha a 10 in a Test India lost! They are clearly deliberately ridiculous in order to get a reaction.

+1

Not a patch on his Best X1, threads/posts though!

Cook - 6: useful first innings graft, a rash second innings shot. Captaincy pretty good, growing into the role nicely. A very good match at first slip, made his chances look easy.

Compton - 4: a couple of decent starts but failed to cash in. I for once approve his attempt to take on Martin in the first innings, but it didn't come off this time.

Trott - 7: reliable as ever, but would have liked to have converted at least one innings into a really big score. Steadily working his way into England's slip cordon despite one drop.

Bell - 4: second innings not to be held against him too much due to his condition but the first innings was a puzzling effort, in particular against Martin who you'd normally expect him to dominate, or at least try to get at. Got out at the wrong time too unfortunately to an ordinary ball.

Root - 8: looks every inch an international player. Useful first innings contribution ended somewhat unluckily, and a match-winning second innings knock. Love the way he goes about his cricket.

Bairstow - 6: a lot of harsh criticism considering he did (narrowly) top score in the first innings. Not the finished product yet and needs to work on his tendency to play around straight balls, but a very bright talent.

Prior - 1: a rare match to forget for the England 'keeper. Good energy as always from behind the stumps but a pair and a dropped catch which you'd normally expect him to swallow.

Broad - 8.5: disappointing first innings after his first spell where he was unlucky, albeit with the important wicket of McCullum. Came to life in the second, with first some useful runs and one of his famous unplayable spells. People will always question his consistency, but he does average 26 with the ball over the last two years, and maybe we have to settle for him being as he is.

Swann - 5: tough match to rate, got out to two very good bits of bowling, and wasn't required with the ball. Nice low catch to remove Fulton in the first innings.

Finn - 7: may not have bowled his best, but looked quite sharp and ended with more than useful figures which allowed England to take a first innings lead.

Anderson - 8.5: magnificent once more, leader of the England attack. Found the swing that had somewhat eluded him in NZ and the opposition couldn't cope with him moving the ball both ways with great accuracy. Thought he was unlucky to only get the two wickets in NZ's second innings really.

Thanks MFC, was waiting for someone to meaningfully start the thread.
Here are mine
England.
Cook 5.
Compton 4.
Trott 7.
Bell 3.
Root 8.
Bairstow 5.
Prior 1.
Broad 9.
Swann 5.
Finn 7.
Anderson 9.
NZ.
Fulton 1.
Rutherford 2.
Williamson 6.
Taylor 7.
Brownlie 4.
McCullum 2.
Watling 2.
Southee 9.
Martin 5.
Wagner 7.
Boult 6.

Fulton - 1: a match to forget. Unconvincing shots in both innings (particularly the second), looked at sea against the moving ball.

Rutherford - 3: while he didn't score much more than his opening partner, he did receive two terrific deliveries to get rid of him, which many batsmen would have struggled with.

Williamson - 6: very good graft in the first innings, though got out at the wrong time. Poor shot in the second innings (in the execution, I didn't mind him going after the ball, but his balance was all wrong).

Taylor - 7: his first innings knock changed the complexion of the game and threatened to put NZ into a winning position, which the middle and lower order squandered. Got a good'un in the second innings.

Brownlie - 5: made a start in the first innings but couldn't cash in. Undone by a superb two-card trick from Anderson in the second. Two very fine snags at third slip.

McCullum - 3: Failed twice with the bat, not great shots in either innings. Captaincy was interesting, and most commentators love it, but sometimes I wonder if he tinkers too much on occasion.

Watling - 5: Starts in both innings, but couldn't go on, twice left with the tail and out trying to force the pace. Superb behind the stumps considering he hasn't kept at Lords before (tough tough place to keep) so gains a mark for that.

Southee - 8.5: slightly off-colour on day one, but came back with a vengeance to take ten in the match. Worries about his batting though, sure he strikes it well, but you feel if you bowl three bouncers at him he'll send one straight up in the air.

Martin - 5: nice containing spell in the first innings, but maybe insufficient penetration in the second. When the ball's turning he should probably bowl a bit straighter. Got a corker in the first innings, while not sure why he came out in the second.

Wagner - 6: bowled well at times though not throughout. A whole-hearted performer. Had a bit of a whack in the second innings when the game was lost.

Boult - 6.5: similar to Wagner really. A little more threatening at times IMO. A real rabbit with the bat.

msp, think you're a little harsh on Watling really. Thought he had a very good game with the gloves considering it's his first outing at Lords, and while he played ordinary shots in both innings he was both times left with the tail and had little choice.

CF wrote:Here are my ratings for the first test

ENGLAND

Cook-7
Compton-4 (not a test match batsman IMO)
Trott-7
Bell-6
Root-8
Bairstow-5 (struggling at test match level)
Prior-3
Swann-7
Broad-10 (2nd innings was unplayable)
Anderson-7
Finn-5

NZ

Fulton-3
Rutherford-4
Willamson-9
Taylor-8
Brownlie-4
McCullum-3
Watling-4
Martin-5
Southee-8
Wagner-7
Boult-7

#HeadsGone

Mad for Chelsea wrote:msp, think you're a little harsh on Watling really. Thought he had a very good game with the gloves considering it's his first outing at Lords, and while he played ordinary shots in both innings he was both times left with the tail and had little choice.

You are indeed right MFC. I thought about it after I posted. Watling did have a pretty good game with the gloves, and success in the wicket keeping department should give him an additional point or 2. I thought he batted without a sense of purpose in the first innings and struggled throughout and he was part of the collapse in the 2nd innings as well, but he wasn't the only one and he was injured as well. So fair enough to give him a couple more points.

nick you highlighted mcullum and Martn has *heads gone*

why?

McCullum has an awful game with bat, and martin while he was tight he didnt take wickets..therefore 5 is reasoable

This isn't the first time your ratings have been dreadfully wrong and stupid though.

Giving Prior a 3 out of 10 but McCullum a 5? When Prior had a better game!

Martin should of been given a 6 or 7 IMO. He bowled well but just didn't get the wickets to match sadly.

NickisBHAFC wrote:This isn't the first time your ratings have been dreadfully wrong and stupid though.

Giving Prior a 3 out of 10 but McCullum a 5? When Prior had a better game!

Martin should of been given a 6 or 7 IMO. He bowled well but just didn't get the wickets to match sadly.

Whilst I agree with some points, in what parallel universe did this happen? Prior is a fantastic player, but it would be hard to do worse than he did in this game. 3 frankly is generous...

I give Prior as much as his combined scores. Didn't cover himself in glory behind the stumps either. Even he would likely admit this was his worst game in a while, if not ever.

Cook - 5: got a good start in the first innings, but his rather passive approach was indicative of England's troubles, and got out when well set. Captained well though, more in the Strauss or Ponting mold, but gets his fielders by and large in the right place, and manages his bowlers effectively. Possibly should have used Swann a bit more during the Taylor-Williamson partnership. Caught very nicely.

Compton - 4: a rather old fashioned opener. Saw off the new ball both times (which given New Zealand's 2nd innings troubles may well have been more important than he's got credit for), but couldn't score big. Commendable attempt to get after Martin, but ran too far inside the line of the ball.

Trott - 7: did as Trott does. 2 crucial knocks in a low scoring game. Much improved as a slip fielder.

Bell - 4: I'm willing to cut him some slack given how below par he obviously was. Gutsed it out as best he could.

Root - 8: it will only take a couple of poor tests for people to start calling for his head no doubt, but he looks every bit an international cricketer. Organised, compact, and some of the better footwork I've seen from a young cricketer for a while. Suggestions that he should move up to open are ludicrous given how at home he looks in the middle order. One of the main energisers in the field.

Bairstow - 5: just 2 tests ago he was apparently England's saviour, now of course he's hopeless. Harsh. Top-scored in the first innings, but didn't seem very confident of how to play with the tail (until Anderson came in) which is a drawback for a number 6. Terrific fielder.

Prior - 1: even the best have their off-days.

Broad - 8: hopeless looking shot to get out in the first innings, bowled pretty well first up I thought without much luck (a really good spell to Williamson stands out). Crucial runs in the 2nd innings, then the chief destroyer, although if truth be told I thought he only bowled a bit better than in the first innings (I would give him a 7 for the 1st innings, and a 9 for the 2nd). But them's the breaks.

Swann - 4: didn't do much. A bit of a prod in the 2nd innings. Caught well.

Finn - 7: didn't bowl the best, but has the happy knack of taking wickets, and the equally happy one of cleaning up tail enders. Both are a crucial addition to the team.

Anderson - 9: outstanding yet again, I actually thought he was England's best bowler over the course of the match.

Fulton - 1: looked at sea. To be honest I've never rated him that highly, but 2 tons against England made me look closer. Plays away from his body and prods with his hands, which is fine if your hands are fantastic. His aren't.

Rutherford - 3: looks compact and organised, a worrying tendancy to want to waft a bit outside off. Good energy levels in the field.

Williamson - 6.5: rode his luck but a good gutsy player. Very compact. He drove a couple at catchable height in the first innings in the gap, so 2nd innings dismissal not that surprising. The slow pitch probably partly to blame, but something to watch out for. Hitting balls at catchable height is not ideal for a test cricketer. His bowling is better than part-time.

Taylor - 7: fine counter-attacking knock in the first innings. Gets squared up a bit still, I think England will fancy getting him early more often than not if it's swinging, although they should readjust their lines and lengths a bit. If he does get going he can be a match-winner.

Brownlie - 4: I'm usually a fan, but was undone by good bowling in both innings. Very good gully fielder.

McCullum - 3: that's the way he plays, the shots weren't outrageous but they didn't come off. Captained creatively, which seems to please the pundits. I think he sets very good fields to his spinners.

Wattling - 5: looks technically competent, but not that many shots so 7 is not a good place; perhaps McCullum and Brownlie should drop down, and he can play 5 where he should have longer. Keeping was good, although he's helped by his natural technique in that he takes the ball very late and nods it in so he has time to adjust to the swinging ball. I suspect he'd find an old Perth pitch (where you want to be taking the ball a longish way out in front of you) a bit more of a struggle.

Southee - 8: bowled very well after a slightly below par first day effort. Has turned himself into a very good slip fielder, which is great to see. His batting is what it is, he's a good old fashioned slogger with a good eye. Far too high in the order at number 8, you need to be able to support your main batsmen there.

Martin - 6: bowled nicely within his limitations. Unfortunately he is not really threatening enough for me to be part of a 4 man attack. A bit like Paul Harris, he'll do a job, but... Vettori won't solve that problem, but picking 5 genuine bowlers will unbalance the side. A conundrum for sure.

Wagner - 7: bowled well and picked up some good wickets on the 2nd morning. Not the most regular, but he'll pick up wickets for you.

Boult - 7: I like him as a bowler, but he was a bit wide at times. I suspect had he realised it would be quite such a low-scoring game he wouldn't have been, but lines were a bit defensive at times. Needs to improve his batting, because that isn't good enough in today's game.

I only saw a few bits of this Test but my overriding impression (at least up until New Zealand's second innings) was how well Watling and the slips supported their seam bowlers and particularly Southee. Although tricky I feel that deserves to be brought out more in the ratings.

see nick youve gone quiet when you were wrong

Prior made 2 scores of 0 and dropped a sitter...i should have given him 1

CF wrote:see nick youve gone quiet when you were wrong

Prior made 2 scores of 0 and dropped a sitter...i should have given him 1

Or i just don't check the site every second because i have a life