England vs SA ratings

In the absence of CF (who would no doubt have Hales as the man of the series!), I will have a crack at these. As I view matches from an England perspective, someone else can have a go at the SA ratings:

Cook 5 - Very poor series with the bat but lead well with some shrewd bowling changes
Hales 2 - One score of 60 then not much else. Actually looked worse than Adam Lyth!
Compton 6 - Good start to the series with a hugely important performance in the First Test but faded badly after that
Root 8 - Match-shaping hundred in the Third Test rescued England from a position of peril. It was probably his best Test innings to date. Got out when looking well set at other times
Taylor 5 - Similar to Compton, played well in the First Test but then faded. Did take some stunning catches though
Stokes 9 - Man of the Series. Amazing knock in the Second Test that should not be denigrated because it was a flat pitch. Vital 50 in the Third Test and took key wickets
Bairstow 7 - Excellent with the bat, an 8 or 9, but poor keeping at times means I can't give him that as a mark
Ali 6 - Very good in the First Test, was generally poor with the bat though and quiet with the ball after that
Broad 9 - Bowled one match-winning spell and was always dangerous. Very consistent performer who was unlucky not to get more wickets
Finn 8 - Always threatening without quite getting the wickets some of his bowling deserved
Anderson 5 - Looked short of fitness and wasted the new ball at times. One decent spell when already miles behind in the Fourth Test was too little too late
Woakes 2 - Looked about as threatening with the ball as Boycott's mum and was not great with the bat either

Thanks for the thread, VTR. I know Alfie has some doubts about doing individual ratings but I think it's fair enough after a series (ratings for each Test are too much in isolation) and in any case a bit of fun!

Got to go out now but will give a few comments and corrections later on.

Might be interesting also if you or anyone else have the time and inclination to do the same for South Africa's players.

Good ratings VTR.

Ali's bowling was generally average so a possible 5. A 9 for Broad and 8 for Finn is one too many as well.

I didn't follow the series and the highlights as much as I would have liked but here are my thoughts....more subjective than it might be appropriate on  a rating thread.

--By beating SA in SA , Eng reaffirmed their status as one of the top team...that SA had captaincy issues is their problem and not Eng's

--that said, Eng has shown a tendency of dropping their guard after a series win, getting too happy, lacking ruthlessness....these days every game won or drawn yields ICC ranking points...and with Eng on top...they were favorites to win.

--To me Stokes is a star.....game has not seen an allrounder of this quality since the BIG four and the 2 odd year long purple patch of Flintoff.
that Eng has a WK and  bowlers who can bat.....Stokes, Ali, Broad and Woakes makes them a very ,very competitive side.
Woakes would rue the missed opportunities with bat and ball though
Ali is a tremendous utility cricketer....underrated and under-appreciated...but makes game changing contributions with both bat and ball when least expected ( because he bats at 8 and is deemed the 5th bowler)

--Compton tapered off as the series progressed and Hales ain't a test match opening material. Compton ought to open....Ballance in at 3.  Rest all did as expected.....only an under par series for Anderson with the ball....and above par for Broad.


--SA came out of this cricketing catharsis stronger....Rabada is a sigh of relief in terms of relieving their dependency on Steyn and points to a continuity in the lineage of  fast bowling tradition.
Amla got back to doing what he does well...scores runs and tons of them.
De Kock...delivered against a side other than India and...and this will go a long way in bringing  stability to their batting order.
Stephen Cook also added to the promise of a stable future

--ABDV is not as bad as Amla in captaincy but still far from what a good captain should be.
He should look at having 5 bowlers
3 seamers + 1 specialist spinner leaves them too lean if one of their seamer breaks down....which happens too frequently in the midst of games.

A seam bowling all rounder is the need of the hour for  SA.
Dunno if they have one or two to choose from at the FC level ?

--Duminy was a prodigy and a mercurial limited over / IPL talent that SA must accept has failed for good to blossom at the test level....like our Yuvraj and Eng's Morgan...and move on....probably to the seam bowling all rounder in his stead.

a good test match series

Decent ratings there VTR - I think the 2's should probably be 4's - I don't think either player disgraced themselves which a 2 would suggest. Can't really argue the others, 1 point either side on a few but that's to be expected.

KP fan - Nice analysis. I'm relatively new to cricket - fell in love with it in 2013 having not paid a blind bit of notice in my quarter of a century of life before that point. Since then I've tried to immerse myself in as much knowledge as possible; books, magazines, cricinfo, obviously matches - desperate to catch up. So some of my opinions or questions will come across as naive, for which I apologise. One for you; Who were "the big 4"? I'm guessing it's Khan, Dev, Botham and A.N.Other? But can't find reference to it on the net.

Richard Hadlee the 4th .....and coincidentally they all has 80% of their careers running through same years...starting late 70s and finishing early 90s

Cheers! Appreciate it

That's an excellent post kp_fan - and very interesting to see how highly rated Stokes is from an outside perspective. I have been saying for a while England's investment would pay off and it seems to be with both bat and ball. If he continues to work hard, I would not be surprised to see him rated as the best cricketer in the world within 2 years

Strings, you post so well I am amazed you only got into cricket 3 years ago!

Thanks VTR. That's very kind.
My friends do rip me for how obsessed I became so quickly.

Don't kid yourself you'll be able to shake it off now, Strings. The game's got you for life! Btw, do you follow an English county side?

I agree with Strings that the scores of 2 for Hales and Woakes should read 4.

Even though the series has ended, I'll continue my grumpiness towards Bairstow and downgrade him to 5. That's an 8 for his batting (would have been 9 before the last Test) and 3 for his keeping, averaged out and rounded down.

Of the rest, I'm either with VTR or just one point adrift. I do find Finn an interesting one though. He was always threatening as VTR says. However, as seems to be too often the case, his lack of fitness kept him out of the final Test. Should fitness concerns come into it when doing ratings? Not too sure and it probably doesn't really matter. However, if he's going to be inked in for the summer series as Dummy suggested on the other thread, best to have some tippex handy!

Yes, some good comments from KPf on South Africa. I agree that they emerged stronger at the end of the series. Rabada looks a huge talent whilst both Cook and Bavuma also provided encouragement for the future. Meanwhile, Amla remains a very classy and hard working act.

Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.

Saffas have promise in Rabada and Bavuma but Steyn and Morkel haven't got years and years ahead of them. Elgar solid, Amla exceptional. De Kock could be massive...... Still lack depth and need to play more Test cricket.

A score of four would suggest they were just below average, which is to high. 2-3, possibly more a 3 is about right I reckon.

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.

Saffas have promise in Rabada and Bavuma but Steyn and Morkel haven't got years and years ahead of them. Elgar solid, Amla exceptional. De Kock could be massive...... Still lack depth and need to play more Test cricket.

Agreed on Rabada and young Temba. Those two have huge potential.

Need to see more of De Kock before I hail him as the next big thing.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Agreed on Rabada and young Temba.  Those two have huge potential.  

Need to see more of De Kock before I hail him as the next big thing.

A lot was made of AB not wanting the gloves but I heard it was more to do with him wanting to fit De Kock in as soon as he could. Wasn't helped by the quota conundrum though, until the emergence of Bavuma and Rabada.

seanmichaels wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Agreed on Rabada and young Temba.  Those two have huge potential.  

Need to see more of De Kock before I hail him as the next big thing.

A lot was made of AB not wanting the gloves but I heard it was more to do with him wanting to fit De Kock in as soon as he could. Wasn't helped by the quota conundrum though, until the emergence of Bavuma and Rabada.

Cook is a very decent domestic player but pretty old and not a long term solution as Elgar's partner. Maybe young Quinton could keep and open long term or is that putting too much pressure on De Kock?

Cook is only about 32. He could play for another 5-6 years at this level? Look how well Gooch, and Rogers for Australia have done, late in their careers.

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.

This is a good subject for a debate...
In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

to me Sobers and Kallis were specialist top order batsmen who were very high quality 5th or 6th bowlers
and once you remove the 3 point bar as above ....statistically dozens more will get in through the gate

Stella wrote:Cook is only about 32. He could play for another 5-6 years at this level? Look how well Gooch, and Rogers for Australia have done, late in their careers.

Fair point Stella, but they are exceptions rather than rules.

That would work for SA though.  Elgar and Cook could open for the next 3 - 5 years, so that number 2 hole doesn't need to be filled by De Kock yet.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Stella wrote:Cook is only about 32. He could play for another 5-6 years at this level? Look how well Gooch, and Rogers for Australia have done, late in their careers.

Fair point Stella, but they are exceptions rather than rules.

That would work for SA though.  Elgar and Cook could open for the next 3 - 5 years, so that number 2 hole doesn't need to be filled by De Kock yet.

Looking at the South African side, beggars can't be choosers.

guildfordbat wrote:Don't kid yourself you'll be able to shake it off now, Strings. The game's got you for life! Btw, do you follow an English county side?

I wouldn't want to shake it off now. I'm an example of the untapped market English cricket ignores while it's tied to Sky. It's too invisible. And with some of the exciting players we have now - that's criminal.

I really enjoy county cricket in general without following a team in particular. I lean towards Glamorgan because of my Welshness, but due to the fact they are a bit uneventful I also take an interest in Durham, for the pretty naff reasons that I like their players, their ground (though I haven't been yet - on my 2016 to do list!), and because they tend to be involved in more results than average.

KP_fan wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.
 

This is a good subject for a debate...
In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place  in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is  dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

to me Sobers and Kallis were specialist top order batsmen who were very high quality 5th or 6th bowlers
and once you remove the 3 point bar as above  ....statistically dozens more will get in through the gate

Can an all-rounder not be a spinner?

guildfordbat wrote:

I agree with Strings that the scores of 2 for Hales and Woakes should read 4.

Even though the series has ended, I'll continue my grumpiness towards Bairstow and downgrade him to 5. That's an 8 for his batting (would have been 9 before the last Test) and 3 for his keeping, averaged out and rounded down.  

Ouch, poor JB only being a point above Woakes and Hales. I did find him the hardest to rate I have to be honest. On the one had he did a lot to win the series with the bat, and wasn't too bad keeping in the games England won. But then on the other hand did his mistakes cost England the chance of a whitewash? But would a better keeper not making runs at 7 mean England would have actually lost the first 3 Tests? I think I need a lie down!

Strings - saw Glam against Surrey in the Championship at Guildford in the summer. They seemed to be very much on the up at the time but soon after fell away badly. Haven't been to the Riverside but one of the Batgirls is at uni there so live in hope!

VTR wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

I agree with Strings that the scores of 2 for Hales and Woakes should read 4.

Even though the series has ended, I'll continue my grumpiness towards Bairstow and downgrade him to 5. That's an 8 for his batting (would have been 9 before the last Test) and 3 for his keeping, averaged out and rounded down.  

Ouch, poor JB only being a point above Woakes and Hales. I did find him the hardest to rate I have to be honest. On the one had he did a lot to win the series with the bat, and wasn't too bad keeping in the games England won. But then on the other hand did his mistakes cost England the chance of a whitewash? But would a better keeper not making runs at 7 mean England would have actually lost the first 3 Tests? I think I need a lie down!

It's tricky, isn't it? Agree Bairstow should be more than 1 point above Woakes and Hales. In a fit of generosity, I'll agree to up him to a 6!

The one person we've all missed out is Footitt. On the universal understanding across all sports forums that the person waiting to be capped is always better than those in the team, he must get a 10!

Footitt - the left-arm quick version of Adil Rashid!

KP_fan wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.
 

This is a good subject for a debate...
In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place  in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is  dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

to me Sobers and Kallis were specialist top order batsmen who were very high quality 5th or 6th bowlers
and once you remove the 3 point bar as above  ....statistically dozens more will get in through the gate

KP_f, it's your criteria and your Book so no problem with you acting as judge and jury. However, I've never quite been sold on Hadlee's batting getting him a world class all-rounder billing.

KP_fan wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.
 

This is a good subject for a debate...
In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place  in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is  dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

to me Sobers and Kallis were specialist top order batsmen who were very high quality 5th or 6th bowlers
and once you remove the 3 point bar as above  ....statistically dozens more will get in through the gate

To me an a genuine all-rounder is anyone with a batting average higher than their bowling average, considering Kallis and Sobers were 20 above that so they certainly were world class all-rounders, they seem to fall foul of being amongst the best batsmen of all time.

Have to agree with GB that Hadlee was a brilliant bowler who could bowl a bit rather than being an actual all-rounder, definitely not in the Botham or Khan class.

VTR wrote:Footitt - the left-arm quick version of Adil Rashid!

Exactly.

Sobers only a 5th or 6th level bowler?
Depends what variety I suppose, but I'd say anything less than 4th is dangerously underrating him. Probably good as a 5th or 6th after his 4th variety also.

Showing my out-of-touchedness here, but is there a technique the coaching staff can use vis-a-vis Bairstow's relationship with first slip. Both dropped more than their fair share, it seems, partly due to JB interfering with a slip catch. Has technology advanced to the degree that there's an aid to having catching practice with wickie and slip working together?

(PS: If Sir Fred is around, I see he lost another Double stalwart today . . . . the fabulous Baker boy.)

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.
 

This is a good subject for a debate...
In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place  in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is  dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

to me Sobers and Kallis were specialist top order batsmen who were very high quality 5th or 6th bowlers
and once you remove the 3 point bar as above  ....statistically dozens more will get in through the gate

To me an a genuine all-rounder is anyone with a batting average higher than their bowling average, considering Kallis and Sobers were 20 above that so they certainly were world class all-rounders, they seem to fall foul of being amongst the best batsmen of all time.

Have to agree with GB that Hadlee was a brilliant bowler who could bowl a bit rather than being an actual all-rounder, definitely not in the Botham or Khan class.

Hadlee had about a 5 run better batting average, but like you say, was not a genuine all-rounder. Defining a genuine all-rounder is a great but fruitless topic.

Stella wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Seeing as you mentioned Flintoff for a 2 year period I'm surprised Kallis doesn't qualify as a top all rounder.
 

This is a good subject for a debate...
In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place  in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is  dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

to me Sobers and Kallis were specialist top order batsmen who were very high quality 5th or 6th bowlers
and once you remove the 3 point bar as above  ....statistically dozens more will get in through the gate

To me an a genuine all-rounder is anyone with a batting average higher than their bowling average, considering Kallis and Sobers were 20 above that so they certainly were world class all-rounders, they seem to fall foul of being amongst the best batsmen of all time.

Have to agree with GB that Hadlee was a brilliant bowler who could bowl a bit rather than being an actual all-rounder, definitely not in the Botham or Khan class.

Hadlee had about a 5 run better batting average, but like you say, was not a genuine all-rounder. Defining a genuine all-rounder is a great but fruitless topic.

True that and my own criteria has come back to bite me, seems to be that general consensus is that an All-rounder is a frontline bowler who can bat better than the average whilst the reverse is overlooked.

Most all-rounders have their stats skewed by their latter careers when they start to focus on one aspect, Flintoff once his injuries set in simply became a bowler who could no longer bat whereas Kallis stopped bowling so much to focus on his batting.

[quote="Stella"]

KP_fan wrote:

Can an all-rounder not be a spinner?

is there or has there been a spin bowling allrounder ?

KP_fan wrote:

Stella wrote:

KP_fan wrote:  

Can an all-rounder not be a spinner?

is there or has there been a spin bowling allrounder ?

Not any decent ones, but that's not what I meant.

Aah,Moen Ali

Daniel Vettori? Think he comes closest in modern times. And of course Vinu Mankad from India one of the best all-rounders of his time when the likes of Miller were around, from what I've read.......

Greg Matthews?

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_f, it's your criteria and your Book so no problem with you acting as judge and jury. However, I've never quite been sold on Hadlee's batting getting him a world class all-rounder billing.

There has to be some criteria?
If we go by a loose criteria of batting average more than bowling average, even tendulkar will be an allrounder.

Mankad, Benaud, Tony Greg, Salim Durrani, Shastri, Jayasuriya, Greg Matthews are all spin bowling allrounders
were they really in the league of the 4 greats?

Benaud and Mankad might have come close

that's why having a criteria is important

KP_fan wrote:Mankad, Benaud, Tony Greg, Salim Durrani, Shastri, Jayasuriya, Greg Matthews are all spin bowling allrounders
were they really in the league of the 4 greats?

Benaud and Mankad might have come close

that's why having a criteria is important

You can't just say you have to be a seamer to be a world class all-rounder. One day a spinning all-rounder might come along and better Imran's stats?

Don't think Tony Greig was anything like the calibre as an off-spinner required for yr all-rounder category. Used much more, and more effective, as a medium pacer.

Of that era, Illingworth would fit the bill more accurately. Sobers too of course!

Since Raf hasn't bothered to turn up with the South African ratings, let me have a go.
Dean Elgar 6. Elgar carried his bat with a ton when the rest of the batting collapsed and then made a number of starts without going on to make a substantive score, but he does give the top order a sense of stability. Chipped in with a few overs and even picked up a couple of wickets.
Stephen Cook 8. An excellent debut game for Cook who most people think should have played earlier in the series if not prior to that. Has brought in valuable domestic experience and hopefully would provide a healthy opening partnership with Elgar for 3-4 years at least.
Hashim Amla 7. A double hundred, a hundred and another score in the 90. Amla the batsman is back after he decided to give up the captaincy. The captaincy didn't sit well with Hashim and that showed at key points in the first 2 games. Despite his big scores, went missing at key moments along with
most of the batting lineup.
AB de Villiers 3. For another batsman, perhaps it could have been a 5 point performance, but by the very high standards of the world's best batsman, this was truly underwhelming, and the end downright horrendous with 3 ducks. And he even managed to drop a catch or 2!
JP Duminy 3. Nothing much with bat, nothing much with ball. Duminy isn't cut out for test cricket, and time for South Africa to move on.
Temba Bavuma 7. a debut hundred that matters equally for larger offfield reasons like they do for his career. And then a fine knock to round the series off. Pretty sharp close in and took a couple of beauties in there.
Quinton de Kock 6. Fine hundred in the last test where in he had to bat long periods with the lower order, some fine catches behind the stumps. Missed a few chances, and gave away his wicket in the 2nd test when his side needed him to be more match aware.
Kagiso Rabada 9. Top class, the lad should be around for a long time. Was not picked for the first test, yet finished the series as the top wickettaker across the sides. Has a bit of potential with the bat too. And he's only 20.
Kyle Abbott 4. Average performances as a holding bowler, never looked like running through a batting lineup. Had fitness problems too.
Dane Piedt 5. Control is a bit of an issue with Piedt, but there is enough promise in there, good presence on the field and showed application with the bat too.
Morne Morkel 5. Had some good spells, 15 wickets across the series isn't bad. But Morkel was always the supporting act in this series other than perhaps the 2nd day of the series. Needed him to take charge, but Morkel was far too inconsistent for the led bowler.
Faf du Plessis 3. He looks shot in terms of his confidence, and his approach of blocking his way back to form is not working. Found himself dropped by the end of the series.
Styan van Zyl 1. Poor guy isn't good enough for test cricket at this stage. Just doesn't seem to know where his offstump is. His military medium isn't worth keeping him in the side when he so obviously can't bat to save his life.
Chris Morris 4. doesn't look a good frontline bowler in a 4 man attack, but with his determined and full of intent batting capabilities, Morris can still be developed into the all-Rounder South Africa need. Took some terrific catches at slip.
Dale Steyn 4. Looked like Steyn was back when he produced a fine opening spell at the start of the series, but he soon got injured again and couldn't make it back.
Dane Vilas 3. Not up to it with the bat, but looked a much keeper than he did in India where in he was total rubbish with the gloves.
Hardus Viljoen 3. Was fast but not as fast as was hyped, and bowled a bit all over the ship in his debut test. Might need a bit more time to be ready for test cricket.

Mankad has to be one of the best all-rounders ever. If we list the top 10 all-rounders in the game, I am sure his name would be seriously considered. Batted in all 11 positions in tests, and a pretty good, then India's best bowler too.

Stella wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Mankad, Benaud, Tony Greg, Salim Durrani, Shastri, Jayasuriya, Greg Matthews are all spin bowling allrounders
were they really in the league of the 4 greats?

Benaud and Mankad might have come close

that's why having a criteria is important

You can't just say you have to be a seamer to be a world class all-rounder. One day a spinning all-rounder might come along and better Imran's stats?

not just a seamer....well I defined a 3 point criteria.....there may be an alternative criteria...but there has to be a criteria

In my Book a world class all-rounder is

1)makes his place in the side as one of the top 4 bowlers
2)is a fast or fast medium bowler
3)bats around the no. 6 or 7 spot generally and is dashing batsman, changing games every now and then with his aggressive knocks.

I can't for the life of me see why an all rounder - great or otherwise - should be required to be a faster bowler.  

Kallis in my view was one of the great all rounders. If he doesn't appear right at or near the very top of people's lists could it be for an undeclared reason? For example, a view that an all rounder has be "swashbuckling" - as in Botham, Flintoff, Kapil. Or that people are remembering the last few years of Kallis' career when his bowling was turning into more of a holding / stock bowler role?

Don't forget Ken Barrington's credentials as an all rounder.

PS - just seen KP's post where he does at least have declared criteria about the player needing to be swashbuckling with the bat. I just don't see that. After all, great batsmen can be cavalier strokemakers or great accumulators who relentlessly grind the opposition down.

in general spinners are less potent...than seamers....

for every 7 international quality seamers....you'd find 1 statistically similar spinner in my view
that ratio might even be 1 in 10

that makes it even harder to find a potent spinner ( good enuf to be a top 4 bowler) who is a quality batsman also

msp83 wrote:Since Raf hasn't bothered to turn up with the South African ratings, let me have a go.
Dean Elgar 6. Elgar carried his bat with a ton when the rest of the batting collapsed and then made a number of starts without going on to make a substantive score, but he does give the top order a sense of stability. Chipped in with a few overs and even picked up a couple of wickets.
Stephen Cook 8. An excellent debut game for Cook who most people think should have played earlier in the series if not prior to that. Has brought in valuable domestic experience and hopefully would provide a healthy opening partnership with Elgar for 3-4 years at least.
Hashim Amla 7. A double hundred, a hundred and another score in the 90. Amla the batsman is back after he decided to give up the captaincy. The captaincy didn't sit well with Hashim and that showed at key points in the first 2 games. Despite his big scores, went missing at key moments along with
most of the batting lineup.
AB de Villiers 3. For another batsman, perhaps it could have been a 5 point performance, but by the very high standards of the world's best batsman, this was truly underwhelming, and the end downright horrendous with 3 ducks. And he even managed to drop a catch or 2!
JP Duminy 3. Nothing much with bat, nothing much with ball. Duminy isn't cut out for test cricket, and time for South Africa to move on.
Temba Bavuma 7. a debut hundred that matters equally for larger offfield reasons like they do for his career. And then a fine knock to round the series off. Pretty sharp close in and took a couple of beauties in there.
Quinton de Kock 6. Fine hundred in the last test where in he had to bat long periods with the lower order, some fine catches behind the stumps. Missed a few chances, and gave away his wicket in the 2nd test when his side needed him to be more match aware.
Kagiso Rabada 9. Top class, the lad should be around for a long time. Was not picked for the first test, yet finished the series as the top wickettaker across the sides. Has a bit of potential with the bat too. And he's only 20.
Kyle Abbott 4. Average performances as a holding bowler, never looked like running through a batting lineup. Had fitness problems too.
Dane Piedt 5. Control is a bit of an issue with Piedt, but there is enough promise in there, good presence on the field and showed application with the bat too.
Morne Morkel 5. Had some good spells, 15 wickets across the series isn't bad. But Morkel was always the supporting act in this series other than perhaps the 2nd day of the series. Needed him to take charge, but Morkel was far too inconsistent for the led bowler.
Faf du Plessis 3. He looks shot in terms of his confidence, and his approach of blocking his way back to form is not working. Found himself dropped by the end of the series.
Styan van Zyl 1. Poor guy isn't good enough for test cricket at this stage. Just doesn't seem to know where his offstump is. His military medium isn't worth keeping him in the side when he so obviously can't bat to save his life.
Chris Morris 4. doesn't look a good frontline bowler in a 4 man attack, but with his determined and full of intent batting capabilities, Morris can still be developed into the all-Rounder South Africa need. Took some terrific catches at slip.
Dale Steyn 4. Looked like Steyn was back when he produced a fine opening spell at the start of the series, but he soon got injured again and couldn't make it back.
Dane Vilas 3. Not up to it with the bat, but looked a much keeper than he did in India  where in he was total rubbish with the gloves.
Hardus Viljoen 3. Was fast but not as fast as was hyped, and bowled a bit all over the ship in his debut test. Might need a bit more time to be ready for test cricket.

Msp - all in all, an excellent post. Very much on the money for me. Just a couple of quibbles. Your comment about Morkel's inconsistency is reflected in other posts and reviews I've read but from what I saw (which certainly wasn't everything) he was a valuable part of South Africa's attack, albeit not as potent as Rabida; Morkel certainly produced some good balls for some of his wickets which were valuable ones. I was also impressed by Vilas' keeping and thought your rating was overly tough.

Putting aside any possible concerns about KP-f's criteria infringing diversity rules for international all-rounders, I'm pleased to see that Benaud, Illingworth and Miller have already merited a shout from other posters. No surprise either about a shout for Barrington or the voice behind it!

To mention one more. From the last century and the one before that. Wilfred Rhodes whose 58 match Test career incredibly ran or rolled from 1899 to 1930. Started off at number 11 but worked his way up the England order to open the batting. Scored two Test centuries, several fifties and finished with a batting average above 30. His slow left arm gave him one Test match tenfer, several fivefers and a bowling average under 27.

Msp - any thoughts on Ravi Shastri?

Guildford - surprised you didn't make an honourable mention of Freddie Titmus!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Guildford - surprised you didn't make an honourable mention of Freddie Titmus!

Yes, I guess I should make an honourable mention of this outstanding off-break bowler and more than handy batsman who played the first class game during five decades. One of the very, very few in a Test match to have bowled a quadruple wicket maiden. Also - and this could have made a good quiz question - he opened the batting with Geoffrey Boycott when the Yorkshire man made his Test debut.

guildfordbat wrote:Putting aside any possible concerns about KP-f's criteria infringing diversity rules for international all-rounders, I'm pleased to see that Benaud, Illingworth and Miller have already merited a shout from other posters. No surprise either about a shout for Barrington or the voice behind it!

To mention one more. From the last century and the one before that. Wilfred Rhodes whose 58 match Test career incredibly ran or rolled from 1899 to 1930. Started off at number 11 but worked his way up the England order to open the batting. Scored two Test centuries, several fifties and finished with a batting average above 30. His slow left arm gave him one Test match tenfer, several fivefers and a bowling average under 27.

Msp - any thoughts on Ravi Shastri?

For me Vinu Mankad is among the greatest spin bowling all-rounder in the game, and he has to be a top all-rounder overall too.
As for Ravi, since we have mostly been talking about great/top class all-rounders,, he can't quite make the cut though an all-rounder he certainly was.

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:Since Raf hasn't bothered to turn up with the South African ratings, let me have a go.
Dean Elgar 6. Elgar carried his bat with a ton when the rest of the batting collapsed and then made a number of starts without going on to make a substantive score, but he does give the top order a sense of stability. Chipped in with a few overs and even picked up a couple of wickets.
Stephen Cook 8. An excellent debut game for Cook who most people think should have played earlier in the series if not prior to that. Has brought in valuable domestic experience and hopefully would provide a healthy opening partnership with Elgar for 3-4 years at least.
Hashim Amla 7. A double hundred, a hundred and another score in the 90. Amla the batsman is back after he decided to give up the captaincy. The captaincy didn't sit well with Hashim and that showed at key points in the first 2 games. Despite his big scores, went missing at key moments along with
most of the batting lineup.
AB de Villiers 3. For another batsman, perhaps it could have been a 5 point performance, but by the very high standards of the world's best batsman, this was truly underwhelming, and the end downright horrendous with 3 ducks. And he even managed to drop a catch or 2!
JP Duminy 3. Nothing much with bat, nothing much with ball. Duminy isn't cut out for test cricket, and time for South Africa to move on.
Temba Bavuma 7. a debut hundred that matters equally for larger offfield reasons like they do for his career. And then a fine knock to round the series off. Pretty sharp close in and took a couple of beauties in there.
Quinton de Kock 6. Fine hundred in the last test where in he had to bat long periods with the lower order, some fine catches behind the stumps. Missed a few chances, and gave away his wicket in the 2nd test when his side needed him to be more match aware.
Kagiso Rabada 9. Top class, the lad should be around for a long time. Was not picked for the first test, yet finished the series as the top wickettaker across the sides. Has a bit of potential with the bat too. And he's only 20.
Kyle Abbott 4. Average performances as a holding bowler, never looked like running through a batting lineup. Had fitness problems too.
Dane Piedt 5. Control is a bit of an issue with Piedt, but there is enough promise in there, good presence on the field and showed application with the bat too.
Morne Morkel 5. Had some good spells, 15 wickets across the series isn't bad. But Morkel was always the supporting act in this series other than perhaps the 2nd day of the series. Needed him to take charge, but Morkel was far too inconsistent for the led bowler.
Faf du Plessis 3. He looks shot in terms of his confidence, and his approach of blocking his way back to form is not working. Found himself dropped by the end of the series.
Styan van Zyl 1. Poor guy isn't good enough for test cricket at this stage. Just doesn't seem to know where his offstump is. His military medium isn't worth keeping him in the side when he so obviously can't bat to save his life.
Chris Morris 4. doesn't look a good frontline bowler in a 4 man attack, but with his determined and full of intent batting capabilities, Morris can still be developed into the all-Rounder South Africa need. Took some terrific catches at slip.
Dale Steyn 4. Looked like Steyn was back when he produced a fine opening spell at the start of the series, but he soon got injured again and couldn't make it back.
Dane Vilas 3. Not up to it with the bat, but looked a much keeper than he did in India  where in he was total rubbish with the gloves.
Hardus Viljoen 3. Was fast but not as fast as was hyped, and bowled a bit all over the ship in his debut test. Might need a bit more time to be ready for test cricket.

Msp - all in all, an excellent post. Very much on the money for me. Just a couple of quibbles. Your comment about Morkel's inconsistency is reflected in other posts and reviews I've read but from what I saw (which certainly wasn't everything) he was a valuable part of South Africa's attack, albeit not as potent as Rabida; Morkel certainly produced some good balls for some of his wickets which were valuable ones. I was also impressed by Vilas' keeping and thought your rating was overly tough.

Guildford, my response to your comments on Morkel and Vilas starts with the same vantage point, did you manage to follow the India test series of South Africa?
Morkel was absolutely outstanding in India. Bowled a full length, and got unresponsive pitches to offer him something. Reversed it and always, always asked questions of the batsman. Here, when he had more helpful conditions, when he really had to led the attack when Steyn and Philander were missing, Morne was nowhere near his India standards. He opened the series in an underwhelming way and with Abbott offering not a lot, that led to Steyn being asked to do a bit too much on his return from injury. He bowled at close to his best on day 2 of that test, but that was the beginning of a pattern. He bowled something like his younger days, not consistent with line or length, but could produce an absolutely vicious delivery from somewhere. Noted your comments on him getting Cook in the last test, that was a perfect example. It was a pretty ordinary spell to start with, before he produced that 1 ball and then finished it off well. More was needed from the senior bowler, but barring 2 days (the last day of the series as well) in the series never bowled like the senior bowler.
As for Vilas in India, he was making Bairstow look like the greatest ever wicketkeeper to have walked the earth, and was proving not too bad a company for Styan van Zyl. He was an improvement on that here, but there was nothing much with the bat though he kept alright. Vilas is a bit of a veteran at domestic level, but he just doesn't seem international class with bat or gloves, and as such he needed a much better performance to get a better rating. Perhaps the fact that he did fly in when QDK got injured at the stroke of the game and didn't disgrace himself the way he did in India could give him an additional rating point.......