2024 T20 World Cup

Groups:

Fixture List (All times BST):

Squads (Not yet finalised):

Outright Odds (Bet365):

Duty281 wrote:Player Ratings for England

Buttler 7.5/10. Not the dominating figure we like to see, but not the disaster he was in the previous fifty over World Cup. Biggest score was against the Americans, got starts in most other innings but failed to kick on. Extra half a point for good keeping.

Salt 8/10. Played a leading role in England's only win over a top nation, and set up the chase v Australia, but did little outside of those games. Strike rate of 159 was England's best.

Bairstow 4/10. Out cheaply in three games, the only saving grace being his 48* v the West Indies. Nowhere near his aggressive, destructive best. Time for retirement.

Moeen 2/10. One day, we'll know how Moeen has such a strange hold over the England hierarchy. His abilities are vastly inflated by the top brass in all formats. This tournament Moeen frequently batted above Brook, and his scores took on a symmetry as they got lower and lower with each passing innings, going from OK to bad. Also bowled a few overs sparingly.

Brook 8/10. Difficult to rate. He has been managed by a bunch of clowns. He came out at 6 v Australia and 5 v South Africa. He would have probably led England to victory over SA, thus avoiding the India SF, if he came out at 4. Couldn't do anything about the India defeat, again coming out at 5, which was too low.

Jacks 1/10. Probably remembered for a 22 run over...that he bowled, rather than batted, alas. That sealed his fate as England panicked and adjusted the balance.

Livingstone 6/10. Bowled a few tidy overs, but was wrongly chosen to bowl v the West Indies, which cost 20. Had one good innings v SA, but little other chances to exhibit his batting prowess. Might be on borrowed time because he's up to 48 T20is now and we still haven't seen the best of him, or really understand what his role is.

Curran 1.5/10. Came back for the balance, didn't replicate 2022. Tournament bowling figures of 12-0-115-3 says it all I think. Not much chance with the bat either.

Jordan 2.5/10. Might seem harsh, but his figures are massaged heavily by the USA game, and full credit for the hattrick. But went for over 12 an over v India, and 11 an over v Australia, in the games that were true tests. Picked up a lot of cheap wickets against batsmen on the slog. Most expensive bowler for England.

Rashid 8.5/10. Ah, was this the end? Another fine tournament for his Rashidness, who I think is England's greatest ever limited overs bowler. Only blemish in this tournament was the 1/41 v Australia. Otherwise he was typical Rashid, with 1/25 v India, 1/20 v South Africa, and 1/21 v West Indies. Tournament economy under 7 and England's joint leading wicket taker.

Archer 8/10. Didn't strike in the PowerPlay as often as England would have wanted, but he was a consistent wicket taker and England's second most miserly quick. Great to see him back.

Topley 7/10. Tough to rate. On the one hand, very cheap, on the other, just two wickets in 18 overs. The best teams need strikes in those PowerPlay overs and Topley didn't deliver on this front. But he didn't give much away, either.

Wood 1.5/10. Went wicketless and at about 11/12 an over in the three games v test opponents. Minor redemption to his figures with 3/12 v Oman (worth half a point that). Has had a really tough run for the last nine months in all formats.

Duckett N/A. Didn't play. Was worth a shot considering his left handedness and Bairstow not doing much.

Hartley N/A. Didn't play. But didn't expect him to. A baffling selection. Still don't understand it.

Mott 0/10. Time to go. English limited overs cricket needs a rebuild towards the next major ICC trophy (which is early next year, there's one every year!) and Mott isn't the man to do it. Made numerous strange calls for this tournament. Why is Moeen a 3/4? Why was Bairstow not dropped? Why was Brook so low? Why was Hartley picked? Why was the balance bowling heavy when extra batting was required? Why did Duckett not play? This failure follows straight on from the last one. And, yes, it is a failure. I know some might look at it and say, 'semi-finals, that's not bad'. But England's record v the top nations was 1-3, with two big defeats. The only notable victory was over the West Indies.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Player Ratings for England

Buttler 7.5/10. Not the dominating figure we like to see, but not the disaster he was in the previous fifty over World Cup. Biggest score was against the Americans, got starts in most other innings but failed to kick on. Extra half a point for good keeping.

Salt 8/10. Played a leading role in England's only win over a top nation, and set up the chase v Australia, but did little outside of those games. Strike rate of 159 was England's best.

Bairstow 4/10. Out cheaply in three games, the only saving grace being his 48* v the West Indies. Nowhere near his aggressive, destructive best. Time for retirement.

Moeen 2/10. One day, we'll know how Moeen has such a strange hold over the England hierarchy. His abilities are vastly inflated by the top brass in all formats. This tournament Moeen frequently batted above Brook, and his scores took on a symmetry as they got lower and lower with each passing innings, going from OK to bad. Also bowled a few overs sparingly.

Brook 8/10. Difficult to rate. He has been managed by a bunch of clowns. He came out at 6 v Australia and 5 v South Africa. He would have probably led England to victory over SA, thus avoiding the India SF, if he came out at 4. Couldn't do anything about the India defeat, again coming out at 5, which was too low.

Jacks 1/10. Probably remembered for a 22 run over...that he bowled, rather than batted, alas. That sealed his fate as England panicked and adjusted the balance.

Livingstone 6/10. Bowled a few tidy overs, but was wrongly chosen to bowl v the West Indies, which cost 20. Had one good innings v SA, but little other chances to exhibit his batting prowess. Might be on borrowed time because he's up to 48 T20is now and we still haven't seen the best of him, or really understand what his role is.

Curran 1.5/10. Came back for the balance, didn't replicate 2022. Tournament bowling figures of 12-0-115-3 says it all I think. Not much chance with the bat either.

Jordan 2.5/10. Might seem harsh, but his figures are massaged heavily by the USA game, and full credit for the hattrick. But went for over 12 an over v India, and 11 an over v Australia, in the games that were true tests. Picked up a lot of cheap wickets against batsmen on the slog. Most expensive bowler for England.

Rashid 8.5/10. Ah, was this the end? Another fine tournament for his Rashidness, who I think is England's greatest ever limited overs bowler. Only blemish in this tournament was the 1/41 v Australia. Otherwise he was typical Rashid, with 1/25 v India, 1/20 v South Africa, and 1/21 v West Indies. Tournament economy under 7 and England's joint leading wicket taker.

Archer 8/10. Didn't strike in the PowerPlay as often as England would have wanted, but he was a consistent wicket taker and England's second most miserly quick. Great to see him back.

Topley 7/10. Tough to rate. On the one hand, very cheap, on the other, just two wickets in 18 overs. The best teams need strikes in those PowerPlay overs and Topley didn't deliver on this front. But he didn't give much away, either.

Wood 1.5/10. Went wicketless and at about 11/12 an over in the three games v test opponents. Minor redemption to his figures with 3/12 v Oman (worth half a point that). Has had a really tough run for the last nine months in all formats.

Duckett N/A. Didn't play. Was worth a shot considering his left handedness and Bairstow not doing much.

Hartley N/A. Didn't play. But didn't expect him to. A baffling selection. Still don't understand it.

Mott 0/10. Time to go. English limited overs cricket needs a rebuild towards the next major ICC trophy (which is early next year, there's one every year!) and Mott isn't the man to do it. Made numerous strange calls for this tournament. Why is Moeen a 3/4? Why was Bairstow not dropped? Why was Brook so low? Why was Hartley picked? Why was the balance bowling heavy when extra batting was required? Why did Duckett not play? This failure follows straight on from the last one. And, yes, it is a failure. I know some might look at it and say, 'semi-finals, that's not bad'. But England's record v the top nations was 1-3, with two big defeats. The only notable victory was over the West Indies.

Hi Duty - belated thanks (been away a couple of days) for your scores on the doors with a couple of quick comments.

Very much with your ratings. Just the odd confirmation or quibble.

You're completely right to lambast Mott and highlight that, regardless of reaching the semi-finals, we lost 3-1 to the four top nations we played. In particular, I wasn't surprised or upset by our loss to India but was appalled at the manner of the defeat. Some very poor cricket and decisions in that game.

Following on from the above, I feel that Buttler - or, at least, his captaincy - belongs in the mix with Mott and thus his (Buttler's) rating from you is too high. Even if you put all the poor tactical decisions down to Mott, I would still downgrade Buttler for not challenging him more effectively.

The other player I thought a bit too high was Archer. Great to see him back as you said but I did wonder if your delight in that over inflated his rating. It may be unfair to compare him to a Superman but if we say Bumrah is a 10 (and surely everyone would), can we truly say Archer is only 2 digits below? A 6.5 or a top ceiling of 7 would be more like it for me. Add to that, his fielding did him and us few favours across the tournament whilst his part in Livi's run out against India was the final nail in the coffin.