1) Andrew Strauss- Averaging 35, including a century which is lost in the sea of runs that came in the first test does not make for pretty statistics after 3 tests for England's rock of reliability. Strauss has looked solid, and even very good at different times in the first 3 tests, but he seems to have left that aura of immovability back in Middlesex. Maybe it's the bounce Australian pitches produce, although I can't help but feel the Australians, thus far, have just managed to get him out at the right times, before he's hurt us too much. I'm not saying the Aussie bowlers have been lucky, but I do think Strauss has another big innings in him for the last two tests, and the apparently low and slow MCG pitch could be a good place for him to post another ton. Strauss is known for his determination and patience, two qualities needed when the ball isn't coming on. I'd put him down for an boxing day test score, but then again I put money on Michael Clarke to top score for the series before a ball was bowled. The Australians have been wary not to give him width outside off, nor to bowl full on middle or leg, and the rewards from bowling full just outside off have come in the form of edges so far, so let's hope that continues. Overall, I'd give Strauss 1 5.5/10 for his series so far, as his poor scores have been balanced by an Adelaide century and a Perth 50.
2) Alastair Cook- Continuing my run of incorrect pre-series predictions, if the TAB offered it, I would have definitely put money on Cook or Bell to bottom score/be dropped out of the specialist batsman for England. My logic revolved around a mixture of Cook's technical deficiencies, and the fact that along with Collingwood, are the only actual Englishmen in the top 7, and therefore, aren't very good at cricket. "Alastair Bradman" has averaged 123 in the first three tests, proving you don't have to be South African to make it in the English team, it just helps.
Cook's success has been put down almost entirely to his improved foot work when driving balls just outside off stump, which he used to insist on nicking. The Australian plan was reasonably obvious. Try to pin him on the back foot with short balls and then give him a full one for him to prod at. In the past teams didn't even have to pin him back, but this series, whilst not scoring prolifically off the shot, he has been solid enough to keep his wicket intact and has just fed off the square-of-the-wicket shots he is known for. It is certainly still worth trying to give him a drive and hoping his feet aren't quite there, especially given he hasn't been hurting Australia with the shot, which cannot be said about England's plan to bowl short to Hussey in the first three tests. Other than my tough-to-shake belief he is still crap, there is no real reason to expect Cook's run-scoring to stop, so let's hope I'm right. 9/10, losing a point for his loose shot to get out in the 1st innings in Perth and getting pinned on the crease in the 2nd, two bad ways to get out as an opener.
3) Jonathan Trott- After Ravi Bopara proved he couldn't play at 3 last Ashes, the England brains trust put their heads together and decided on a strategy that has worked for them in the past. Import another South African! Unoriginal jokes aside, Trott was absolutely murdering the English domestic scene before being brought in to the Ashes decider last year and scoring a ton on debut. Since then he has had a few form issues in his home-land, creating hope he struggles with bouncy pitches like Australian ones. So far, that has not been found to be the case, averaging just under 70 after three tests. Fantastically solid, Trott is a good number three, but lacks the tendency to really go after the bowling and put pressure on the other side. As with Strauss, he is mentally tough, patient and determined, the kind of guy that only gets out to good balls, rather than throwing his wicket away. The MCG pitch should provide a happy hunting ground for him. Two starts without going on in Perth, to go with his murderous first two tests get Trott an 8/10 for his contribution so far this series.
4) Kevin Pietersen- England have a long history of claiming things that aren't theres. Two such things that come to mind instantly are the land we now refer to as Australia, and the "English" number 4. Have you ever heard this guy talk? He sounds like a feminine version of the even less English number 3 (see above). Anyway, KP's ashes so far have been a tough one to rate. I'd be saying it's been mediocre-poor if it wasn't for his little cameo in Adelaide. That innings is why Pietersen is rated so highly when his statistics don't necessarily paint a portrait of a modern giant. An average hovering around 48 generally indicates a very good test match batsman, but falls short of the contemporary low 50s requirement to be considered a "great". But two things must be pointed out. Firstly, he plays over half his test matches in England, which is considered to be bowler friendly relative to other test playing nations, and secondly, and more importantly, his test strike rate of 62. Scoring runs quickly in test matches is not talked about enough. It is the players with high strike rates that win matches with the bat. No one doubts Jacques Kallis' standing in the giants of not only the era but potentially history, but his test strike rate of 45 is a blemish. KP scored his double hundred at Adelaide at a strike rate of over 70. If a number 4 scored a double ton at a Kallis-eqsue strike rate, a match-winning innings may well turn in to a match-drawing innings. Maybe this is a reason Kallis only just last week scored his first double century. Anyway, Pietersen's strength is his ability to score runs quickly, this is why other teams are scared of him and why such value is put on his wicket compared to his higher-averaging team-mates (such as Trott). Australia have only let him get away (or maybe it is fairer to say KP has been too good for the Australians) once in the first three tests but the prospect of a flat MCG pitch would excite him, as it is on such pitches, as was evident at Adelaide, that he can really take the game away from the bowling team. In saying this the slowness of the MCG pitch, if it turns out to be so, might frustrate him in to a silly shot, bringing a catch in front of square in to play (Ponting fielding at mid-on/mid-off because of his finger would be poetry). One thing I would also point out is the fact he has been getting out caught behind square on the off-side (i.e. in the keeper-gully cordon), so maybe look out for more problems just outside off-stump in the fourth test. All-in-all, he won England the second test, and has threatened to get going in the first, so I'd give him a 7.5/10 for the series so far, losing points for his failures in Perth.
5) Paul Collingwood- Along with Ponting, the under-performing batsman of the series so far. Averaging a meager 15 in the first three tests, Collingwood needs a score in the fourth test or he may well be dropped. Whether or not he is dropped for the 5th test (assuming he fails) will depend on whether England need to win the test or simply draw it to retain the Ashes, and also his manner of dismissal. To explain, if England lose this test and therefore need to win the 5th test, more radical measures will be put in place, including the introduction of Eoin Morgan in place of Collingwood, whilst he is also more likely to get dropped if he simply misses a straight one or nicks a length delivery rather than getting out to a very good ball which is far more acceptable. Then again, this will only be a consideration if he averages less than say, 35 for the match, as he is an important part of the England team given he is the 5th bowler and has been the heart of the middle order for some time. I know I'm repeating myself now but the MCG is setting up to be the perfect dog-fight which Colly is renowned for. Slow, low, grinding conditions are right up his alley, but hopefully the Aussies can exploit his poor form, because despite his lack of contribution with the bat, without Collingwood, what do England do if their four bowlers aren't doing the job in Sydney? He isn't a wicket-taking 5th bowler like Kallis or Watson, but he plays a great holding role. Put him down for a 2nd innings 50 at the 'G, and to retain his place for the 5th test. As for a rating, again, he's been getting caught behind and in the cordon a lot, suggesting he isn't dealing with the bounce of Australian wickets. Similar manners of dismissal lose you points in Jim's world- we'll say 3/10; would be lower but he has been bowling economically.
6) Ian Bell- Along with Cook, my other pre-series failure certainty. A completely different player from last tour. Bell and Cook are held in high esteem back in England, with the public there considering them two of the most talented players in the team but it seems only now that faith is well-found. Bell was always elegant, always a stroke-maker, the difference is now he is staying in beyond 30. Averaging 71 at a great strike rate of 61 makes for really good statistics for a number 6, especially considering he has had to bat with the tail for most of his runs and has twice got out swinging because he was running out of partners. Without a doubt the calls for him to move up to 5 are correct, as he is a waste of good form batting with an out-of-form Prior and the tail at the moment. Further down the line I think even a promotion to Number 3 is on the cards as he has the counter-attacking flair that Jonathan Trott lacks, but for the MCG test he must move up to 5. So far the Australian attempt to rough him up with short balls hasn't worked, with too few finding the right length, and those that are don't seem to be bothering him that much anyway. I can't see a reason why his prolific run should stop in Melbourne. Maybe if Michael Beer plays he will trouble him with his left arm pie. A well deserved 8.5/10, boosted by no identifiable pattern in his dismissals so far, coupled with simply how good he's looked.
7) Matt Prior- The England wicket-keepers South African heritage is off-set by his Anglo overbite (he and Swann could be brothers), maybe explaining why he escapes the constant traitor/abandoner/defector/treason etc. lines KP and his buddies cop. His work behind the stumps has been very solid, with zero mistakes so far, a few good catches and good athleticism stopping leg-side byes. But, I think the whole notion of a wicket-keeper has changed. From what I gather, back in the day when pitches were sometimes absolutely horrific, a wicket-keeper's byes column could often be a significant contribution to the batting team's total, and thus, teams picked a keeper on his keeping ability alone. If he could bat, this was merely a bonus. These days we rarely even see volatile day 5 pitches and keepers are barely expected to stop a ball that behaves unpredictably. Thus, the wicket-keeper has become the wicket-keeper batsman, chosen for a mere ability to wicket-keep satisfactorily, and bat well; Prior is, at this stage of the series, not doing the latter. Averaging 16, he is the collapsing bridge between the batsmen and the tail, allowing Australia to run through the bottom half of the order, unlike the job Brad Haddin has done so far. In fact, I am willing to go as far as to say Prior's form is one of the reasons Bell has not scored a century in the series yet. Although Peter Siddle was lucky in a sense to bowl him in the 1st Innings in Perth, (as the ball rebounded off Prior's body, bat, then body again before falling on his leg stump) he never looked comfortable against the round-the-wicket, short length tactic and was really roughed up by the aggressive spell. The MCG will be slower, something stroke-maker's like Prior don't like, so maybe look for an L.B.W. (playing a leg glance around his pads and mis-timing it) or a miscued shot caught in front of square (especially given his insistence on pulling despite obvious discomfort). Deserves no more than a 4/10 for his contribution so far.
8) Graeme Swann- Swann, or as he has started to become known, "The Great Swann" has had a fairly disappointing series so far. With a lot of talk about his impact on the series before a ball was bowled, many were expecting great things from the leading spin bowler in the world over the past 18 months. In fact, he was heralded as the one big difference between the teams before the 1st test. 3 tests on, he has had one match/series changing innings where he bowled England to victory with a 5/91 haul in Adelaide, but really, that game was never in question once England posted 600 odd. At Brisbane he bowled averagely, Adelaide well only in the second innings, and poorly at the WACA albeit on a pitch known for its cruelty on spin bowlers. The MCG is expected to dry out late in the game, bringing Swann in to play, and with the Sydney test being the decider, he may yet prove to be an Ashes winner. There is talk that Australia will bowl first at the MCG as apparently the first session is always a tough one, and batting becomes easier as the game goes on, but I think this only applies to facing the quicks, as a dry pitch is always going to help the Swann's of the world. If this is the case, I would really hope Australia put on a big 1st innings lead because Swann is worth a healthy difference on Day 5 despite his mediocre form so far.
What we have seen this series that we haven't been seeing in the past year or two is firstly, intent on the batsman's behalf of going after Swann (no better example than Hussey's relentless efforts to come down the pitch to him, or Haddin's mid-wicket slog for 6 to get off the mark off him), and secondly, one "boundary ball" every couple overs. These two may well be related, as the pressure being put on him is causing him to bowl one pie every now and then, where as he was previously known for his consistency and unerring accuracy. I'd tip him to contribute more in the 4th test, whether it's a holding role or a more wicket-taking role. His strike-rate of almost 80 at the moment and economy of 2.9 suggest he has merely played a holding role so far, but I think this is a case of statistics lying. He has been trying to bowl attacking speeds, but has just not got the rewards as often as he'd have liked. Give him a 6/10 for his general lack of penetration, boosted by his arguably match-winning bowling at Adelaide. Further, with the absence of Stuart Broad his average of 10 with the bat is below what England need from the "captain of their tail".
9) James Anderson- Have you noticed the England spearhead is "James" when he's bowling badly and "Jimmy" when he's taking wickets? Well, regardless, he's been Jimmy more often than not the past year or two, and has averaged 31 for the series so far which is good given its been a batsman's series up until now. He's a swing bowler, and I think the notion that he is ineffective when the ball isn't swinging is still quite true. Word is that the ball doesn't swing that much at the MCG until it starts reversing around the 40/50 over mark, and this, coupled with his "stiff" side may hurt England's bowling attack in the 4th test. Whilst proving he is a better bowler than 4 years ago, he still hasn't alleviated concerns that he lacks fight. It's dangerous to make such calls in cricket but I'm not sure Anderson is the one who will be causing Australian batsman problems at the 'G. The commentators might even start calling him James again.
Bowling at under 3 runs per over and averaging 31 indicates he's had a good series, so I'd give him a 7.5/10 given he's hardly had a bad innings, plus the fact he bowled a couple sensational spells with little or no reward, such as 1st innings Perth and 1st innings Brisbane with the 2nd new ball against Hussey and Haddin.
10) Chris Tremlett- Having played only one game it's hard to talk about England's giant quick. In one game he made a mockery of Steven Finn's position in the team in place of him, taking 8 wickets at 18, and striking every 35 balls. The lower and slower MCG won't be as kind to him and will test his patience, fitness and skills with swinging and seaming the old ball, all aspects of his game that have been called in to question, and been given as reasons of his omission from the England set up for 3 years now. After just one game you'd have to give him at least an 8/10.
11) Steven Finn- An interesting one, and another for which you have to look beyond the stats, or at least look at the stats more closely. Leading wicket-taker for the series, or most expensive bowler by almost a run an over? As Strauss said recently, wickets win you matches, but what does the pressure release do for the other end? So often people talk about how Glenn McGrath's miserly economy rate would cause his bowling partner at the other end to take wickets as the batsman would be forced to try to score more runs off them at their peril, but maybe it works the other way around. Yes, Finn has taken 14 wickets at 33, but maybe he's releasing pressure and allowing batsman to simply hold out against the better bowlers such as James Anderson or Graeme Swann. Finn hasn't looked like getting wickets until the ball he gets one with, which is not the same that can be said about the other two quicks who played at the WACA. Based on interviews given by Strauss and Co. Finn will be playing in the 4th test unless the MCG is looking particularly dry, and he needs to keep his economy down or only a bagful of wickets will keep him in the team for the SCG test. He does not seem to swing the ball much, but can seam the new ball which seems his best chance of getting wickets at the MCG. Overall, I'd give him a 6.5 only because he is taking wickets. The quality of his bowling really hasn't impressed and I think he is denying other bowlers in the attack wickets due to his poor economy. In this sense, he is a bit like the anti-McGrath.
The Australian team to come soon
dude how do you have a detailed opinion on every player
ReplyDelete