If you insert the aussies into the batting averages then Pietersen would drop to fifth with Hayden just below Collingwood in seventh and then Langer, Gilchrist and Warne making up 8-10
ie only two England batsmen would be in the top 10 series batting averages
If you insert the aussies into the bowling then only Lee with 39.28 would be below Panesar (and Hoggard) and the aussies would occupy the top 4 series bowling averages slots as they do with the batting
Assessment : comprehensive beating reflected in the 4-0 scoreline
Solution : sack Filth and Gravy, appoint a decent captain, abandon pointless policies like five bowlers and nightwatchmen, bat Flintoff at SEVEN, send Jones and Read into exile on an unpopulated island so they can become the best keepers around, employ TACTICS and generally build England into more than a select few cricketers who can perform but can just as easily underperform
Q. If England lose the Ashes 5-0 will autocratic muppet Duncan Filth be forced to conclude he is useless or will his self assessment point the blame elsewhere?
Originally posted by tailender: Owzat: If England has a better 'keeper than Read, he must be one of the all-time greats.
I was ing at Read simply because after two innings he is fourth in the England averages. Didn't say he'd "done wrong", any averages that have a not out assisted, one Test average in the top few is more of a sleight on the REST.
source was bbc, never stopped and checked them for bloopers
I don't give a damn about his batting in this assessment - though he's far from being the 'rabbit in the headlights' so many have dubbed him. Purely as a gloveman he's good - damn good. Better than Gilchrist.
There is a combined averages page on the Howstat! site but unfortunately they don't seem to have updated it with England's last innings. Bell has scored 232 runs in 8 innings@29 with a HS of 87. What is interesting, especially if you look at the strike rate stats on the Cricinfo site is that although Australia dominate the batting and bowling stats (as you might expect from a side leading 4-0) it is really the batting, rather than the bowling, where the gap between the two sides is widest despite the received wisdom at the start of the series that England had a solid batting side with a weaker bowling attack.
Of the 12 centuries already scored in the series 9 have been made by Australians, with 2 each by Ponting and Clarke, with only 3 being made by England players. An even more remarkable statistic is that every batting position from 1-7 in the Australian order has supplied a century maker. Of the four 5-fers taken so far in the series they have been split evenly between the two sides.
The stats seem to show what a handicap it was to pick Giles for the first two Tests coupled with Harmison's poor bowling effort in those matches. I cannot understand for the life of me why Stuart Broad was not selected in the original tour party. He could have easily replaced Harmison after the Brisbane Test (or indeed in the Brisbane Test given Harmison's shoddy performance in the ICC Trophy) and done the same job that Clark has done for Australia as well as got valuable experience for the World Cup.
Bell, despite one good innings in the series, looks ill at ease at No.3. England are in the unhappy position of having three natural No.5s in Bell, Pietersen & Collingwood but no natural No.3. Despite all the England desperately needs some experienced ballast in the middle order and I certainly think both Ramprakash and/or Key deserve a return to the England side next summer. At least Ramprakash, like Gough, flushed with his success on the dancefloor, should know what to do with his feet now, unlike some of those currently in Australia.
I agree that Read should be exempted from blame and the wicketkeeping debate should now be closed and Read left where he is. Jones self-destructed in the Perth match and should never have been allowed to get back in the side in the first place. Foster has been tried before at Test level and been found wanting. Davies risks been caught totally out of his depth as Read was when he was first thrust into Test cricket at a similar stage of his career in 1999. So stick with Read. He's the best keeper we've got. It doesn't matter how many 50s a wicketkeeper scores if he drops a Ponting or a Lara or a Tendulkar or a Jayawardene or a Yousuf or a Gilchrist on 0 and they go on to make 100 he's still in deficit whereas if he can snaffle up half-chances before thos sort of players are set he is worth his weight in gold even if he gets out first ball every time.
One of the greatest 'keepers of all time was Herbert Strudwick of Surrey and England who helped Sydney Barnes to take 49 wickets in 4 Tests against South Africa, standing up to Barnes' spearing off-cutters. Yet Strudwick never batted higher than No.10. for either his country or his county.
If you're really worried about the batting drop a bowler and play Dalrymple at 7, making Read drop down to 8, or find another seam-bowling all-rounder. Whatever happened to Craig White, whom Fletcher briefly revived as a Test all-rounder some years back? Doesn't he still captain Yorkshire? However, leave Read in possession of the gloves.
Originally posted by Village Player: Bell's stats are wrong for starters.
I think he's got more than 87 runs in 8 innings.
Stats can be misleading full stop.
For example the bowling stats don't take into account who got the prize wickets and who cleaned up tail enders or players who'd already smashed their way to an 'unloseable position'. Batting stats don't take into account several shocking decisions a batsman may have had (Strauss).
Originally posted by Village Player: Not Ramps again!!!!
It's about the future, Bell will be a really good player in time. Not sure about Collingwood though.
I can't see why a player who scores 2274 runs@103 in 24 innings should not be given another chance, even at 37. There was a time when the selectors used to naturally reach for the "golden oldies" whenever England was in trouble: Close, Cowdrey, Graveney, Washbrook and sometimes it actually worked. I'd even tolerate Graeme Hick coming back if I thought it would make a difference to the England side (I don't). I don't have any doubts about Bell being a good player just his place in the order. He's simply not suited to batting No.3. For a time I thought Collingwood would be to this tour what Vaughan was to the last Ashes tour but after his marathon effort in Adelaide he seems to have lost the plot and be totally at sea. Still, we can console ourselves with the memory that this time four years ago England was similarly staring down the barrel of a 5-0 whitewash as well but miraculously gained a victory against the odds in the final Test at the SCG thanks to Butcher, Vaughan and Andy Caddick, none of whom, sadly, are in the current England touring party.
Harmisons stats actually flatter him when you consider that Freddie has played big brother and shielded the sook by opening the bowling himself. Collingwoods numbers could also give a person the wrong idea if it wasn't mentioned that of the 389 runs Collingwood has in the series to date , 206 of them came from one knock in Adelaide. Even the wickets Mahmood has taken are meaningless.Day two of the fourth Test was when the English bowlers needed to step up and finish off Australia's batsmen. The damage had well and truly been done long before Mahmood picked through Australia's tail on the morning of the 3rd day.
I'd still stick with him, though. He has the fight, and went down smashing.
In fact, there are not many I would discard. (Amongst the players.)
Maybe there are those in whom "the rot has set in" for good ... most obvious case might be Harmi. In which case, the first to go.
Generally though (and true even of Saj, though it took him long enough to gather strength and sufficient accuracy), it seems less the players than the leadership that needs trimming, or pensioning off, first.
Oh, and a new captain. I can't see Fred coming back from this and becoming a decent skipper. Still should be good as a top bowler and occasional batsman, though - if his body holds out.
Originally posted by PeterCS: Colly's fall away has been a bit disappointing.
I'd still stick with him, though. He has the fight, and went down smashing.
In fact, there are not many I would discard. (Amongst the players.)
Maybe there are those in whom "the rot has set in" for good ... most obvious case might be Harmi. In which case, the first to go.
Generally though (and true even of Saj, though it took him long enough to gather strength and sufficient accuracy), it seems less the players than the leadership that needs trimming, or pensioning off, first.
Oh, and a new captain. I can't see Fred coming back from this and becoming a decent skipper. Still should be good as a top bowler and occasional batsman, though - if his body holds out.
I sort of agree with you with Paul Collingwood however if England do persevere with him I think he should bat at 5 or 6. I think Freddie should bat at 7. As far as Harmison is concerned I think he should be given ultimatums and if he walks so be it. Let him go. Anderson and Mahmood IMO are net bowlers and belong back in county cricket. Mahmood did not pick up late wickets in the Australian innings because of accuracy at all. The situation was Australia had well over a 200 run lead and the tail were going to chase every delivery with a desire for some quick bonus runs. Englands bowling future IMO belongs with the likes of Broad and whoever else that is floating around the tops of the tables in County cricket.
Originally posted by tailender: I don't give a damn about his batting in this assessment - though he's far from being the 'rabbit in the headlights' so many have dubbed him. Purely as a gloveman he's good - damn good. Better than Gilchrist.
That's what a lot of England fans have been saying for the past year and a half. His wicket-keeping on the West Indies tour in 2004 was as good as i've ever seen for England on some very uneven pitches.
His FC batting record compares well with any other keeper in England, and he's a lot more determined batsman than Geraint Jones who only ever seemed to get runs when those before him had done well.
Originally posted by PeterCS: Colly's fall away has been a bit disappointing.
I'd still stick with him, though. He has the fight, and went down smashing.
In fact, there are not many I would discard. (Amongst the players.)
Maybe there are those in whom "the rot has set in" for good ... most obvious case might be Harmi. In which case, the first to go.
Generally though (and true even of Saj, though it took him long enough to gather strength and sufficient accuracy), it seems less the players than the leadership that needs trimming, or pensioning off, first.
Oh, and a new captain. I can't see Fred coming back from this and becoming a decent skipper. Still should be good as a top bowler and occasional batsman, though - if his body holds out.
I sort of agree with you with Paul Collingwood however if England do persevere with him I think he should bat at 5 or 6. I think Freddie should bat at 7. As far as Harmison is concerned I think he should be given ultimatums and if he walks so be it. Let him go. Anderson and Mahmood IMO are net bowlers and belong back in county cricket. Mahmood did not pick up late wickets in the Australian innings because of accuracy at all. The situation was Australia had well over a 200 run lead and the tail were going to chase every delivery with a desire for some quick bonus runs. Englands bowling future IMO belongs with the likes of Broad and whoever else that is floating around the tops of the tables in County cricket.
Mahmood is clearly not ready for Test cricket yet - his performances in the English summer showed this. Maybe given time he will improve, but he should have been nowhere near the starting XI. Anderson hadn't bowled all year because of injury and it was another crazy gamble to put him straight into the starting XI.
Originally posted by Dwayne W II: That Hoggard bowling average is getting up there, almost as high as Blee and Tait in 05. And he's been England's second best bowler
He did trap Hayden plumb LBW three times in two overs in the last match though.
Originally posted by Dwayne W II: That Hoggard bowling average is getting up there, almost as high as Blee and Tait in 05. And he's been England's second best bowler
He did trap Hayden plumb LBW three times in two overs in the last match though.
So what. Brett Lee was hard done by in England when it came to LBW decisions. Not to mention that Lee showed more guts in 2005 than what all the English bowlers put together have shown in the current series. I didn't see Brett Lee take a backward step ever when the pressure was on and losing looked more likely than winning, which is more than I can say for most of the English team this time.
