I don't believe I've seen one of these around, so I may as well start:
AUSTRALIA:
Khawaja (8) - A lynchpin throughout the series. His vigils underlaid our two Ashes victories. Up-and-down in the field, but still much better than he used to be.
Warner (4) - He tried hard, but his eye's going and so he lacks the technique to leave tight bowling. Can't imagine Bancroft (big gap between bat-and-pad ala Greg Blewett), Harris (LOL) or Renshaw (still technically flawed and lacking confidence) doing any better.
Labu (5) - Struggled with his stance and technique, to the point where he was edging balls that he would have left four years ago. Managed 51 and 111 to save the Manchester Test, but his sojourn at The Oval shows that his slump isn't yet over.
Smith (6.5) - Set up our Lord's win, scored two 50's at the Oval, played a daft shot against Moeen Ali at Headingley and...yeah. Not bad but could've done more.
Head (6.5) - Nothing to separate him and Smith, really. Smith was more likely to set up a match, whereas Head could shift the momentum more quickly. Both could be up-and-down, and Head grabbed a couple of wickets to make up for his inferior fielding vs Smith.
Green (3) - Did OK at Edgbaston and contributed little with the ball beyond short crap, though he's still a singular talent in gully! I think his problems are temperamental; he's not a typical counter-attacking #6 in the Marsh/Head mould so he doesn't know whether he should be consolidating or going for it. I'd consider having him open, telling him to play straight, see off the next ten balls and then go for it. PAK do have a useful attack, so pit Warner against them before easing Green in against the WI.
Marsh (7.5) - Points deducted for not playing all three matches. Great comeback! He smacked 118 in sporting conditions and helped save the Manchester Test. Then he had another poor game at The Oval. Is this the start of a lengthy tenure at #6, or is Mitch flattering to deceive like the Marshes have always done? Maybe horses-for-courses is appropriate. He looked great on a Headingley greentop, but struggled on a 5th day Oval turner. His technique is tighter than before, so I'm hopeful that he can improve his stats.
Carey (5) - Keeping was generally good, except at The Oval. Batting petered out after performing well at Edgbaston. Really needs mental assistance.
Starc (7.5) - Points deducted for not playing the whole series. Was expensive as always, but he unsettled ENG's batsmen with his pace, bounce and inswing. Ollie Pope would agree. Clumped a few with the bat, as well.
Cummins (6) - He had his moments, and we wouldn't have won without his fighting efforts at Edgbaston, but he lacked his usual control and consistency, and his captaincy ranged from questionable to crap, collapsing under pressure just like Paine did in 2019. I still think Cummins > Paine, but not by as much as I would have hoped. Funnily enough, he was more productive with the bat than he has been for a long time, so that's a saving grace.
Hazlewood (6) - An OK score for an OK series. Was among the wickets and bowled the odd wicket-to-wicket jaffa, but lacked his usual control. Given his fitness record, the end of his Test career awaits unless he reduces his IPL commitments.
Lyon/Murphy (7.5) - Deducted points for not playing the whole series. I put these two together because while Lyon was better, Murphy held his own. Both contributed down the order, albeit Murphy moreso. Lyon has become dangerous in all-conditions because he can use both overspin and sidespin while changing the pace and his angles up. Very shrewd operator. Murphy doesn't generate as much overspin or sidespin, but he uses the angles well and is pretty accurate. Plus he flights the ball a little more than Lyon does (Lyon prefers to fire the ball in).
Boland (2) - Gets 1 for his nightwatchman cameo. ENG found it all too easy to pick him off a length, since while he is accurate, he is not tall. This messed with his head and caused him to lose his natural control.
ENGLAND:
Crawley (8) - You can't really argue with his record, but I think too often we enabled his strengths, and that our batsmen tended to bat in harder conditions than ENG's did. You can only play what's in front of you though, and he did that with aplomb. Still sceptical about him going forward because his technical issues haven't gone away. This is a low 8, but 7.5 seemed too low.
Duckett (6.5) - Very up-and-down. Impressed at Lord's, but not so much anywhere else. IMO will struggle against bounce and against more traditional bowling/fielding he's a candidate for an early edge.
Pope (2.5) - Placed him below Green for playing fewer Tests. Averaged about the same without being able to bowl and looked unconvincing against Nathan Lyon yet again.
Root (8.5) - Was up-and-down, but you can't argue with a series average of 50. His 118* should have set up a win in the First Test, and his 91 did set one up in the Fifth Test. Can get an extra half point for nipping out some wickets.
Brook (7) - Looks a real find. Always made you nervous. He does have issues against the short ball and arguably outside offstump. Whether or not he can grind when necessary is an open question, but there's real talent there.
Stokes (8.5) - As a captain, he was definitely more astute and creative than Cummins. As a batsman, his 155 at Lords was epic and his 80 helped set up their win at Headingley. But he barely bowled, and I deducted him half a point because of his early declaration in the 1st Test - also spreading the field for Cummins/Lyon in the 1st Test wasn't a wise move.
Bairstow (4.5) - Solely on batting, I'd give him a 7. His 78 at The Oval was crucial. But his keeping was Akmal-standard during the first few Tests, before improving to Buttler-standard during the last two (not saying much). I'd argue that he is somewhat responsible for AUS keeping the urn until at least 2025.
Ali (4) - On paper, his figures don't look great, but he did kickstart Manchester's run fest, and he did nip out some crucial wickets at Headingley and The Oval. I wouldn't say that he necessarily bowled well, but even when he isn't bowling well, he can rip one out of the rough and make something happen.
Woakes (8.5) - Very impressive with bat and ball; miles improved from his 2019 self. If he played all 5 Tests, I'd consider giving him a 10.
Wood (8) - Likewise, albeit marginally less so. At his best, he was just too good for our lower order.
Robinson (6) - Points deducted for not playing all 5 Tests. He was generally serviceable and accurate, but not much more. ENG's attack became so much more dangerous without him in it. Clumped a few runs.
Broad (7.5) - Pretty steady in his last series. Exploited his hold over Warner to the fullest. Ultimately, he went out his way.
Anderson (2) - Utterly anodyne. He's had a remarkable run, but one can't outrun father time forever, Jimmy...
Tongue (N/A) - Showed promise in his one match.
AUSTRALIA:
Khawaja (8) - A lynchpin throughout the series. His vigils underlaid our two Ashes victories. Up-and-down in the field, but still much better than he used to be.
Warner (4) - He tried hard, but his eye's going and so he lacks the technique to leave tight bowling. Can't imagine Bancroft (big gap between bat-and-pad ala Greg Blewett), Harris (LOL) or Renshaw (still technically flawed and lacking confidence) doing any better.
Labu (5) - Struggled with his stance and technique, to the point where he was edging balls that he would have left four years ago. Managed 51 and 111 to save the Manchester Test, but his sojourn at The Oval shows that his slump isn't yet over.
Smith (6.5) - Set up our Lord's win, scored two 50's at the Oval, played a daft shot against Moeen Ali at Headingley and...yeah. Not bad but could've done more.
Head (6.5) - Nothing to separate him and Smith, really. Smith was more likely to set up a match, whereas Head could shift the momentum more quickly. Both could be up-and-down, and Head grabbed a couple of wickets to make up for his inferior fielding vs Smith.
Green (3) - Did OK at Edgbaston and contributed little with the ball beyond short crap, though he's still a singular talent in gully! I think his problems are temperamental; he's not a typical counter-attacking #6 in the Marsh/Head mould so he doesn't know whether he should be consolidating or going for it. I'd consider having him open, telling him to play straight, see off the next ten balls and then go for it. PAK do have a useful attack, so pit Warner against them before easing Green in against the WI.
Marsh (7.5) - Points deducted for not playing all three matches. Great comeback! He smacked 118 in sporting conditions and helped save the Manchester Test. Then he had another poor game at The Oval. Is this the start of a lengthy tenure at #6, or is Mitch flattering to deceive like the Marshes have always done? Maybe horses-for-courses is appropriate. He looked great on a Headingley greentop, but struggled on a 5th day Oval turner. His technique is tighter than before, so I'm hopeful that he can improve his stats.
Carey (5) - Keeping was generally good, except at The Oval. Batting petered out after performing well at Edgbaston. Really needs mental assistance.
Starc (7.5) - Points deducted for not playing the whole series. Was expensive as always, but he unsettled ENG's batsmen with his pace, bounce and inswing. Ollie Pope would agree. Clumped a few with the bat, as well.
Cummins (6) - He had his moments, and we wouldn't have won without his fighting efforts at Edgbaston, but he lacked his usual control and consistency, and his captaincy ranged from questionable to crap, collapsing under pressure just like Paine did in 2019. I still think Cummins > Paine, but not by as much as I would have hoped. Funnily enough, he was more productive with the bat than he has been for a long time, so that's a saving grace.
Hazlewood (6) - An OK score for an OK series. Was among the wickets and bowled the odd wicket-to-wicket jaffa, but lacked his usual control. Given his fitness record, the end of his Test career awaits unless he reduces his IPL commitments.
Lyon/Murphy (7.5) - Deducted points for not playing the whole series. I put these two together because while Lyon was better, Murphy held his own. Both contributed down the order, albeit Murphy moreso. Lyon has become dangerous in all-conditions because he can use both overspin and sidespin while changing the pace and his angles up. Very shrewd operator. Murphy doesn't generate as much overspin or sidespin, but he uses the angles well and is pretty accurate. Plus he flights the ball a little more than Lyon does (Lyon prefers to fire the ball in).
Boland (2) - Gets 1 for his nightwatchman cameo. ENG found it all too easy to pick him off a length, since while he is accurate, he is not tall. This messed with his head and caused him to lose his natural control.
ENGLAND:
Crawley (8) - You can't really argue with his record, but I think too often we enabled his strengths, and that our batsmen tended to bat in harder conditions than ENG's did. You can only play what's in front of you though, and he did that with aplomb. Still sceptical about him going forward because his technical issues haven't gone away. This is a low 8, but 7.5 seemed too low.
Duckett (6.5) - Very up-and-down. Impressed at Lord's, but not so much anywhere else. IMO will struggle against bounce and against more traditional bowling/fielding he's a candidate for an early edge.
Pope (2.5) - Placed him below Green for playing fewer Tests. Averaged about the same without being able to bowl and looked unconvincing against Nathan Lyon yet again.
Root (8.5) - Was up-and-down, but you can't argue with a series average of 50. His 118* should have set up a win in the First Test, and his 91 did set one up in the Fifth Test. Can get an extra half point for nipping out some wickets.
Brook (7) - Looks a real find. Always made you nervous. He does have issues against the short ball and arguably outside offstump. Whether or not he can grind when necessary is an open question, but there's real talent there.
Stokes (8.5) - As a captain, he was definitely more astute and creative than Cummins. As a batsman, his 155 at Lords was epic and his 80 helped set up their win at Headingley. But he barely bowled, and I deducted him half a point because of his early declaration in the 1st Test - also spreading the field for Cummins/Lyon in the 1st Test wasn't a wise move.
Bairstow (4.5) - Solely on batting, I'd give him a 7. His 78 at The Oval was crucial. But his keeping was Akmal-standard during the first few Tests, before improving to Buttler-standard during the last two (not saying much). I'd argue that he is somewhat responsible for AUS keeping the urn until at least 2025.
Ali (4) - On paper, his figures don't look great, but he did kickstart Manchester's run fest, and he did nip out some crucial wickets at Headingley and The Oval. I wouldn't say that he necessarily bowled well, but even when he isn't bowling well, he can rip one out of the rough and make something happen.
Woakes (8.5) - Very impressive with bat and ball; miles improved from his 2019 self. If he played all 5 Tests, I'd consider giving him a 10.
Wood (8) - Likewise, albeit marginally less so. At his best, he was just too good for our lower order.
Robinson (6) - Points deducted for not playing all 5 Tests. He was generally serviceable and accurate, but not much more. ENG's attack became so much more dangerous without him in it. Clumped a few runs.
Broad (7.5) - Pretty steady in his last series. Exploited his hold over Warner to the fullest. Ultimately, he went out his way.
Anderson (2) - Utterly anodyne. He's had a remarkable run, but one can't outrun father time forever, Jimmy...
Tongue (N/A) - Showed promise in his one match.
Last edited:
