Chappelli's ratings.

[STFU Donnie]

In yesterday's paper Ian Chappell gave his player ratings for the series just completed. Most of them were reasonable, but he gave Johnson 9/10 and raved about him. Did I miss something? Apart from the second innings in Brisbane, he bowled very poorly! In Melbourne he was almost embarrassingly bad.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Not sure I'd give him a 9, but I certainly wouldn't rate his bowling as "poor".

 

[Pera]

Shami had a similar bowling average but Johnson made some important runs. I'd give Shami a 5 and Johnson probably a 6.5.

 

[Slax]

In yesterday's paper Ian Chappell gave his player ratings for the series just completed. Most of them were reasonable, but he gave Johnson 9/10 and raved about him. Did I miss something? Apart from the second innings in Brisbane, he bowled very poorly! In Melbourne he was almost embarrassingly bad.

Can't for the life of me see how Johnson can get over a 6. Whilst the pictures were not favourable he was lacking the line and length that had made him so dangerous over the past 18 months. Highest mark I'd give our bowlers is to Harris and Hazelwood in a 7 each.

 

[Power Raid]

In yesterday's paper Ian Chappell gave his player ratings for the series just completed. Most of them were reasonable, but he gave Johnson 9/10 and raved about him. Did I miss something? Apart from the second innings in Brisbane, he bowled very poorly! In Melbourne he was almost embarrassingly bad.

without looking at the scores, I fear our batting line up was flattered by batsmen friendly wickets and a poor Indian attack. It has masked a number of issues and without changes we will march straight into an ashes whitewash.

Clearly Warner and Smith are lock ins but serious questions remain over Rogers, Clarke and SMarsh. It was great to see Rogers scoring runs but was the performance enough given the bigger picture and recent performances prior to this series. Clarke is a legend but the injuries are starting to mount. SMarsh unfortunately will never make it as a test match player.

I haven't raised question marks over Watson as MMarsh should replace him over the next twelve months.

 

[little graham]

I think the Indians done alot of homework on Mitch. I think he handled it really well, considering his past.

 

[The Swans Blog]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ricketers-series/story-fni2utai-1227180898543

David Warner — 9
Chris Rogers — 7
Shane Watson — 6
Steve Smith — 9
Michael Clarke — 9
Shaun Marsh — 6
Mitchell Marsh — 7
Joe Burns — 5
Brad Haddin — 8
Mitchell Johnson — 9
Mitchell Starc — 7
Ryan Harris — 8.5
Nathan Lyon — 8
Josh Hazlewood — 7
Peter Siddle — 5

Fair enough, I'd probably give Clarke 8, M.Marsh 6, Haddin 7.5, Johnson 7 and Starc 7.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

What does it take to get a 10? 769 runs at an average of 128 with a century in every test apparently isn't enough.

 

[Oaktree]

Smith and Johnson both 9 is ridiculous.

You'd give Smith a 9.5 and Johnson a 7.

Not a big fan of these ratings, comes across a bit too one eyed.

These ratings by Cricinfo are much closer to the mark:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2014-15/content/story/819845.html

Their Indians ratings are also very accurate imo:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2014-15/content/story/819783.html

 

[philreich]

What does it take to get a 10? 769 runs at an average of 128 with a century in every test apparently isn't enough.

Maybe Chappelli took a mark off Smith for questionable captaincy??? But yeah - otherwise he was faultless.

 

[Scotland]

5 for Siddle? Played one test and took 2 wickets. 7 for M Marsh? Didn't crack 100 runs total in 4 innings and took 1 wicket.

Not sure how Haddin gets an 8 either. Keeping was OK, did nothing with the bat.

I'd have the scores lower across the board if for no other reason than to have a bigger gap between Smith and the rest. If Haddin is 8, Smith is about 13.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

All the quicks should get 9 as they had to ply their trade on the 4 worst pitches you could prepare. You simply cannot criticize any fats bowler in this series having to bowl on those shit heaps.

 

[Power Raid]

All the quicks should get 9 as they had to ply their trade on the 4 worst pitches you could prepare. You simply cannot criticize any fats bowler in this series having to bowl on those shit heaps.

I must have missed Hughes' return

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I think the Indians done alot of homework on Mitch. I think he handled it really well, considering his past.

I think Mitch was simply 5-10km an hour slower and bowling on flatter wickets.

 

[Kram]

What does it take to get a 10? 769 runs at an average of 128 with a century in every test apparently isn't enough.

The only person Chappell would ever give a 10 would be himself.

 

[bombersfan4000]

What does it take to get a 10? 769 runs at an average of 128 with a century in every test apparently isn't enough.

maybe 1000 runs for the series gets you a 10

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What does it take to get a 10? 769 runs at an average of 128 with a century in every test apparently isn't enough.

True but he was captain and the score was only 2-0, flat pitches aside. I would have given him a 9.5.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How did Siddle manage a 5? Did he prepare high quality banana smoothies? It sure wasn't his bowling in Adelaide. Clarke a 9 is ridiculous, he played 1 test! Should be a 6 at the very most. Haddin's series is way overrated too, maybe a 6.5. I love haze too but he was ordinary in half the innings too, maybe a 6

 

[Broar]

It annoyed me that out of all the batsmen he only singled out Burns for facing a pedestrian attack. The Indian attack was woeful all series (not to mention the flat pitches) and almost all of our batsmen cashed in on this. But to only single out one guy who showed some very promising signs, is unfair and wrong.

 

[Scotland]

The only person Chappell would ever give a 10 would be himself.

Yeah, but only if you asked him an unrelated question first.