My Ashes ratings

[MisterMarcus]

I think the title is pretty self-explanatory......


Rogers (480 runs @ 60): 9/10. Second highest run scorer, best average, contributions in every match, in tough batting conditions. Easily our best and most consistent player.

Warner (418 runs @ 46): 7/10. Many of his runs came in second innings, and will be disappointed not to turn a bunch of starts into a big match-winning hundred.

Smith (508 runs @ 56, 1 wkt @ 16): 8/10. Our leading run scorer, but his wildly inconsistent feast-or-famine performance does not quite rate as highly as Rogers. Wicket of Cook probably ensured a win.

Clarke (132 runs @ 17): 3/10. Fairly typical performance from a fading talent at the end of the road. Hard to judge captaincy given the terrible position the batting implosions left him in.

Voges (201 runs @ 29): 4/10. Probably saved his career with a couple of fighting 50s, but disappointing before that. Surprisingly not given a run with the ball.

M Marsh (48 runs @ 12, 8 wkts @ 19): 4/10. Good efforts with the ball, but as an "all rounder", his ineffectiveness with the bat means he cannot get a pass mark.

Nevill (143 runs @ 24, 17 catches): 6/10. Some handy fighting runs, but was found out against straight balls, and did not convert several starts. Keeping was very solid.

Johnson (15 wkts @ 35, 140 runs @ 18): 5/10. In a bowler-friendly series, our "spearhead" averaging 35 per wicket and nearly 4 an over just barely gets a pass mark. Minimal contribution with the bat.

Starc (18 wkts @ 31, 157 runs @ 22): 6/10. In a nutshell, a slightly more consistent and economical version of Johnson.

Hazelwood (16 wkts @ 26): 6/10. Took wickets at decent average. But going at 3.5 an over was probably not quite what was needed as support for Starc and Johnson.

Lyon (16 wkts @ 29): 7/10. Once again, seemed to be under-rated by everyone. Good performance often on pitches that weren't that conducive to spin.


S Marsh (2 runs @ 1): 1/10. Made zero impression in his only outing.

Haddin (29 runs @ 15, 5 catches): 2/10. Dropped crucial catch and continued poor form with the bat.

Watson (49 runs @ 25, 0 wickets): 2/10. Again made starts before failing to convert. No presence with the ball at all.

Siddle (6 wkts @ 11): 8/10. Looked the pick of the bowlers in his only Test. Economy of less than 2 an over proved his value in keeping it tight.

 

[sherb]

I think the title is pretty self-explanatory......


Rogers (480 runs @ 60): 9/10. Second highest run scorer, best average, contributions in every match, in tough batting conditions. Easily our best and most consistent player.

Warner (418 runs @ 46): 7/10. Many of his runs came in second innings, and will be disappointed not to turn a bunch of starts into a big match-winning hundred.

Smith (508 runs @ 56, 1 wkt @ 16): 8/10. Our leading run scorer, but his wildly inconsistent feast-or-famine performance does not quite rate as highly as Rogers. Wicket of Cook probably ensured a win.

Clarke (132 runs @ 17): 3/10. Fairly typical performance from a fading talent at the end of the road. Hard to judge captaincy given the terrible position the batting implosions left him in.

Voges (201 runs @ 29): 4/10. Probably saved his career with a couple of fighting 50s, but disappointing before that. Surprisingly not given a run with the ball.

M Marsh (48 runs @ 12, 8 wkts @ 19): 4/10. Good efforts with the ball, but as an "all rounder", his ineffectiveness with the bat means he cannot get a pass mark.

Nevill (143 runs @ 24, 17 catches): 6/10. Some handy fighting runs, but was found out against straight balls, and did not convert several starts. Keeping was very solid.

Johnson (15 wkts @ 35, 140 runs @ 18): 5/10. In a bowler-friendly series, our "spearhead" averaging 35 per wicket and nearly 4 an over just barely gets a pass mark. Minimal contribution with the bat.

Starc (18 wkts @ 31, 157 runs @ 22): 6/10. In a nutshell, a slightly more consistent and economical version of Johnson.

Hazelwood (16 wkts @ 26): 6/10. Took wickets at decent average. But going at 3.5 an over was probably not quite what was needed as support for Starc and Johnson.

Lyon (16 wkts @ 29): 7/10. Once again, seemed to be under-rated by everyone. Good performance often on pitches that weren't that conducive to spin.


S Marsh (2 runs @ 1): 1/10. Made zero impression in his only outing.

Haddin (29 runs @ 15, 5 catches): 2/10. Dropped crucial catch and continued poor form with the bat.

Watson (49 runs @ 25, 0 wickets): 2/10. Again made starts before failing to convert. No presence with the ball at all.

Siddle (6 wkts @ 11): 8/10. Looked the pick of the bowlers in his only Test. Economy of less than 2 an over proved his value in keeping it tight.

Smith too high.

Scored all his runs either on a flat deck or when the series was dead.

When we needed him most in the 3rd and 4th tests - nowhere to be seen, not prepared to tough it out.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Lyth (115 runs @13): 2/10. One half-decent knock in Cardiff, very ordinary for the remainder of the series.

Cook (330 runs @ 37): 7/10. Average series with the bat, although did make some steady starts in tough batting conditions. Looked much stronger and more assertive as captain.

Bell (215 runs @ 27): 5/10. Very middling series, although he did make some very important runs when England needed them.

Root (460 runs @ 58, 4 wkts @ 34): 9/10. Outstanding performance, basically the difference between the two sides (along with Broad). Fitting man of the series. Chimed in with some handy wickets in Cardiff too.

Bairstow (118 runs @ 30): 4/10. One good knock, but probably didn't do much to convince people one way or the other.

Stokes (201 runs @ 25, 11 wkts @ 33): 5/10. Two fifties and one match winning 5-fer gets a pass, but would have liked to do much more.

Buttler (122 runs @ 15, 12 catches): 4/10. Okay behind the stumps, but very ordinary with the bat.

Broad (21 wkts @ 21, 134 runs @ 19): 9/10. England's best and most consistent bowler, seemed to relish being The Man with Anderson missing or down in form. Some very useful free-hitting cameos down the order as well. With Root, clearly England's best.

Ali (293 runs @ 37, 12 wkts @ 46): 7/10. Hard to judge Ali given his bits-and-pieces role. Excellent batting at Number 8, took a few handy wickets, but also very expensive with the ball. Clearly should be batting further up the order and used as a part-time spinner.

Wood (10 wkts @ 39, 103 runs @ 26): 5/10. Probably bowled better than his figures suggested, but those numbers only just get a pass. Another bowler who provided very valuable runs down the order.

Finn (12 wkts @ 23): 6/10. One match-winning game, inconsistent thereafter. Like Bairstow, probably didn't convince people one way or the other.

Anderson (10 wkts @ 28): 6/10. Like Finn, played one outstanding game but less useful elsewhere.


Ballance (98 runs @ 25): 5/10. Made a good 60 when England really needed it in Cardiff, but failed in other 3 innings. Still, was no worse than Bell and arguably a bit unlucky to get dropped.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

English fans would have enjoyed it immensely, but that has to go down as one of the worst Ashes series of all time. Every match was one-sided, none of which went to 5 days, and only 3 different batsmen scored centuries.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Rogers (480 runs @ 60): 8/10. Our most consistent player, always reliable in trying circumstances.

Warner (418 runs @ 46): 6/10. Needs to do more in the 1st innings, but a fair series. His series typified our whole side, great in patches then a poor way to get out. Made Ali look like the 2nd coming of Warne and Murali!

Smith (508 runs @ 56, 1 wkt @ 16): 6.5/10. Handy contributions in the first test, brilliant double ton in the 2nd test and very good in the last. However his shots to get out in the 3rd and 4th were awful from our best bat.

Clarke (132 runs @ 17): 1.5/10. Terrible with the bat, even worst as a captain. Winning the toss and batting in the 3rd test was a howler.

Voges (201 runs @ 29): 3.5/10. Disappointing for a guy who was brought in for English conditions where he has a lot of experience in County cricket. Catching was very good though.

M Marsh (48 runs @ 12, 8 wkts @ 19): 5/10. Good with the ball, one decent innings with the bat in Lords but need to contribute more.

Nevill (143 runs @ 24, 17 catches): 6/10. Handy in the lower order and fairly clean behind the stumps. Good start to his career.

Johnson (15 wkts @ 35, 140 runs @ 18): 3.5/10. Inconsistent series, wasn't helped by the batsmen though, actually thought his control was pretty good.

Starc (18 wkts @ 31, 157 runs @ 22): 4/10. Typical Starc with the red ball, a couple of jaffas in among the absolute rubbish. I am not convinced he is test quality.

Hazelwood (16 wkts @ 26): 5/10. Decent in the 1st 2 tests, but extremely poor control at over 3.5 an over.

Lyon (16 wkts @ 29): 7.5/10. OThe only bowler we could rely on in every test to be relatively consistent.


S Marsh (2 runs @ 1): 0/10. Laughable selection, hope that is the last of him.

Haddin (29 runs @ 15, 5 catches): 1/10. Dropped the match in the 1st test, before taking leave. Nevill has replaced him as a younger, better option.

Watson (49 runs @ 25, 0 wickets): 1/10. Shouldn't have been in the squad. His dismissals typified his career.

Siddle (6 wkts @ 11): 5/10. Looked good but only played one test, 5/10 is fair.

 

[the_interloper]

I think the title is pretty self-explanatory......


Rogers (480 runs @ 60): 9/10. Second highest run scorer, best average, contributions in every match, in tough batting conditions. Easily our best and most consistent player.

Warner (418 runs @ 46): 7/10. Many of his runs came in second innings, and will be disappointed not to turn a bunch of starts into a big match-winning hundred.

Smith (508 runs @ 56, 1 wkt @ 16): 8/10. Our leading run scorer, but his wildly inconsistent feast-or-famine performance does not quite rate as highly as Rogers. Wicket of Cook probably ensured a win.

Clarke (132 runs @ 17): 3/10. Fairly typical performance from a fading talent at the end of the road. Hard to judge captaincy given the terrible position the batting implosions left him in.

Voges (201 runs @ 29): 4/10. Probably saved his career with a couple of fighting 50s, but disappointing before that. Surprisingly not given a run with the ball.

M Marsh (48 runs @ 12, 8 wkts @ 19): 4/10. Good efforts with the ball, but as an "all rounder", his ineffectiveness with the bat means he cannot get a pass mark.

Nevill (143 runs @ 24, 17 catches): 6/10. Some handy fighting runs, but was found out against straight balls, and did not convert several starts. Keeping was very solid.

Johnson (15 wkts @ 35, 140 runs @ 18): 5/10. In a bowler-friendly series, our "spearhead" averaging 35 per wicket and nearly 4 an over just barely gets a pass mark. Minimal contribution with the bat.

Starc (18 wkts @ 31, 157 runs @ 22): 6/10. In a nutshell, a slightly more consistent and economical version of Johnson.

Hazelwood (16 wkts @ 26): 6/10. Took wickets at decent average. But going at 3.5 an over was probably not quite what was needed as support for Starc and Johnson.

Lyon (16 wkts @ 29): 7/10. Once again, seemed to be under-rated by everyone. Good performance often on pitches that weren't that conducive to spin.


S Marsh (2 runs @ 1): 1/10. Made zero impression in his only outing.

Haddin (29 runs @ 15, 5 catches): 2/10. Dropped crucial catch and continued poor form with the bat.

Watson (49 runs @ 25, 0 wickets): 2/10. Again made starts before failing to convert. No presence with the ball at all.

Siddle (6 wkts @ 11): 8/10. Looked the pick of the bowlers in his only Test. Economy of less than 2 an over proved his value in keeping it tight.

8 out of 10 for a bowler who played one dead rubber test?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

8 out of 10 for a bowler who played one dead rubber test?

Yep, I was generous and gave him a 5, but that is all you could give a bloke who played in 1 test.

 

[MisterMarcus]

8 out of 10 for a bowler who played one dead rubber test?

Can only be assessed on when they play. I did the same thing with Ballance for England.

6 wickets at 11 at about 1.5 rpo is an excellent performance no matter how you look at it.

Smith too high.

Scored all his runs either on a flat deck or when the series was dead.

When we needed him most in the 3rd and 4th tests - nowhere to be seen, not prepared to tough it out.

He's ahead of Warner, but behind Rogers. 8/10 is fair. 500 runs averaging over 50, including a double century is still a great effort.

A 7.5 maybe, with the vital wicket of Cook boosting him up towards 8.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Can only be assessed on when they play. I did the same thing with Ballance for England.

6 wickets at 11 at about 1.5 rpo is an excellent performance no matter how you look at it.


He's ahead of Warner, but behind Rogers. 8/10 is fair. 500 runs averaging over 50, including a double century is still a great effort.

A 7.5 maybe, with the vital wicket of Cook boosting him up towards 8.

Absolute rubbish. You can't get more than a 5/10 for one test. Probably should have played earlier but he can't get more than half the score. Fair to give him 5/5 though, which is what I have.

Smith failed in 2 out of 5 tests...in other words 4/10 innings...and that is generous for his first test as if you are making 30 you should be making 100! Somewhere between 6-7.5 out of 10 is fair. I think I went with 6.5.

 

[the_interloper]

Can only be assessed on when they play. I did the same thing with Ballance for England.

6 wickets at 11 at about 1.5 rpo is an excellent performance no matter how you look at it.

It does need to be put in the context of a dead rubber though, there's no way we beat them by an innings on form of course.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Absolute rubbish. You can't get more than a 5/10 for one test. Probably should have played earlier but he can't get more than half the score. Fair to give him 5/5 though, which is what I have.

Smith failed in 2 out of 5 tests...in other words 4/10 innings...and that is generous for his first test as if you are making 30 you should be making 100! Somewhere between 6-7.5 out of 10 is fair. I think I went with 6.5.

You do your ratings your way, I'll do it mine........

 

[Underdog]

Perhaps one for the unpopular opinions thread but I rate Warner's contribution higher than Smith's. Our openers were our best bats this series.

 

[Slax]

Australia
Rogers 9/10. Showed why experience and patience matters in test cricket. Consistent and reliable for the whole series, something the others can't claim.
Warner 7/10. Failed to make the most of a number of starts as could easily of finished series with a couple of centuries which would of made it higly successful. Showed more patience batting than anyone except Rogers, which says a lot about a bloke many still view as a slasher.
Smith 8/10. Inconsistent, went horridly missing at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, was great in the other 3 tests though.
Clarke 1/10. Sometimes age catches up slowly and you see retirement coming, other times it smashes right between the eyes with a sledgehammer.
Voges 3/10. Was sitting close to 0/10 until his last two innings. Received a stay of execution, but massive questions remain about his ability at test level, will go to Bangladesh where he needs to perform if he wants to face the Kiwis.
S Marsh 0/10. There is a difference between FC & test and failed to take his chance. Should be given Bangladesh to prove himself as don't think the side should have both him and Voges.
M Marsh 3/10. Good with the ball, but as he is in at 6 needs to score runs. The way he has batted he should be coming in at 10 or 11.
Watson 2/10. Finally gone, just a few years later than I would of liked. Funnily though wasn't the worst test he played to get dropped though.
Nevill 5/10. Solid, underperformed with bat, but no howlers behind the stumps.
Haddin 0/10. Circumstances lead to his demise rather than the selectors dropping him. But dropping Root in Cardiff cost us that test.
Johnson 3/10. Failed to impress statistics look a lot better than they should be as picked off the tail a few times. Batting was quite good especially when you look at what a number of designated batsmen.
Starc 6/10. Came into the series thinking that we shouldn't have both Johnson and Starc in the same side as too similar with similar problem of leaking runs when off. Now I know it for sure that we can't.
Hazelwood 5/10. The 16 wickets @ 26 might look alright but if he bowls like that on pitches that re a bit more batsmen friendly will find the average out at 50. Lacked venom.
Siddle 9/10. Except for Lords we were screaming out for a seam bowler who could bowl a tight line and restrict scoring, finally the selectors gave us one in the last test and look what happens. Took 6 and contributed heavily to a lot more as frustrated batsmen decided to attack other bowlers in the hope of scoring runs.
Lyon 7/10. On pitches that were not suited at all to spin did very well and showed once again that he is better than most give him credit for.

England
Cook 6/10. Never really looked in form all series with the bat but still made sure he ground out some runs and saw off the new ball. Out captained Clarke
Lyth 1/10. Given plenty of chances to try and impress and failed time and again. Suspect it will be a while before we see him again at test level.
Ballance 1/10. Deserved to be dropped
Bell 4/10. Performed much better than when at 5 but still struggled.
Root 9/10. Showed why he is one of the best in the world with the bat, also pretty handy with the ball.
Bairstow 4/10. Struggled a little on his return to the side.
Stokes 5/10 had a couple of handy innings with the bat and chipped in with some handy wickets as the fifth bowler.
Butler 4/10. Didn’t have the impact with the bat many thought he might, but solid behind the stumps.
Moeen 5/10. He has to be classified as an all rounder as 3rd highest scorer for England in the series, much better with bat than ball. But as he is there to bowl batting can only push him to a pass.
Broad 8/10. Leading wicket taker in the series and bowled solid lines for most of the series.
Wood 2/10. Didn’t get the penetration he should in these conditions and will be surprised if he holds his position once Anderson is fit.
Finn 6/10. Was able to expel some of the demons from his last outing against Australia.
Anderson 8/10. Still bowling as well as ever even though now 33.

 

[Torz]

Fawad Ahmed 10/10

Heard he mixes a good cordial.

 

[the_interloper]

Fawad Ahmed 10/10

Heard he mixes a good cordial.

And I'll give Jake Doran 11.5 out of 10, sure he didn't play but in future tours he should be awesome.

 

[MisterMarcus]

And I'll give Jake Doran 11.5 out of 10, sure he didn't play but in future tours he should be awesome.

Jordan Silk would be infinity out of ten.....

 

[Belnakor]

Perhaps one for the unpopular opinions thread but I rate Warner's contribution higher than Smith's. Our openers were our best bats this series.

Warner didn't cash in when he got in, which is unforgivable as an opener.

Smith cashes in, getting 140+ are the kind of hundreds that win matches. Warner plays innings that keep you in the game, not win it.

 

[The Passenger]

When you look at the performances as a whole there was a lot of passengers in this series. And given there wasn't one close test and some wildly inconsistent performances from both teams, particularly us, it was probably the worst Ashes series in the last 20 years.

 

[Underdog]

When you look at the performances as a whole there was a lot of passengers in this series. And given there wasn't one close test and some wildly inconsistent performances from both teams, particularly us, it was probably the worst Ashes series in the last 20 years.

Yeah, it's the worst Ashes series I remember watching. It doesn't concern me if we lose or if games are 3 days long, I just like them to be competitive. Each match was pretty one sided in this series.

 

[Power Raid]

Our selectors have to think about developing a test side that can be together for a decade. Our success in the 90s and naughtiest didn't happen by accident.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Yeah, it's the worst Ashes series I remember watching. It doesn't concern me if we lose or if games are 3 days long, I just like them to be competitive. Each match was pretty one sided in this series.

If people argue it was a bad series because the games werent competitive , then how the hell can the last 5-0 series be deemed as a good series?
I dont think we had more than 2 good sessions in that series.

Personally I enjoyed it because nobody gave England a hope in hell of winning..

 

[Illinois Nazi]

If people argue it was a bad series because the games werent competitive , then how the hell can the last 5-0 series be deemed as a good series?

Don't know about a good series, but I thought it was a good fun series!

At least the 5-0 series had one side playing consistently well throughout...

 

[BarneyBent]

Smith too high.

Scored all his runs either on a flat deck or when the series was dead.

When we needed him most in the 3rd and 4th tests - nowhere to be seen, not prepared to tough it out.

Disagree. It's funny how when England score a bunch of runs but Australia don't, it's a tough deck, but when Australia score a bunch of runs and England don't, it's flat.

If each team's scores in the 2nd and 5th tests had been swapped, we'd be saying they were tough decks as well. In reality, we just batted well in some tests, s**t in others, and England were the same.

 

[sherb]

Disagree. It's funny how when England score a bunch of runs but Australia don't, it's a tough deck, but when Australia score a bunch of runs and England don't, it's flat.

If each team's scores in the 2nd and 5th tests had been swapped, we'd be saying they were tough decks as well. In reality, we just batted well in some tests, s**t in others, and England were the same.

On seaming decks in the 3rd and 4th tests, Smith scored 26 runs in 4 innings.

If he stood up to be counted in either of those tests, we may well still have the Ashes. (He wasn't alone there of course).

Scored all but 92 of his runs in one test on pretty much a road and another test which meant squat.

If you rate him on runs alone, I guess 8 is fair. Given his regular absence when we needed him, I'd give him a 7.

I guess we wil have to disagree.

 

[BarneyBent]

On seaming decks in the 3rd and 4th tests, Smith scored 26 runs in 4 innings.

If he stood up to be counted in either of those tests, we may well still have the Ashes. (He wasn't alone there of course).

Scored all but 92 of his runs in one test on pretty much a road and another test which meant squat.

If you rate him on runs alone, I guess 8 is fair. Given his regular absence when we needed him, I'd give him a 7.

I guess we wil have to disagree.

My point is that Lords wasn't nearly the road people think it was. This is the pitch that England were done for 312 and 103 on. The deck was quick, the ball was moving, we just played well. The only reason people think Lords was a flat deck was because Smith and Rogers both played magnificently on it... which kinda makes criticising Smith for only batting on roads circular logic.

I went ahead and crunched the numbers. Want to know how the English batted on these supposedly "seaming" pitches? 1st Test, they averaged 36 runs per wicket. 2nd Test, where Smith scored his double, the English batsmen averaged 20.8 runs per wicket. 3rd Test, that was supposedly so much harder to play on? They averaged 33.8 runs per wicket. 4th Test, again apparently a rampant seamer, they averaged 43.4. 5th Test, apparently a road again according to Smith's detractors, they averaged, wait for it, 21.8 runs per wicket.

The reason people think Lords was a road (and others argued similarly for The Oval) is because Australia, including (and largely because of) Smith, batted well. But they weren't such roads for the English! They batted far worse on these two pitches compared to the others. For them, the others were roads.

The fact is, we just played s**t in 3 games, well in 2, while the English played s**t in 2 games, and well in 3. It would have been great for Smith to stand up in the 3rd or 4th Test, but sometimes, as a batsman, luck just doesn't go your way. Had the rest of the team not shat themselves in those matches it wouldn't be a problem. And I mean, you can't exactly argue that Lords wasn't a big game... I mean we'd been humiliated in Cardiff, there was huge pressure to perform, and it's Lords, which carries its own pressure.

People are essentially criticising our best batsman for the series for not winning us the series off his own bat. Which is pretty damn rough.