India v England First Test Ratings

India:

Gambhir - 6
Sehwag - 8
Pujara - 10
Tendulkar - 3
Kohli - 3
Y Singh - 7
Dhoni - 2
Ashwin - 5
Khan - 5
Ojha - 8
Yadav - 6

England:

Cook - 9
Compton - 4
Trott - 2
KP - 2
Bell - 2
Patel - 3
Prior - 7
Bresnan - 4
Broad - 4
Swann - 7
Anderson - 5

Bresnan gets 4 for doing what? Patel at least picked up a wicket all be it of a rank full toss, and generally kept things quieter than Bresnan managed. Also, Samit bowled a lot more overs, although he was the 5th bowler. Prior would have been an 8 but for the chances he missed in the first innings.
I would rate R Ashwin, Zaheer Khan and Umesh Yadav a point higher. Both Zaheer and Umesh bowled with control, Zaheer reversed the ball well and got the wicket just when it mattered, separating Cook and Compton. Yadav bowled faster than anyone else in the match, managed to reverse the ball and picked up important wickets. Of all the seamers playing this match, he is the most innexperienced. Ashwin was pretty sharp in the England first innings and bowled alright in the 2nd innings. He offered good support to Pujara with the bat and helped India go pass the 500 total.

Pietersen should get more than Bresnan, unlike the latter, the former managed to pick up a wicket and that too at a lower economy rate!!.
Broad should be rated above Bresnan, he at least managed to find the batsman's pad a couple of times. For me Bresnan a 2 and Broad 3.

Cook - Batted extremely well. He will have been annoyed to get out in the first innings having made a start but all around him the upper/middle order were capitulating. Loses a little for uninspired captaincy 8

Compton - Hung around pretty well in both innings without ever really looking as if he had the shots needed to make a decent score. 4

Trott - Tried his damndest in the second innings, but not a good player of the turning ball. 2

Pietersen - Two shocking shots to get out. He may claim he has no issue with SLA - his second innings tells the lie to that. Gains a point for taking a wicket 1

Bell - Dreadfull dismissal in first innings. Fell over a straight one in second. May struggle to get back in theteam when he returns to India following birth of child. 0

Patel - I predicted he would play in this test 3 months ago - and that it would be a wrong decision. It was. not his fault he is not good enough - and he did try. 2

Prior - some untidy keeping but none of it proved costly as people were out soon after his mistakes. Very good with the bat - surely he can play at 6? 7

Bresnan - Two reasonable knocks showed up some of the batsmen. Selected to be a bowler though - was unlucky that poor fielding cost him 2 wickets and that just as he was getting reverse swing in the first innings India managed to get the ball changed. However he bowled at times with too much width and did not use his cutters often enough - 3

Broad - Swung the bat merrily in the first innings for a little while. Bowling was poor - really poor. 2

Swann - bowled really well, probably better than the Indian bowlers would have done against their own batsmen. 7

Anderson - Marginally better with the ball than Bresnan. The worrying lapses in the field continue. 4


My team for second test on Friday:

Cook, Compton, Trott, Pietersen, Bairstow, Prior, Bresnan, Swann, Anderson, Finn, Panesar.

LondonTiger wrote:

My team for second test on Friday:

Cook, Compton, Trott, Pietersen, Bairstow, Prior, Bresnan, Swann, Anderson, Finn, Panesar.

Tiger - I didn't see enough of the Test to allocate ratings but understand the reasons given for yours.

As to the team for the second Test, let me firstly emphasise that I don't think we can pick an eleven without some potential risk or weakness.

Your side appears to strengthen the bowling and certainly gives more options there. The concern I have is with the batting.

I have a problem to some extent with Prior batting at six. Not actually with Prior at all there but, if he does, who follows him? I am not convinced that any of the front line bowlers are good enough to bat at seven. Bresnan showed a bit of application in this Test but I still don't think he fits the bill.

Your line up also has Swann shooting up the order from number ten (actually eleven in view of a nightwatchman going in) last time out to eight. Swann is probably too good for ten but I'm not convinced he's up to eight. We're probably stuck with him at eight for now but that increases the need for a decent number seven; even more so, with three near rabbits (Anderson, Finn, Panesar) at nine, ten, Jack.

We shouldn't forget that the batting has already been weakened - at least on paper - by the absence for this coming Test of first choice Bell.

For team balance, I would be inclined to stick with Patel at six and use him as the fifth bowler with Bresnan missing out from your side. I would reiterate though that I don't believe there's currently a perfect solution.

INDIA

Sehwag-9
Gambhir-6
Pujara-10
Tendulkar-3
Kohli-5
Yuvraj-7
Dhoni-2
Ashwin-7
Zaheer-5
Yadav-6
Ojha-9

ENGLAND

Cook-10
Compton-4
Trott-3
KP-1
Bell-1
Patel-3
Prior-8
Bresnan-3
Swann-8
Broad-5
Anderson-6

I think they will stick with Patel - I just feel his batting is not good enough so if they do he has to play 7. I cannot see them going into a match with just two seamers - if they do can they take a risk on finn's fitness (or Broad's).

We need Finn though - Swann bowled really well, but Indian batsmen play spin better than pace, and Finn has pace.

CF, very interested to know what your logic could be to rate Broad and Anderson same as Zaheer and Umesh? I think both Zaheer and Umesh comfortably outbowled any of the England seamers. For me Zaheer a 6 and Umesh 7, and Anderson 5 and Broad 4.

LondonTiger wrote:I think they will stick with Patel - I just feel his batting is not good enough so if they do he has to play 7. I cannot see them going into a match with just two seamers - if they do can they take a risk on finn's fitness (or Broad's).

We need Finn though - Swann bowled really well, but Indian batsmen play spin better than pace, and Finn has pace.

I agree with you about pace. If they can't risk Finn's fitness, I wonder if they might risk Meaker's inexperience? Probably not, although his name should be in the mix. I flagged that before the first Test and heard Nasser Hussain say similar on SKY today.

Let me just put my full ratings.
India.
Virender Sehwag 8. Had superbly set up India's first innings with a run a ball ton. Don't be fooled by the scorecard, it was a rather restraint innings from Sehwag, respecting the bowling in the early overs, and then never allowing them to settle down. Took his chances at slip and briefly entertained in the pressureless 2nd innings, although I would have liked him to stay there and finish things off.
Gautam Gambhir 5. Gambhir got a start, Gambhir gave it away. We have seen that too many times over the last couple of years. A good ball from Swann got him but it was not the best of shot selections from Gambhir.
Cheteshwar Pujara 10. I am not usually one for a perfect 10, but Pujara was superb and saw things through in the 2nd innings as well.
Sachin Tendulkar 2. He didn't leave an impact on the match and rightly gets a 2, but I am not so much worried about Sachin, his attitude was refreshingly positive unlike the case during the NZ series and I feel a big one is round the corner.
Virat Kohli 3. Not the best of matches for Kohli, struggled a bit in the first innings and also put down a half chance in England 2nd innings.
Yuvraj Singh 7. A good return to test cricket for Yuvraj. Hope he gives enough importance to his bowling in the nets, he has to keep his place as an all-rounder in my view.
MS Dhoni 3. Failed with the bat and wasn't his best game behind the stumps. but unlike a few here I think his captaincy was pretty good. He kept changing the bowlers and when Cook and Prior got set on a slow track, he didn't let them get away with lots of runs that would have put more pressure on India.
Ravichandran Ashwin 7. Ashwin had a good start to England's first innings, but then found the going a bit tougher. Has to be more consistent with his length, he had the same problem in Australia. Contributed some runs down the order and along with Pujara, saw India through to 500.
Zaheer Khan 6. Zaheer looked good in both innings, reversing the ball sharply in the first innings and getting the first wicket in the England 2nd innings to separate Cook and Compton who had put up a hundred partnership.
Pragyan Ojha 9. Ojha bowled long spells with terrific control, got 9 wickets in the match and was Dhoni's go to bowler.
Umesh Yadav 7. Umesh generated more pace than anyone else in the match, and found a good length to bowl. The stint with Zaheer is helping, he has started reversing the old ball as well. Got important wickets just when the team needed those. Unlike the case in Australia, didn't offer too many hit me balls.

England: Cook 10 Compton 5 Trott 2 KP 2 Bell 2 Patel 3 Prior 8 Bresnan 2 Broad 3 Swann 8 Anderson 5

India: Sehwag 9 Gambhir 7 Pujara 10 Tendulkar 3 Kohli 3 Yuvraj 7 Dhoni 5 Ashwin 7 Zaheer 6 Yadav 7 Ojha 8

England.
Alastair Cook 9. Played one of his best knocks to drag that match to the 5th day. Showed great application in the first innings as well.
Nick Compton 4. Compton did manage to stay out in the middle long, but couldn't build on his 2nd innings start.
Jonathan Trott 2. England need a lot more from Trott. Didn't fier in both innings.
Kevin Pietersen 3. KP has a mental issue against left-arm spin. He was all over the place with the bat in both innings. Bowled ok for a parttimer, and took a brilliant catch as well.
Ian Bell 2. Played an awful shot in the first innings and didn't last too long 2nd time round.
Samit Patel 3. Patel was unlucky with the bat. Bowled ok for a 5th bowler, but not one to be a regular attacking bowling option.
Matt Prior 7. Batted really well in both innings, but missed out on a couple of chances with the gloves.
Tim Bresnan 2. Was way below average with the ball and it is not unfair to say Patel and even Pietersen outbowled him. Was unfortunate that when he got it right the fielders didn't back him up. Showed a bit of application with the bat though.
Stuart Broad 3. Bowled a good spell up front and played a few shots with the bat, but overall, Broad had a pretty average match.
Graeme Swann 8. Swanny was excellent, even troubling the best players of spin regularly. Not even Shane Warne managed that. Was disappointed with the shot he played to get out in the 2nd innings, he's better than that.
James Anderson 5. After taking an early pasting from the Indian openers Anderson came back well to provide a bit of control to his captain and a bit of support to Swann.

Shelsey thought about a 10 or at least a 9.5 for Cook, but then I thought his captaincy, particularly the field setting wasn't attacking enough at times, particularly at the start of play on the 2nd day, letting Pujara get to his hundred with no fielding pressure whatsoever. Besides, he dropped a chance as well.

Surely Cook needs to be docked a couple of points minimum for the ludicrous decision to only go with one full time and a couple of very part time spinners (if Pietersen can be called such).

Broad was a complete wast of time and ditto with Bresnan. OK the pitch didn't help but at least one of them was almost one too many.

My team for second test and my reasons:

1. Cook
2. Compton
3. Trott
4. KP
5. Bairstow - Was superb vs SA when called upon, deserves to be next in line.
6. Morgan - Purely because I still believe he is one of the best players of spin we have in the team.
7. Prior
8. Swann
9. Anderson
10. Finn - Desperately need his extra pace on slow pitches and his record in the sub continent in India/Sri Lianka/Pakistan is a very good one.
11. Panesar - Need an out and out front line spinner to partner Swann. Played well in Pakistan and despite the stats saying we haven't won a game with both Swann AND Panesar, the reasons we lost in Pakistan and the 1st test vs Sri Lanks was due to terrible batting in 1st innings.

Liam wrote:My team for second test and my reasons:

1. Cook
2. Compton
3. Trott
4. KP
5. Bairstow - Was superb vs SA when called upon, deserves to be next in line.
6. Morgan - Purely because I still believe he is one of the best players of spin we have in the team.
7. Prior
8. Swann
9. Anderson
10. Finn - Desperately need his extra pace on slow pitches and his record in the sub continent in India/Sri Lianka/Pakistan is a very good one.
11. Panesar - Need an out and out front line spinner to partner Swann. Played well in Pakistan and despite the stats saying we haven't won a game with both Swann AND Panesar, the reasons we lost in Pakistan and the 1st test vs Sri Lanks was due to terrible batting in 1st innings.

Bairstow may have been superb V SA but I can tell you now that he isn't very good when it comes to playing against spin bowling on a slow turning pitch. And the same equally applies to Morgan who was all over the place V Pakistan in the UAE at the start of the year.

Cook
Compton
Trott
Pietersen
Bairstow
Morgan
Prior
Swann
Anderson
Finn
Panaser

there is little consensus between either posters or ex-criketers on what the team should be...
shows what a chaotic situation England has landed into. Some want to hold your breath....retain Bresnan....otehrs are still not 100% that Monty should be in....an David Llyod wants to drop Trott
Chaos, Panic and if they don't get a grip quickly....a complete break-down.


India lost T1 i Lords in the final session and with some luck of DRS could have saved it..........from there they progressively worsened.
The tour can very quickly go downhill from here for England.

Agnew and Boycott make a good point that Bell should have not played the first test......by doing so he is forcing a guy sitting on the bench for 15 odd days..to come in from the cold and play test-2....

the management shuld have asked Bell to skip T1 and T2 for the sake of consistency and continutity.

there is too much softness and loyalty based picks in English camps...whihc is good when the going is good.....but when it gets tough....vice captains forget dignity and rage twitter battles

KP_fan wrote:there is little consensus between either posters or ex-criketers on what the team should be...
shows what a chaotic situation England has landed into

Agnew and Boycott make a good point that Bell should have not played the first test......by doing so he is forcing a guy sitting on the bench for 15 odd days..to come in from the cold and play test-2....

the management shuld have asked Bell to skip T1 and T2 for the sake of consistency and continutity.

there is too much softness and loyalty based picks in English camp

Regardless of any issue about loyalty and softness from the team management in picking their favourite players, I believe that Ian Bell shouldn't have been touring India in the first place as his batting against quality spin bowling on slow turning pitches just isn't adequate and good enough (What was it Geoff Boycott said on TMS about Ian Bell's batting in one of the test matches played by England this year? Something along the lines of :- "He has more chance of picking his nose than he does the wrong-un/doosra" ).

Its not so much disary as the imposibility of trying to strengthen the batting and the bowling at the same time, especially with a senior player taking a break. (Ok the unkind would suggest Panessar is a better batsman than Patel...) Its not like theyve left out nayone that truely demands a place to have Bell in.
For "cosisntency" they couldve had to have left bell out of all 3, which would be ridiculous given they were facing blooding at leats two inexpereinced batsmen anyway.

As for loyalty /reputation selections...please remind me of Tendulkars test batting returns over the 18 months....

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its not so much disary as the imposibility of trying to strengthen the batting and the bowling at the same time, especially with a senior player taking a break. (Ok the unkind would suggest Panessar is a better batsman than Patel...) Its not like theyve left out nayone that truely demands a place to have Bell in.
For "cosisntency" they couldve had to have left bell out of all 3, which would be ridiculous given they were facing blooding at leats two inexpereinced batsmen anyway.

As for loyalty /reputation selections...please remind me of Tendulkars test batting returns over the 18 months....

But Tendulkar has earnt the right to remain in the team as he has produced the goods for India over 2 decades now and also more importantly India with a very strong batting lineup can afford to carry him when he isn't scoring as heavily as he did in the past. In contrast England have a less poweful and more of a fragile batting lineup which just cannot to carry anyone as passengers, hence which is why Ian Bell shouldn't have been considered for the India tour as his game just doesn't match up well against quality spin bowling on subcontinental slow wickets.

Tendulkar's returns anyways hasn't been as poor as those of Bell. Tendulkar wasn't at his best, nevertheless he was India's 2nd best batsman in both England and Australia. He scored a few 50s in both England and Australia and scored 2 scores in the 90, one against England and the other against the West Indies.

msp83 wrote:Tendulkar's returns anyways hasn't been as poor as those of Bell. Tendulkar wasn't at his best, nevertheless he was India's 2nd best batsman in both England and Australia.

That's not saying much

Stella wrote:

msp83 wrote:Tendulkar's returns anyways hasn't been as poor as those of Bell. Tendulkar wasn't at his best, nevertheless he was India's 2nd best batsman in both England and Australia.

That's not saying much

Tendulkar knows how to play menacing spin bowlers with unorthodox styles such as Ajantha Mendis, unlike Ian Bell who is a total no-hoper against ordinary spin bowlers of above average ability.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

As for loyalty /reputation selections...please remind me of Tendulkars test batting returns over the 18 months....

Two wrongs don't make a right

msp83 wrote:Tendulkar's returns anyways hasn't been as poor as those of Bell. Tendulkar wasn't at his best, nevertheless he was India's 2nd best batsman in both England and Australia. He scored a few 50s in both England and Australia and scored 2 scores in the 90, one against England and the other against the West Indies.

well msp he should have retired IMO.

champions are judged relative to THEIR peak and not the floating mediocrity around him.

and now Kohli and Pujara are proving that if they were played earlier in Eng and Aus...maybe they would have delivered more than the oldies VVSL, SRT Drravid etal.

If Rahane and Tiwari are given a break...they might not average 55....but certainly can be around 45ish

To me SRT should have retired...but if he can't delivers a booming series averaging 60+...then he must hang his boots

Dravid?

He was magnificent.

Stella wrote:Dravid?

He was magnificent.

and he went out just at the right time

KPF, while I understand your point re Tendulkar, I think he has it in him to go on for a bit more. I was not happy with his approach in the NZ series, but here that positivity that made his mid- 30s romolding in Australia 4 years ago was back. In one of these test matches, England are really going to suffer at his hands, I am fairly sure of that.

KP_fan wrote:

Stella wrote:Dravid?

He was magnificent.

and he went out just at the right time

Yes, after he pundered all you runs in England. I doubt any youngster could have done what he did.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Tendulkar's returns anyways hasn't been as poor as those of Bell. Tendulkar wasn't at his best, nevertheless he was India's 2nd best batsman in both England and Australia. He scored a few 50s in both England and Australia and scored 2 scores in the 90, one against England and the other against the West Indies.

well msp he should have retired IMO.

champions are judged relative to THEIR peak and not the floating mediocrity around him.

and now Kohli and Pujara are proving that if they were played earlier in Eng and Aus...maybe they would have delivered more than the oldies VVSL, SRT Drravid etal.

If Rahane and Tiwari are given a break...they might not average 55....but certainly can be around 45ish

To me SRT should have retired...but if he can't delivers a booming series averaging 60+...then he must hang his boots

I doubt that Kohli and Pujara would have made much of a difference in Australia, as the Aussies have a host of very fast bowlers of serious pace (Cummins, Pattinson, Starc) who would have troubled both Kohli and Pujara on the fast bouncy wickets like that at the WACA in Perth.

From Time Immemorial I have seen English teams carry a 5th seam bowling mediocre allrounder....to the subcontinet....to bowl about 15 overs .....averages about 40 with the ball and can deliver 30+ with the bat

it was Chris Cowdrey in 1984, Chris Lewis on 92 tour..he even cracked a hundred on a spinning pitch in a 3-0 whitewash, Chris (or Craig ) White in Hussian's team, Flintoff a proper allrounder thereafter.......

Bresnan or Braod or Woakes or even Luke Wright might be able to fill that 5th bowler cum averaging 30 with the bat....allowing England to play 2 spinners.

BUT therein lies Flower's problem.....he is trying to sneak in this mediocre allrounder as one of the specialist 4 bowlers.....and sometimes 2 out of 4 bowlers...

it's not cleverness but delusion

gboycottnut wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Tendulkar's returns anyways hasn't been as poor as those of Bell. Tendulkar wasn't at his best, nevertheless he was India's 2nd best batsman in both England and Australia. He scored a few 50s in both England and Australia and scored 2 scores in the 90, one against England and the other against the West Indies.

well msp he should have retired IMO.

champions are judged relative to THEIR peak and not the floating mediocrity around him.

and now Kohli and Pujara are proving that if they were played earlier in Eng and Aus...maybe they would have delivered more than the oldies VVSL, SRT Drravid etal.

If Rahane and Tiwari are given a break...they might not average 55....but certainly can be around 45ish

To me SRT should have retired...but if he can't delivers a booming series averaging 60+...then he must hang his boots

I doubt that Kohli and Pujara would have made much of a difference in Australia, as the Aussies have a host of very fast bowlers of serious pace (Cummins, Pattinson, Starc) who would have troubled both Kohli and Pujara on the fast bouncy wickets like that at the WACA in Perth.

It's precisley this lack of confidence in current crop...that Indian selectors were bugged by and thereby prolonged the entry of the next generation.


Kohli pased the test in Aus with a 100
there is no way of knowing whether Pujara, Rhane etal will make the cut...other than biting the bullet and throwing them in timely instead of too late

Too late? They're young men yet to pass 25. There's plenty of time.

Fists, things work a bit differently here. Not many get considered after the age of 27. From Memory, Sehwag debuted in tests at 23, Gambhir at 22, Pujara at 23, Tendulkar well at 16, Kohli at 22, Yuvraj at 21, Dhoni at 23, Ashwin at 24, Zaheer at 22, Ojha at 22 and Yadav at 23.

Fists of Fury wrote:Too late? They're young men yet to pass 25. There's plenty of time.

we in the subcontinent have a desire to find teen prodigies........pluck them really young......and let them rule for decades so that they can demolish world records.......Inzy, Wasim, Afridi, Hassan Raza( aged 14), Sami, aaqib javed, Waqar, akmal brother and many otehrs that Imran plucked out.....in their teens,
and aspiring to be like our mercurial neighbours we had Siva, Tendulkar,Shastri, Irfan Pathan as teen successes......but in Sodhi, Kaif, Dooda ganesh, Razdan failuers also..........Azhar, Dravid, Ganguly, VVSL, Gambhir, Gavsakar came in aged 21-23 and they were considered about the right age.

do't be surprised if Harmeet, Unmukt or Baba Aparatijth...stars of u-19 world cup are palying by next season

past 25 is begining to go down the hill...becuase it doesn't leave enough time to break world records.

So English culture in terms of throwing teenaged prodigies into the international rink is diffrent....they let them mature and overcook..... I dunno if they ever plucked a 18 year old from junior cricket and thrown him in internationals ?

I also see there is almost a unaanimous approval here and amongst english critics that it's too early for Meaker to be playing tests.

If Ganguly or Imran had a 90mph resource like Meaker...they would have thrown him in by now

Finn is ruled out of the 2nd test.

http://www1.skysports.com/cricket/news/12173/8262292/Steven-Finn-ruled-out-of-second-Test-with-India-because-of-injury

Indians would be happy.....

some people might say The Eng management would also be happy and breathing easier at a selction conundrum having been eased

KP_fan wrote:Finn is ruled out of the 2nd test.

http://www1.skysports.com/cricket/news/12173/8262292/Steven-Finn-ruled-out-of-second-Test-with-India-because-of-injury

Indians would be happy.....

some people might say The Eng management would also be happy and breathing easier at a selction conundrum having been eased

Let the conspiracy theories begin

India:

Gambhir - 4
Sehwag - 7
Pujara - 10
Tendulkar - 2
Kohli - 2
Y Singh - 5
Dhoni - 2
Ashwin - 5
Khan - 5
Ojha - 8
Yadav - 6

England:

Cook - 8
Compton - 3
Trott - 1
KP - 1
Bell - 1
Patel - 1
Prior - 6
Bresnan - 1
Broad - 2
Swann - 6
Anderson - 4
[/quote]

Sorry to say but it was pathetic performance by England, if not for the 2nd innings most of the players might have got negative points on my list.