England vs SA ratings

First topic message reminder :

In the absence of CF (who would no doubt have Hales as the man of the series!), I will have a crack at these. As I view matches from an England perspective, someone else can have a go at the SA ratings:

Cook 5 - Very poor series with the bat but lead well with some shrewd bowling changes
Hales 2 - One score of 60 then not much else. Actually looked worse than Adam Lyth!
Compton 6 - Good start to the series with a hugely important performance in the First Test but faded badly after that
Root 8 - Match-shaping hundred in the Third Test rescued England from a position of peril. It was probably his best Test innings to date. Got out when looking well set at other times
Taylor 5 - Similar to Compton, played well in the First Test but then faded. Did take some stunning catches though
Stokes 9 - Man of the Series. Amazing knock in the Second Test that should not be denigrated because it was a flat pitch. Vital 50 in the Third Test and took key wickets
Bairstow 7 - Excellent with the bat, an 8 or 9, but poor keeping at times means I can't give him that as a mark
Ali 6 - Very good in the First Test, was generally poor with the bat though and quiet with the ball after that
Broad 9 - Bowled one match-winning spell and was always dangerous. Very consistent performer who was unlucky not to get more wickets
Finn 8 - Always threatening without quite getting the wickets some of his bowling deserved
Anderson 5 - Looked short of fitness and wasted the new ball at times. One decent spell when already miles behind in the Fourth Test was too little too late
Woakes 2 - Looked about as threatening with the ball as Boycott's mum and was not great with the bat either

I think those are fair comments about Morkel. He was quite disappointing really and didn't step up to lead the attack at all. Like a lot of SA's batting, he was MIA when it really mattered and ended the series being completely overshadowed by an (admittedly outstanding looking) 20 year old

Kallis average 32 with the ball over nearly 300 wickets, its madness to not consider him an all rounder

This thread has produced some interesting discussion...not just about ratings.

As guildford flagged my allergy to numerical ratings I feel I should comment : I certainly don't want to spoil anyones fun - my objection (which is perhaps more to individual Tests , agreed) is that it is fiendishly difficult to allot ratings in a fair , consistent and all-encompassing way.
Consider : Cook is rightly given an 8 ; but he only played one match. Is his 8 the equal of the 8 equally rightly awarded to Root ? Should Amla , who batted magnificently as the series went on , be marked down at all because his captaincy over the first couple of matches was a bit wanting in the opinion of most ? And is it at all fair for guildford to give poor Bairstow the same mark as Taylor because of wicket keeping errors when his batting alone would have arguably seen him 8 or 9 ? Does De Kock's century score full marks for him when he also shelled a couple of chances behind the stumps ? Etc , etc...
I can't answer those questions , so I take ratings with a pinch of salt ; but hey , it is a bit of fun , no harm done. And as I said , it stimulates discussion

My own preferred way of looking at a series is to consider which players enhanced their reputations , which fell back and which maintained status quo. After a refreshment break I'll have a go at that...

Harking back to the first few posts I should comment that I found KP-fan's series summary to be both succinct and insightful : he and I often don't see eye to eye but I salute that particular post
One point of argument though , if I may :  cannot endorse the idea of Compton moving to open with Cook and Ballance taking over at three.  All good players in their way and both Compton and Ballance will be in contention for places ; but that particular combination risks England reaching tea around 115/1 ... I think one free scoring batsman needs to be included in the top three - which is why I think Hales should be given a couple more chances ; though I have to agree his prospects of succeeding at the five day game seem dimmer than before this series...

Which puts Hales in my first bag : those who went backwards.  Also must include Woakes (sorry Olly) who was a little unfortunate to have to cool his heels for a few weeks between chances : he was serviceable in game one  , but frankly poor in Centurion. As I say , I cut him some slack because of being in and out of the team through no fault of his own ; but still a missed opportunity.
Reluctantly I'd include Taylor in this . He started well : I was very effusive about his prospects early on ; but he rather fell in a hole as the matches went on (except for his catching). Also got out rather badly once or twice ; not going to call for his head , just disappointed he didn't kick on.
Compton probably a similar case ; great start , faded. Couple of damn silly dismissals - unlucky in the last game.  Arguably better in my next category : Those Who Marked Time.

Cook the captain did pretty well I thought : his leadership has been developing for a while and he was generally on top of things here.  However his batting slipped - not that I'm worried. He was due a few quiet games after his fine batting in UAE.  Same goes for Anderson - quiet series after a late start due to injury. Economical ; but not threatening until the last innings...again , he is allowed a few down days.
Moeen bowled very effectively to help England win at Durban.  Less so thereafter - and his batting was not spectacularly successful , though he finished the series better, unlike most. Still won't have everyone embracing him but I think he held his position.

And the Winners :  Well obviously Stokes : went in with people still asking questions about him - not any more !   Root was already the form bat - he emphasised that status against good pace bowling (with the caveat that he got out unnecessarily once or twice with the bowling seemingly at his mercy - was his back problem causing him to lose concentration? He needs perhaps a dose of Steve Smith's hunger for big hundreds whenever he gets set)
Broad - the star bowler.  Showed again how devastating he can be when he gets on a roll ... and pretty sound the rest of the time too.   And Finn ; who only just made the start of the tour , but went on to be a potent attack force , that England seriously missed in the final match.  Only problem with him is his rather regular fitness issues...

And that brings me to the hardest to categorise : Bairstow.   Certainly belongs with the big enhanced reputation crew , just for his batting  - which was Gilchrist-ian ; or Sangakarr-ic , if you like  

But his keeping still divides opinion. Not good enough - work in progress - bloody awful .... depends who you ask. For what its worth I think he is improving , even if the number of chances missed remains unacceptedly high for a Test glovemen . He caught a lot as well as missing a few , and his other work was pretty good - gathering returns , revving up the troops - and there weren't many byes that I recall. Think he will be given time : and he will have to work very hard to bring it up to par ; but it is a measure of his success that people are talking about him either being the keeper or resuming the number five spot as of right...so overall a big plus.

Tired now . Will look at SA tomorrow.

Oh and I will have a look at the allrounder question then too.

For now : Of course a spinner can be an allrounder. Arguably hasn't been one as good as the other recent stars who bowled pace ; but plenty of examples a rung or two down.

And anyone who reckons Sobers was only a fifth or sixth bowler never saw him . But youth is not a sin

Can't get Compton. He doesn't get going ever and unlike the great stoic bats of the past the past he isn't against the odd flash. The rub of this is that he's not actually going anywhere and yet at the sane time, you know he'll offer you a chance

The conversion rate of 50's into 100's isn't good enough and was emphasised in this series by Root, he passed 20 in each significant innings but only converted one of his 50's into a century without making a really big score. It keeps his average up but are these actual match winning contributions, as a comparison;

Root- 9 from 28
Smith- 14 from 27
Williamson- 13 from 31
Warner- 16 from 36
Amla- 25 from 54
Khan- 31 from 61

Bairstow has to improve with the gloves, or face being a batsman only, which brings more pressure. Scoring runs as a keeper is one thing.
Opening with Compton, and promoting Root is an option, though I don't really want to see young Joe messed around with again.

alfie wrote:This thread has produced some interesting discussion...not just about ratings.

As guildford flagged my allergy to numerical ratings I feel I should comment : I certainly don't want to spoil anyones fun - my objection (which is perhaps more to individual Tests , agreed) is that it is fiendishly difficult to allot ratings in a fair , consistent and all-encompassing way.
Consider :  Cook is rightly given an 8 ; but he only played one match.  Is his 8 the equal of the 8 equally rightly awarded to Root ?   Should Amla , who batted magnificently as the series went on , be marked down at all because his captaincy over the first couple of matches was a bit wanting in the opinion of most ? And is it at all fair for guildford to give poor Bairstow the same mark as Taylor because of wicket keeping errors when his batting alone would have arguably seen him 8 or 9 ? Does De Kock's century score full marks for him when he also shelled a couple of chances behind the stumps ?  Etc , etc...
I can't answer those questions , so I take ratings with a pinch of salt ; but hey , it is a bit of fun , no harm done.  And as I said , it stimulates discussion  

My own preferred way of looking at a series is to consider which players enhanced their reputations , which fell back and which maintained status quo.  After a refreshment break I'll have a go at that...

Alfie - all good points. Never ever intended by me that your allergy was to do with fun spoiling!

I did actually up Bairstow to a 6 in a later post so he ended 1 above Taylor and, reflecting a comment from VTR, 2 more than Hales and Woakes. All tricky stuff though as I acknowledged earlier.

Do think a 6 for Bairstow is about right. 8 or 9 for his batting and then averaging that out with a 3 or 4 for his keeping. When Bairstow's series contribution for the series was being discussed on Sky the other night, Willis said, ''Before you talk about the runs he scored, make sure you take off the runs he gave away in dropped catches - about 200, I reckon!''. Now, as I've said before, Willis does play up for the cameras and makes even me seem eternally cheery! However, I can appreciate where he was coming from.

My own view on the significance of ratings and, yes, you do need a series (not a single Test) for them to really apply at all is:
* 4 or under - the player is in trouble and his place either now or soon (unless things change) will have to be seriously questioned;
* 5 or 6 - the player just about merits his place but he's certainly not undroppable if someone else mounts a strong challenge; and
* 7 or above - the player is doing as well or better than expected and so his place is safe.

Thus, for me, Bairstow as batsman-keeper is not undroppable. However, someone else will need to mount a strong challenge for that role and even if someone does that successfully, it doesn't automatically mean Bairstow will be dropped from the team. There are several pure batsmen who might make way for him. Believe that's fair and right - and probably suggests more thought was given than was actually the case!!

Is it totally sacrilegious to suggest that Bairstow should be in the team purely as a batsman, given that he topped the averages (albeit w/3 n.o.'s) and scored significantly more runs than all but Root and Stokes?
If he was mincing around in the outfield with average competence, instead of behind the stumps where he seems destined never to be a totally intuitive keeper, his contribution (and rating!) might well be greater. It wouldn't necessarily solve the problem at the top of the order, but runs is runs. At a decent clip, too.

Stella wrote:Bairstow has to improve with the gloves, or face being a batsman only, which brings more pressure. Scoring runs as a keeper is one thing.
Opening with Compton, and promoting Root is an option, though I don't really want to see young Joe messed around with again.

Writing in today's City AM (surprisingly half-decent cricket coverage for a freebie paper), Chris Tremlett suggested dropping Hales, pushing Compton up the order to open with Cook and bringing in Ballance at 3. Tremlett acknowledged the slow pace that this trio would be likely to set but saw no problem with being 20/0 off 10 or even 15 overs and having Stokes to come in later to up the rate.

Hmmm. Didn't like Tremlett too much when he was in the sick bay at the Oval and feel little different now he's in print. Sure, 20/0 off 10 or 15 is ok but I would be worried about that becoming 40/2 off 26 at lunch. Also, good as Stokes is, we shouldn't be relying on him to be an eternal saviour.

Unless someone else* shows really good form with the bat in the opening weeks of the season, I would be inclined to leave as is and review after the first of the summer Tests. I'm far from sold on Hales but feel he deserves at least one Test in English conditions.

* Vince is already starting to be mentioned in parts of the media whilst Bell appears to have improved for being dropped!

I suppose why people mention Bell is he is clearly a class above Hales and Compton with his technique and range of shots.

He obviously deserved to be dropped, as the Ian Bell of the last 2 years is approaching Ramprakash levels for wasted talent. But might Ian Bell on an absolute final chance show more hunger for runs?

I just can't see the point in putting Bell back in. If you're looking at it in terms of Ashes cycles, which I know is not what everything is about - but are the milestones along the road - he's going to be touching 36 in the heat and hostility of Australia. Is he really going to be as up for it as someone with something still to prove and who's had a fair bit of time to bed in?

The worst would be either England or Bell himself realising that too late in 2017 and having to throw a lamb into the slaughter instead. Could have quite a destabilising effect.

You put someone of that age in as a short term fix in my opinion. And coming off the back of a series win in South Africa, England don't need a short term fix - or need to take the risk that Bell would even be one! England should be building towards the long term.
It would send out the wrong message. To the media, to the opposition and to the county players.

You pick the best players for any given test series in my opinion, Bell whilst not at his imperious best is probably still a better option than Compton both short term and long term whilst Hales simply isn't up to it. I don't see how it sends out the wrong message to the opposition anyway after Rogers had a perfectly fine test career nor does the media actually matter.

Were there any players putting forward a solid case for selection and performing when selected then by all means pick them but don't overlook somebody because they're a bit older.

I don't think he would necessarily be a better option than Compton. I just don't believe the hunger would be there. It's incomparable to Rogers who was only beginning his test career at that age - so plenty to prove.

I'm not being condescending and suggesting a 34-36 year old doesn't have the ability, concentration or stamina etc. They do lack longevity though. And if they've had an illustrious career like Bell has, then almost certainly drive too.

That's all a bit of a generalisation and doesn't offer anything specific to Bell who is certainly a more capable batsmen than Compton even at this stage.

Gooch got better with age, as did Sanga or at least was as good, whilst some players lose reflexes, drive, or whatever. If Bell scores some runs in the county championship then he should be considered.

Compton is like a year older than Bell.

Stella wrote:Gooch got better with age, as did Sanga or at least was as good, whilst some players lose reflexes, drive, or whatever. If Bell scores some runs in the county championship then he should be considered.

Agree Stella - he shouldn't be discounted absolutely. Especially if he's scoring runs. But I just think, at test level, hasn't Bell already proven he isn't one of those that gets better with age? Wasn't he given enough time to prove that? I certainly think he was given a fair crack at getting back amongst the runs.

Kingraf - Compton is only a year younger. I hadn't quite appreciated he was that old - must be his youthful looks. But my comparison between a 32 year old who hasn't yet had a substantial test career and a 33 year old who's done it all already still stands.

Strings Philander wrote:

Stella wrote:Gooch got better with age, as did Sanga or at least was as good, whilst some players lose reflexes, drive, or whatever. If Bell scores some runs in the county championship then he should be considered.

Agree Stella - he shouldn't be discounted absolutely. Especially if he's scoring runs. But I just think, at test level, hasn't Bell already proven he isn't one of those that gets better with age? Wasn't he given enough time to prove that? I certainly think he was given a fair crack at getting back amongst the runs.

Kingraf - Compton is only a year younger. I hadn't quite appreciated he was that old - must be his youthful looks. But my comparison between a 32 year old who hasn't yet had a substantial test career and a 33 year old who's done it all already still stands.

Well so far the signs haven't been great, and he will be 34 in April, so it will be last chance saloon time if he does come back into the fold. Vince and Ballance are two might be ahead of him though? Hopefully Hales, Taylor, and Compton will score enough runs to keep their place if they're still in the side.

Strings Philander wrote:

Stella wrote:Gooch got better with age, as did Sanga or at least was as good, whilst some players lose reflexes, drive, or whatever. If Bell scores some runs in the county championship then he should be considered.

Agree Stella - he shouldn't be discounted absolutely. Especially if he's scoring runs. But I just think, at test level, hasn't Bell already proven he isn't one of those that gets better with age? Wasn't he given enough time to prove that? I certainly think he was given a fair crack at getting back amongst the runs.

Kingraf - Compton is only a year younger. I hadn't quite appreciated he was that old - must be his youthful looks. But my comparison between a 32 year old who hasn't yet had a substantial test career and a 33 year old who's done it all already still stands.

Your comparison seems to not account for the fact that the 32-year old just isn't very good. He has the exact same problem Bell has (wafting unnecessarily) without the upside of potentially scoring big

this CI article confirms what I intuitively thought was the case Re. Stokes all round brilliance

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/966415.html

For the first time since Ian Botham in India in 1981-82, a player scored 350-plus runs and took 12 or more wickets in an overseas Test series

In the last 40 years, there are only six instances of a player scoring 350-plus runs and taking 12-plus wickets in a Test series

I don't want to diminish Stokes series in the slightest but the majority of his runs were scored in one innings with only one other noteworthy batting contribution, it's actually his bowling which impressed me more.

Said I'd have a go at SA so here goes...

Van Zyl had a horror run ... couldn't buy a run , justly dropped. But raf rates him so I'm not ruling out the possibility he might return to the middle order. Clearly not a opener.
Du Plessis the big disappointment ..started as a big hope and failed regularly, except for some runs on the Cape Town road. Too good to discard absolutely but he has work to do.
Duminy... once a good prospect ; now looks a fading light . Useful bit player but I think he will struggle to add to his caps.
Viljoen. Nice buildup. Looked short of Test class.
Vilas . Actually kept well but batting was ordinary - he had a few mates , to be fair. Maybe harshly dropped ?

AB had a modest series with the bat - even when he scored runs he didn't look totally in control ; and finished with a bad run of ducks. At least he got rid of the gloves - though he has inherited the Curse of Captaincy. Not bothered = he will be back with the bat.
Morkel - a mixed bag . Some say he failed to step up and lead the attack in the absence of Steyn. He did have some anodyne spells ; but he also produced some great balls to grab key wickets , not least in the first innings at Centurion to get Cook. Threatened place ? Maybe. I think SA need him for menace.
Elgar - started with 100 , and played some good innings thereafter without really firing ; but I think he has nailed one opening spot. Handy for a few overs too...
Amla : well at the end he scored really well so it seems strange to categorise him as "marking time' ; but we already knew he could bat. And he failed once or twice when the pressure was really on...Will be glad to be shot of the captaincy. Remains a great number three but didn't really grow over the series.
Morris - useful allround effort but didn't bowl well enough to really grab his chance. Squad player going forward.
Abbott - similar. Tidy but not particularly threatening.

Brings us to the Winners:

Radaba - terrific pace bowling effort. Will always go for a few but who cares if he grabs wickets (good wickets ) like that ? Don't bowl him into the ground , eh ? A potential star.
Piedt _ may surprise some but I reckon he went up the chain...won't wreck too many sides but he was steady ; and took some useful wickets when conditions were favourable. There will be times when SA may prefer Tahir ; but I think he did a good job of the control option when the quicks needed a spell. A place in this team , I think.
Bavuma : couple of really good solid innings showed a lot of potential...some really lovely strokes : could be very good. Caveat : the big innings weren't under much pressure : need to see him do it in real pressure situations first ; but a genuine prospect.

Steyn I didn't rate as he only played half a game.

Hope I didn't miss anyone ?

Now to the allrounders.

First I can't agree with KP_fan that an all rounder needs to be a fast bowler. Benaud et al make this a nonsense ...

Second there are all rounders and all rounders. Some are indeed "pickable - at different parts of their careers - as bat or bowler." But most are chosen because they do both things quite well - aye , and some do end up in the "bits and pieces" bucket ...but I think a Matthews , or an Illingworth , to take just two , deserve to be at least acknowledged for what they were , even if they failed to scale the heights of the Imran/Botham etc : plenty of fairly modest batsmen are at least talked about with the true great players , and I think even the "ordinary" all rounders should be commended for what they did in a pretty tough job...

And , PS : Sobers was the best

Alfie you missed out on Quinton de Kock....... And you mentioned van Zyl and like the rather hopeless South African selectors, forgot Stephen Cook!

msp83 wrote:Alfie you missed out on Quinton de Kock....... And you mentioned van Zyl and like the rather hopeless South African selectors, forgot Stephen Cook!

Ah now...I realized I'd forgotten De Kock just before going to sleep...my apologies to him (it was late) - but thank you for reminding me about the excellent Cook...

Reckon de Kock just stayed steady : good runs at the end , but against a rather softened up attack ; and I didn't think his keeping was anything outstanding. He will keep his place for now.

Cook of course was another success : as you say , msp , rather ignored until too late but showed SA what they'd been missing when belatedly selected. Looks a proper opener.

If Bell scores a mountain of county runs in 2016 then he could well get back in as there are places to be had. Nor, IMHO, would it be a backward step. Compton, to me, is not Test class. Hales doesn't look as if he's going to make it. Taylor, perhaps, should be persevered with.