CB Series Marks out of Ten

[feverpitch]

(Sorry for posting links - it's a lot easier than pasting two pieces into here, and, together, they are very long so might clog things up a bit)

Anyway, these are marks out of ten for the Englishmen in the CB Series, together with comments on each player.

Batsmen: http://third-umpire.blogspot.com/200...tore-some.html

Bowlers: http://third-umpire.blogspot.com/200...his-worth.html

Particularly interested in what you make of my thoughts on Loye:

Mal Loye 6
Fans called desperately for his selection, thinking his idiosyncratic style would make an instant impact. He was certainly not overawed, and his slog sweep certainly got people excited; but he too often got out to rash shots outside off-stump, particularly against the left-armers. After a terrible decision in the first final, Loye played with more selectivity in the second, without overly diminishing his flair. But a mix-up ended his innings on 45, leaving his World Cup still up in air. Yet he is deserving of a place – on the short boundaries in the Caribbean, his characteristic shot could wreak havoc. If he doesn’t, who else can satisfactorily exploit the Powerplays?

[Rachael]

I'm rather surprised by quite a few of your ratings.

If Collingwood is excused a slow start to the series and emerges with a 9 then Ian Bell deserves an 8: he had the same slow start... but throughout the second half of the qualifying competition his performances were exceptional (characterised by excellent running between the wickets, most especially with Collingwood) and in four of his last six innings he racked up 182 runs at 45.5 whilst sustaining an exemplary strike rate of 81.6. He also lost little to Collingwood in his fielding.

I could see a case for dropping Collingwood to 8 and Bell to 7... but there really ought to be no more than one point between them... and Joyce should only be one further point back.

Mal Loye is the first real oddity of your scoring: I'd rate him somewhere around 2. He was exposed as a one trick pony, with lousy technique (especially on the off side), a criminal inability to rotate the strike, atrocious running between the wickets (that inhibited the run-scoring efforts of his partners) and dire fielding.

Nixon should fare slightly better at 3: his glovework was a disgrace and his batting was not a lot better: flattered by a single knock that was perhaps the least convincing major knock of any player at any time in the series.

Strauss should come in at 5: well above the above pair, redeemed by his massively improved once he moved to the middle order and enhanced by some excellent slip fielding.

Vaughan surely gets the highest marks of the lot though: at least 8.5. It's a disgrace that he didn't get man of the match for the most outstanding bit of ODI captaincy in the final qualifying game... and it's fair to say that without his input... England would never have even got close to playing in the finals.

[feverpitch]

Bell only averaged 29. And, while praising his "excellent running between the wickets" you ignore the run-outs he was involved with.

Loye's attitude and willingness to take the attack to Australia was impressive. He actually averaged more than Strauss, and at a much better strike rate. His last innings suggested he was learning the right balance at international level; had he scored another 20, few could ignore his claim. Strauss, in contrast, was pretty wretched throughout, even allowing for a two innings rejuvination in the middle order.

Incidentally, here are the BBC Sport ratings - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A19781283
Bell gets a 5, and Collingwood 9

[Rachael]

Nothing flatters a player quite so much as focussing on their very best innings... so let's flatter Loye by looking at his final innings of the tour, where he reached 45. Let's look at his player-vs-player return:

v Bowler	0s	1s	2s	3s	4s	5s	6s	7+	Runs	Balls	SR
B Lee		20	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	10	22	45.45
NW Bracken	10	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	9	13	69.23
GD McGrath	11	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	13	15	86.66
SR Watson	9	1	0	0	3	0	0	0	13	11	118.18

Now let's takle a look: yes, 11 scoring shots out of 61 faced. Yes, 5 dot balls in every over. The guy was supposed to be batting like Gilchrist or Jayasuria, taking advantage of the powerplay... and he simply couldn't do it.

Part of the problem was being too ambitous: looking to slog.. he ended up playing a "very loose and unconvincing swish", "a heave/sweep", "a really loose drive", a "smear", a "slap" and so on. He also defends too firmly... so when he should have created a single to the ring fielder the ball always travelled too quickly. The three singles and two twos he did manage included a mis-timed pull and even worse slog sweep - he just hadn't the class to find the gaps.

To compound matters... the guy is hopeless at running... so even when singles were on he was turning them down: Bell was almost run out when Loye turned down one straightforward single... and Chappell was scathing in the commentary box as Loye repeatedly thwarted Bell's efforts to rotate the strike.

Bell managed just 5 singles whilst batting with Loye: that was off 27 balls. He managed 6 off 15 balls with Collingwood the other end. He added 7 run-runs with Loye at a strike rate of 26. With Collingwood he added 15 run-runs off 15 balls at a strike rate of 100.

The eventual run-out of Loye came as a blessing.

[pie_chucker]

There is a risk with someone like Loye that he may end up "slogging maidens", but we need someone explosive to open the batting as if he comes off every now and again he may get a hundred of 60 balls (especially in the small grounds in the windies). Quite often Gilchrist fails and he only averages 35, but when he gets in he usually wins the game for his team.

Rachael, I know you are singing Bells praises but at the moment he's vulnerable early on (more so than other players) and he cant convert his starts into scores, 30-60's are no good if you come in early and get yourself in.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

There is a risk with someone like Loye that he may end up "slogging maidens", but we need someone explosive to open the batting

I don't but that: the obsession with pinch hitting hit a high point when Sri Lanka won the World Cup (years ago) and has been superceded. Wickets in hand is what wins ODIs.. and this obsession with exploiting the powerplays is archaic - it's Ok if the wicket-keeper can do it as you're only losing a no 7/8 bat when he fails.. but you can't afford to pick a specialist batsman (who doesn't field, can't rotate the strike and limits the batting partner's ability to rotate the strike) when you are only picking four men as specialist batsmen.

I'd open with Vaughan and Joyce by choice.. but with Bell and Strauss before I'd select Loye. I'm trusting that the selectors have seen the light and will pick Bopara, Shah or Solanki ahead of the lousy Lancastrian.

[pie_chucker]

In that case then pick Read and open with him. He's done it before with Notts and he isnt too bad at it, but we do need someone who opens to attack from the off. Especially as Vaughan, colly, Bell, joyce and Struass are all accumulators.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Vaughan [..] accumulator

Those two words shouldn't be used in the same sentence: Vaughan is an explosive ODI opener... too damn explosive... he would be a FAR better ODI player if he were not always hell-bent on trying to maintain Tresco-like strike rates.

Fortunately, we've had recent indications that Vaghan has seen the light: he apparently set the CB series openers on the path to minimal wickets down at the 40-over mark - sense at last!!!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Mal Loye is the first real oddity of your scoring: I'd rate him somewhere around 2. He was exposed as a one trick pony, with lousy technique (especially on the off side), a criminal inability to rotate the strike, atrocious running between the wickets (that inhibited the run-scoring efforts of his partners) and dire fielding.

Rachael - did you see any of the 2nd final? - did you see even the highlights?, i doubt that very much.

Because if you had you would have seen he played more drives, and nudges down to third man than his so called one trick pony shots.

Had you seen his innings - you would have seen that unlike other players in the England side, he learned from his earlier mistakes.

You listened to much to Ian Chappel who nearly was word for word what you are saying, in particular "(that inhibited the run-scoring efforts of his partners)" I listen to this tosh also.

In fact when Joyce was out - Loyes was in front with the scoring, and why would he want to rotate the strike?, neither he nor Joyce are tail enders.

With respect to both you and Ian Chappel Rachael - England could not put an opening partnership together before Loye was introduced to the England side, for the first time of the tour England supporters watch an England with a fire in it's belly with the oldies like Loye and Nixon, and the " I will do it my way bowling of Mahmood and Plunkett".

I watched Loye's innings - and he scored more runs from driving the ball, and running the ball to 3rd man, than resorting to his slog sweep.

Looking back to the Ashes - loye would have made a difference because he is not craven and would NOT let the bowlers get on top of his game, no matter he is not orthadox.

Give credit where it is due.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Give credit where it is due.

Absolutely. I'll give credit to Joyce, Bell, Strauss, Collingwood, Vaughan, Panesar and even Flintoff without hesitation. Sadly, a player who manages 5 dot balls out of 6 balls he faces, whose dire running stops his partner taking singles and whose fielding lets down the entire side is NOT entitled to such credit.

Loye is just plain awful: he lacks the essential attribute of CLASS.