England eased to a 3-0 series victory against the West Indies, but the opposition, with a few honourable exceptions, were no better than a poor county side. How did England’s players rate?

Alastair Cook 8
Two relatively routine Test centuries to take his tally to six – and two 50s to boot – were reward for a series in which Cook grew in confidence and aggression; in doing so, he showed the time is right for him to have an extended run in the ODI side.

Andrew Strauss 3
While his partner flourished, Strauss’ winter struggles continued as both his technique and previously unflappable temperament came under question. Although he made a very good 77 in the last Test, he averaged at least 21 less than all the other members of the top seven and has much to do to prove he has not been found out at Test level.

Owais Shah 1
Shah played two somewhat chaotic innings at Lord’s and, if this immensely talented player is to thrive at Test level, it will probably not be at number three.

Michael Vaughan 8
It was as if Vaughan had never been away. His comeback hundred hardly rivalled those of Boycott in ’77 and Thorpe in 2003, but, nonetheless, it was a highly fluent knock which showcased the best of Vaughan. His captaincy was an important facet of England’s three consecutive victories though both that and his batting will face tougher tests against India.

Kevin Pietersen 9
Pietersen made two fabulous consecutive hundreds, including his Test best, 226, to illustrate he has the patience and temperament to make huge scores at Test level. Despite a series average of 66, there were still a few too many moments of impetuosity.

Paul Collingwood 7
Collingwood looked worryingly troubled on occasions, but he rode some extraordinary good fortune to make 111 at Lord’s before scoring a terrific 128 on his first Test at home to cement his place in the side. At Lord’s, he also bowled well to claim the wicket of Bravo.

Ian Bell 7
Bell scored a rather facile century in the First Test, but his excellent 97 at Old Trafford made in the trickiest batting conditions England faced all series, was testament to his increased maturity.

Matt Prior 8
Prior scored a century on debut and 75 in the second Test, but it was his innings of 40 and 62 in the last two Tests, made under far more testing circumstances, that were more indicative of his qualities as a Test batsmen, although a few dismissals were born of over-confidence. His keeping, while never matching the levels of Read, was agile and is clearly improving.

Liam Plunkett 3
Plunkett took 4-60 in the match at Headingley, but this was in spite of serial inaccuracy. His action, a victim of excess biomechanics, is fundamentally flawed and if England leave him playing for Durham for the remainder of the summer it will help him realise his rich potential.

Steve Harmison 5
Harmison often seemed incapable of hitting the square, let alone the stumps, but he deserves credit for working through his problems, with the help of Allan Donald, to bowl with much more venom in the last three innings of the series. His commitment cannot be doubted, either, after bowling a spell of 17 consecutive overs to help England to victory on his home ground.

Ryan Sidebottom 8
England’s big find of the series, the shaggy-haired Sidebottom claimed 16 wickets at under 20, although he went wicketless in West Indies’ last two second innings, and also biffed impressively. Left-armers able to swing the ball both ways, as Sidebottom, a beneficiary of many years on the county circuit, proved he can, are rare and he deserves the series against India to prove he can trouble the world’s best batsmen.

Matthew Hoggard 7
Hoggard was reassuring, and most impressive, in claiming 5/86 on his return on the final Test.

Monty Panesar 9
Panesar was England’s key man; there were many occasions during the first and third Tests when it seemed as if only he could take a wicket. Although he was perhaps a little defensive in the first three Tests, he bowled with more loop at Chestr-le-Street to claim 5-46. Overall, he was fantastic, claiming 23 wickets at 18 to continue his development as a spinner able to both contain and to take top order wickets even in unhelpful conditions.

__________________
third-umpire.com

Nothing too controversial in most of the list.. but I'm not sure Hoggard deserves anything less than a 9 (having outperformed Sidebottom in most spells).. and quite how Prior's 'keeping can warrant anything more than about a 2/10 escapes me - he had a complete shocker of a Test at Old Trafford... not even warranting 0/10... and wasn't THAT much better the rest of the time.

Drops, poor positioning, lousy footwork and hard hands: Jones demonstrated all of these things.. but was never (even at his worst) quite THIS bad!

Up to FP to respond to that, really, but it reads to me as though the 8/10 is for Prior's performance as a batsman, not as a wicketkeeper. Whether that is a fair basis for assessment is moot, I guess ...

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I think it would be very difficult to give a guy who played in one and a half Tests the same rating as Panesar who played in all four and won man of the series. Yes, Hoggard bowled well and took some crucial wickets in the second innings but his series impact was minimal (due to injury) and so I think FP is correct and I would concur


Again I agree with FP, who was looking at his overall impact, which was more than just his keeping. Not too sure what he could have done at Old Trafford. Yes 34 byes were given away, but with the standard of bowling that he had to face, how many of those were preventable?

How can Priors keeping be 0/10, did he drop all of the chances that came his way or costus a match with his keeping?

I can put up with poor positioning, lousy footwork and hard hands as long as he drops no sitters - which Jones did with regularity (costing us an ashes test in Old Trafford).

Prior has dropped no real sitters so far and his batting helped contribute to England winning the last test in Durham.

__________________
Mark.

Absolutely. Nobody judges batsmen on whether they moved their feet (if they scored a double hundred). Whether their shots were attractive (or even edges). Keepers must be judged on whether they dropped catches and let runs go by.

For the record, I thought that Collingwood's series was relatively poor (if you discount the scorebook). Lucky LBW escapes and dropped sitters by the WI and bad bowling to him. Should he get a 3/10? Of course not. He didn't look that good a player to me - but he got runs, which is what counts in the end.

Exactly Milo,

A four is a four whether it is creamed through the covers, edged through the slips or the result of an overthrow!! The fact is that it all goes in the book as 4.

I can't remember Prior missing any crucial catches or missing any damaging stumpings, and as long that continues, who cares if it is scrappy? If he starts missing the big ones and isn't scoring runs (which Jones did on too many occasions) then we have a problem.

But he didn't and he scored crucial runs down the order, so he deserves his rating..

In Prior's defence, he had to keep to some atrocious bowling from the two Durham men. (Not Collingwood...)

__________________
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Prior's keeping, as I said, wasn't in the level of Read's but I can only recall one dropped catch; and many of the byes were in no way his fault.

His overall impact was tremendous, contributing to three 150+ first innings stands, and another of 98, so I believe he fully merited his 8.

__________________
third-umpire.com