England Vs Australia 1st Test - Ratings

[Lemming]

Vaughan 4 Ponting 5
Trescothick 5 Hayden 5
Strauss 5 Langer 6
Bell 1 Martyn 6
Pietersen 8 Clarke 7
Flintoff 6 Katich 7
G Jones 4 Gilchrist 5
Giles 3 Warne 9
Hoggard 6 Lee 7
S Jones 6 Gillespie 3
Harmison 9 McGrath 10

England 57 Australia 70

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Maranello

...Gillespie 1 - Hoggard 0...

I thought Hoggard did better than a zero. He bowled better than Gillespie for a start. Have you a good reason to give him 0, or do you just not like him?

[Maranello]

Gillespie gets a 1 for bowling atrociously, but holding up an end with the bat for quite a long period, and frustrating England on the 3rd morning, when they felt they might have had a chance.

Hoggard had some good deliveries and even overs, but the majority of his effort with the ball was mediocre. I was only at the ground for Saturday (watched the rest at home), and on that day he really did let the side down - no pace, no swing, no control and way too much attitude. Doesn't get worse than that at this level! The ease and contempt with which Gillespie and McGrath played him should be embarrassing to any half-decent pace bowler.

The only thing worse than his bowling that day was Vaughan's captaincy in refusing to use Jones, and persisting with his Yorkie team-mate.

To be fair, Hoggard did bowl better on Day 1, but still nowhere near good enough considering the conditions. Add to that his immature and ill-judged remarks before the game, and we end up with a nice big zero. If Gillespie had come out with such nonsense, I would have happily have given him a zero too.

[Lemming]

You obviously don't like him then? That's fine though, that's up to you. I've amended my post - giving him a 6 - to compensate for what is, in my opinion, your poor judgement!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Lemming

You obviously don't like him then?

Incorrect . I believe it is quite childish to dislike random sportsmen based on press rumours or mere snippets of information. I only believe that his performance prior to and during this Test merits a rating of zero. That has no bearing on whether I like or dislike him. As I said, I don't know enough about him, hence not qualified to 'dislike' and am content with my indifference.

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Incorrect . I believe it is quite childish to dislike random sportsmen based on press rumours or mere snippets of information. I only believe that his performance prior to and during this Test merits a rating of zero. That has no bearing on whether I like or dislike him. As I said, I don't know enough about him, hence not qualified to 'dislike' and am content with my indifference.

What rumours and snippets of information do you refer to? I seem to have missed them.

[Maranello]

Sorry, no specific rumours about Hoggard and Welsh farm-maids that I am aware of That was more a general comment; I believe, for instance, that its unfair to categorise Warne as a serial philanderer and thus dislike him, based purely on fish-and-chips paper gossip. Fairer (though somewhat uncomfortable) to sit on the fence, or, if one can be bothered, to ascertain the facts through primary research.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Hoggard and Welsh farm-maids

Come on chaps, you've got a helpful home wicket in conditions that you know and love. You've got a bowler who by all accounts is adept at using such conditions.

Hoggard swings in and bowls, in a low scoring first innings, eight overs for forty.

That really isn't very good. Granted he bowled a snorter to remove Hayden, and granted he's not very quick so he was easily targeted by the Australian batsmen, if he strayed off line... which he did... often.

Difficult to grant him much more than minus marks for that first innings performance.

This was the guy who said he'd bore the opposition out. Can't remember which opposition he meant... I think it was the West Indians in the Caribbean...
But I've seen precious little sign of Hoggard boring anyone out.

"Guys, guys come and have a go at this bloke... just wait for the bad ball, there's a couple of those every over. Even if we screw up with the first one, we can still lash the second to the boundary."

Then you want to give him some points for his fielding and his batting... Why?

So he gets some for his second innings performance, when everyone disappeared round the ground... did I give him three... might've been too many.