Alec Stewart's England ratings

This game could not have come at a worse time for test cricket, after gaining all the attention cricket needs through the undisputed success of twenty20, we really needed to see an action packed game, clearly this was far from that, even though it promised so much as we skittled the SA in the first innings.

lets hope for a result in the next match

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think the ratings are about right. Such a shame that england didnt win this match. We were in a great position to win. Because of the weather the groundsman couldnt get the pitch he wanted, Lets hope england can win at headingly, and hopefully freddie will be picked and we win the match.

The only winner is 20/20. How's this for a radical twist - drop Lords from the test match circuit.... Think I'm right in saying it is now 9 draws in the last 10 games

If Colly gets par for his dismal batting, and Strauss got an extra 0.5 for a great catch, how does 44 not score more than a single figure score? Loyalty???

Ambrose has to go (sorry)! Bring back Prior and Harmison for 3rd test. Also england need to learn to bowl better in non-swing conditions.

Alec, you cannot give opinions on players where you have a 'conflict of interest' ! In all other walks of life a conflict determines that you should not either accept a position or make a comment. In particular the interview on radio re Matt Prior refers.

Surely Chris Read deserves a decent run in the side!

'No-one can now doubt his value to the side.'

I can, and will do until he scores runs on a tough pitch, against a good bowling attack when the chips are down. The SA bowling attack didn't fire, and it was evidently an easy pitch. He rarely scores match-winning or counter-attacking runs, rather, he adds to already large totals.

Still, good to see him going on and scoring a big hundred. We need a few more of them.

With respect, being a shareholder in said company definately is too much of a conflict of interests to be able to take your ratings seriousely.

Quite how Collingwood gets a 6 and Jimmy and Sidebottom get 6.5s is beyond me. Okay the bowlers were unlucky with the pitch (which should also be a 2/10) and colly got unlucky with a decision, but all should have done better.
Also, Ambrose's drop off Pietersen can in no way be classed as a chance.
And what does a batsman have to do to get a 10?

Respect your views, but definitely agree with Bumble22's comment

i can't seem to understand how paul collingwood got a 6, but tim ambrose got a 3.5?? colllingwood may have got a bad decision, but still deserves a 5 at best. ambrose's 3.5 is harsh considering he only really had one glaring error behind the stumps, and that too the drop off smith did not cost that much.

Collingwood a 6!

Despite your comments Alec I believe it is unfair to ask you to comment on players that you represent. In particular your talking up of Prior on TMS I thought was totally out of order. Congratualtions on being an agent , and well done for being a radio pundit. However there are times when the two are not compatible and this is one. You just make yourself look stupid and it reflects badly on the players you manage. Frankly I'm surprised the Beeb allow it.

i do agree that the 'disclaimer' about conflict of interest is worth nothing, but then again, neither are the ratings. these have no bearing on team selection, after all alec is not a selector is he? no need to get worked up, it just so happens that alec has a private opinion (fair or not) that he has the opportunity to air!

having said that, ambrose inspires no confidence, and read rather than prior should get a game. collingwood should be dropped for shah, let him get his form back in county cricket - worked for strauss and bell(!) after all!

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Shah
Read (wk)
Broad
Jones
Anderson
Panesar

this XI should play on friday. they'd give south africa the hammering they should have got at Lord's.

Just to balance things out a bit, I suggest that Londonmagicjohnson, Bumble22 and toomuchcaffiene [sic] take a look at themsleves.

Some of us are fairly tired of people who think that the anonymity of a blog comment makes it a suitable place to insult people. Actually, it's not big and it's not clever.

Chaps, when you've achieved as much for England as Alec Stewart has, perhaps we'll pay some attention to you.

why was chris read ever dropped after the pakistan series. Read in for Ambrose. I think we need some slight changes to our bowling too. Flintoff needs to come back into the side. A game England should of won.

Good recovery from South Africa. They must now be favourites going into Headingley.

As for the pitch, well after six consecutive test match draws it's either time to dig it up or at the least improve the balance between bat and ball. Lord's simply can't go on producing these dead wickets. These long lasting wickets at the ground which generates a substantial amount of the ECB's revenue makes one think if a directive has gone out to simply make the pitch last as long as possible, even at the expense of a result purely to maximise income.

The most exciting matches often see the ball just in the ascendancy over the bat.

This blog has gone south very quickly. Opinions of great players are always fun and interesting to hear but I'm afraid your ratings just seem to fall a bit to close to your personal interests, Colly a 6 and Ambrose a 3.5?? Harsh.

Alec, your marking for Anderson is most unfair. He has been the most threatening and consistent bowler in this match, plus he took two fantastic catches. Giving Anderson 6.5 and Collingwood 6 makes a total mockery of the ratings, Anderson has bowled his heart out and remained constantly focused and energetic in the field over three days, while Colly has done precious little, admittedly got sawn off in his innings, but a few unproductive overs with the ball doesn't rate a 6, nowhere near. Since when did players get credit for the time they might have spent scoring runs??

Just to add my voice to the chorus! The disclaimer from Mr Stewart is just laughable. I would have thought that there were plenty of ex-cricketers without a vested interest in promoting certain players who could make equally insightful contributions. The BBC should spend the taxpayer's money more carefully. Mr Stewart should display a little less greed and a little more respect for people's intelligence.

P.S. to my previous comment: you say that Anderson and Sidebottom bowled on an unresponsive graveyard but mark them down because they didn't do better, yet mark Colly up because he didn't have a chance to do better???

Manc_in_Milan,

"Mr Stewart should display a little less greed and a little more respect..."

Is the irony in that remark intentional?

Some of you people make me ashamed to be English.

what imagination did vaughan show in the 2nd innings? he failed to bowl monty from the off this morning then allowed him to bowl into the rough outside leg most of the day. why did kp only get 7 overs in the 2nd innings?

seriously mv needs a big score at leeds otherwise i'd be looking at key as the next no.3 and captain.

how come kp didnt get a 10 - he plays at a different level when he's on song. bear in mind bell only scored 42 in 2 and a half hours on thursday evening - hardly domination.

would have brought back simon jones and and foster for sidebottom and ambrose for leeds.

definitely have to drop colly - he hasnt scored a ton in 13 tests.

Hi Alec;
Agree mainly with your ratings except for Collingwood. I dont think that your being too biased for the players you represent at all. I do think that you have given Collingwood a slightly higher mark due to the fact that you dont want a knee jerk reaction that would lead to Colly's dropping. Please tell me i am right? I also think that it would be a shame to drop Colly as he brings so much to the team in ways of motivation and man management. Ambrose i am afraiid to say, must go.

What's with the attack on his indendence? Although I don't agree with all of Alec's ratings its because it's a subjective way of measuring someones performance.

Watch any cricket match on sky and you can see peoples bias, particuarly from ex-england captains such as Hussain when he interviewed Harmison a few months back. He went a little soft because he had captained the player himself and didn't want to go into heavy.

You're all intelligent guys with you're own opinions, but don't go looking for consiparcy theories just because somebody disagrees with you.

sorry you cant mark broad ahead of anderson, i entirely agree with battingwitharunnercomments, and the two catches from anderson were class and he bowled his socks off the whole match. And his economy rate was much better than other matches. Definately worth an 8!

Anderson bowled well. collingwood troubled some of the batsmen more than sidebottom did in the second innings.

How can you not give Bell 10....

My team for Friday:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

Sidebottom needs a rest. When he is fit again, replace the out of form bowler (IF THERE IS ONE) rather than a batsman because flintoff is not a batsman in 9/10 matches!!!

C'mon folks - what is the big deal about Alec's professional ties?

This man represented his country for many years and I for one value his opinion based on the amount of experience he has. If the man says his scores are unbiased, why not take him at face value?!

I just can't agree with the comment about the BBC failing by employing his services.

Read in for Ambrose in the next test, not sure about Freddie.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For once, I didn't think a lot of Vaughan's fielding captaincy. Although England created a lot of half-chances in South Africa's second innings, there never seemed to be a fielder in the right place to take them! I don't see how that can be good captaincy.

If Paul Collingwood deserves only a par score, shouldn't that be 5, not 6?

What i think that you all have to understand is that Alec is trying to make unbiased opinions. i dont think that anyone here would give Ambrose a high rating, i personally think that Read is the better option.

Alec's opinions are also treated seriously, as he was one of the greatest players to ever represent England, and as i stated earlier i think that he is trying to protect Colly in way from a knee jerk reation.

People seriously underestimate what Colly brings to this side. He is a very clever cricketer which MV acknowledges by consulting him on a regular basis.

Apart from Ambrose, i wouldnt make any changes to this side at the moment. If England loose the second test then and only then i would analyse any further weaknesses (should there be any).

Please all show a bit of respect for Alec as he has done so much for England cricket in the past and continues to do so.

33: I loved watching Alec bat but he's still a novice when it comes to opining about the game and he's wrong on selection issues.

Marks seem fair, although I am unsure about Colly's level. I would have given him a 4. Woefully out of form with the bat recently and fielding and bowling nothing special at the moment.
For those who say 'but he got a duff decision and he could've made a hundred', Bell went away to Warwickshire and made a double ton, then came back and deserved another double hundred for England, what did Colly do?

I used to be in the camp who couldn't see what Bell brought to England but he's now scoring big and faster than he ever did so good on him. Bell must stay.

Flintoff is not ready yet, he's had one 50 in about 9 innings now and we don't really know how strong his ankle is. Leave him for this series, let him get to absolute peak fitness (not 'as fit as he was before') and into batting form and then see who to replace with him. Until then, let Lancs have him - they'll be glad of it.

The keeping issue rears its head again - why can't we find a keeper who can step up? Read has had his chances, Foster seems to be constantly overlooked, Geraint Jones is not being considered, Nixon's too old, Ambrose is as good as anything else, let him carry on. If the batsmen above do their job it doesn't matter if he only gets a handful does it? Push Broady up one in the order since he's shown he can bat and then there's less pressure on Ambrose to score big runs.

mediamofo;

You dont become one of the all time greats in English cricket without a great understanding of the game so sorry i still continue to rate his opinions very highly.

But from what i have read from your comments, you do have some valid points IMO and have a good understanding of cricket. I look forward to reading more of your comments.

do all you realise this is just a bit of fun! not an opportunity for you to have a blast at one of England's finest wicketkeepers?!


jeesh.

Agreed that Alec has a hopeless conflict of interest in representing players he then gives marks to.

Despite his protestations he gives a ludicrous 6/10 for Colly (what about his totally insipid bowling) and his consistently poor marks for Ambrose (being the oppo to his client Prior).

Either Alec should be an agent or a commentator, but he can't do both.

Ian Bell has scored eight test centuries. Ian Bell's eight test centuries have ALL come after one of his team-mates had already reached three figures. I'm afraid some of us can doubt his value to the side, when he fails to deliver the big scores when his side needs them the most.
Also, Vaughan's captaincy was, as Alec says, 'imaginative', I for one would never have thought to use KP so much or to bring Cook on at the end or even to stick with Panesar for 60 overs without a wicket in the 2nd innings. But imaginative is not always a good thing.

Firstly, one score should not ensure Ian Bell a secure place in the team. If that were the case then Rob Key should still be in the side after his 200 against the West Indies several years ago.

Bell still has to prove his consistency and get big scores regularly.

With regards the wicket keeper debate... well Ambrose looks out of his depth. Prior's keeping did not inspire his colleagues hence probably why he is trying to get in the side as a batsman.

Why people want Read back I do not know. Can't fault his keeping but his batting has been exposed so many times at top level and he is not a leader in the field from various accounts about him.

However, why is no one championing the guy that nearly ended Alec Stewart's career early - James Foster at Essex looked good for England several years ago - and has only got better with bat and gloves.

He has the character to be a great keeper at Twenty20, ODI and Tests.

Maybe once Moores has exhausted all the keepers that he has worked with previously he will get his chance.

well stewie, ure wrong again. collie really really needs to get dropped and bring in SHAH OR BOPARA. whats wrong with england selectors. forget the record of not changing the squad for like 6 matches. thats useless. england need a team which can win not draw. they should've won 2day. i think monty bowled amazingly and sidebottom and anderson are impressing day by day. the reason why they are impressing cause they played against a real strong team which is India last year and we beat england. monty=8, collie= 1, FLINTOFF IS RUBBISH, BRING SHAH OR RAVI BOPARA

Collingwood is getting a lot of stick when he didn't even get chance to prove/defend himself due to a bad decision....you simply can't rate him for this match (except his bowling). You coulod certainly never fault him for effort. However he looks likely to be the one to make way for Freddie....As a great fielder how quickly could Mr Collingwood learn the wicketkeeping trade ?

Hi Ravi17;

Not sure what you have done but the comments stop after you :-).

My ratings


Strauss 6
Cook 6
Vaughan 5 for captaincy
Pietersen 8.5
Bell 9
Collingwood 4
Ambrose 3.5 keeping not bad
Broad 7
Sidebottom 5.5
Anderson 6 very tidy for Jimmy
Panesar 7 good figures, many overs, 5 wkts in the match

86 overs 19 maidens 190runs 4 wkts; thats a lot Monty. Unlucky not to get a couple more wickets.

A 5 for Vaughan? Everyone is talking about Collingwood being dropped or possibly one of the bowlers for Flintoff. The fact is that since playing his first test Stuart Broad has scored more runs than Vaughan and has played less innings.
I don't understand how we can have a player in the team because he is a good captain. He must contribute more!!

What this match appears to prove, if proof is still needed, is that England still don't have a bowling attack that is quite good enough to close out matches against one of the better test playing countries.

That's not a criticism of any individual bowlers - Sidebottom and Panesar have justified their places beyond any reasonable doubt over the past 12 months and both Anderson and Broad are developing very well. The problem is that as a unit, the current line-up doesn't offer the aggression or variety needed to make things happen and finish off a game on a fading pitch.

The first, and most obvious, remedy is to fit an extra front-line bowler into the side, at the expense of a batsman, and the Flintoff vs Collingwood therefore seems to be a complete no-brainer. Collingwood is simply not performing with the bat at the moment and even if he's not fuly fit, Flintoff would offer the bowling attack a lot of what it's missing.

Having said that, there's no doubt that playing Flintoff as an all-rounder on current form would leave England with a long and suspect tail. Surely the answer for that dilemma is to recall Prior - who has proved himself to be the only genuine batsman-keeper available. Chris Read maybe the best glovesman in England by a country mile but one look at the top test sides of recent years is surely enough to tell you that just being a good keeper is not enough.

In the longer term, England need to keep a close eye on Simon Jones, Chris Tremlett and - dare I say it - Steve Harmison. If we are going to have any chance of beating the Australians next summer then we need to be able to call on a pace attack that has the ability to get really aggressive and just plain nasty when the chips are down and make batting a genuinely uncomfortable experience.

As for Mr Stewart's punditry - I am always going to be interested in the views of one of the country's most respected cricketers - journalism is all about opinions and his business interests don't mean that he isn't entitled to publicise his. At the same time the fact that he declared his conflict of interests openly presents his readers with the equally valid right to agree or disagree with him as they see fit.

I felt Vaughan could have done so much more. He played nicely into South Africa's hands.

South Africa had no desire to get runs, didn't want to play shots and just shut up shop. Vaughan spread his field to cut off the off side, leaving only scoring opportunities on leg side.

With no need to score runs, and with the offside so heavily protected that it made scoring too risky. A risk South Africa had no need to take and even less intention.

Not enough thought.

Moreover, not enough imagination with the bowling attack. So many times England have relied on the strike bowlers, and when they don't work, no alternative is tried.

Fairly poor, England will not progress until we forumlate a plan b and then have the bottle to implement it.

Huge opportunity missed, and Vaughan helped contribute to possibly the most boring 2 days of cricket of all time.

Thank you very much.

If Ambrose doesn't improve soon, then he'll have to go. And then we can start to count how many more keepers will get the nod before someone remembers James Foster's not that bad after all...

I think that we are losing sight of what is being asked for here and everyone is getting way too worked up.

The ratings are everyone's opinon and that is great because without it we are all the same and the world is boring but to criticise someone for supposed bias is ludicrous.

Anyone who is a fan of a county side is most probably biased whether they admit it or not. I would never deny my ludicrous bias towards Surrey. Making suggestions is fine but acting as if it is to the detriment of someone's character if they feel differently to you is just rude and wrong.

Personally, I don't think we can fault the bowlers, seeing as SA's supposedly great bowling attack couldn't take 10 English wickets in 2 days, I think the English bowlers did well to get them all out.

The positive is that England didn't lose and batted well. The problem is who to get rid of. It looks as if Flintoff will be back in the side (I wonder what would have happened had we won and everyone performed) and personally I have no idea who to drop for him. Colly gives youmuch more than the runs he scores (or doesn't) in terms of fielding etc, if not he wouldn't be one-day captain.

As for Ambrose, maybe its time for someone else, or maybe he'll get another chance and score some runs, I think the thing we are all forgetting is that having the temprament for test matches and county cricket is very different, something not all (if any) of the English wicket-keepers have. England no longer has an Alec Stewart or anyone like him or Gilchrist who score that many runs. Stewart started off as purely a batsman remember. So can we really expect such high standards? I think the selectors need to choose runs or quality keeping, unfortunately (although I'm sure many would disagree) I don't think we have anyone with both and the test-match temprament.

And another thing, Ambrose was not up to the task.

Test match cricket is just that, a test. A half decent cricketer will get by, doing the bare minimum. Test match cricket can turn on small incidents - when they come along, you need players to step up and pass the test with flying colours. Jimmy Andersons catch, Stuart Broads 75 for example.

Whilst Ambrose didn't really stuff up, he had the opportunity to turn the game by snaffling some difficult chances. He failed.

That's the difference between Cricket and Test match cricket.

Unfortunately Ambrose failed to nail tough chances, smith and mackenzie took theirs. Thin lines between success and failure.

Vaughan is way out of form and looks tired and out of ideas. If he is consulting with Colly why not just drop Vaughan and promote our 1 day captain to do the full job of everything. That brings a batsmen up a place so Pietersen would be in at 3, Bell 4 and Colly 5, Andy Flintoff could then come in at 6 with wicket keeper or Broad at 7 and so on.

Wicket keeper wise they should try Mustard from Durham cos Ive heard he is Mustard.

It'll never happen but just thought i'd put my ten penneth in!

There's too much fuss about Alec's conflict of interest in judging players he has a stake in - surely you can all see it's in his interests to be realistic and impartial about it (giving them higher/lower marks affects nothing apart from this discussion!) - I don't think anyone could question Bell's mark, 6 seems fair for Collingwood given he got a shocker of a decision - only Ambrose's mark might look harsh, but given another (how many now) failiure with the bat we've got to let someone else have a crack before the Ashes.

Also - does no-one else think Vaughan gets away with little or no criticism despite only pulling out a score every now and then? he's a v decent, if sometime negative captain but Strauss (who v much turned around his dip in form over the last three series) would be a v viable alternative option.

I'm not sure Tim 'one shot' Ambrose is the answer to the batsman/keeper position

But the people who keep posting comments for a Chris Read recall ????

Did you see him BAT in the last Ashes series in Australia???

Completely out of his depth!

Let's move on.

"But the people who keep posting comments for a Chris Read recall ????

Did you see him BAT in the last Ashes series in Australia??? "

But did you see him KEEP?

A different class to most of the other options.

And he took 6 dismissals in each of the two completed innings he kept in. To put that in context only two other keepers have taken two or more 6 dismissal hauls in their careers.

regarding the current revolving door of wicket keepers, Chris Read knocked up two scores of 40 when he last played for england and was then dropped. How many runs have all the others scored since?

He should have never been dropped until given a proper run in the side.

Ambrose and company can't bat against sides such as a weak new zealand. At least australia were and still are the top side in the world.

Why is everyone being quite so harsh to Alec? Yes he's biased, and I don't think it's wise to claim otherwise, but aren't we all! I've never been a massive fan of Jimmy Anderson, but have always supported Bell, but I can't really explain why. I'm sure everyone has their favourite players. Admittedly Alec's are due to professional connections but what he says won't influence Geoff Miller and co. It's just allowing us punters an insight into what an ex pro thinks! For Friday I think Colly needs a rest, don't look upon it as being dropped, it's a chance to regain form. He's still very much a part of the set up. I also think Sidey needs a rest soon, and as for Ambrose I'm not sure he has what it takes, all you need to do is not bowl short and wide and he won't score runs. Team for Friday;

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

But players like Shah, Collingwood Foster, Tremlett and Jones are all pushing closely for places in my opinion.

what you looking at mr stewart any captain would do what vaughen did the fact is he is riding on the fact that england cant get another captain. wateva !!!!!!1 he is washed up and its time to move on give it to kp, a true fighter. and ambrose has had his chance say goodbye to him. plenty talent in county give them a chance and i dont mean going back to read or jones.

Watching tired matches on tired pitches makes me, for one, relieved that an explosive pitch like Old Trafford will not be used for test matches for the next 3 years!

I, like others above, disagree with the Anderson mark. He bowled well with no real swing or movement, kept his economy low, and went for 4s most through edges and false shots.

He had two edges drop short of Ambrose, and nearly got Prince caught in the slips on his first ball.

And let's not forget two outstanding catches, including catching De Villiers when he looked set to make a big score.

Yes, he only got 3 wickets in like 50 overs, but you need to take into consideration the conditions for batting and bowling, and I feel for his overall efforts, Anderson deserves at least a 7.

I should add to continue the last line from comment above:

Anderson deserves to rated higher than Sidebottom, and at, at least, a 7.

Only one England bowler got more than three wickets, Panesar, who got four in the first innings and zero in the second. Anderson and Sidebottom got three each altogether and Broad just the two. So it would be rather hard to single Anderson out for getting only three wickets. He also took the first wicket to fall in each innings, that of Graeme Smith each time.

This is one of the most mature bowling performances we have seen from Anderson, I don't think he conceded a single boundary in the first innings, he stuck to his task and didn't lose heart and become erratic when things were against him, as has happened
so often in the past.

So it seems a little ironic that he has received so little credit for his performance.

Can I just add that yesterday CMJ asked Phil Tufnell to rate the bowling performances and he gave top marks to Jimmy with an "A minus".

Hurrah for praise at last for Ian Bell.

Also I find the disclaimer v amusing.

Tbh, I think you've rated Jimmy harshly. He deserves much more than 6.5

why o why do most people want to include A. flintoff (the clamour is deafening every time he makes a comeback) at the expense of anyone...hes the most overated player ive ever seen. he throws his wicket away with regular ease and has never been anything other than a containing bowler.

Whether Alec is biased or not to the players he represents is redundant. He just gave silly marks to some players but it is his opinion. I think the fans who watched the match understand who played well and who did not.

No way on God's earth should Vaughan and Collingwood deserve their marks.

Ambrose certainly did, if we had Read who has a much faster glove we would have had a few more wickets and Read would not have been so far behind the stumps.

Anderson's mark was hard done by, he bowled really well, not costing too much like he normally does and he was the best fielder.

I thought the openers did a great job and set up a good few days for England. So often have they faltered.

This would be my ideal team for the next game:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Shah/Harminson
Flintoff
Read
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

Sidebottom looks to unfit and tired. Flintoff to replace.

Collingwood has to go, he needs to rebuild his confidence playing county cricket. Shah will get you runs.

The problem with Shah in the line up is there are only 4 main bowlers. So another possibilty is to bring Harmison back who has bowled well this season and has genuine pace.

But did you see him KEEP??? Jones got dropped for his lack of runs .

A different class to most of the other options????

Chris Read knocked up two scores of 40 when
he last played for england??????

Must be my memory. When I last saw him play for England he was backing away to square leg when facing Brett Lee.?



Complain about this comment

It is obvious that Michael Vaughan would not make the England team were it not for the quality of his captaincy.

I wonder if Australia would tolerate a similar situation.

We've got to keep Vaughan in for his leadership qualities but he had nowhere to turn.

The pitch today was a pancake and with only 4 bowlers to call on, each with no world class cred, to exploit what little it had in its depths, the result doesn't surprise me.

We need PACE. Bring back Harmison as well as Flintoff.

Give Ambrose a long run. He dropped a catch, unfortunate, but how many wicket-keepers have we gone through in the last 4 years who haven't?

"theblobinator wrote:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Shah
Read (wk)
Broad
Jones
Anderson
Panesar

this XI should play on friday. they'd give south africa the hammering they should have got at Lord's."

GREAT choice. Agree with you 100%

zacandalex, he wasn't. After the Pakistan series he went to India for the Champions Trophy as the only 'keeper in the squad and had a nightmare. His three innings lasted a total of 16 balls with him looking dreadfully out of his depth. And his 'keeping was uniformly awful to the point that the TMS commentators were wondering what was happening. Even so, he got another chance in Australia and, although he did better, in no way did he make a solid case to continue.

How MV gets 5 and colly gets 6 I don't know, after some excellent, imaginative captaincy - and like one of the first comments said, how Strauss only gets .5 more than him after actually getting SOME runs on the board!? (same with Cook).

Colly definitely deserved more of a 4 - 4.5 rating, making Strauss and Cook's look a lot more realistic. You can't give him a better rating than MV just because he didn't get chance to bat because of an umpiring decision because you can just as easily argue he would have got nothing!

Side will definitely look better at the moment if Flintoff replaces Colly - replacing someone scoring no runs and a part time bowler with a bowler almost bound to take big partnership-breaking wickets and scoring what has to be more runs!?

The partnership between Bell and Pietersen in their 1st innings was key, although it was ashame that like always England screwed up on the last day to prevent them from a win.

Ah, so telling the truth breaks the house rules? (#32:) well so be it. At least I have no conflict of interest. I still say Shah, S Jones, Flintoff, Read in and Vaughan, Colly, Ambrose and Sidey (he is injured) in. OK, I doubt Read will be picked (not with the current selectors) and I hear that Prior is next in line - will be interesting to see what their (Ambrose/ Prior's) batting averages are over the next year and I will count how many chances they drop (I'm placing a tenner on Panesar to be their chief victim).

Can we have some ratings for South Africa? It would be interesting to see some analysis of how they performed.

ps Why the fuss about the neutrality of Alec Stewart?/ It's only his opinion about a bunch of guys chucking a ball about, it has no real impact on anything, it is just there for our entertainment. Hardly worth getting worked up over.

Collingwood needs to pick up the gloves... He's amongst the best fielders ever to play for England, which must indicate some level of coordination, fitness and reaction speed - all essential attributes of wicketkeepers.

Unfortunately (and this genuinely saddens me because we need fighters like him), a test average of 40 and an ability in the field does not warrant the automatic selection he's recieved over the past couple of years.

If he could keep wicket however, he'd be the best English wk/batsman since....

(PS I don't mean to degrade the skills of a wickie - but this is just a suggestion)

England should have batted again not enforced the follow-on, we were never going to bowl them out for less than 400 again on that pitch and the bowlers had to bowl for three whole days. We may pay the price if Smith wins the toss and we're bowling again as is the likely call should he call correctly.

Strauss 7/10 - unlucky with his dismissal, batted well to get England off to a good start and took a good catch

Cook 6/10 - played well enough early on to help get England going

Vaughan 3/10 - another failed innings and despite calls his captaincy is "imaginative", he mucks about with the field too much and either instructs his bowlers to overdo the short stuff or that's his idea. Did he try everything? Nope. He underbowled KP and underused Broad, compared to the two other main quicks, and didn't try Cook until way too late. He could have tried Bell.

I also firmly believe he shouldn't have enforced the follow-on, given his bowlers a break and taken runs out of the equation. England probably still wouldn't have won, but it was the right thing to do and the sooner some people pull their heads out of the sand and recognise that the right thing to do remains the right thing to do, even if it doesn't always pay divends, the better.

Pietersen 9/10 - he and Bell set England up for a win and he took a wicket. It's a shame he didn't bowl more overs as he posed a few problems and could easily have had two wickets in the few overs he did bowl

Bell 10/10 - given reluctantly, not because he didn't deserve it, but it's hard to achieve a 'perfect' performance. Of course the captain missed a trick by not giving him a bowl, he must have been on such a high after that innings even if disappointed he didn't get that extra run.

Collingwood 4/10 - his bad run of form continues, maybe shouldn't have been given out but I can hardly give points for "unlucky"

Ambrose 4/10 - kept tidily, needs to get a run of scores behind him to increase confidence and dismiss speculation about the keeper position. Given England fielded three days in a row without a break, I think he kept pretty admirably.

Broad 5/10 - it's hard to give a bowler credit for a good batting display but lack of wickets. I'd have traded 20 or 30 of his runs for just one more wicket out of him, I'm sure he would too. One of his wickets was a lucky deflection onto the stumps from one of too many short balls

While he kept on trying with the ball, he was expensive going at 4 an over 1st innings and 3 an over 2nd innings when South Africa were barely shuffling along. He's lucky so many are impressed with his batting, most would have been dropped by now for a bowling average of 45.33 and not even a four wicket haul to show for playing most Tests against NZ.

Sidebottom 7/10 - took figures of 2/41 and 1/46 off 49 overs which is reward for his efforts, including getting Kallis twice.

Anderson 7/10 - 1/36 and 2/78 show reward for a much improved accuracy

Panesar 7/10 - bowled without much luck in the second innings (60-15-116-0), but his 4/74 1st innings set England up for the big lead and the only other bowler to take four in the match was Morkel

Panesar 86-19-190-4
Morkel 34-3-121-4



By the way Alec, how do you figure 6 is a par score when most rate between 1 and 9 and the middle number is 5? Even if you rate 0-10 it is still 5 smack in the middle. If it's par for the team score ie the average of the team, isn't that a bit harsh on players who actually contributed something? He didn't score many runs or take a catch or wicket, everyone else did something.

And you're giving Collingwood a higher score than Vaughan despite waxing lyrical about the captaincy.

I will finally add that South Africa's negative batting 2nd innings contributed to the draw, they set out their stall and ground out runs on what everyone has labelled a flat pitch. Had they batted at a decent pace England would no doubt have got a few more wickets, fair enough they wanted a draw but it was a bore draw to score 393 runs in nearly two days cricket - anti-cricket perhaps is the best way to describe that dross.

I find it crazy to attack South Africa's tactics in the second innings, the pitch, the weather or any other excuse you can come up with. The English commentators said there was plenty of positives to take out of the game. This is utter rubbish. The facts are England took 3 wickets in 2 and a bit days, they couldnt close out the game and i cant see why they will win a single test in this series.

If we just came out and said that we were not that good, we may save a little face. It really was a poor performance.

Hello Stewie, I think 4 for the pitch was generous! This game probably would have had a result if the pitch had been a fair contest between bat and ball.

Re. the keeper spot - any chance of you coming out of retirement for Headingley????

Its time for Foster. He's only got better since his first start regularly standing up to decent pace in the 20 20 games just goes to show how confident he is with the gloves.

I'd also put Jones in ahead of Flintoff. Although from all the clamour for Fred I think this is unlikely. He's not ready yet.

Oh and 6 for Colly?

Give Alec Stewart a rest, he may have a vested interest in the player, but in all the interviews I'm seen with him he appears a reasonable man who wouldn't big up his associated players in a blog, as what difference does it make here. The selectors make there own opinion.

However, drop colly he's out of form and out of confidence, even if he did get triggered. If he starts scoring runs in the county game he could fight his way back in.

I see this as the start of the preparations for building a team to beat the Aussies and Ambrose has now been worked out as a batsman and the Aussies will destroy him. He has one attacking shot, the cut... I think probably Read or Foster, Prior's keeping lets him down.

Respect for Alec Stewart will always be due from England fans and I'm definitely one of those. But he should not be rating players that he represents. These ratings are meant to be fun and subjective, but a potential conflict of interest just sours the game. Think of the difference in the way we look at Aggers' comments - which everyone knows are entirely independent - and the way many people are reacting to this blog. Concerns about conflicts of interest should play no part in this. So while I still respect Alec, there are probably a few dozen other former players I respect as much and think should be rating the England team instead of him.

In the words of the immortal Ricky Gervais, I think Mr Stewart is "having a laugh". He must be tickled pink by the indignation on this blog about his so-called vested interests.

That being said, however, I do disagree with the ratings. Collingwood and Ambrose were like schoolboys at best and Vaughn's captaincy abysmal. South Africa were never going to win that match, so why not play 4 slips, a gully and surround the batsmen with close catchers? Short balls, yorkers and the occasional slower one would have seen to them. Sure, they would have scored a lot down the ground and many backward of square, but they could never have won! They were in defensive mode, so put the pressure on with a pack of lions growling at them from all around. To be sure, that's what the Aussies would have done.

And as for this being a great advertisement for 20/20; Pshaw! Maybe for England supporters, but I'll bet the SA lot were on the edge of their seats for 2 days. The people with short attention spans have already made their minds up. The true cricket lovers have seen marvellous display of test cricket at it's best.

Lots of people are saying that he can't give an opinion where there is a conflict of interest. Of course he can, look at Martin Brundle over at ITV F1, he manages David Coulthard but you wouldn't know it via his commentary. He calls it how he sees it on air as that is his job, if DC causes a crash then Brundle slates him. You can put on two different hats and call it fairly.

I'd agree with poster 45, Vaughan tends to too little criticism, his form his little better than Collingwood. No person should be gauranteed a position purely because he's a decent captain.

Pick the best 11, then select a captain, that's what the Aussies do.

That said the one day side has hardly set the world alight since the absence of MV, though I'm not calling for his recall in that form of the game!

What about a mark for the umpires?!

its got to be no more than a 4 for Harper - he could have cost us the game turning down all manner of LBW shouts (especially those from Monty) which TV replays have shown would have hit the timbers and had no other problems with them - great example is the 1st one against McKenzie on Sunday morning?! if that had been given it could have changed the whole complexion of the game - look how long Kallis lasted, and how many chances were made after Smith and McKenzie left the crease. If those decisions had been made correctly the bowlers marks would have been a lot higher, and closer to what they should have been - Stewart gives batsmen extra marks to compensate for poor umpiring decisions, but what about the bowlers?!

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

6 for Colly because he got triggered - what a joke.

Time for James Foster to be given a chance as well.

Alec was a great player, and has loads of experience, and should be entitled to give his views and should be respected. We do not have to agree but I respect him.

He has acknowledged above that he has links with some players and notes this and has said he does not want this to affect his marks.

However personally I do think the mark for Colly is high, I do not think he deserved to be rated higher than Vaughan.

All people analysing sport bring certain biases about players they champion and support that will lead to those players being marked up a little by them now and then. For example a player of the county they support etc, or maybe someone from their school or town. Or just a player who's style they like.

At least Alec is open about it and tries to factor it in.

The point is that he isn't being honest about it - he has denied it!

Strauss gets an exta .5 because of the catch he took. So that means he gets 6, the same as Colly, for his batting. He actually got a half-decent score and also got a shocking decision!!!! That makes no sense whatsoever and makes a mockery of these ratings.

Stewart was indeed a fine servant to England - that does not mean he should be beyond criticism for this bias.

I THINK YOU ARE ALL MAD - ARGUEING OVER .5 HERE and .5 THERE!

HOW ABOUT A MARK OF 3 FOR THE WHOLE ENGLAND SIDE.

Rubbish!!!!

Sorry but Collingwood's score can't be justified on the basis of an unlucky decision when he has failed this summer to perform with the bat for England or Durham. The fact that his place was under pressure should not determine how well he plays.

Drop Collingwood, Ambrose, Anderson and Broad, bring in Prior, Bopara, Flintoff and (Harmison or Saj)

As one of the only decent 90's English batsman it's really disapointing that Alec can give Colly such a high score!

Although he's a likeable guy, he's never been a test player (barely a one day player) despite his dwindling fielding abilities.

I'm amazed at how Strauss who batted beautifully for an unlucky 44 can be given only an additonal 0.5 than colly who did absolutely nothing in the game!

Get Flintoff and Jones back in the attack.

The chap who slatted Bell earlier obviously wasn't watching or listening when he completely chenged the nature of England's innings - pure talent.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, Stewart's views can't be taken seriously. He bigs up Prior at every opportunity, and this blog is highly unusual in that he has declared his blatant conflict of interest. He's Prior's agent, for goodness sake! I understand that one of the cricket magazines has worked out that during his test career so far, the runs conceded by Prior in byes and additional runs scored by batsmen whom he has dropped or missed stumping, exceed his contribution with the bat.
Chris Read is not as bad a bat as some make out, and if he takes a chance that 'iron-gloves' Prior would have missed, he can be considered further in credit. If not Read, then James Foster at Essex, or even Mark Wallace at Glamorgan should be considered to replace Ambrose.
And BBC, please realise that England great Alec Stewart's views will be considered worthless by many for as long as he maintains such an obvious conflict of interest. Can there be any other reason for such an apparently generous mark to Collingwood?
Ps Well done to Pougers yesterday evening on TMS for pointing this out, as 'The Gaffer' seemingly had no intention of doing so!

get thimpression hat some people have overlooked one key point in the wicket keeper discussion. Whilst I agree that it is controversial alec haing a vested intrest in Prior - his form in county championship this season has been nothing short of superb... so Alec talking him up on the radio is fine - as the stats show he is the best alternative at the moment.

Though I still personally feel that questions remain over his batting quality against a truely class bowling attack.

Much though I always admired Alec Stewart as a player, and many of his comments, this latest attempt at ratings contains glaring inconsistencies, IMHO.
Strauss claimed a fine catch. Cook dropped an easier one yesterday, so if Mr Stewart's defining distinction between them depends on this, then Cook, who rarely seems to attract genuine criticism although deserving it, ought to merit an inferior score.
Stuart Broad is a young, good-looking lad, but can we all have a little reality check, please! Judge him properly. He batted in a refreshing, uninhibited manner, with a healthy score already on the board, on a good pitch, and against undisciplined bowling. He bowled no better than anyone else, and indeed, I find it laughable that so much could be made of Anderson's terrific catch, consolidated by tight, wholehearted bowling, yet he scores lower than our latest blue-eyed boy. I like Broad, but let's not keep cossetting him.
Ambrose - pussyfooting, Mr Stewart. The guy is the latest in a line of substandard keepers, and the team is crying out for someone they can rely on to pouch the greatest majority of catches that come their way.

ALEC STEWART IS A LEGEND.

I disagree with a couple of ratings but i wont accept a slur on his character.

Read in for ambrose
Flintoff for broad
Jones for Sidebottom
Shah for Collingwood, strauss or vaughen

As always marks out of 10 are a matter of opinion which some people will agree with and others wont. However i totally disagree with post 93, how can a man that averages 40+ in test cricket be considered never good enough ? I agree his form is poor and if thats the justification for dropping him then fair enough but to say that he has never been good enough is just unfair in my opinion.

I really think that Swann should be given a go and England field two spinners. He has performed well for England in one days in his bowling and is a decent batsmen, as you could see from the SA 1st innings they battle with spin, agree Flintoff should be in the side as well instead of Collingwood

Disappointing to see so many people questioning Alec's integrity here. I invite people to cast their mind back to the last test match where he rated both Bell and Collingwood at 2 as well as praising Ambrose for a good game

I think these ratings are pretty fair. Bell and Pietersen obviously stand out as the best performances. There wasn't much to choose between the bowlers, they all tried hard on a worthless pitch but Broad deserves extra credit for a significant contribution with the bat.

I feel for Ambrose too. The wicket-keeper saga seems never-ending. How Peter Moores must wish he an Alec Stewart at his disposal