yeah the numbers that the players were rated weren't negative at all, instead i thought they were pretty generous. but the explanation for the grading that came with it wasn't consistent with the grade itself.
i also dont think JO's performance wasn't good enough to earn him an A+. he scored only one half century in the whole series, he surely could've done better. but in context of the team, he was the best player and therefore the grade is justified in that sense. same with rahim's grade, it was a generous one. i guess his grade was solely based on the guts he showed, because a score of 19 shouldn't be good enough.
similarly, thought it was harsh on shahadat to get him an F. he played only one test, which happened to be his debut test at Lord's. even then, he produced a few really good deliveries that should've gotten him a wicket. i thought it was a bit lucky on his part for him to go wicketless. he did give away WAY too many runs, then again, english batsmen were in a killer mood and shahadat is a debut pacer with much less control than masri. perhams masri deserved a better grade too, for holding up the bd bowling all by himself. he, also, should've gotten more wickets. if JO gets an 8/A+ for the fact he carried our batting (for the first 3 innings), then same should apply to masri. in fact, JO had a partner in the form of pilot. masri actually fought alone. and its really hard for you to keep up the pressure and get wickets when all the other bowlers in the team are giving away runs and are ineffective.
Edited on, June 8, 2005, 7:32 PM GMT, by shovon13.
|