Well, I would never call Vikas a "subi".

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:
I don't respect the use of "pommies" by an Asian. We don't tolerate racist abuse of Asians in the UK.

'Pommies' is not racist.

It's not exactly pleasant either and feels uncomfortable to me when deliver by a non-Australian. I wouldn't use words some Australians use for Indians such as "subis". What country is Vikas from, out of interest?

What is wrong with subi?

quote:

Originally posted by Jonatho Darrow:

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:
I don't respect the use of "pommies" by an Asian. We don't tolerate racist abuse of Asians in the UK.

'Pommies' is not racist.

It's not exactly pleasant either and feels uncomfortable to me when deliver by a non-Australian. I wouldn't use words some Australians use for Indians such as "subis". What country is Vikas from, out of interest?

What is wrong with subi?

Nothin, Robby just doesn't want to come out of denial and face up to the fact that Flintoff is highly over rated.

*shrug*

Maybe we would be better off if we all stopped being so sensitive about what people call us.

re Flintosser:
Not as a bowler. Whether you like him or not, he has guts and talent and determination. His batting may have been overrated but not his bowling.

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:
I think Fred has two choices:

Bat at #7 and do a lot of bowling in a four-man attack

Cut down on the bowling and bat at #6 in a four-man attack.

If we could get SiJo back or a credible fourth quick, I would suggest the latter option, especially considering how Fred is bowling through pain most days.

It's hard to see him holding his spot as a number 6/part time bowler he's just not good enough with the bat on a regular basis to hold that sort of spot.

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:
*shrug*

Maybe we would be better off if we all stopped being so sensitive about what people call us.

It's a geographical term, not a term of abuse.

I have never taken umbrage to being called a Saffie

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:
His batting may have been overrated

I don't think it is. Remember that between 2002 and the start of the current series he was averaging 45 in tests, with five centuries.

Freddie needs to bat at 7 or 8 hes not a top order batsmen and is average of 31 indicates this clearly...he also averages 32 with the ball which isnt up there with the greats,

I think he needs to become a bowling all rounder...who bats a bit lower...6 is far too high...yeah it worked in england v us last time but his overall career indicates that hes a test batsmen like a gilly is....

hes carrying an ankle injury that requires injections each day, they usually wear off by afternoon session...its why flinoff has bowled much of his overs early in the day...when the ankle feels better.

Making him catain and batting at 6 and sometimes opening the bowling is plain crazy...its too much for any man to take on....

I still think he can have a great career and I'm not writing him off at all...I think england need to play 6 batsmen a keeper then freddy two quicks and a spinner.....make freddy the 4th bowler

quote:

Originally posted by Tis sven:

Making him captain and batting at 6 and sometimes opening the bowling is plain crazy...its too much for any man to take on....

Which begs the question - so why did he push for the captaincy by "throwing his hat into the ring" already occupied by a successful and respected Andrew Strauss?

And further ...
Just whose interests was he serving ?
The interests of a succesful team that he was inheriting from Strauss's captaincy - or his own personal interests?

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:
re Flintosser:
Not as a bowler. Whether you like him or not, he has guts and talent and determination. His batting may have been overrated but not his bowling.

Actually his bowling is over-rated, he can produce devastating spells but his stats do not lie

Tests 66
Wkts 196
Runs 6252
Ave 31.90
SR 63.57
ER 3.01
5w 2
10w 0

That may look ok in some aspects but his wickets are expensive, he takes around 3 a TEST on average and for someone with his bowling ABILITY to have taken a meagre 2 five wicket hauls in 66 Tests is poor

Also his record by opponent is pretty moderate and that's being generous

Australia 41 wkts @ 28.95
Bangladesh 9 wkts @ 15.33
India 22 wkts @ 40.09
New Zealand 13 wkts @ 31.79
Pakistan 13 wkts @ 31.46
South Africa 39 wkts @ 37.64
Sri Lanka 27 wkts @ 32.85
West Indies 26 wkts @ 24.69

And by way of comparison, picking non-spinners with 100+ wkts

Hoggard 235 wkts @ 30.18
Harmison 186 wkts @ 30.45
Flintoff 196 wkts @ 31.90

McGrath 556 wkts @ 21.68
Lee 221 wkts @ 32.31
Kasprowicz 113 wkts @ 32.88

Pollock 402 wkts @ 23.21
Ntini 281 wkts @ 28.10
Kallis 202 wkts @ 31.88

Shoaib 165 wkts @ 25.70
Razzaq 100 wkts @ 36.94

Martin 106 wkts @ 34.30
Vaas 313 wkts @ 29.44
Zaheer 128 wkts @ 35.88

Doesn't compare terribly well for someone with his bowling reputation. He may well get into most sides but largely because he is an explosive batsman and would be slotted in at seven by any other Test nation I'm sure (bar Zimbabwe and Bangladesh of course!)

quote:

Originally posted by RedDuster:

quote:

Originally posted by Tis sven:

Making him captain and batting at 6 and sometimes opening the bowling is plain crazy...its too much for any man to take on....

Which begs the question - so why did he push for the captaincy by "throwing his hat into the ring" already occupied by a successful and respected Andrew Strauss?

And further ...
Just whose interests was he serving ?
The interests of a succesful team that he was inheriting from Strauss's captaincy - or his own personal interests?

he knew that australia were slightly fearful for what flintof did to them in egland, he was the difference no doubt about it....he also thought he knew the australian side well which he talked about.

I know it may seem a generalisation but batsmen make better captains...its a fact

quote:

Originally posted by Owzat:
Hoggard 235 wkts @ 30.18
Harmison 186 wkts @ 30.45
Flintoff 196 wkts @ 31.90

What this does not take into account is his first 25 tests of rubbish returns. Since then Fred's figures are much better.

Which leads us conveniently to query why there was such insistance that he be made captain.

Captains do not have close "mates" ;
they share drinks with but they do not closely fraternize with the opposition ;
they display leadership qualities by thoughtful manipulation and coersion of team members which results in said members giving their all for the 3 lions - not themselves.
they shed baggage rapidly, refraining from defending them blindly and thus exposing themselves and the team to ridicule.

Flintoff bowled superbly.
The End.

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:

quote:

Originally posted by Owzat:
Hoggard 235 wkts @ 30.18
Harmison 186 wkts @ 30.45
Flintoff 196 wkts @ 31.90

What this does not take into account is his first 25 tests of rubbish returns. Since then Fred's figures are much better.

Always nice and convenient to exclude the figures you don't like. Yes, what you say is true but that's a bit selective.

5 Tests - 6 wkts @ 47.67
10 Tests - 9 wkts @ 56.33
20 Tests - 32 wkts* @ 46.50
25 Tests - 41 wkts @ 49.93
40 Tests - 87 wkts @ 37.40
50 Tests - 135 wkts @ 32.64
66 Test - 196 wkts @ 31.90

*took Panesar 10 Tests to take 32 wkts

Bearing in mind your claim we should ignore 38% of his career because he didn't get off to an ideal start, his past 16 Tests have not seen much improvement on his average. His last 61 wkts have come at an average of 30.26 by my crude calculations

Stats schmats. You can make numbers mean anything you want, but cricket is not about numbers.

I've watched every ball bowled in this series so far, even if three of those games were via TV. Flintosser has been the best of the English bowlers. And that's not damning with faint praise, either. As annoying as I find his wicket celebrations, I'd have him instead of Blee.

Fred will never be a great player because

(a) his dodgy ankle won't allow him to bowl at full tilt, which is how he needs to bowl if he is to get lots of wickets

(b) he's a prime example of a FTB

(c) no matter what he says, this captaincy stint has probably messed him up a bit in the head.

Harmison's average interestingly has gone down badly while Hoggard's has hovered around 29-30 quite consistently.

How many Tests of their's should I exclude?

quote:

Hoggard's has hovered around 29-30 quite consistently.

That's because he always 'chips in' with wickets rather than blasts people out regularly. Hoggard's normally a 3-90 man.

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:
Stats schmats. You can make numbers mean anything you want, but cricket is not about numbers.

So Australia won by CU runs, Read scored Z runs and Warne now has.............. wkts

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:
I've watched every ball bowled in this series so far, even if three of those games were via TV. Flintosser has been the best of the English bowlers. And that's not damning with faint praise, either. As annoying as I find his wicket celebrations, I'd have him instead of Blee.

No doubt he bowls good deliveries, must be bowlers like McGrath, Warne, Murali and anyone with a better average are just lucky and Flintoff isn't! If you bowl well enough often enough then your 'schmats' will reflect it, I love the way some people dismiss some 'schmats' on a whim yet see other 'schmats' as gospel. No doubt we will have to revise the greatest batsman, bowler, all-rounder etc of all time based on something other than career stats.

Anyone watched every single player ever and care to say who bowled well every time they watched them? No need for 'schmats', 'bowled well' and 'batted well' are the new measure of greatness.

Tailender has spoken

quote:

Originally posted by Owzat:
Bearing in mind your claim we should ignore 38% of his career because he didn't get off to an ideal start, his past 16 Tests have not seen much improvement on his average. His last 61 wkts have come at an average of 30.26 by my crude calculations

Well, that's an OK return in this batting-friendly age.

My point is that he took a very long time to understand the requirements of test cricket. Waugh. From 1998-2001 he was a fringe player but identified as one to stick with. Since 2002 Fred has been the core of the side, been an automatic pick.

quote:

Originally posted by tailender:
Flintosser has been the best of the English bowlers. And that's not damning with faint praise, either. As annoying as I find his wicket celebrations, I'd have him instead of Blee.

Aye true - but first prize for "Glare of the Series" has to go to Hoggy for the 'eyes left, unblinking - and hold that stare for 20 seconds' scowl he threw at the Jaarpie Koertzen as he strode back to his bowling mark after a "plumb" LBW appeal had been turned down.

If looks could kill ....

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:

quote:

Originally posted by Owzat:
Bearing in mind your claim we should ignore 38% of his career because he didn't get off to an ideal start, his past 16 Tests have not seen much improvement on his average. His last 61 wkts have come at an average of 30.26 by my crude calculations

Well, that's an OK return in this batting-friendly age.

All the others are current bowlers, their averages are better

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:
My point is that he took a very long time to understand the requirements of test cricket. Waugh. From 1998-2001 he was a fringe player but identified as one to stick with.

Yet Waugh still managed to produce an average of 50..............

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Robby:

Since 2002 Fred has been the core of the side, been an automatic pick.

No doubt, doesn't mean he isn't over-rated. And note I never said he was rubbish, just question if he's judged more on ability than return.

And the fact that despite us ignoring 25 Tests he still only has two five wicket hauls in 41 Test. I think you're all jumping on my back with very defensive posts as if I'm slating him. I pointed out his stats don't live up to his reputed bowling and it is true, regardless of Fletcher-esque excuses.

quote:

That may look ok in some aspects but his wickets are expensive, he takes around 3 a TEST on average and for someone with his bowling ABILITY to have taken a meagre 2 five wicket hauls in 66 Tests is poor

I agree completely. Said something similar on the first page. Flintoff is a very good bowler but I feel he lacks a certain "destructive" element - ie he rarely, if ever, runs through a batting side. This is reflected by his lack of 5W hauls. I know he bowls as part of a 5 man attack, but even when the other bowlers have been found wanting, he still doesn't put in tear-away performances .

quote:

No doubt, doesn't mean he isn't over-rated. And note I never said he was rubbish, just question if he's judged more on ability than return.

Aye - for the reason above, I always feel he will be a notch below the "great" bowling allrounders of the 80s (Hadlee, Imran, Botham and Kapil). Comparisons of Botham and Flintoff are slightly premature IMO.