Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Collingwood's innings allowed Flintoff to play with the freedom that he did at the end. If Flintoff had come in earlier, that wouldn't have been possible.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Fiery
Banned
Yep. Australia batted badly when they scored 430+ because SA scored more.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
What a compelling argument you have there. I should probably reply with something equally compelling, just to keep you on your toes.
You're wrong and obviously just like to take every chance to "bag the poms."
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
They quite clearly batted well (or at least passably) and bowled poorly. Yet your theory suggests otherwise. It makes ODI cricket sound like a Twenty20 affair where bowling is almost completely irrelevant.Yep. Australia batted badly when they scored 430+ because SA scored more.
McKanga
School Boy/Girl Captain
Possibly but at least they played within their competence. They gave it a crack in their innings and IMO showed more urgency batting than they did in the recent Twenty/20 game. They came close to being bowled out but survived.
Then when their turn came to bowl they fielded well* although their bowlers didn't get much of a return.
* Yes, poor old Lewis again
Fiery
Banned
You're wrong again. Flintoff nearly always plays with freedom no matter when he comes in. He's one of the top 2 batsmen in the side and needs to be coming in earlier. If Collingwood is going to choke the innings like that then he should be batting further down the order or not be in the side at all
Fiery
Banned
Sorry, Prince EWS. You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet now. I'm not "bagging the poms" just for the sake of it. I would have loved nothing more if they had beaten Australia tonight. I slag my own team off just as bad when they lose
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Flintoff doesn't always play with freedom immediately - he quite often does because of the situations he comes in at, but he can play in quite an orthodox manner and generally tries to do so when England are in trouble - resulting in England missing the role he played today.
He's quite obviously most suited to doing exactly what he did today, and Collingwood's innings allowed him to do so.
As for him being one of the best two batsman in the side, I think that comment shows just how over-rated his batting has become. He averages 33. Pietersen (presumably the other you are talking about) averages 56, but Bell averages 42 and Strauss averages 35. Even the dreaded Paul Collingwood averages 32. Granted Flintoff's strike rate is higher, but his average is very significantly lower than Bell's, lower than Strauss's and only marginally better than the Mr.Scapegoat himself.
Fiery
Banned
Please don't try to tell me Flintoff is not one of the 2 top batsmen in the side. If you don't believe that then you are obviously deluded
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
No way! Strauss at the very least...
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hope he does get a game, although i would settle for Hogg to get his rightful place back in the team
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And Vaughan... granted he doesn't have a good ODI record... but he did look in rather good touch until Bracken got him with a beauty
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
This is getting a bit bogged down in equating "Collingwood did the right/wrong thing" with England batting well. Collingwood's performance is, as demonstrated by the last 6 pages, debatable. England as a whole however batted poorly. Pietersen was very good - til he got himself hurt. Flintoff was passable, but no more. Vaughan was ok for somebody playing their first serious game in a while, but no more. Collingwood was debateable, at best. Strauss and Bell simply weren't good enough. Nixon's inclusion as a wicket-keeper batsman paid off wonderfully Lewis at least showed some urgency, but overall, once again too much was left to KP and Flintoff. That's 3 out of the top seven being mediocre and another 3 having shockers = poor batting performance.
Lewis at least showed some urgency, but overall, once again too much was left to KP and Flintoff. That's 3 out of the top seven being mediocre and another 3 having shockers = poor batting performance.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Flintoff's definitely the second best ODI batsman in the England team, IMO. In tests he's obviously not even close.
Flintoff's been very good since the 2003 WC in ODIs. Averaging over 40 since then, not to mention mid 20s with the ball. Developed at a similar level to Symonds after that WC. Had a rubbish 2006 though.
Flintoff's been very good since the 2003 WC in ODIs. Averaging over 40 since then, not to mention mid 20s with the ball. Developed at a similar level to Symonds after that WC. Had a rubbish 2006 though.
Fiery
Banned
P..lease. Please edit that to "is the very least" or I'll never take you seriously again
Last edited:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Don't see what's wrong with Collingwood's innings personally (look at how 'brilliant' England are past Flintoff as well, plus only Flintoff and KP were fluent anyway), England should have added at least another 100 after he was out, but they only added another 74 in 12.4, which isn't even 6 an over - that's what choked England.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Which is why you couldn't currently call him one of our best two oneday batters. Even before 2006, I don't recall him doing much against the better sides, although that may be my ageing memory failing me again. tbh, after Pietersen it's daylight and the rest have been much of a muchness.
Tim
Cricketer Of The Year
When I first read that KP was gone I was quietly delighted but after thinking about it I realised it'll pretty much kill off England in this series. Mind you, when you're down so low there is only one way you can go so maybe this will really galvanise the side and pull them together.
I really want to see NZ win but for the sake of the series it's a real disappointment to lose Pietersen as he is one of the handful of players that could have single-handedly won England a match and boosted them.
I really want to see NZ win but for the sake of the series it's a real disappointment to lose Pietersen as he is one of the handful of players that could have single-handedly won England a match and boosted them.
Bad news for the spectaters as well because hes one of the best in the world right now. England might not even win a game without him now. Certainly wont trouble Australia, which is a real pity.
Their real problem is their bowling attack which is just horrible. They basically have flintoff and everyone else is just fodder. Do any of the rest even average close to 30 in ODI's?
Im really sick of watching the aussies toy with garage bowling attacks, its been happening for years now and its boring.
Boy do i miss the good old days from the 90s, when teams like Pakistan and West indies toured and played in the Tri series. In the 96-97 series for example we had Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop in the series and Australia didnt even make the finals.
Last edited: