***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

If he gets a injury free fun such as IND 01 to SRI 06 i think Freddie has it in him to curb his natural aggressive instinct and very well & become a solid test match #6 againts good bowling attack based on what he did in IND 06. Its just that since with the all his injury woes he hasn't been able to build on that.

No, it isn't. Injuries didn't affect his batting. India in 2005/06 was one of only three occasions in his career where he's actually scored runs against good bowling-attacks, and before and after that he's failed to do so on the vast majority of occasions.

I've never, ever believed Flintoff is a good enough batsman to bat six in Test cricket. And I highly doubt I ever will. He just doesn't have the ability to curb aggression to enough of a degree.

 

[Richard]

Bit hyphen-happy aren't we?

Meh, debateable TSTL IMO. Bowling-attack is essentially one thing - it's a cricketing term. Same as batting-line-up.

 

[Top_Cat]

Meh, debateable TSTL IMO. Bowling-attack is essentially one thing - it's a cricketing term. Same as batting-line-up.

Convention says hyphenating words to make a compound modifier like that is pointless without actually using to modify something. It's only convention, though; no hard and fast rules.

Anyway, I've had my pedant for the night...

 

[aussie]

No, it isn't. Injuries didn't affect his batting. India in 2005/06 was one of only three occasions in his career where he's actually scored runs against good bowling-attacks, and before and after that he's failed to do so on the vast majority of occasions.


I've never, ever believed Flintoff is a good enough batsman to bat six in Test cricket. And I highly doubt I ever will. He just doesn't have the ability to curb aggression to enough of a degree.

After the Ashes i'd say Freddie batting was potentially moving on to another phase. Given the way Freddie played in previous sub-continental tours againts the spin what he did in IND 06 showed a great maturity since he curb his agression for the entire series. Since then with maybe the burben of captaincy he has looked woeful with the bat on the international stage.

ATM of course i wouldn't bat him @ 6, but once he gets some solid injury free cricket i think he has it in him down the line to be a top 6 batter since his bowling is unlikely to remain very potent for the entirety of what is the final phase of his career.

 

[Richard]

After the Ashes i'd say Freddie batting was potentially moving on to another phase. Given the way Freddie played in previous sub-continental tours againts the spin what he did in IND 06 showed a great maturity since he curb his agression for the entire series. Since then with maybe the burben of captaincy he has looked woeful with the bat on the international stage.

No, don't believe that. I always expected a regression, and it duly happened. He did poorly in his last series before taking the captaincy and well in his first with it. Captaincy had zero impact IMO. I know some expected Flintoff's batting to be moving on to another level after 2005 and 2005/06 (and indeed several times before then), but I didn't really. Nor have I ever done.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Meh, debateable TSTL IMO. Bowling-attack is essentially one thing - it's a cricketing term. Same as batting-line-up.

DWTA. Batting is the adjective in batting line-up. It's a line-up of batting. It's an attack of bowling. Batting-gloves? Short-leg-shin-pads?

 

[Richard]

Could happily take any of them, while not minding about not doing so either.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think it's merely a case of curbing his natural aggresion, i don't believe he has the defensive technique to average 35+ anyway.

 

[Furball]

I've always thought Flintoff would be at his best at number 7, playing a similar role to the one played by Gilchrist for Australia.

How you get him into this role though, is a different matter - he's not fit enough to be part of a 4 strong bowling attack, and there's no keeper who could bat at 6 - with the exception of Prior, who's a dumpling with the gloves.

 

[GIMH]

He's a better bowler than Broad and probably a better batsman, so it seems simple enough, but he couldn't realistically score less runs than Colly at the minute so I'm easy, if he plays I'm happy

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

he couldn't realistically score less runs than Colly at the minute so I'm easy, if he plays I'm happy

The only reason this argument works presently is because the rest of the batting performed well enough of late to allow Collingwood to be a passenger. That won't happen forever.

 

[Richard]

It's also worrying because my thought is that once Flintoff comes in, and the decision on four bowlers or five is made, it won't be reversed (unless four is the first choice).

If Flintoff plays instead of a batsman, I fear that any time a bowler is dropped while Flintoff remains in the side, it will be for another bowler and never for a batsman. So if Broad's position finally becomes totally untenable, he'd be replaced with Tremlett (whose form this season BTW has been disappointing) for instance.

And that basically means Owais Shah's chances are gone... again.

 

[GIMH]

The way some people are going on you would think Flintoff was going to come and bat with a stump, with an arm tied behind his back and a blindfold on. It's not like he has never scored runs. Sure, he would be better off at seven and won't make big scores as much as we'd like, but even in his last 11 Test matches where he was largely disappointing he averaged 33. It's not like we're putting Panesar at 6.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And if we were talking about West Indies or New Zealand that would be fine. But we're talking about a team with realistic ambitions of toppling Australia and, theoretically, with a player pool to do so. You can't settle for mediocrity.

 

[GIMH]

Obviously I don't want anyone in my top six averaging 33, that wasn't really my point. If we start at 2002, which is the point where consensus suggests Flintoff was picked on the basis of actually being good rather than having potential, then he averages 36 with the bat, on top of 31 with the ball (thought that would have been lower ITBT), this clearly is not to be sniffed at, and the 5 runs per dismissal we would possibly gain if we picked a "proper" batsman (Collingwood/Shah) instead is clearly offset by the fact that Flintoff will take wickets and generally keep it tight.

Again, I would rather him at seven myself, but I am not concerned about him batting at six as others seem to be. It's not like he doesn't know how to bat.

 

[GIMH]

Looking at his stats further, they really suggest that from sort of 02/03 onwards, he had the sort of batting average that was just about acceptable for a number six. Just didn't convert enough 50s into 100s, this will always be his downfall as a batsman IMO. Averages close to 50 at home in this period, which is worth keeping in mind when discussing this series in particular.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Settling for Flintoff at 6 is just that- settling. I cannot see England beating Australia next year with Anderson and Broad as key components of the bowling attack, a top 5 with Ian Bell and dodgy Vaughan, and Flintoff and Ambrose precluding the tail. England need to build a strong top six, and I can't see Flintoff ever being part of it. If you're going to have a genuine allrounder in your top 6, he damn well better be averaging over 40, or your wicketkeeper better be averaging over 40 to try to compensate.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Looking at his stats further, they really suggest that from sort of 02/03 onwards, he had the sort of batting average that was just about acceptable for a number six. Just didn't convert enough 50s into 100s, this will always be his downfall as a batsman IMO. Averages close to 50 at home in this period, which is worth keeping in mind when discussing this series in particular.

These stats don't mean very much, given that for most of this season Flintoff has been in the worst batting form of his life.

 

[Richard]

Also, as I've noted before, a fair bit of Flintoff's run-scoring came against execrable bowling-attacks in the summer of 2004.

Deduct that from his post-2001/02 record (anything before 2001/02 is 100% irrelevant IMO) and it makes quite a difference.

 

[GIMH]

Settling for Flintoff at 6 is just that- settling. I cannot see England beating Australia next year with Anderson and Broad as key components of the bowling attack, a top 5 with Ian Bell and dodgy Vaughan, and Flintoff and Ambrose precluding the tail. England need to build a strong top six, and I can't see Flintoff ever being part of it. If you're going to have a genuine allrounder in your top 6, he damn well better be averaging over 40, or your wicketkeeper better be averaging over 40 to try to compensate.

These stats don't mean very much, given that for most of this season Flintoff has been in the worst batting form of his life.

Okay, I didn't mention Anderson or Broad, and I agree. Ideally my attack would be Flintoff-Jones-Sidebottom-Panesar. You're right about settling for it - that's exactly what I am doing. I'd rather he batted at seven but we have to be realistic and know that we don't often get we all want to see, I'd rather he play at six than not at all as I feel that combined with his bowling he is a better overall bet. Sure it might knock a few runs off our total, it will usually knock more than that off the opposition's though. And also, there is hardly anyone knocking the door down - the top scoring batsmen that could play are Trescothick and Prior. Prior would actually meet your criteria of averaging 40, and had he not had itchy fingers in Sri Lanka I imagine it would be academic this discussion, Prior at 6, Flintoff at 7. Shah does have a case, admittedly.

Yes, I acknowledge Fred's poor form with the bat this year, basically he has scored nearly all of his runs bludegoning us to victory, it is a concern. This is where my main weakness comes in to play, blind faith . I genuinely believe he can turn things round. I don't see why people think his batting form is irreversible, which is what seems to be widely suggested.

As for Bell, I really don't see any better options at this point. I think in the top six that has played the last six matches there is only room to get rid of one, unless you are advocating that we need a batting line-up something like

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan (in form)
KP
Collingwood
Shah

next year V ye crims?