***Official*** South Africa in England

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, I'm hoping Bell pulls it together and becomes the top class batsman that he can become. He's still relatively young and is on the back of (virtually) consecutive first-class double hundreds. But his poor batting leading to those innings can't be excused from memory. He's still not a consistent threat to score runs at number 5.

The thing is, is Flintoff's bowling strong enough to excuse potentially poor batting at six? Then again, is his bowling strong enough to be part of a 4-man attack? I'm talking present form. I'd guess no on both counts. And as such I don't think he should be picked at all just yet.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Except he managed to score runs the following year against Australian bowling, and the year after that, in India, as captain. If we are going to exclude the summer of 2004, then IMO all games from the SL series of 06 onwards should also be excluded as this is where he was not himself with either bat or ball. The result? 37.95, not too shabby IMO (oh, also I excluded the ICC XI, only counting games for England).

As you know, I am not a big one for picking and choosing, I am fine with taking a period but think all opposition (except maybe Ban or Zim) should be counted in said period. He still scored the runs, it's not like they shouldn't count. And better batsmen than Flintoff didn't all outscore him that summer, from memory.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying they shouldn't count. Simply that the attacks of the summer of 2004 were notably weaker than most, as was the one in New Zealand in 2001/02. Nor IMO did Flintoff bat any differently whatsoever in 2006 or 2006/07 to Pakistan in 2005/06 or South Africa in 2004/05. Or Sri Lanka and West Indies in 2003/04. Or Sri Lanka and India in 2002. Or India in 2001/02. He simply batted as he normally batted, and against that calibre of bowling (on all these occasions) it wasn't good enough.

Only on three occasions, for mine, has Flintoff raised his game to score against what I'd call "good" bowling: South Africa in 2003, Australia in 2005 and India in 2005/06. Nothing will devalue how well he played in those series', but it'd be head-in-sand stuff IMO to suggest him batting well was in the majority.

For mine, as you know, Flintoff's career of significance starts in 2001/02. I also feel the attacks he faced in New Zealand in 2001/02 and against New Zealand and West Indies in the summer of 2004 were extraordinarily weak and don't really prove anything much. So in short, his batting-average 2001/02 to 2006/07, with those three series' knocked-out, is the one I feel best represents his ability.

 

[GIMH]

No, I'm hoping Bell pulls it together and becomes the top class batsman that he can become. He's still relatively young and is on the back of (virtually) consecutive first-class double hundreds. But his poor batting leading to those innings can't be excused from memory. He's still not a consistent threat to score runs at number 5.

The thing is, is Flintoff's bowling strong enough to excuse potentially poor batting at six? Then again, is his bowling strong enough to be part of a 4-man attack? I'm talking present form. I'd guess no on both counts. And as such I don't think he should be picked at all just yet.

Agree with Bell, certainly his form has been disappointing, and the only reasonable run of exciting form I can recall him having was his golden summer of 2006 (where he could well, for all we know, have been poised for a 4th ton in 4th matches at the time of the, erm, scandal). He needs to put together long runs of decent scores, and score more runs when under pressure, it was great to see him do this on Thurs/Fri (I won't buy it that there was no pressure), I would have faith in him having a decent Ashes at the 3rd bite though, I think he is talented enough. If he can score more runs this summer, go to India and the Carribean, and say between the next 9 Tests that we play score 3 or 4 or maybe even 5 tons, I think that's what we need and what he has to do for us to become confident that we have a very good batsmen in our ranks. Look at the way Michael Clarke has kicked on and is basically a shoe-in for next Aussie captain, Bell should have been looking to do the same.

As for Flintoff's bowling, he is averaging 25-26 with an econ under 3, sure it's not the best in the division but it's good enough. A batsman of Langer's quality said he was bowling as well as he remembered him bowling in 2005 earlier in the season, admittedly pre-side strain. Can't help but think some people have forgotten how good a bowler he is in this thread, you'd be hard pressed to leave a 100% Flintoff out of your world XI bowling attack. As long as he bowls first change! Now is there a statsguru filter to back me up on that...

 

[tooextracool]

Look, it should be obvious to anyone with some semblence of logic that Flintoff should be playing at no 8 at the moment ahead of Broad. Broad is clearly not good enough ATM to be playing test match cricket as a bowler and while he may one day actually make a decent bowler, he offers very little to the England bowling attack at present (no pace, no swing and ordinary accuracy). Unfortunately, at this moment, England need someone with pace to remove the sameness that has been a hallmark of their attack and at the moment, there are only 3 bowlers in England who can give that to them:Harmison, Jones and Flintoff

Harmison clearly needs more time in English domestic cricket but i do harbour hopes that one day he will be back playing for the 3 lions. However, I do hope that that day does not occur until he continues to put in top performances for the rest of this season and at least a bit of next season. Ideally, it would be great if he played FC cricket this winter in Australia or SA so that he could prove that a) he can still be a consistent threat to batsmen, b) learn some new tricks with the ball, and c)prove the doubters that he is no longer bogged by homesickness.
IMHO, I cannot see any reason why Jones should not be playing next test ahead of Flintoff. I just cant. He has far more games under his belt this season since his injury than Flintoff does, hes yet to suffer from any sort of recurrence of his former injuries and hes even performed better than Flintoff. From reports hes been bowling at 90mph and hes been a constant threat in domestic cricket.
As far as Flintoff is concerned, yes he should play in the next test ahead of Broad. Jones would have been my first choice but Flintoff has to play insteadso that England have a different dimension to their attack. Im not sure what the pitch at Headingly will be like this year, but he is more likely than most bowlers in domestic cricket to take wickets on any ground in the world.

 

[fredfertang]

Yes he's batted like a plank all year but Flintoff hasn't gone to the crease in front of a packed house in a test match yet - the bloke's got what it takes - he'll be fine at six and everyone will be watching him so there will be less pressure on the others

And as far as his bowling is concerned the remarkable thing is he really does look like he's fully fit - marvellous sight - I didn't think he'd ever be the 2005 vintage again but now I rather think he might

I have no doubt the Saffies would rather he weren't playing

 

[GIMH]

I'm not saying they shouldn't count. Simply that the attacks of the summer of 2004 were notably weaker than most, as was the one in New Zealand in 2001/02. Nor IMO did Flintoff bat any differently whatsoever in 2006 or 2006/07 to Pakistan in 2005/06 or South Africa in 2004/05. Or Sri Lanka and West Indies in 2003/04. Or Sri Lanka and India in 2002. Or India in 2001/02. He simply batted as he normally batted, and against that calibre of bowling (on all these occasions) it wasn't good enough.

Only on three occasions, for mine, has Flintoff raised his game to score against what I'd call "good" bowling: South Africa in 2003, Australia in 2005 and India in 2005/06. Nothing will devalue how well he played in those series', but it'd be head-in-sand stuff IMO to suggest him batting well was in the majority.

For mine, as you know, Flintoff's career of significance starts in 2001/02. I also feel the attacks he faced in New Zealand in 2001/02 and against New Zealand and West Indies in the summer of 2004 were extraordinarily weak and don't really prove anything much. So in short, his batting-average 2001/02 to 2006/07, with those three series' knocked-out, is the one I feel best represents his ability.

I'm going to disagree with you here, as I feel watching him bat down under in 06-07 was a sorry sight to behold. Every time he walked out I felt like I was waiting for the inevitable and that he looked like getting out and for me that's something I'd not ever felt about Flintoff. Sure, I never expected him to go out and blast a ton every time, but I always felt excited when he was at the crease, but as the SL series wore on, and then most firmly in the Ashes, I was bricking it whenever 4th wicket dropped, and as everybody knows I am a HUGE Flintoff fan - I don't feel he was himself at all tbh.

 

[GIMH]

Look, it should be obvious to anyone with some semblence of logic that Flintoff should be playing at no 8 at the moment ahead of Broad. Broad is clearly not good enough ATM to be playing test match cricket as a bowler and while he may one day actually make a decent bowler, he offers very little to the England bowling attack at present (no pace, no swing and ordinary accuracy). Unfortunately, at this moment, England need someone with pace to remove the sameness that has been a hallmark of their attack and at the moment, there are only 3 bowlers in England who can give that to them:Harmison, Jones and Flintoff

Harmison clearly needs more time in English domestic cricket but i do harbour hopes that one day he will be back playing for the 3 lions. However, I do hope that that day does not occur until he continues to put in top performances for the rest of this season and at least a bit of next season. Ideally, it would be great if he played FC cricket this winter in Australia or SA so that he could prove that a) he can still be a consistent threat to batsmen, b) learn some new tricks with the ball, and c)prove the doubters that he is no longer bogged by homesickness.
IMHO, I cannot see any reason why Jones should not be playing next test ahead of Flintoff. I just cant. He has far more games under his belt this season since his injury than Flintoff does, hes yet to suffer from any sort of recurrence of his former injuries and hes even performed better than Flintoff. From reports hes been bowling at 90mph and hes been a constant threat in domestic cricket.
As far as Flintoff is concerned, yes he should play in the next test ahead of Broad. Jones would have been my first choice but Flintoff has to play insteadso that England have a different dimension to their attack. Im not sure what the pitch at Headingly will be like this year, but he is more likely than most bowlers in domestic cricket to take wickets on any ground in the world.

I firstly question whether Ambrose is worthy of batting above Flintoff, and secondly why you would leave out (and not even mention in your post) the bowler who has carried our attack for the last 12 months, Ryan Sidebottom btw. Why hanker after Harmison when it should be obvious to anyone with any semblence of logic that Sidebottom has been the ONLY consistent bowler in our side this last year. Of those that I can recall playing, him aside:

Plunkett - got one, maybe two, games under Moores and was piss-poor
Hoggard - a shadow of himself the whole time Sidebottom has been in the side, and a little bit before as well
Anderson - great at times, ****e at others
Panesar - bizarre, had some poor times then some big hauls, obviously still worth his place
Broad - would have been dropped after the NZ series but for his prowess with the bat
Harmison - with all his comebacks, his stint in SA cricket, watching Harmison this last year or so has been a bit like a Barry Manilow song, you keep waiting for something to happen before finally accepting that it won't

On the other hand, Sidebottom averages 25-26, plays with a lot of heart, keeps it tight (how often do we see him at >2.5??) and offers variation, which some are quite keen on in this game. To go into the 12 months ahead, barring injuries or the most extreme case of the yips would be somewhat farcical.

 

[Richard]

I'm going to disagree with you here, as I feel watching him bat down under in 06-07 was a sorry sight to behold. Every time he walked out I felt like I was waiting for the inevitable and that he looked like getting out and for me that's something I'd not ever felt about Flintoff. Sure, I never expected him to go out and blast a ton every time, but I always felt excited when he was at the crease, but as the SL series wore on, and then most firmly in the Ashes, I was bricking it whenever 4th wicket dropped, and as everybody knows I am a HUGE Flintoff fan - I don't feel he was himself at all tbh.

TBH, I felt the exact same in the aforementioned series.

I've always been surprised rather than expectations-fulfilled whenever Flintoff has scored against good bowling. How well he played in 2003 truly astonished me, I didn't believe he had it in him at all at that stage, and I was pretty at his 2005 and India-2005/06 too.

However, I can't really expect the next one until maybe 2009/10 now, really.

We all know you're rather the AkhilDharCric to my silentstriker as far as cricket over here is concerned, though, so I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this.

 

[GIMH]

But on what basis? Form can come out of anywhere. Be honest, watching Bell bat last month did you expect him to go to FC, double up and then follow up with a 199?

For all we know, the easy match-finishing innings he played yesterday could have been just the tonic, everything might have clicked there for him. Course, it might well not, but form can just come out of nowhere. Flintoff has, for me, scored enough runs in the past for me to be confident that he will do again in the future.

 

[Richard]

Panesar - bizarre, had some poor times then some big hauls

Completely relative to the type of pitch. TBH I'd not say it was bizarre at all, makes perfect sense. When he's got it to turn, he's presented huge threat. When he hasn't, he hasn't.

obviously still worth his place

Well... obviously still going to be picked for most Tests, yeah, but I'd not say he or any fingerspinner is really worth that place on wickets that don't turn.

 

[Richard]

But on what basis? Form can come out of anywhere. Be honest, watching Bell bat last month did you expect him to go to FC, double up and then follow up with a 199?

For all we know, the easy match-finishing innings he played yesterday could have been just the tonic, everything might have clicked there for him. Course, it might well not, but form can just come out of nowhere. Flintoff has, for me, scored enough runs in the past for me to be confident that he will do again in the future.

I'm sure he will score runs against good attacks again - just not regularly. I don't think it's a question of form. I think it's a question of him occasionally playing better than he normally does. I don't think there's any way he can harness this or make it happen more regularly - I just think he's only capable of it once in a while.

BTW, on the matter of Bell - TBH I never expect him to not score runs, not in the longer game. He rarely if ever looks out-of-nick. Ditto Vaughan. Them getting out almost always seems a surprise, which is why it's so annoying that they've to date done it so often.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

This point is largely rubbish. Im sorry but most of the bowling attacks going around the world ATM are rountinely garbage. Only SA and Australia can be said to have anything above a half decent level for a pace attack at the moment and I dont see that changing anytime soon. The point is that no one bothers to exclude Graeme Smiths record against these craptacular bowling attacks (which he has so often succeeded against) from his 50 odd test match average. So why on earth should they be excluded from Flintoffs? Ok so I can understand if he failed purely against the good attacks and succeeded against the bad ones, but that is clearly not the case. During said time, he succeeded against Pollock, Kallis and Ntini at home in 2003, he succeeded with flying colors against Mcgrath, Warne and Lee in 2005 and he succeeded against Kumble, Munaf, Shreesanth and Harbhajan during this time as well. And even in SA in 04, he averaged 35 odd and played some vital innings in the series which while not brilliant is still acceptable. These are all amongst the top attacks at the time when he played them and yet they are pushed into the background simply because he happened to make the mistake of succeeding against the poor quality bowlers as well.

 

[GIMH]

**Agree with that, but in reality I can't see us not picking a spinner

It is something they mentioned on Sky last night though, in the highlights. ie If it is overcast on Friday, play four seamers. With Pietersen currently averaging more than Bradman, and Cook not getting rave reviews, it could backfire if conditions changed though!!

Wouldn't mind seeing an all-seam attack at all tbh, and what a batting line-up it would be, whichever order you put Flintoff/Ambrose/Broad in (I'd probs go Fred/Broad/Ambrose at the minute tbh). Think the last time we did it was Headingley 03.

Did I mention that I'm going the game this weekend

It's sad, when you have kids you spend three months looking forwards to a day at the cricket, now that Flintoff is playing I feel like my sister does when she goes to a Take That concert

**Agreeing with a Rich post from a few posts up now saying Monty shouldn't play when the conditions don't suit it. ITBT

 

[Richard]

This point is largely rubbish. Im sorry but most of the bowling attacks going around the world ATM are rountinely garbage. Only SA and Australia can be said to have anything above a half decent level for a pace attack at the moment and I dont see that changing anytime soon. The point is that no one bothers to exclude Graeme Smiths record against these craptacular bowling attacks (which he has so often succeeded against) from his 50 odd test match average. So why on earth should they be excluded from Flintoffs? Ok so I can understand if he failed purely against the good attacks and succeeded against the bad ones, but that is clearly not the case. During said time, he succeeded against Pollock, Kallis and Ntini at home in 2003, he succeeded with flying colors against Mcgrath, Warne and Lee in 2005 and he succeeded against Kumble, Munaf, Shreesanth and Harbhajan during this time as well. And even in SA in 04, he averaged 35 odd and played some vital innings in the series which while not brilliant is still acceptable. These are all amongst the top attacks at the time when he played them and yet they are pushed into the background simply because he happened to make the mistake of succeeding against the poor quality bowlers as well.

I'd say there were only three genuinely poor attacks, in unchallenging conditions, Flintoff faced between 2001/02 and 2006/07 myself. New Zealand in 2001/02, New Zealand in 2004, and West Indies in 2004.

India in 2001/02 was decent enough.
Sri Lanka in 2002 had Murali if no-one else.
India in 2002 weren't the best but he still managed to fail.
South Africa in 2003 were pretty good.
Sri Lanka in 2003/04 had Murali and that alone was enough of a Test, and Vaas bowled pretty well most of that series too.
West Indies in 2004 was actually reasonably challenging in the first three Tests because the pitches had a bit in them.
South Africa in 2004/05 were pretty good.
Australia in 2005 were pretty good even though there were times when it was a one-man Warne.
Pakistan in 2005/06 were pretty good.
India in 2005/06 were pretty good and the pitches in the last two Tests offered a bit to the bowlers.
Sri Lanka in 2006 had Murali, and again that's enough.
He didn't play against Pakistan in 2006, but with their third-string they were rubbish FTR.
Australia in 2006/07 were pretty damn good.

There's 11 series in there - Flintoff batted well in 3 of them. IMO he irrefutably failed in India in 2001/02, against SL and India in 2002, in SL and WI in 2003/04, in SA in 2004/05, in Pakistan in 2005/06, against SL in 2006 and in Aus in 2006/07. This isn't good enough for my money.

 

[tooextracool]

BTW, on the matter of Bell - TBH I never expect him to not score runs, not in the longer game. He rarely if ever looks out-of-nick. Ditto Vaughan. Them getting out almost always seems a surprise, which is why it's so annoying that they've to date done it so often.

You probably didnt watch this test then?
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1752

or this one:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1664

i certainly havent seen Bell out of nick yet in his test match career, which is admirable. However, Vaughan has had many days when hes looked to be batting with a broom instead of a bat.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah but how often have you seen Vaughan bat gorgeously, play the best cover drives, look in command like noone else, quite frankly he is batting so well that you have a bit of a stoinker, and then, bang, bye bye middle stump? All the time.

 

[Richard]

You probably didnt watch this test then?
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1752

or this one:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1664

i certainly havent seen Bell out of nick yet in his test match career, which is admirable. However, Vaughan has had many days when hes looked to be batting with a broom instead of a bat.

I wasn't suggesting Vaughan had never looked out-of-nick (though the latter being against Zimbabwe I don't really consider it a Test - and I've seen him bat poorly for Yorkshire before now too). Simply that it's pretty rare. Vaughan is far less prone to looking out-of-nick than most, even if Bell probably does it even better than him.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd say there were only three genuinely poor attacks, in unchallenging conditions, Flintoff faced between 2001/02 and 2006/07 myself. New Zealand in 2001/02, New Zealand in 2004, and West Indies in 2004.

India in 2001/02 was decent enough.
Sri Lanka in 2002 had Murali if no-one else.
India in 2002 weren't the best but he still managed to fail.
South Africa in 2003 were pretty good.
Sri Lanka in 2003/04 had Murali and that alone was enough of a Test, and Vaas bowled pretty well most of that series too.
West Indies in 2004 was actually reasonably challenging in the first three Tests because the pitches had a bit in them.
South Africa in 2004/05 were pretty good.
Australia in 2005 were pretty good even though there were times when it was a one-man Warne.
Pakistan in 2005/06 were pretty good.
India in 2005/06 were pretty good and the pitches in the last two Tests offered a bit to the bowlers.
Sri Lanka in 2006 had Murali, and again that's enough.
He didn't play against Pakistan in 2006, but with their third-string they were rubbish FTR.
Australia in 2006/07 were pretty damn good.

There's 11 series in there - Flintoff batted well in 3 of them. This isn't good enough for my money.

Firstly, your idea of what constitutes a good bowling attack is biased and based around his failures. For example, the Indian bowling attack from 2002 was an absolute joke. Kumble and Harbhajan bowled poorly as they almost always do away from home and Zaheer, Nehra and Agarkar at the time are better left without mentioning a word. Certainly that attack posed less of a threat and certainly did not come anywhere near close to the quality of bowling that was often on display by Collins, Collymore and occasionally Fidel Edwards from 2004. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Flintoff's batting only came off age in the summer of 2003 on his next return to the side in the series against Australia.
In the period from the summer of 2003 to 2007:

-scored against SA, as good a bowling attack going around at the time after Australia
failed in SL, due solely to his inability to play spin.
-failed against the WI against a not so good attack
-scored against NZ against arguably the worst attack of the lot
-scored against WI against what was actually a pretty decent attack, or at least an attack that performed above expectations
-failed against SA against a good attack
-scored against a good Australian attack
-failed against a good pakistan attack
-scored against a good attack in India
-failed against an ordinary SL attack. Although to be fair he only had 3 innings.
-failed in the Ashes

In a period of 10 test series, he succeeded against 5 attacks, 4 of which were perfectly acceptable to great. This is no worse than a lot of regular test batsmen going around these days.

For example, lets take a look at Graeme Smiths record:

Failed against Australia
Failed against SL
Scored against a piss-poor Pakistan attack
scored against a poor England attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
scored against a poor WI attack
scored against a poor Kiwi attack
scored against a good SL attack
did ok against a good India attack
failed against a good England attack
scored against a poor Wi attack
failed * 2 against Australia
did ok against a poor NZ attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
did ok against a good India attack
scored against a poor pakistan attack(at least on those pitches)
failed against a decent NZ attack
scored against a good India attack

Thats 4 good series out of 12 and not much better than Flintoff Im afraid. Yet you happen to champion this man.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah but how often have you seen Vaughan bat gorgeously, play the best cover drives, look in command like noone else, quite frankly he is batting so well that you have a bit of a stoinker, and then, bang, bye bye middle stump? All the time.

Ive seen just as many games where hes looked atrocious, especially during the Ashes in 2005. I think the problem is that recent memory sticks with most people. Between 2003-2006 there were plenty of times when Vaughan looked absolutely atrocious at the crease. Since his return last year of course hes looked in good touch almost every time hes walked to the crease, but that doesnt mean we should ignore everything before then.