*Official* England in West Indies

[Flem274*]

You could, but I'm not sure I'd agree. For one, it was Taylor's bowling that made England's batting look diabolical, not the other way around (and I realise it wouldn't be exactly the other way around).

For another, Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood > Gayle, Devon Smith, Sarwan, Marshall () and Chanderpaul. Prior's batting >>> Ramdin's too. Full credit to WI's batting for outperforming England's the previous game and all, but England's batting unit is far more proven and reasonable expectation would be that it'd perform much better over a longer period (ie, the 6 matches penned between these teams in the next few months). Whether that comes to pass, we wait to see.

Did i say definitely? Should have said probably..

Whilst its carried heavily by Gayle, Sarwan and Chanderpaul, it seems to be working so far.

God help them if Gayle or Chanders has a form slump though.

Bell when it comes to the crunch (like scoring runs when it counts) is about as useful as Xavier Marshall tbf.

 

[Richard]

Was having this same debate on my way in to work the other day with a friend. We were discussing why Freddie has failed to take many more 5 wicket hauls. He thought it was down the old stock bowler adage, but like you Goughy, don't really buy that myself. There certainly are spells when he holds back on his pace and just attempts to build pressure from one end, but he should still be capable of picking up wickets.

I think there is something in the length he bowls, especially to lesser batsmen, he needs to forget his back of a length bowling, and get it right up there, risking a couple of drives, but generally he'll be too good for them. I'm not sure, just a suggestion.

Here's another suggestion that occurred to me the other day. There can be no one reason for Flintoff's lack of five-fors, but this is IMO indisputably one of the more considerable ones. Flintoff is the go-to bowler, and has been for the last 4 years at the very least. This means whenever you need to knock-over the top or middle-order, you go to him. More often than not, he'll deliver. If he's brought on with a team five down and knocks-over the last couple of recognised batsmen - vital wickets - his spell will generally be coming to an end as nine-ten-jack walk to the crease. I'd be interested if someone could concoct a survey of just how many deliveries Flintoff has, since 2003/04, bowled at nine-ten-eleven batsmen. I'd bet that, as a percentage, it'd be far, far lower than the likes of Harmison, MSP and the like. It'd, obviously, take hours and hours of painstaking research and if no-one fancied it I'd more than forgive them. But it'd be fascinating reading.

 

[Woodster]

Ready Flintoff? and Referral meltdown | The Spin | guardian.co.uk Sport

For those of you that have not read Lawrence Booth's take on the whole Flintoff thing.

 

[Richard]

Did i say definitely? Should have said probably..

Whilst its carried heavily by Gayle, Sarwan and Chanderpaul, it seems to be working so far.

God help them if Gayle or Chanders has a form slump though.

Bell when it comes to the crunch (like scoring runs when it counts) is about as useful as Xavier Marshall tbf.

Bell is a better batsman with one hand missing than Xavier Marshall is and quite possibly will ever be. I honestly have never seen a more inept batsman play international cricket for this many games, maybe Ricardo Powell, but at least he only played 2 Tests. Even Shahid Afridi's better than Marshall, and that really is saying something.

WI's batting worked well-ish in their only innings in the First Test, and just about well enough in the 2 games in NZ. England's is in a poor state right now and has been for a fair while, but it should still be better than WI's. However, things do change and it's possible that WI's best batsmen have made vital leaps in recent months and are now better than England's. That, though, will only be revealed a year or so down the line from now.

 

[Flem274*]

Bell is a better batsman with one hand missing than Xavier Marshall is and quite possibly will ever be. I honestly have never seen a more inept batsman play international cricket for this many games, maybe Ricardo Powell, but at least he only played 2 Tests. Even Shahid Afridi's better than Marshall, and that really is saying something.

WI's batting worked well-ish in their only innings in the First Test, and just about well enough in the 2 games in NZ. England's is in a poor state right now and has been for a fair while, but it should still be better than WI's. However, things do change and it's possible that WI's best batsmen have made vital leaps in recent months and are now better than England's. That, though, will only be revealed a year or so down the line from now.

Brendan Nash is one I forgot. Really rate the guy.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Thing is I've always thought why Flintoff doesn't get so many wickets it that his length, which is in essence 'back of a length' and not full enough to continously get the edges.

 

[Richard]

Undoubtedly, that's one reason. However, it's certainly not the only one.

Another simple one is that he's simply not been blessed with fortune. I will say beyond all question, without need for research, that Flintoff has gotten far fewer wickets with bad and average deliveries than the likes of Harmison and MSP. That's why his average up to 2003 was 50. He often bowled poorly, and usually got the figures his bowling deserved. Generally, I think someone bowling to get figures they deserve of 4-70 has no right for anyone to complain if they get 6-60.

Someone like Harmison, however, usually bowls poorly and gets poor figures, and occasionally bowls decently and gets outstanding figures.

Some would have you believe this has to be related to their own ability; I would not. Not everything that happens to a cricketer has been brought about by things within their own power.

 

[Richard]

Brendan Nash is one I forgot. Really rate the guy.

Yeah, he > Flintoff, quite clearly. Really surprised he wallowed in obscurity as a Queensland spare part for so long, he's obviously not good enough to play for Australia but if he'd batted then like he has done recently he'd clearly have made a state career to come not a million miles short of the likes of Dene Hills and Jamie Siddons.

Guess some are just (very) late developers. Most people who do as moderately as he did for most of his career have given-up long before the age of 30. Full credit to him for keeping trying and exploring all his options.

 

[oitoitoi]

Somewhat ironically Brendan Nash could be just the sort of player Australia need right now, really gritty. Australia seem to be wondering where it's all going wrong for them, they need another gritty player in the lower middle order. Their great batting line ups of the 90's and early part of this decade were built around gritty players, border, boon, s waugh etc., the pontings, haydens and gilchrists may have taken many of the headlines but they had the freedom to play that way because of the match saving players such as waugh and border. So many situations where the team may have capitulated and let the opposition back into the series there was always the famous Aussie fightback that would save the day. In their recent series losses to India and SA both said they were suprised because they were waiting for the fightbacks that never came, this is because Australia don't have those sort of players in the team anymore. The selectors need to realise that flat track bullies with huge averages aren't always as effective as those average might suggest, s waugh was supposedly selected originally on character, perhaps Australia should start doing the same again.

 

[sammy2]

He bowls at a decent line and lenght. Accurate bowler, but im sure I rememver gayle and fletcher putting on a Hundred runs opening partnership to win 20 millions last year ? He is just outside off, he lives there, predictable and playable. I can't wait for him to meet chanderpaul. He honestly looked amazed when gayle was hitting him all over.

That sort of bowling just can't get you 5frs, flintoff is a school boy cricketer and his record proves this. He has no variation in his deliveries and it's funny it took playing in the WI for people to start talking about this.

The disrespect for WI is surely exposing some below par players.

Fidel edwards has played 64 less innings than flintoff and has taken 7 5frs, and 2 4frs.

He is a real strike bowler. Fidels Strike rate is at 58, while flintoff after playing all those games has a strike rate above 65...

BTW, JT strike rate is at a kool 54. Face it, flintoff is way overated.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And Jerome Taylor's scored nearly as many test centuries as Flintoff!

 

[zaremba]

flintoff is a school boy cricketer

A profound analysis and, better still, an obviously accurate one.

 

[fredfertang]

flintoff is a school boy cricketer and his record proves this

I hadn't spotted him posting - what's his username? Will be interested to see his avatar

 

[sammy2]

I hadn't spotted him posting - what's his username? Will be interested to see his avatar

Its easier to focus on that than it is to focus on his lack of ability to bowl any team out. True worldclass players can do this repeatly, flintoff has never done it. He keeps it tidy tho, ENG is should just play another spinner if they want someone who won't leak runs. As for his batting ? Thats even weaker...

 

[Furball]

Yes Prior does the more accomplished batsman. Changing Prior and Flintoff around represents perfectly good sense to me, Prior is more likely to play the longer innings and reach three figures on a more consistent basis, therefore he should be given more of an opportunity to bat with a specialist batsman that is hopefully 'set'.

On the other hand, Flintoff will play a number of innings with the tail, and at times it is these situations that force Freddie into his attacking positive cricket, which is when he looks his best (providing he has taken some time to get in). The pressure eases a little when he is batting with the bowlers and he becomes a dangerous man at the crease.

IMO Flintoff's never bettered his 2003 series against South Africa with the bat.

Batting at 7 suits his game perfectly, as it did for Gilchrist.

As for his bowling, I don't know. It's obvious watching him that he's a damn fine bowler, but his figures simply don't point to that - although since Sri Lanka 2003 in England colours he's taken 163 wickets at 28.98 with a strike rate of 59.1, which isn't terrible.

I think it comes down to Flintoff not being properly utilised. IMO his best role is as a "shock and awe" bowler, who you bring on against well set batsmen to bowl 5 or 6 hostile overs. However, since the rest of England's bowling has been poor in this period, Flintoff's been over-used.

 

[Richard]

Somewhat ironically Brendan Nash could be just the sort of player Australia need right now, really gritty. Australia seem to be wondering where it's all going wrong for them, they need another gritty player in the lower middle order. Their great batting line ups of the 90's and early part of this decade were built around gritty players, border, boon, s waugh etc., the pontings, haydens and gilchrists may have taken many of the headlines but they had the freedom to play that way because of the match saving players such as waugh and border. So many situations where the team may have capitulated and let the opposition back into the series there was always the famous Aussie fightback that would save the day. In their recent series losses to India and SA both said they were suprised because they were waiting for the fightbacks that never came, this is because Australia don't have those sort of players in the team anymore. The selectors need to realise that flat track bullies with huge averages aren't always as effective as those average might suggest, s waugh was supposedly selected originally on character, perhaps Australia should start doing the same again.

Well Stephen Waugh was initially selected as a 20-year-old and, apart from in 1989, he struggled badly until the age of nearly 28. It was only his bowling that meant he played as many matches as he did in that time (played 2 in West Indies in 1991 as more bowler than batsman).

Waugh was nearly 28, and the season was 1992/93, before he finally started to fulfill his potential. For the next 8 years and 90 Tests, he averaged 61, the same as Tendulkar averaged over a comparable number of games.

I don't really think Brendan Nash would make all that much difference to Australia right now TBH, I don't think he's that good. However, he could just make a real difference to West Indies.

 

[Richard]

IMO Flintoff's never bettered his 2003 series against South Africa with the bat.

I think he has TBH, though only twice - Australia in 2005 and, most notably of all, India in 2005/06. Those three series' are the only ones where, to me, he actually batted genuinely well against good-quality bowling. The SA attack was a pretty good one, but he only played 1 innings of any real significance - the 90-odd at The Oval. Prior to that it was just having a hit when the game was gone, reducing the margins of defeat.

 

[Richard]

That sort of bowling just can't get you 5frs, flintoff is a school boy cricketer and his record proves this. He has no variation in his deliveries and it's funny it took playing in the WI for people to start talking about this.

The disrespect for WI is surely exposing some below par players.

Fidel edwards has played 64 less innings than flintoff and has taken 7 5frs, and 2 4frs.

He is a real strike bowler. Fidels Strike rate is at 58, while flintoff after playing all those games has a strike rate above 65...

BTW, JT strike rate is at a kool 54. Face it, flintoff is way overated.

It's idiotic posts like this that make CW both a great and a terrible place, on the rare occasions they're made.

 

[zaremba]

It's idiotic posts like this that make CW both a great and a terrible place, on the rare occasions they're made.

You're only saying this because of your "disrespect for WI".

Actually,now I come to think of it, this

The disrespect for WI is surely exposing some below par players

is possibly the most mystifying sentence I've ever read on CW.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually,now I come to think of it, this is possibly the most mystifying sentence I've ever read on CW.

He was clearly talking about Xavier Marshall. England showed him no respect and he still couldn't score any runs.