Johnson V Flintoff

[Richard]

Waqar circa 1990/91-1994/95, yes, should've thought of him.

Wasim Akram, probably too, yes.

The rest, though - no.

 

[Beleg]

^

I forgot Bond as well.

eh, all the players I named have strike-rates that border on the ridiculous. they are genuine wicket-takers. england are lacking someone who'll take a guarantee'd four'fer or fiver every game. and all of 'em are manifestly better bowlers than flintoff. (well shabbir didn't have a chance to prove that properly - I'll give you that)

 

[Richard]

Of course they are. That isn't the point - the point is that to make a substantial difference to England now would require a bowler of the very, very, very top branch of the tree. Anything below that (which some of those you named either were or, in the case of Bond and Shabbir Ahmed, didn't play enough to suggest whether they were or weren't) wouldn't change this team into an excellent one.

 

[Beleg]

Of course they are. That isn't the point - the point is that to make a substantial difference to England now would require a bowler of the very, very, very top branch of the tree. Anything below that (which some of those you named either were or, in the case of Bond and Shabbir Ahmed, didn't play enough to suggest whether they were or weren't) wouldn't change this team into an excellent one.

i disagree. a bowler like bond or akhtar (assuming they stay fit and play regularly) would catapult this team into the top echelon of test cricket pretty easily. england lack a spearhead - someone who can run in and take wickets. its as obvious as daylight. the likes of anderson et all aren't wicket-takers. as far as i am concerned, both bond and akhtar, and perhaps gellispie too, were the cream of the crop. there performances speak of themselves.

 

[Richard]

One big-wicket-taker won't make England a massive amount better.

 

[SJS]

A more pertinent comparison would be Steyn vs Johnson. Both are quick, both are world-beaters on their day.

I'd pick Steyn - but they're both really good.

SJS probably think Steyn is better?

Yes I think Steyn is better But Bond of New Zealand was easily the best of modern day pacers. A real tragedy we lost him. He had it in him to be a great.

 

[Evermind]

Yes I think Steyn is better But Bond of New Zealand was easily the best of modern day pacers. A real tragedy we lost him. He had it in him to be a great.

Yep - agreed fully. Bond's my favourite pace bowler of the modern era: fast, exciting, accurate, and totally fun to watch.

And his strike rate is just absurd.

 

[Richard]

Yes I think Steyn is better But Bond of New Zealand was easily the best of modern day pacers. A real tragedy we lost him. He had it in him to be a great.

I often wonder, you know - did he? It's possible - nay, probable - that what made Bond so injury-prone was also a big part of what made him good, and if he'd used a different bowling-action to be less injury-prone, he'd have been a fair bit less effective.

Still, of course, likely that he'd have been good, but not as good (in ODIs and potentially in Tests) as he ended-up being.

 

[stephen]

One big-wicket-taker won't make England a massive amount better.

It would if it was a spinner of Warne's class.

 

[stephen]

England have really suffered from the loss of Simon Jones more than anyone else IMO. He was their best quick bowler (though Freddie was obviously the better package).

The thing is that whenever any side have appeared to be set to take over the world, they have all stumbled in their own way -

India's fast bowling lets them down overseas
South Africa have run out of momentum after their win in Aus
England lost Simon Jones though injury and Trescothic though mental illness and have had huge infighting
Pakistan has internal political problems
All the other teams aren't good enough.

Such a shame really for world cricket. I really hope that South Africa can bounce back and do well over the next few years. They've always been the team I've had a soft spot for.

 

[Richard]

It would if it was a spinner of Warne's class.

Not really. The only thing that'd make that enormous difference would be a seamer of the highest class. A spinner would not.

 

[Uppercut]

Not really. The only thing that'd make that enormous difference would be a seamer of the highest class. A spinner would not.

Hmm.

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Colly
Prior (k)
Flintoff
Broad
Warne (c)
Anderson
Sidebottom

Looks a hell of a lot better, doesn't it?

 

[GIMH]

Doubts over the #3 position & Sidebottom, but yes

 

[stephen]

Not really. The only thing that'd make that enormous difference would be a seamer of the highest class. A spinner would not.

On the contrary, the most dominant teams in history have either had a four pronged pace attack that contains at least two all time greats or they've had a real world class spinner and a world class paceman.

Having a spinner the quality of Warne or Murali really counts as having two world class pacers in your team (if you already have a very good spearhead). England have Freddie. If they had Warnie as well they'd look a whole lot stronger.

 

[Richard]

Hmm.

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Colly
Prior (k)
Flintoff
Broad
Warne (c)
Anderson
Sidebottom

Looks a hell of a lot better, doesn't it?

It looks better, but there's no way that one change would make England into anything other than a side offering some amount of challenge for a top-three slot.

 

[stephen]

It looks better, but there's no way that one change would make England into anything other than a side offering some amount of challenge for a top-three slot.

So it would double their current performance.

Anyway I thought you didn't like rankings

 

[Richard]

On the contrary, the most dominant teams in history have either had a four pronged pace attack that contains at least two all time greats or they've had a real world class spinner and a world class paceman.

They've also had an excellent batting unit, at least one other good-to-excellent seamer and a good wicketkeeper (ideally wicketkeeper-batsman).

England have none of those.

Thus the only thing that would take them close to or up to the top (and still nowhere remotely close to being one of the greatest teams in history) would be a seam-bowler of the all-time great variety, such as a Waqar Younis circa 1990/91-1994/95, Donald, McGrath, Pollock circa 1995/96-2001, Ambrose or Wasim Akram.

Nothing else would make them anything other than a pretty good team.

Whereas a Flintoff could just turn any of the current South Africa, Australia or India into a team which would almost certainly dominate the game, if not neccessarily be up with the best teams ever.

 

[Richard]

So it would double their current performance.

Maybe it might (or maybe it might not). But it would not, as the question up for question is, turn them from a below-average team into an excellent one.

Anyway I thought you didn't like rankings

I don't. Why does that impact on anything I said?

 

[Matt79]

It looks better, but there's no way that one change would make England into anything other than a side offering some amount of challenge for a top-three slot.

Well that's all that was suggested. "A massive improvement", not "an all-time great team". If it raised England to the level of consistently matching and winning their share against the Australias, Indias and South Africas, it would be a massive improvement.

And for one, I think it would do exactly that. Apart from his quality and wickets as a bowler in and of himself, apart from anything else a spinner of Warne's calibre would allow you to have a four man attack. In turn Freddy could bat 7 or 8, and you wouldn't need to compromise on have a competent gloveman in order to avoid too long a tail. For no real loss in bowling strength, you can suddenly get an extra batsman in, and have a keeper who isn't an embarrassment. Useful things for team balance, decent spinners.

 

[stephen]

It looks better, but there's no way that one change would make England into anything other than a side offering some amount of challenge for a top-three slot.

I don't. Why does that impact on anything I said?

It is only a technical criticism, but for someone who has avowed in this very threat that they don't believe in the ranking system, you used the ranking system as a measure of how good England would become with a Warne.

Having a world class player of any variety really helps team confidence. England already have two in Pieterson and Flintoff. Add in a Warne and you would have a team who genuinely believed that they could win test matches on a regular basis.

I see no reason why this English team could not become one of the best sides in the world if they gained some confidence and committed themselves to excellence.

Picking Hoggard again might also help the team too.