Johnson V Flintoff

[Richard]

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.

Decent bowlers, really. Whether they're seamer or spinner is neither here nor there. In any case, what was suggested was that Flintoff could not "be all things to England currently". Nor, as far as I'm concerned, could Warne, or very many others. But a top-class seamer like Donald, McGrath etc. just possibly could be. Even that's only a possibility.

 

[Richard]

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.

Not really. Can't see how I was. I couldn't care less for rankings as exact as I$C$C's, they're utterly useless IMO, but a more simple ranking can be useful at times. Even then, though, only at times, because sometimes a "new start" is arrived at by a number of different teams.

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.

The point was a Warne (or other) instead of a Flintoff - as Flintoff's bowling in itself isn't, currently, World-class, but it could conceivably be in amongst a better attack.

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.

I do. Plenty of the players simply don't have sufficient skill to enable the team to do that.

 

[Matt79]

Decent bowlers, really. Whether they're seamer or spinner is neither here nor there. In any case, what was suggested was that Flintoff could not "be all things to England currently". Nor, as far as I'm concerned, could Warne, or very many others. But a top-class seamer like Donald, McGrath etc. just possibly could be. Even that's only a possibility.

No, it is relevant whether they are a spinner or not, as no seamer is going to be able hold down an end for an entire session, or bowl 30 overs in a day, without aseeious decline in performance. A spinner can.

Unless you are going to adopt a Windies 60 over a day style, it's impossible to consistently have a four man attack without a good spinner.

 

[Richard]

Don't agree - no-one can get away with bowling 60 overs per day any more, and I've seen four-man (occasionally even five-man) seam attacks have genuine success plenty often, which given the relative rarity they even get on the park is fairly remarkable.

Either way, not totally sure how this is relevant to previous posts TBH.

 

[stephen]

The point was a Warne (or other) instead of a Flintoff - as Flintoff's bowling in itself isn't, currently, World-class, but it could conceivably be in amongst a better attack.

No, this was never the discussion. The discussion was about what it would take to turn England into a top class side. You were saying the addition of an all time great quick bowler. I pointed out that an all time great spinner would help more.

Never did anyone imply that we were talking about replacing Flintoff.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Never did anyone imply that we were talking about replacing Flintoff.

I think maybe Richard is Flintoff?

 

[Matt79]

Don't agree - no-one can get away with bowling 60 overs per day any more, and I've seen four-man (occasionally even five-man) seam attacks have genuine success plenty often, which given the relative rarity they even get on the park is fairly remarkable.

Either way, not totally sure how this is relevant to previous posts TBH.

Explained in the below quote.

No, this was never the discussion. The discussion was about what it would take to turn England into a top class side. You were saying the addition of an all time great quick bowler. I pointed out that an all time great spinner would help more.

Never did anyone imply that we were talking about replacing Flintoff.

Re the successful four man (as opposed to five man attacks feat. at least four quicks) all pace attacks who regularly get through all the required overs - please name them - I'm prepared to admit I was wrong if you can.

 

[SJS]

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.

I am not so sure of that bit.

For the first one hundred years of Test cricket a four pronged pace attack was almost unheard of. It is West Indies under Lloyd who played four pacers in match after match, series after series and year after year fpr the first time.

 

[Uppercut]

I am not so sure of that bit.

For the first one hundred years of Test cricket a four pronged pace attack was almost unheard of. It is West Indies under Lloyd who played four pacers in match after match, series after series and year after year fpr the first time.

Indeed. That West Indies side is extremely over-referenced in the "don't pick a spinner" argument. They're the exception, not the rule. And 90s Australia were probably better anyway.

 

[Richard]

Not a chance IMO, but that's by-the-by.

Either way, West Indies of '77 to '86 are indeed the only team to go lengthy periods without picking a spinner (in that decade, just one spinner played more than a single game, and he was an all-rounder whose fielding was superlative, and mostly he played as a fifth bowler - Roger Harper) but the point is, they shouldn't be. More teams should have tried it regularly, rather than picking ineffective spinners just because convention says you have to.

 

[Richard]

No, this was never the discussion. The discussion was about what it would take to turn England into a top class side. You were saying the addition of an all time great quick bowler. I pointed out that an all time great spinner would help more.

Never did anyone imply that we were talking about replacing Flintoff.

They did. Will (Uppercut)'s original post said "Flintoff cannot be all things to England currently" (specifically "to England's bowling-attack), which is true. I pointed-out that virtually no-one could, as the rest of England's team and bowling-attack is simply not good enough. If Flintoff was instead of being Flintoff almost any other player England would still be a moderate-to-poor side.

Unless, just possibly, that someone else was a Donald or Ambrose. A Warne\Murali's addition would quite possibly still mean they lost more than they won. A Donald or Ambrose could just turn them into a pretty decent if not World-beating team.

 

[stephen]

I am not so sure of that bit.

For the first one hundred years of Test cricket a four pronged pace attack was almost unheard of. It is West Indies under Lloyd who played four pacers in match after match, series after series and year after year fpr the first time.

Emphasis wrong. The emphasis should have been on the "had at least two all time great fast bowlers" part. The implication being that a great spinner will more often than not help out game balance better than a great quick.

England's problems now don't stem from a lack of spinners or a lack of quicks or a lack of batsmen, but simply from the ones they have not performing at the standard to which their ability suggests they should. I mean why hasn't Monty taken the world by storm like he was threatening to years ago.

They did. Will (Uppercut)'s original post said "Flintoff cannot be all things to England currently" (specifically "to England's bowling-attack), which is true. I pointed-out that virtually no-one could, as the rest of England's team and bowling-attack is simply not good enough. If Flintoff was instead of being Flintoff almost any other player England would still be a moderate-to-poor side.

Unless, just possibly, that someone else was a Donald or Ambrose. A Warne\Murali's addition would quite possibly still mean they lost more than they won. A Donald or Ambrose could just turn them into a pretty decent if not World-beating team.

You seem to have gotten a different interpretation of the conversation than I (and I'm assuming others) certainly did.

Regardless, a Donald or an Ambrose in the place of Flintoff would help a lot less than you might think. Even if it was a direct replacement, a Warne for a Flintoff would be a trade any coach would make without blinking - and it would strengthen the side.

All time Great spinners can bowl all day if necessary, giving them the ability to be adaptive to the conditions much more than quicks. A quick bowler, regardless of how good they are, isn't going to bowl more than around 20 overs in a day - 25 max. A spinner can get through 30+. Given that someone like Warne has a strike rate of around the best quick bowlers, this gives your strike bowler much more opportunity to take wickets.

Also a spinner is much easier to tailor a wicket for without giving your opponent an advantage as well (most of the time), which certainly helps the cause.

 

[Matt79]

Not a chance IMO, but that's by-the-by.

Either way, West Indies of '77 to '86 are indeed the only team to go lengthy periods without picking a spinner (in that decade, just one spinner played more than a single game, and he was an all-rounder whose fielding was superlative, and mostly he played as a fifth bowler - Roger Harper) but the point is, they shouldn't be. More teams should have tried it regularly, rather than picking ineffective spinners just because convention says you have to.

There are reasons people have put forward in this thread that you are ignoring beyond simple "convention".

 

[Matt79]

A Warne\Murali's addition would quite possibly still mean they lost more than they won. A Donald or Ambrose could just turn them into a pretty decent if not World-beating team.

Strongly disagree with this. If nothing else, and there is plenty else to add, ask yourself which of the team that featured Warne, or the team that featured Donald, won more regularly?

 

[Uppercut]

Strongly disagree with this. If nothing else, and there is plenty else to add, ask yourself which of the team that featured Warne, or the team that featured Donald, won more regularly?

Haha, it's hardly a level playing field. Realistically you're comparing Warne+McGrath to the legendary Donald-Paul Adams axis.

 

[Matt79]

True, but there's an element of truth there nonetheless IMO. Personally I think any suggestion that, if a team is only to have one world class bowler, Donald is a better option than Murali to be highly highly dubious.

 

[Rant0r]

it's pretty hard to say to put a warne like spinner in a team and let him bowl 40 overs a day, we forget how much of a genius the guy was. he could attack and keep runs down at the same time.

say a warne doesn't magically appear, i would settle for a gillespie type, or even a kasprowicz, given how he bowled all day in the indian heat

 

[Matt79]

No more unrealistic than saying "put an Allan Donald type seamer in the team".

 

[Rant0r]

well yeah

but a lot of things warne did are taken for granted, when say australia can't spin to victory on the last day, or can't hold up an end on a flat pitch.

 

[Richard]

You seem to have gotten a different interpretation of the conversation than I (and I'm assuming others) certainly did.

I can't really see how this is possible. I interpreted it for what it was, and replied thus. That's all that matters. If others have interpreted my replies as something other than what they were, that's their mistake.

Regardless, a Donald or an Ambrose in the place of Flintoff would help a lot less than you might think. Even if it was a direct replacement, a Warne for a Flintoff would be a trade any coach would make without blinking - and it would strengthen the side.

Of course it would be. So would a Donald or Ambrose for a Flintoff. Both would help one hell of a lot.

All time Great spinners can bowl all day if necessary, giving them the ability to be adaptive to the conditions much more than quicks. A quick bowler, regardless of how good they are, isn't going to bowl more than around 20 overs in a day - 25 max. A spinner can get through 30+. Given that someone like Warne has a strike rate of around the best quick bowlers, this gives your strike bowler much more opportunity to take wickets.

If you've got all-time great seamers you'll virtually never have to bowl massive numbers of overs per day. You only need to bowl until you dismiss your oppo.

Also a spinner is much easier to tailor a wicket for without giving your opponent an advantage as well (most of the time), which certainly helps the cause.

Not neccessarily, at all. In fact, the advantage of an all-time great spinner is lessened a spin-friendly pitch, not increased. For example, Warne >>>>>>>>>>> Giles on a non-turner, but Warne merely >> Giles on a real turner.

However, McGrath >>>>> Fraser on a flattie, but McGrath barely > Fraser on a green deck.