*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[PhoenixFire]

Although it's quite unlikely our dear forum member has as much knowledge as one of the greatest cricketers of all time, that is not really my point.

Yeah and there have been a load of great players that just talk ****, Botham for example. You seem to have just repeated yourself without actually answering my point.

 

[four_or_six]

Reckon there is still a massive gap between bowling on the nice hard pitches in Australia and toiling away in the sub continent and the WI against top class players. When he does that and comes out with a good average, I'll reconsider. He looked like cannon-fodder today.

In terms of Watson and his bowling - can anyone with some knowledge on the matter shed some light on how long it takes to come back from the sort of injury he's had (the back injury, I mean), in terms of proper match fitness? He looked a lot short of the bowler he was in India today, and I'm wondering if it's short-term getting back to fitness/confidence, or whether this could be the long-term state of his bowling.

 

[zaremba]

**** me I hope we beat Australia so much.

Ikki inadvertently demonstrating exactly why everyone loves it so much when Australia get beaten. I take my hat off to him for his patriotism (which has never been in doubt) if not his realism. Producing the sort of arrogant one-eyed nonsense that he has over something like 5 pages (maybe more, I've not been counting) displays a level of grit and consistency that would serve Australia's top order well atm.

 

[Ikki]

Reckon you are unederated Flintoff's bowling here. He doesn't have the stats to back his incredible bowling talent up, mainly because he has had to carry the bowling unit all by himself for a long time after Harmison decided to go AWOL and Jones got injured. If Freddie had the back up bowlers (a McGrath type bowler) and was given licsence to bowl just as a Bond/Steyn type does, I reckon he'd average mid 20s.

Mate, Freddy has 3 5fers FFS. He is a good and dangerous bowler when he needs to be, but you can't rate someone too much if they aren't actually taking wickets. I think Freddy IS the better bowler - with comparison to Watson - but it is not as big as their gap in batting IMO.

Yet, if we go by Prince EWS's inclinations...I am again kidding myself to think so.

Reckon there is still a massive gap between bowling on the nice hard pitches in Australia and toiling away in the sub continent and the WI against top class players. When he does that and comes out with a good average, I'll reconsider. He looked like cannon-fodder today.

When we were in India, he was arguably our best bowler - this in a series where really no one bowled that well. Watson has a lot to prove, as I say, but I have seen enough of him in Australia to know that the guy has serious talent with both disciplines and I am not kidding myself to think that Watson could be better than Flintoff in both disciplines.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ikki inadvertently demonstrating exactly why everyone loves it so much when Australia get beaten.

Actually making it quite hard for me to support Australia, tbh.

 

[Ikki]

In terms of Watson and his bowling - can anyone with some knowledge on the matter shed some light on how long it takes to come back from the sort of injury he's had (the back injury, I mean), in terms of proper match fitness? He looked a lot short of the bowler he was in India today, and I'm wondering if it's short-term getting back to fitness/confidence, or whether this could be the long-term state of his bowling.

IIRC an interview properly, he said he really shouldn't be bowling more than 10 overs a Test at the moment but that he is getting better.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki inadvertently demonstrating exactly why everyone loves it so much when Australia get beaten. I take my hat off to him for his patriotism (which has never been in doubt) if not his realism. Producing the sort of arrogant one-eyed nonsense that he has over something like 5 pages (maybe more, I've not been counting) displays a level of grit and consistency that would serve Australia's top order well atm.

LOL, there is nothing inadvertant about it. I believe Australia are that much better and should show it and I don't think England, unlike a India or a S.Africa, are talented enough to match us strength for strength even when we are firing. I know that's arrogant and I know a lot of Aussie posters won't say it so blatantly but I am sure that's the kind of standard they expect from our team.

 

[zaremba]

Watson could get into the English side as a pure bat and a pure bowler alone

...

Flintoff wouldn't get into the Aussie side as either.

Sorry mate, the last few pages have been fun but you're just starting to embarrass yourself now.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Mate, Freddy has 3 5fers FFS. He is a good and dangerous bowler when he needs to be, but you can't rate someone too much if they aren't actually taking wickets. I think Freddy IS the better bowler - with comparison to Watson - but it is not as big as their gap in batting IMO.

Yet, if we go by Prince EWS's inclinations...I am again kidding myself to think so.
.

Yet again you sort of repeat yourself without replying to my point. Flintoff has to act as the containing bowler and bowl more overs than he should because we don't have any containing bowlers that we can use to help and support him. He often has to bang it in and forgoe (sp?) pitching it up and swinging it because he needs to bowl economically as nobody else can. Like I said, his stats would be a hell of a lot better than they currently are if he had the backup of a McGrath or Pollock like bowler to back him up. It's England's problem, not his.

 

[Ikki]

@ Flintoff not getting into the Australian side.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/41831-johnson-v-flintoff.html

 

[zaremba]

LOL, there is nothing inadvertant about it. I believe Australia are that much better and should show it and I don't think England, unlike a India or a S.Africa, are talented enough to match us strength for strength even when we are firing. I know that's arrogant and I know a lot of Aussie posters won't say it so blatantly but I am sure that's the kind of standard they expect from our team.

I've seen enough England teams packed with talent who've been crushed by the opposition to know that talent is only part of the battle. If you'd grown up watching sides comprising, among many others, Gower, Lamb, Botham, Hick, Ramprakash, etc etc etc consistently fail then you'd have a keener awareness of this basic fact of cricketing life than you appear to.

 

[PhoenixFire]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/41831-johnson-v-flintoff.html

That poll is such a load of ****. I'm going to guess that most of the people that didn't vote Flintoff didn't do so because they knew that he is very likely to become either too crocked to play or retire full stop; notice how it says 'in the next 3 years'....

The poll didn't ask, 'Who is the better bowler at the moment', or 'Who will be the better bowler at the end of their careers'.

I can't believe you are laughing as you have just made some cast-iron point that proves you are right and that everyone else is wrong, rather than just making a fool of yourself for providing some wholly irrelevant information.

 

[91Jmay]

Its a wonder you post on here, considering how much your embarrising yourself.

So if were comparing two players, your allowed to give one a pass due to injury but i'm not allowed to do the same for the other player.



I'm actually speechless at how clueless you are

Any answer to that??

Or my question of who the great Aussie spinners sitting in reserve are??

 

[Ikki]

Yet again you sort of repeat yourself without replying to my point. Flintoff has to act as the containing bowler and bowl more overs than he should because we don't have any containing bowlers that we can use to help and support him. He often has to bang it in and forgoe (sp?) pitching it up and swinging it because he needs to bowl economically as nobody else can. Like I said, his stats would be a hell of a lot better than they currently are if he had the backup of a McGrath or Pollock like bowler to back him up. It's England's problem, not his.

Ok, so you are in essence saying: your bowling attack is poor and that your all-rounder is your spearhead. That's great, yet if I were to say that I'd be hammered .

His stats would probably better with help, but a lot better? Not so sure. IIRC a lot of people discussed this on this site and it was the line he was bowling that made him not such a great wicket-taker but threatening nonetheless.

 

[Ikki]

Any answer to that??

Or my question of who the great Aussie spinners sitting in reserve are??

Its a wonder you post on here, considering how much your embarrising yourself.

So if were comparing two players, your allowed to give one a pass due to injury but i'm not allowed to do the same for the other player.



I'm actually speechless at how clueless you are

Likewise.

I am not giving one a pass because of injury and the other not. I am saying, one cannot reasonable measure how good Watson is as a bowler in his TEST career because he has only played 8 in 4-5 years due to injury. So he has never had a steady run where he could gain form or improve.

Yet you are saying that just because Flintoff was injured that we can discount his 77 tests?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ok, so you are in essence saying: your bowling attack is poor and that your all-rounder is your spearhead. That's great, yet if I were to say that I'd be hammered .

His stats would probably better with help, but a lot better? Not so sure. IIRC a lot of people discussed this on this site and it was the line he was bowling that made him not such a great wicket-taker but threatening nonetheless.

Don't really think I'd blast you if you said that our bowling attack is severly lacking in a pace bowler than can apply control to an innings, because that much at least is certainly true. His stats don't need to be a lot better to be considered very good.

Off the top of my head, he averages just over 30. Not brilliant, obviously, but who knows how many runs you could take off if you allowed him to be more attacking? If it got down to 26, then that wouldn't be in the very top bracket, but it would certainly be damn good.

 

[zaremba]

So Prince EWS knows more than Warne. Ok, Richard 2.0.

Ask Warne if Freddie should get into the Australian team. What do you think his answer would be? "Yes of course, he'd walk into our team, you complete ****ing muppet" or words to that effect. And yet you seem to know better. Ok, Richard 2.1

 

[Ikki]

That poll is such a load of ****. I'm going to guess that most of the people that didn't vote Flintoff didn't do so because they knew that he is very likely to become either too crocked to play or retire full stop; notice how it says 'in the next 3 years'....

The poll didn't ask, 'Who is the better bowler at the moment', or 'Who will be the better bowler at the end of their careers'.

The question of the poll was:

"Which of these two players will have the biggest influence on International Cricket in the next 3 years?"

Yet no one knew that Flintoff would retire at the end of the Ashes then, did they?

I can't believe you are laughing as you have just made some cast-iron point that proves you are right and that everyone else is wrong, rather than just making a fool of yourself for providing some wholly irrelevant information.

It's completely relevant. The question asked in this thread was: could Flintoff replace Johnson in the Australia side? I said no and that other people also thought that. That poll suggests for varying reasons (Johnson's form, Flintoff's drop in form and injuries) that he'd be the inferior player. So how is it irrelevant? I didn't say Johnson is the better all-rounder overall or that Johnson would even be better by the end of his career, I was talking about now.

 

[91Jmay]

Likewise.

I am not giving one a pass because of injury and the other not. I am saying, one cannot reasonable measure how good Watson is as a bowler in his TEST career because he has only played 8 in 4-5 years due to injury. So he has never had a steady run where he could gain form or improve.

Yet you are saying that just because Flintoff was injured that we can discount his 77 tests?

Thanks for ignoring the spinner point, your silence speaks volumes.

Wow, you can't actually grasp even the simplest of concepts can you?

What i am saying is that injury can't be used as an excuse for Watson's very poor test record when comparing him to Flintoff - who has probably played 20 tests out of 77 at full fitness. End of the day, injured Freddie = very good test career.

Watson consistently gets excuses made for him because of injuries - fact of the matter is that he is just an average test bowler.

 

[Ikki]

I've seen enough England teams packed with talent who've been crushed by the opposition to know that talent is only part of the battle. If you'd grown up watching sides comprising, among many others, Gower, Lamb, Botham, Hick, Ramprakash, etc etc etc consistently fail then you'd have a keener awareness of this basic fact of cricketing life than you appear to.

Yes, Talent is only part of the equation, but again I didn't just try to say that our cricketers are simply innately better. They have been brought up in a system that has churned out great cricketers for the past 10 or more years. A side that has been far and away the best team. So sorry, but the list of names you quote me just seem a little bit off.

Maybe in 5 years Australia collapse and the current English players go on to be legends, but that can only be seen in hindsight. As current expectations go, as current information I have on the players and teams go, I expect what I expect from our side.