*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Ikki]

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.

The spinners...we don't have great spinners at the moment. What does that have to do with anything? We have plenty of seamers though so if Hauritz doesn't end up being better than a part-timer like Clarke, I don't expect him to be kept.

LOL, so Freddie played injured all that time - most of 10 years? Anyway, Watson isn't even an average bowler yet, he has to bowl more to establish what kind he is.

 

[Ikki]

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

No, unlike our dear friend. I don't recall saying "anyone who disagrees is clueless and kidding himself", I said I disagree and I am not the only one.

A better question to ask Warne would be: would you swap Flintoff for Johnson now.

 

[PhoenixFire]

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'm sure a lot of people who know about these things thought that it would be very likely that he wasn't going to hang around much longer after the 09 Ashes. His body is pretty ****ed basically, he is playing on injections and on borrowed time now, there is no way he could carry on past this series if he didn't do serious damage to his body.

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.

I was more replying to the point that you were insinuating that Johnson is better bowler than Flintoff at their respective bests. If you didn't mean to convey that idea, then apolgies.

 

[Ikki]

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

So Graeme Onions, whose FC figures are practically the same as Watson's can get in, but Watson couldn't?

 

[PhoenixFire]

LOL, so Freddie played injured all that time - most of 10 years?

Yeah, I'd guess that he has. He certainly hasn't been at full fitness for absolutely ages. IIRC, he wasn't even near fully fit in 2005.

 

[zaremba]

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.

I have to admit I'm struggling to understand the point that you're trying to make, but I think the answer to it may be to point out that your precise words could have been spoken by a West Indian in the mid- to late-1990s.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and as I've said on countless occasions I have great respect for your patriotism. I just think that you can only kid yourself so much, and you're not succeeding in kidding others atm.

 

[Wiglad]

er what? Watson could get into the English side as a pure bat and a pure bowler alone. If Stuart Broad is there, half the known world could. Flintoff wouldn't get into the Aussie side as either.

 

[Ikki]

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.

If your bowling attack is spearheaded by Freddie, with all due respect, it isn't a fantastically strong one. And when you compare it with Australia's (what it was, is and is expected to be) then it shouldn't even be an argument.

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.

Average does not really have much to do with wickettaking ability. That is Strike-rate. His strike-rate is 65, which is just average. He'd have to improve both his average and SR, and by quite a few points, so it's quite an ask. Certainly, for a few years Flintoff was the kind of bowler who was averaging in the 20s and striking in the 50s, but I can't tell you for sure because Flintoff has changed as a bowler throughout his career.

 

[zaremba]

A better question to ask Warne would be: would you swap Flintoff for Johnson now.

You may think it's a better question, but it's a different question to the one you raised, and which is now being debated, which is whether Flintoff would get into the Australian team.

If you think he wouldn't, that's fine, because no-one's ever going to test it in real life. But if you had the contacts, the time, and the motivation, you could try asking each of the Australian selectors and management and players and even Shane Almighty and I suspect you'd get a pretty unanimous response.

 

[Ikki]

I'm sure a lot of people who know about these things thought that it would be very likely that he wasn't going to hang around much longer after the 09 Ashes. His body is pretty ****ed basically, he is playing on injections and on borrowed time now, there is no way he could carry on past this series if he didn't do serious damage to his body.
I was more replying to the point that you were insinuating that Johnson is better bowler than Flintoff at their respective bests. If you didn't mean to convey that idea, then apolgies.

No, that wasn't what I was trying to convey. I was trying to show how I am rating the players currently. Last few years for instance. Maybe Johnson will be as good as Flintoff but that is not my contention.

 

[Ikki]

You may think it's a better question, but it's a different question to the one you raised, and which is now being debated, which is whether Flintoff would get into the Australian team.

If you think he wouldn't, that's fine, because no-one's ever going to test it in real life. But if you had the contacts, the time, and the motivation, you could try asking each of the Australian selectors and management and players and even Shane Almighty and I suspect you'd get a pretty unanimous response.

Yes, on current form. Remember, I actually compared Pietersen's last 3 years with Clarke's to actually convey what I was talking about. I had mentioned it a few times. Of course, I am not trying to say no English player ever would get in, that would just be ********.

 

[zaremba]

So Graeme Onions, whose FC figures are practically the same as Watson's can get in, but Watson couldn't?

Sorry, but this is yet more misunderstanding or misuse of statistics. Onions' FC figures are dragged down by a slow start to his career, and simply don't represent his true level of ability. Much like Freddie's Test bowling stats, as it happens. In the last couple of seasons he's shown himself to be a worthy contender for a Test spot.

None of which is to knock Watson's batting, which is very handy - and I wouldn't disagree with you that he'd get into our side on the strength, primarily, of that. But as a pure bowler? I doubt it very much indeed.

 

[zaremba]

Anyhow must head off to bed now. I have a ticket to watch the continuation of the fall of a cricketing empire tomorrow, and I want to be fully refreshed so I can take it all in. Night all.

 

[Ikki]

I have to admit I'm struggling to understand the point that you're trying to make, but I think the answer to it may be to point out that your precise words could have been spoken by a West Indian in the mid- to late-1990s.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and as I've said on countless occasions I have great respect for your patriotism. I just think that you can only kid yourself so much, and you're not succeeding in kidding others atm.

I am well aware I could be a WIndies fan but Australia I think has put into place a system where the WIndies didn't to move forward.

And even that aside, you know, it could be that Australia is at an end of a long era and will now just be pretty average. But I don't think it'll be this series in England that'll lead me to that conclusion. And so, having beaten India at home, S.Africa away, I know we're still a very good side, despite being in transition and I expect the team to pick-up. We need to be consistent and we have very high quality players. And again, as arrogant as it sounds, and you may think I am "kidding myself" but I think if our players play to the potential that they've shown they shouldn't lose this series.

Yeah, I'd guess that he has. He certainly hasn't been at full fitness for absolutely ages. IIRC, he wasn't even near fully fit in 2005.

He had a very good run in the mid 2000s IIRC. I am sure he has been plagued by injuries and niggles, but Watson simply could not play at all. We are talking 2 tests a year on average. Freddy has played for 11 years and by the time he retires he'll have 80 tests under his name.

Anyway, this is apples and oranges.

 

[JBH001]

Intereresting day of play yesterday, missed most of it though due to the time difference and wont get to watch the highlights because of other committments . Seems to have been some pretty good cricket watching.

Still, pleased the Broad finally got some runs under his belt, has always promised more than he delivers with the bat. Am hoping he rips out the Australia middle order in the second hour of play tomorrow after Onions and Anderson do their dash. That is, if he gets a bowl.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, but this is yet more misunderstanding or misuse of statistics. Onions' FC figures are dragged down by a slow start to his career, and simply don't represent his true level of ability. Much like Freddie's Test bowling stats, as it happens. In the last couple of seasons he's shown himself to be a worthy contender for a Test spot.

It's all relative: Watson plays in a tougher competition and has moved state from state and has his own demons to conquer. He's a freakin' all-rounder too so he has had more than one discipline to concentrate on. Anyway, what about James Anderson? Again, almost identical to Watson.

None of which is to knock Watson's batting, which is very handy - and I wouldn't disagree with you that he'd get into our side on the strength, primarily, of that. But as a pure bowler? I doubt it very much indeed.

I don't doubt it, but if you recall, it was my stipulation that he'd be injury free that I'd consider such a thing. I've seem him bowl and I think he is completely capable. I hope in a few years time he is injury free, you see him as a bowler and you remember this post .

 

[JBH001]

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

Yeah. Loves the last word too, which is why debating with him is often fruitless, and also why Richard v Ikki arguments tend to go on and on, ad infinitum ad nauseaum.

 

[superkingdave]

Wow, came in from the cricket and was pretty surprised there was about 1000 posts to get through on this thread...now i understand why...

Anyway, was very impressed with Onions in the hour or so i saw at the end of the day, looks like he's made of the right stuff

 

[subshakerz]

Not currently, but he is there to be better than Flintoff. Do you appreciate the difference? A specialist fast bowler like Siddle would not stay in the Aussie side bowling if he were to only bowl as well as Flintoff. He is in the squad because he has the talent and is expected to be better.

Don't you criticize the England team for selecting on this basis?

 

[Ikki]

Don't you criticize the England team for selecting on this basis?

I criticise them for picking on the hope that they'd succeed? No. Obviously, every team picks players on the hope that they succeed.

I have been pointing out that the difference in standard between the teams is that when a player is brought in for Australia the standard they have to attain to stay in the team is much higher than the standard the English players have to keep to stay in their side.