Just how good is Ntini?

[aussie]

There's nothing unfortunate about it. Flintoff's action was unsustainable, and he opted not to change it when this became clear because it was so late in his career.

Thats not true. Firstly is wasn't that Flintoff's action was unsustainable - his body was just build for the rigours of test cricket thats why kept getting injured. His action was very solid very chest on with probably a slight fault with how his leg used to land on the popping crease(his left leg) during his delivery (which Allan Donald as ENG bowling coach last year sort of highlighted).

Shane Watson in 2006/07 changed his action to chest on like Flintoff from his side on action because he was told it would potentially reducue his injury output.

So in a way one would have to say unlike Bond, Tyson, S Jones, Schultz England where unluckly to have Flintoff play as much test cricket as he did.

Ntini, in contrast, famously works tirelessly on his fitness. If it weren't for him actually being better at bowling, Ntini's superior fitness would make him a better bowler anyway. A fit bowler>>>>>>>>>>an unfit bowler.

So by this same argument would you say Ntini was a better bowler than Akhtar this decade?

 

[Prince EWS]

Well Akhtar was more effective when he played, but if I was offered a choice between two players who would play for my team for the next ten years in a batting-dominated era, one of whom would play 29 games and average 24 across the period and the other who would play 85 games and average 28, I would take the latter without question as he'd offer me a lot more. Ntini certainly had a bigger impact on the decade than Akhtar and he was more valuable for SA across the time period than Akhtar was for Pakistan. Having a very, very good bowler for every game > having a great bowler once every three or four games.

I suppose it comes down to the distinction between who'd you rather have in your team for one game presuming they were fit, and who you'd rather have on your books over an extended period of time given the ups and downs of their fitness. Both factors are relevant to who is "better" IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

So by this same argument would you say Ntini was a better bowler than Akhtar this decade?

What PEWS said.

 

[aussie]

Well Akhtar was more effective when he played, but if I was offered a choice between two players who would play for my team for the next ten years in a batting-dominated era, one of whom would play 29 games and average 24 across the period and the other who would play 85 games and average 28, I would take the latter without question as he'd offer me a lot more. Ntini certainly had a bigger impact on the decade than Akhtar and he was more valuable for SA across the time period than Akhtar was for Pakistan. Having a very, very good bowler for every game > having a great bowler once every three or four games.

I suppose it comes down to the distinction between who'd you rather have in your team for one game presuming they were fit, and who you'd rather have on your books over an extended period of time given the ups and downs of their fitness. Both factors are relevant to who is "better" IMO.

Thats all i wanted to hear. In the recent Players of the decade thread done by Bagapath, alot of people on this site chose Akhtar to partner McGrath is this hypotetical XI for this reason as you see. None voted for Ntini due his longevity etc(i reckon S Vines just voted for him out for fun haaa).

Akhtar he career was very much marred by injuries like Flintoff. He is remembered for what he did to AUS in Colombo 02, NZ Karachi 02 & ENG 05/06 mainly this decade, just like how Flintoff is remembered most fondly for his Ashes 05 & IND 05/06 performances.

Like Flintoff also his body wasn't build 100% for test cricket (one could throw in celebrity lifestyle, probable lack of focus on cricket etc here also). Like Flintoff also injuries clearly prevented his bowling from reaching the next gear.

 

[Richard]

Tbf, given both his overall record and the era in which he's played, if he doesn't take many wickets on flat decks he must be so unthinkably awesome when there's the slightest bit of seam to make up for it.

Actually I think South African pitches have been generally much more bowler-friendly this decade than the worldwide norm, but I know you disagree.

I'd say they were every bit as flat as most other places between 2001/02 and 2005/06 but have included a more than acceptable number of seam-friendly ones again since 2006/07. Even between 2001/02 and 2005/06 there was the odd seamer, plus the odd one that seamed a bit at some times in the game and not at all at others.

And yeah Ntini is capable of being absolutely superlative on a deck with some bounce and just a bit of seam.

 

[Richard]

Thats not true. Firstly is wasn't that Flintoff's action was unsustainable - his body was just build for the rigours of test cricket thats why kept getting injured. His action was very solid very chest on with probably a slight fault with how his leg used to land on the popping crease(his left leg) during his delivery (which Allan Donald as ENG bowling coach last year sort of highlighted).

It's absolutely true that Flintoff had an unsustainable action and that his refusal to change it meant he got injured far more than he need have done. The fault that Donald highlighted in 2007 was first identified in 2002 - the same time he had the first operation on trouble with that ankle - but the England management in combination with Flintoff decided not to change it because they hoped it might not present a problem.

Our own Kev Goughy also talked of it in 2006. His ankle being angled as it was upon delivery was always, always going to be very likely to put sufficient pressure on the bones and ligaments in there to cause problems to occur regularly.

Had there been attempt to change Flintoff's foot angle in 2002 then it's very possible he'd have had a longer and less constantly interrupted career. It is of course also possible that he'd have been unable to be so effective with a slightly less familiar action and would've wasted a year or so bowling crap trying to get used to it. It's even a tiny remote possibility that he'd never have been the same again. I'd say the minuteness of those two risks made it a change worth attempting; sadly, those in charge of making it did not.

 

[aussie]

It's absolutely true that Flintoff had an unsustainable action and that his refusal to change it meant he got injured far more than he need have done. The fault that Donald highlighted in 2007 was first identified in 2002 - the same time he had the first operation on trouble with that ankle - but the England management in combination with Flintoff decided not to change it because they hoped it might not present a problem.

Our own Kev Goughy also talked of it in 2006. His ankle being angled as it was upon delivery was always, always going to be very likely to put sufficient pressure on the bones and ligaments in there to cause problems to occur regularly.

Had there been attempt to change Flintoff's foot angle in 2002 then it's very possible he'd have had a longer and less constantly interrupted career. It is of course also possible that he'd have been unable to be so effective with a slightly less familiar action and would've wasted a year or so bowling crap trying to get used to it. It's even a tiny remote possibility that he'd never have been the same again. I'd say the minuteness of those two risks made it a change worth attempting; sadly, those in charge of making it did not.

That was always my fear since 2002. So i agree with Freddie for not taking that risk.

 

[Goughy]

Having a very, very good bowler for every game > having a great bowler once every three or four games

Of course. But a very, very good bowler every game would not average 28

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, perspective. How I'd kill for a fast bowler to average 28 for India .

 

[Uppercut]

Of course. But a very, very good bowler every game would not average 28

Sure they would. It's all relative. If he was a batsman most people here would have no qualms about subconsciously chopping five or ten runs off his average on the grounds that he's played his entire career in an era of embarrassingly flat pitches. How many bowlers have maintained a better average than Ntini for any length of time this decade?

 

[Prince EWS]

Sure they would. It's all relative. If he was a batsman most people here would have no qualms about subconsciously chopping five or ten runs off his average on the grounds that he's played his entire career in an era of embarrassingly flat pitches. How many bowlers have maintained a better average than Ntini for any length of time this decade?

Yep. All the greats have averaged low-mid 20s this decade but after them there's basically just a stack of bowlers averaging in the 30s and a stack of bowlers who didn't play much cricket for various reasons. Ntini's in the second tier of bowlers of his decade after the greats, and I'd rather have a bowler like that play for me for a decade than someone who was going to average four runs less but only be available for 30% of the games.

 

[aussie]

Yep. All the greats have averaged low-mid 20s this decade but after them there's basically just a stack of bowlers averaging in the 30s and a stack of bowlers who didn't play much cricket for various reasons. Ntini's in the second tier of bowlers of his decade after the greats, and I'd rather have a bowler like that play for me for a decade than someone who was going to average four runs less but only be available for 30% of the games.

But the team of the decade is hypotetical scenario - its not a team that will actually play. We picking best players based on who was the best at their respective peaks.

As i showed you before in the Player of the decade thread done by Bagapath recently. Alot of people picked Akhtar to be McGrath new-ball partner based on what he did while was fit i.e what he did to our AUS team in Colombo 2002 (while presuming i this hypotetical team that he would be fit). No one seriously picked Ntini regardless of his longevity & fitness.

 

[Prince EWS]

As i showed you before in the Player of the decade thread done by Bagapath recently. Alot of people picked Akhtar to be McGrath new-ball partner based on what he did while was fit i.e what he did to our AUS team in Colombo 2002 (while presuming i this hypotetical team that he would be fit). No one seriously picked Ntini regardless of his longevity & fitness.

What a lot of people would do and what I think are two completely different things, though. I didn't pick Akhtar in that poll, did I? If Pollock wasn't there I still wouldn't have taken him. Someone who plays all the time > someone who doesn't play very often, assuming both are at very least "good".

 

[Richard]

But the team of the decade is hypotetical scenario - its not a team that will actually play. We picking best players based on who was the best at their respective peaks.

Some people might be; others might be doing otherwise. If someone wanted a team for a player at their peak and could cherry-pick said peak, as I'm sure we'd all love to do, no-one in their right mind would turn-down Bob Massie at Lord's in 1972, same way no-one would turn down a near-fully-fit and motivated Shoaib.

But one was a one-off; the other was relatively rare. Personally when I pick composite teams I tend to do it on the presumption of being playing for ~7-10 years of all considerations remaining the same (eg, playing constantly on the same type of deck; I make no selection which cannot change according to conditions; players requiring to be fit constantly, I make no selection which will constantly be needing to be changed to accommodate lack of fitness).

 

[Richard]

That was always my fear since 2002. So i agree with Freddie for not taking that risk.

Instead he took the risk of being constantly injured. And sure enough, it came to pass.

He had the choice; he made his bed and must now lie on it. It's not that one of the two options would've been sheer idiocy; one was a case of small-risk-for-potential-big-reward; the other was no-risk-in-one-department-at-the-cost-of-considerable-risk-in-another.

Faced with that choice, I'd have gone with the former option. Flintoff went with the latter. We'll never know what would've happened had he done differently.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He's the second worst cricketer ever to reach 100 Tests.

 

[Goughy]

He's the second worst cricketer ever to reach 100 Tests.

IYO, who would the worst be? Carl Hooper?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Fleming.

 

[Furball]

Sure they would. It's all relative. If he was a batsman most people here would have no qualms about subconsciously chopping five or ten runs off his average on the grounds that he's played his entire career in an era of embarrassingly flat pitches. How many bowlers have maintained a better average than Ntini for any length of time this decade?

Can't get that Friends episode out of my head now.

In a more bowler friendly era, I reckon Ntini would have averaged 25 or 26. That's not shabby at all.

 

[Richard]

It isn't impossible because as I say he is capable of bowling very, very well indeed when conditions suit him. However I don't think his average would drop that much - and remember it's impacted in no small amount by Bangladesh. Regardless of conditions, Ntini is capable of spectacular ups and downs.