andrew flintoff was a bit **** really

[GIMH]

Averaging 40 and 27 over a five match series against the best side in the world isn't MOTS worthy. Vintage Stephen

 

[Cabinet96]

The other thing is Flintoff's series stats are a bit worse than we imagine because he was bad at Lords and that's kind of forgettable. He averaged 50 and 24 in the four tests after that and was the top run scorer in those tests.

 

[GIMH]

Motm in the two we won as well. And his 5fer at The Oval was arguably as crucial to us drawing that match as KP's ton. Completely different game if we go out to bat on the last day 150 behind. Though I do accept the caveat that the series situation probably saw Australia bat when they'd normally have taken the light

 

[ImpatientLime]

he could also out drink every aussie and kiwi and that is ultimately what really makes them emotional

 

[stephen]

Averaging 40 and 27 over a five match series against the best side in the world isn't MOTS worthy. Vintage Stephen

Lol, since when is taking 40 wickets @19 and making 249 runs @27 in a series not a better all round performance?

England were by far the better side that series. Warne was largely a one man band.

 

[GIMH]

Lol, since when is taking 40 wickets @19 and making 249 runs @27 in a series not a better all round performance?

England were by far the better side that series. Warne was largely a one man band.

Scoring runs at 27 is generally fairly inconsequential. You're a cricket man and you know this. To hit above 40 and below 30 across the two disciplines means you're a proper contributor with both bat and ball. To try and pass 27 with the bat off as worthy of discussion in and amongst that is laughable.

Not to diminish the 19 with the ball which was superhuman. But let's be honest here. In terms of his batting, Warne can take a bit of credit for helping the draw along with a plucky first dig at Old Trafford. He dug in at Edgbaston before standing on his stumps like the tail end plonker he was. His batting didn't transform a game or the series and its embarrassing that 15 years later you try and pretend it belongs in the discussion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Pure truth bombs from flem

 

[Burgey]

Scoring runs at 27 is generally fairly inconsequential. You're a cricket man and you know this. To hit above 40 and below 30 across the two disciplines means you're a proper contributor with both bat and ball. To try and pass 27 with the bat off as worthy of discussion in and amongst that is laughable.

Not to diminish the 19 with the ball which was superhuman. But let's be honest here. In terms of his batting, Warne can take a bit of credit for helping the draw along with a plucky first dig at Old Trafford. He dug in at Edgbaston before standing on his stumps like the tail end plonker he was. His batting didn't transform a game or the series and its embarrassing that 15 years later you try and pretend it belongs in the discussion.

This is actually a poor take in circs where Warne's batsmen were struggling themselves to make runs. His contributions were significant and kept Australia in the series, with bat and ball. he catches Pietersen day 5 at the Oval, he walks the award because Australia would have won (mind you I think Gilchrist dropped him as well). Plainly the post of someone who lacks the nuance to post in a knowledgeable manner about the great game.

 

[trundler]

Yeah but since Warne choked when it really mattered on the last day, everything he did up to that point should be disregarded entirely.

 

[Burgey]

Which is exactly why he didn't get MOTS, isn't it?

 

[Burgey]

I recall the 2003 series out here when Michael Vaughan got MOTS. A sick joke

 

[Line and Length]

I recall the 2003 series out here when Michael Vaughan got MOTS. A sick joke

I tend to agree, given the result in the series. Take away his 3 big tons (177, 145 and 183) and he averaged just 18.3 over his remaining 7 innings.

I guess the fact that he scored the most runs (633) compared to Australia's top run scorer (Matthew Haydn 496) and the leading bowlers were Gillespie and Caddick with 20 wickets apiece.

What the MOTS judges failed to recognise was that Haydn also had 3 centuries and made his runs off 2 fewer innings. He also averaged a Bradmanesque 95.6 over his first 5 digs. Their judgement may have been coloured by 3 failures (1, 15 and 2) in his last 3 visits to the crease but he should have been given the honour.

 

[Daemon]

Take away 3 big tons like that and of course a guy is gonna average 20. If he averages more then he's just done a Steve Smith.

 

[Burgey]

I tend to agree, given the result in the series. Take away his 3 big tons (177, 145 and 183) and he averaged just 18.3 over his remaining 7 innings.

I guess that fact that he scored the most runs (633) compared to Australia's top run scorer (Matthew Haydn 496) and the leading bowlers were Gillespie and Caddick with 20 wickets apiece.

What the MOTS judges failed to recognise was that Haydn also had 3 centuries and made his runs off 2 fewer innings. He also averaged a Bradmanesque 95.6 over his first 5 digs. Their judgement may have been coloured by 3 failures (1, 15 and 2) in his last 3 visits to the crease but he should have been given the honour.

Yeah like you said, Vaughan had a great series but if you're getting dicked 4-1 then you really can't be MOTS. Be like them awarding it to Hoggard in 06/07 out here. Manful effort in a well beaten side.

 

[morgieb]

Vaughan was the best player in 2002/03 but that =! MOTS.

Granted no Aussie really stood out. Hayden, Ponting and Gillespie were probably the best.

 

[SteveNZ]

Take away 3 big tons like that and of course a guy is gonna average 20. If he averages more then he's just done a Steve Smith.

Always find it weird when people put caveats on batsmen like that. I mean if it was his twin brother who scored those three tons, or he was on performance enhancing drugs, or maybe even if they were piss easy hundreds against tiring attacks on day five of a certain draw...but none were.

Andrew Flintoff is ****ing awesome, incidentally. Flem has lost it.

 

[Flem274*]

steve don't be collateral damage

 

[cnerd123]

Take away 3 big tons like that and of course a guy is gonna average 20. If he averages more then he's just done a Steve Smith.

Fun Fact - take away all of Steve Smith's 100s, and he still averages 35.42 - more than Shaun Marsh's full test career average of 34.31

 

[GIMH]

This is actually a poor take in circs where Warne's batsmen were struggling themselves to make runs. His contributions were significant and kept Australia in the series, with bat and ball. he catches Pietersen day 5 at the Oval, he walks the award because Australia would have won (mind you I think Gilchrist dropped him as well). Plainly the post of someone who lacks the nuance to post in a knowledgeable manner about the great game.

I stand by the principle but obviously I overegged looking for a nibble from Stephen. Didn't expect to catch an even bigger fish

Looked up the figures and had forgotten how poor the Oz middle order was that series. This ineptitude doesn't make a slogger averaging 27 into an actual batsman though

 

[Bijed]

Take away 3 big tons like that and of course a guy is gonna average 20. If he averages more then he's just done a Steve Smith.

It's not a totally invalid criticism in general, being too much of a rocks and diamonds player is definitely a thing. That said, if you spent your career scoring 3 tons every 10 innings and averaging 60 you'd be an ATG regardless of your frequent failures - as I've said before, it's when you're Marcus North that it's more of a problem

Fun Fact - take away all of Steve Smith's 100s, and he still averages 35.42 - more than Shaun Marsh's full test career average of 34.31

This is pretty incredible tbh