Warne - The allrounder of the ashes so far??

Zinzan · Aug 19, 2005

Sorry to start a separate thread..but i couldn't resist this one.

Statistically speaking you'd have to say Shane Warne has been "the Allrounder" of the Ashes up to the end of the third test at Old Trafford.

As well as Flintoff has performed, its interesting that the numbers are in Warne's favour with both bat and ball.

After 3 matches the series stats reveal ......

WARNE
Batting 3 6 0 204 90 34.00 68.00 - 1 2 -

Bowling 3 133.5 23 418 20 20.90 6-46 1 1 40.1 3.12

FLINTOFF
Batting 3 6 0 194 73 32.33 78.22 - 2 3

Bowling 3 120 17 440 16 27.50 4-71 - - 45.0 3.66

So far in the series Warne leads in every dept. More runs, more wickets, better average with both bat and ball.

The only areas Flintoff has the edge to date is a slightly better batting strike rate (although Warne had to try and save the last match) and the fact he's held on to 1 more catch than Warne. While Warne also has the highest batting score (90), best bowling return (6-46) , best bowling economy and best strike rate.

Obviously there are still 2 tests remaining and it will be interesting how this battle transpires given both players have been instrumental in their respective teams victories so far. But you have to think that to date (3rd test) ...."The Allrounder"of the series tag belongs to Warne

steds · Aug 19, 2005

Aha ha ha ha....oh. You're being serious!?!

age_master · Aug 19, 2005

if at the end of the series, its still the same story, i think we can all have a good laugh at Freddy's expense

vic_orthdox · Aug 19, 2005

steds said:
Aha ha ha ha....oh. You're being serious!?!

It's not all that ridiculous. But I guess when you're not picked as an "all-rounder", then maybe you should not be in the running in the first place

steds · Aug 19, 2005

vic_orthdox said:
It's not all that ridiculous. But I guess when you're not picked as an "all-rounder", then maybe you should not be in the running in the first place

When you're picked as a "batsman", you should be scoring the runs instead of leaving it for the # 8 to do everything.

Zinzan · Aug 19, 2005

steds said:
Aha ha ha ha....oh. You're being serious!?!

Instead of just replying with silly illustrations, why don't you actually put up in argument if you disagree??

vic_orthdox · Aug 19, 2005

steds said:
When you're picked as a "batsman", you should be scoring the runs instead of leaving it for the # 8 to do everything.

Since when was the performance of the top order relevant to this thread?

steds · Aug 19, 2005

vic_orthdox said:
Since when was the performance of the top order relevant to this thread?

Dunno, Jack. I'm just a postwhore

FaaipDeOiad · Aug 19, 2005

I think it's reasonably fair in this case, actually. A lot of the time, statistics don't really tell the full story about the impact on a series, and the statistically best all-rounder in a series is not always the one who had the biggest influence. In this case though, I think obviously both players have had a huge impact with the ball, and been the best in their respective teams. Warne is the leading wicket taker in the series, has an excellent average, and two near-man of the match efforts, where he took 10 wickets and made some runs but was edged by Flintoff, and where he made 120 odd runs and took 4 wickets but was edged by Ponting. Flintoff has of course been easily England's best bowler, although Harmison and Jones look slightly better statistically, it is Flintoff who had got right on top of the Australian batsmen consistently.

The remarkable thing about Warne's performance is that he has actually had just as big an impact with the bat as Flintoff. Flintoff has a few 50s but has never made a huge score, and a few of his runs have come looking slightly dubious, while at other times he has been amazingly good. Warne's played a lot more like a tail ender, but he's played three vitally important innings in a row with the bat and you can't really question his application. It's the first series I can't remember watching a series in which Warne has actually been (mostly) sensible with the bat like this. He's always taken an infuriatingly carefree attitude towards batting, where he'll smack a 50 in one test and then just not bother and get out slogging in the others. He's always had the potential to be a 20s average sort of player but never dedicated himself enough with the bat, while tail enders with far less talent like Gillespie turn out to be much more valuable.

If he can keep it up and Flintoff doesn't play a match-turner with the bat later in the series, I think it's fair to say that Warne, while a bowler, has played like an all-rounder just this once, and so far has edged Flintoff for influence with the ball, and at least equalled him with the bat.

King_Ponting · Aug 19, 2005

you'd have to ssay he'd be rivaling flintoff for it...... but hes up there

Zinzan · Aug 19, 2005

steds said:
Dunno, Jack. I'm just a postwhore

Another compelling argument I see

Zinzan · Aug 19, 2005

FaaipDeOiad said:
I think it's reasonably fair in this case, actually. A lot of the time, statistics don't really tell the full story about the impact on a series, and the statistically best all-rounder in a series is not always the one who had the biggest influence. In this case though, I think obviously both players have had a huge impact with the ball, and been the best in their respective teams. Warne is the leading wicket taker in the series, has an excellent average, and two near-man of the match efforts, where he took 10 wickets and made some runs but was edged by Flintoff, and where he made 120 odd runs and took 4 wickets but was edged by Ponting. Flintoff has of course been easily England's best bowler, although Harmison and Jones look slightly better statistically, it is Flintoff who had got right on top of the Australian batsmen consistently.

The remarkable thing about Warne's performance is that he has actually had just as big an impact with the bat as Flintoff. Flintoff has a few 50s but has never made a huge score, and a few of his runs have come looking slightly dubious, while at other times he has been amazingly good. Warne's played a lot more like a tail ender, but he's played three vitally important innings in a row with the bat and you can't really question his application. It's the first series I can't remember watching a series in which Warne has actually been (mostly) sensible with the bat like this. He's always taken an infuriatingly carefree attitude towards batting, where he'll smack a 50 in one test and then just not bother and get out slogging in the others. He's always had the potential to be a 20s average sort of player but never dedicated himself enough with the bat, while tail enders with far less talent like Gillespie turn out to be much more valuable.

If he can keep it up and Flintoff doesn't play a match-turner with the bat later in the series, I think it's fair to say that Warne, while a bowler, has played like an all-rounder just this once, and so far has edged Flintoff for influence with the ball, and at least equalled him with the bat.

Now there an intelligent assessment !!!! (helps that you agree with me of course)

luckyeddie · Aug 19, 2005

The ability and application Warne has shown with the bat this season (on occasion anyway) has brought it home to me just what a brilliant all-rounder he really COULD have been if he's have put his mind to it.

I'm not sure whether or not the object of this thread is for Warne to show Flintoff up (probably not) - what it has done is shown the rest of the Aussie batsmen up (Langer and Ponting excepted) - so far!

steds · Aug 19, 2005

zinzan12 said:
So far in the series Warne leads in every dept. More runs, more wickets, better average with both bat and ball.

Funny how you conveniently forget the departments which Flintoff leads in, like more 50's and more catches.

The only areas Flintoff has the edge to date is a slightly better batting strike rate (although Warne had to try and save the last match)

You could also argue that Flintoff had to throw his wicket away in the last match when England were looking for quick runs to declare.

You also argue in numbers, when it isn't possible to judge two cricketers on numbers alone as you can't measure influence, conditions or situations in numbers. Warne's wickets in the first and second tests were when England have been on the back foot - following McGrath, Martyn, Clarke and Katich leaving England a huge total to chase at Lords and after Lee had ripped through Englands top order on the third morning of Edgbaston, leaving England 31/4. Both Flintoff's innings in that game were match turning and then he comes on to bowl and rids of Langer and Ponting in his first over. there is no doubt that Warne has played fantastically. He is one of the greatest bowlers of all time and batting better and more responsibly than most of those "specialist" batsmen, but I would like to argue that the influence over Englands performances that Flintoff has, his ability to change the shape of the game in no time with either bat or ball - like he did at Edgbaston, and the atmosphere that follows him wherever he goes is far greater than any number (apart from maybe 600 wickets :ph34r:

)

Zinzan · Aug 19, 2005

steds said:
Funny how you conveniently forget the departments which Flintoff leads in, like more 50's and more catches.

You could also argue that Flintoff had to throw his wicket away in the last match when England were looking for quick runs to declare.

You also argue in numbers, when it isn't possible to judge two cricketers on numbers alone as you can't measure influence, conditions or situations in numbers. Warne's wickets in the first and second tests were when England have been on the back foot - following McGrath, Martyn, Clarke and Katich leaving England a huge total to chase at Lords and after Lee had ripped through Englands top order on the third morning of Edgbaston, leaving England 31/4. Both Flintoff's innings in that game were match turning and then he comes on to bowl and rids of Langer and Ponting in his first over. there is no doubt that Warne has played fantastically. He is one of the greatest bowlers of all time and batting better and more responsibly than most of those "specialist" batsmen, but I would like to argue that the influence over Englands performances that Flintoff has, his ability to change the shape of the game in no time with either bat or ball - like he did at Edgbaston, and the atmosphere that follows him wherever he goes is far greater than any number (apart from maybe 600 wickets )

Whoops your right, I did miss mentioning Flintoffs extra 50, but if you'd read carefully you'd notice I did mention Flintoff has taken 1 more catch.

Overall a fair argument....although IMO I still maintain Warne has had a slight edge in the allrounder stakes in THIS series so far. However I do expect Flintoff to nudge a head as the remaining 2 tests are played. We will have to wait and see

Swervy · Aug 19, 2005

zinzan12 said:
Whoops your right, I did miss mentioning Flintoffs extra 50, but if you'd read carefully you'd notice I did mention Flintoff has taken 1 more catch.

Overall a fair argument....although IMO I still maintain Warne has had a slight edge in the allrounder stakes in THIS series so far. However I do expect Flintoff to nudge a head as the remaining 2 tests are played. We will have to wait and see

oh zinzan..you are trying to find any way to belittle Flintoff arent you,after you implied a while ago that Oram was better than him

steds · Aug 19, 2005

zinzan12 said:
but if you'd read carefully you'd notice I did mention Flintoff has taken 1 more catch.

So you did. My turn to say "whoops"

Zinzan · Aug 19, 2005

Swervy said:
oh zinzan..you are trying to find any way to belittle Flintoff arent you,after you implied a while ago that Oram was better than him

My old mate Swervy....You probably conveniently didn't notice when I recently raved about Flintoff's brilliant perfomance after the 2nd test. I do call it as I see.it.

But can you honestly say that I'm all THAT far off the mark suggesting that theres a good argument to say Warne's out-allroundered (if there such a word

) Flintoff in THIS series so far??

tooextracool · Aug 19, 2005

if glenn mcgrath does manage to get out at some point this series, in terms of averages only he might just be the best all rounder in the series.

marc71178 · Aug 19, 2005

luckyeddie said:
I'm not sure whether or not the object of this thread is for Warne to show Flintoff up

Looking at the person who started it, I'd say that's the sole intention.

Warne - The allrounder of the ashes so far??

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Global Moderator

Hall of Fame Member

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Global Moderator

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

International Regular

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Request Your Custom Title Now!

Cricket Web Staff Member

Hall of Fame Member

Request Your Custom Title Now!

International Captain

Hall of Fame Member

Request Your Custom Title Now!

International Coach

Eyes not spreadsheets