Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[tooextracool]

Therefore, Sobers > Bradman ?

that is arguable. because bradman is so far ahead of every one else in one department, that you would have to question whether sobers or anyone else would be able to make up for that in the other departments of the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay, forget Flintoff for a minute. Dravid is a better all-round cricketer than Rikki Clarke. Yes, Rikki Clarke can probably bowl better than Dravid, but Dravid is SO much better with the bat that he is infinately more value to his team and is as such a better all-round cricketer. Rikki Clarke is obviously a better all-rounder because Dravid isn't one, but if you use the phrase "all-round cricketer" as oppose to "all rounder" people will generally interpret your meaning as the better cricketer overall, all things considered.

if averaging 42 with the ball in FC cricket makes someone an allrounder can you imagine how many players would be all rounders in world cricket today?

 

[PY]

I can see a clash of Titanic posters coming up, I can feel it in my waters.

 

[Sanz]

its arguable as to whether mcgrath would have been anywhere near the bowler he was at Lords for the rest of the series if he was fit. the Lords slope and seam movement make him unplayable. personally his performance at Lords doesnt come close to proving how many wickets he would have taken in the rest of the series.

No ofcourse not, especially since it is quite obvious that Mcgrath has an awesome record at all the ground in England except Edgbaston.

But that should not mean anything, since you have said it must be an universal truth that Mcgrath would have failed terribly at all other venues.

 

[tooextracool]

No ofcourse not, especially since it is quite obvious that Mcgrath has an awesome record at all the ground in England except Edgbaston.

But that should not mean anything, since you have said it must be an universal truth that Mcgrath would have failed terribly at all other venues.

how many times do i tell you this? read my post properly.
i never said mcgrath would have failed miserably at all other venues, in fact if mcgrath were fit he would have bowled fairly well at all venues. but at Lords he was damn near unplayable. i cant see him being anywhere near as good at any of the other grounds, given that the rest of them were played on flatter wickets. and mcgraths record against england from the 90s doesnt go too far to proving how good he would be in this series.

 

[Sanz]

..fact is that mcgraths bowling isnt streets ahead of flintoffs,

And how is that a fact and not just your opinion ? Despite being almost 10 years older than Freddie, half injured for most part of ashes, playing in a away series Mcgrath averages better than Flintoff, has better strike rate, has better economy rate in the series and he isn't miles ahead of Flintoff as a bowler ? A guy who averages 32 as bowler compared to Mcgrath's 21, his avg. in Eng is 35 compared to Mcgrath's 19, has only 2 fifers in 52 test compared to Mcgrath's 28 in 112 tests, averages in 30+ against almost every country except WI & AUS compared to Mcgrath's 20ish avg against every country..and you say Mcgrath isn't streets ahead ??

yet flintoffs batting and fielding is. and its the same when you look at dravid,mural,warne and whoever else.

Flintoff is nohwere near Dravid as a batsman and in simple words Dravid is MILES ahead of Flintof. The guy averages 33 compared to Dravid's 58. :lol averages 12 against India, 20 against SL, 11 iagainst Zim, 27 in SA, 23 in SL, 5 in India away avg.s 28 compared to Dravid's 64 .Case closed.

Same goes with Warnie/Murali - Freddie doesn't come anywhere close to any of those two as a bowler.

 

[greg]

And how is that a fact and not just your opinion ? Despite being almost 10 years older than Freddie, half injured for most part of ashes, playing in a away series Mcgrath averages better than Flintoff, has better strike rate, has better economy rate in the series and he isn't miles ahead of Flintoff as a bowler ? A guy who averages 32 as bowler compared to Mcgrath's 21, his avg. in Eng is 35 compared to Mcgrath's 19, has only 2 fifers in 52 test compared to Mcgrath's 28 in 112 tests, averages in 30+ against almost every country except WI & AUS compared to Mcgrath's 20ish avg against every country..and you say Mcgrath isn't streets ahead ??

That's correct.

 

[C_C]

England haven't played NZ in their last 6 Tests.

They've played them in the last 6 series (a run that includes only 1 minnow in Bangladesh)

Thank you for correcting that typo- but you knew i was talking to Delgado's comment about the last six series.

 

[C_C]

England last played India 3 years ago, with a massively different team. Both of the meetings between India and NZ have been in the last 3 years. India's team has been basically the same in those series against NZ as it is now, except that 2-3 crap players are different and there are now a different 2-3 crap players - so they're the same teams effectively.

Now that's the last time I'll bother with you, because you're one of those internet trolls that think quoting irrelevant statistics, copy and pasting stuff from a dictionary and waffling incessantly somehow compensates for your utter lack of knowledge. I expect it'll be a few months before you finally get banned for throwing 'racist' about, but it'll happen eventually and CW will be a better place without you.

Mind your language if you wish to instruct me on how to speak.

England played India last 3 years ago with half the team similar(thats 5-6 players). NZ played India 2 years ago with 7 players similar. Oh so different, isnt it ?

I am sorry that my arguments are a bit too complex for you- i will try to tone them down.
What i am saying is rather elementary.

England have been performing well for 2 years or so. In those two years, they have played a lot of minnows. India has been playing with a relatively similar team for atleast 4-5 years now. Therefore, to put a clear gap between India and England, England needs to play more and achieve more .
England is the #2 team right now but not by much - let them perform for a few more years at this level and it will be categoric.

As per your comment about CW being a better place without me - i am sure a lot of members here feel the same way about you.

 

[Sanz]

how many times do i tell you this? read my post properly.
i never said mcgrath would have failed miserably at all other venues, in fact if mcgrath were fit he would have bowled fairly well at all venues. but at Lords he was damn near unplayable. i cant see him being anywhere near as good at any of the other grounds, given that the rest of them were played on flatter wickets. and mcgraths record against england from the 90s doesnt go too far to proving how good he would be in this series.

I read it and its the same BS all over again. No one said he was going to be as good as he looked @ Lords but he would definately have been better by some margin.

In 1997 - Mcgrath took 103/9 @Lords, Series avg 36 wickets @19.47
In 2001 - Mcgrath took 114/8 @Lords, Series avg 32 wickets @16.93
In 2005 - Mcgrath took 82/9 @ Lords, Series avg. 19 wickets @ 23.15 (despite not being fully fit for the last 2 test matches he played)

And it is a fair indication of how well he could have done if he was fully fit.

 

[C_C]

How are they more logical than rating wins over better sides higher than wins over weaker sides?

Because ICC rankings have several drawbacks to it -it started with an arbitary value setting that instantly disadvantaged some teams while advantaging others.
If the cumulative rankings had started a year earlier or before, the whole table would've been different apart from #1.
For two, ICC rankings does not take into account home and away tests where away victories should obviusly get rated higher and away defeats obviously lower.
For three, the regression model they employ to work out the points does NOT have a convergent mathematical solution.
ICC ranking model is all fun and fanfare but the mathematics behind that system will not pass the most basic applications test if applied to an industrial system.

 

[C_C]

What relevance is a series 4 years ago to current cricket? Next to none.

It has a LOT of relevance if one wishes to establish a pattern and predict results based on mathematical thinking instead of nationalistic skullduggery.

 

[C_C]

its arguable as to whether mcgrath would have been anywhere near the bowler he was at Lords for the rest of the series if he was fit. the Lords slope and seam movement make him unplayable. personally his performance at Lords doesnt come close to proving how many wickets he would have taken in the rest of the series.

True. But what is very likely is that McGrath would've been considerably more damaging in the other 2 tests he played if he was fit and considerably more damaging than Kaspa in the 2 tests he didnt.
Didnt you argue that India's drawn series in OZ isnt a big deal because McGrath and Warney didnt play ? Nevermind the fact that Warney gets pumelled by India almost every single time. Now you flip around and argue that McGrath's presence at full fitness might not have changed the results ? what utter tosh!

 

[C_C]

and if i had to choose one player out of that entire team, i would choose flintoff first. believe it or not there is a very big case for flintoff being the best player in the world, because hes invaluable to any side. fact is that mcgraths bowling isnt streets ahead of flintoffs, yet flintoffs batting and fielding is. and its the same when you look at dravid,mural,warne and whoever else.

Yeah. A guy taking 19 wickets in 3 matches and averaging 23.15 while bowling on one leg for 2 of those matches isnt streets ahead of a guy taking 24 wickets in 5 matches and averaging 27.29 at full fitness.

 

[greg]

Yeah. A guy taking 19 wickets in 3 matches and averaging 23.15 while bowling on one leg for 2 of those matches isnt streets ahead of a guy taking 24 wickets in 5 matches and averaging 27.29 at full fitness.

I pointed this out before but you obviously ignored me. What injury are you under the impression that McGrath was suffering from in the Oval test match?

 

[Sanz]

I pointed this out before but you obviously ignored me. What injury are you under the impression that McGrath was suffering from in the Oval test match?

Wasn't it his elbow injury of something, dont have time right now to look it up but I am pretty sure his status was questionable until wednesday (test match started on Thursday)

 

[C_C]

I pointed this out before but you obviously ignored me. What injury are you under the impression that McGrath was suffering from in the Oval test match?

I suppose then McGrath missed 2 tests because he was matchfixing and pretended to hop around in the second match he played. Quick, call the anticorruption unit!
Besides, McGrath, as i am sure you'd remember, was NOT sure to play the Oval test until the last day or two before the match due to fitness issues.

 

[superkingdave]

Wasn't it his elbow injury of something, dont have time right now to look it up but I am pretty sure his status was questionable until wednesday (test match started on Thursday)

so how was he bowling on one leg for that match?

The elbow injury is from what i've heard something that he's going to have with him for the rest of his career and he's just going to have to mange it carefully.

 

[greg]

so how was he bowling on one leg for that match?

The elbow injury is from what i've heard something that he's going to have with him for the rest of his career and he's just going to have to mange it carefully.

Well done superkingdave. You win first prize

 

[C_C]

so how was he bowling on one leg for that match?

The elbow injury is from what i've heard something that he's going to have with him for the rest of his career and he's just going to have to mange it carefully.

Okay. He was on one leg for one match and had one arm for the other.
A model of fast bowling fitness !