Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[tooextracool]

Well he averaged 10 runs per wicket less than Flintoff does, for one.

and flintoff is an all rounder,not just a bowler. and his record isnt too far behind some of the best all rounders in the 80s either.

Anyway, it's ludicrous to argue that because someone has success in two fields they are by default better than someone who has much more success in one field. Lance Kluesener was much better than McGrath with the bat (averaged 25 more) and much poorer with the ball (averaged 16 more). That doesn't make him his equal as a player, or anything even remotely close to it.

kluseners bowling was so poor at the end of his career, that it was almost non existent, and he was essentially in the side as a batsman who could bowl a bit. dont see how he merits comparison with mcgrath or anyone else.

Flintoff would make a world XI right now, and may well be the second best pace bowler in the world right now as well, but he has to show more consistency with the bat and maintain his form for a longer period of time with the ball. There's also the fact that even when Flintoff bowls at his absolute best he struggles to really dominate, as indicated by the fact that in probably his best ever series with the ball he still averaged 27. He outbowled McGrath in the series, but it is testament to McGrath's class that even when he's half-fit and not bowling anywhere near his best he still manages to come out of it looking pretty good with a series average of 23. That's what great players do, and Flintoff isn't there yet, and he wouldn't be the first name on the World XI team sheet for me - McGrath, Warne, Murali, Dravid, Gilchrist and Lara at least would make it first.

you might, but then again i and a few others might not. the point of it all though is that making a claim that flintoff is the best player in the world isnt exactly something to be ridiculed because theres a good enough argument for and against it.
and the use of statistics is really annoying when it doesnt really prove anything. flintoff bowled a lot better than his statistics indicated in this series, and mcgrath bowled a lot worse than his did. if flintoff had got his act together with the ball at Lords he could so easily have taken 5 wickets for very few runs and probably averaged in the low 20s.

 

[marc71178]

I know yer rabid jingoism is hard for you to keep in check but a team that has a 11-30 record over the last 4 years and a 9-24 record over the last 3 is most definately a minnow.

No, minnows only win games against themselves - West INdies are quite clearly more capable than that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

and the use of statistics is really annoying when it doesnt really prove anything. flintoff bowled a lot better than his statistics indicated in this series, and mcgrath bowled a lot worse than his did. if flintoff had got his act together with the ball at Lords he could so easily have taken 5 wickets for very few runs and probably averaged in the low 20s.

It certainly doesn't prove who bowled better... because Flintoff did. It does show though that he let himself down by being somewhat inconsistent at times, bowled way too many no-balls, and wasn't used perfectly by his captain. It's no conincidence that it's only in the final test that he really ripped Australia apart, as England were relying on him much more heavily by then. Far too often, like at Edgbaston for example, he came on and bowled wonderfully, looked set for a big haul, was taken off after a short spell and returned and wasn't able to follow it up. I also think the series showed that Flintoff isn't the best bowler around at new batsmen or at the tail, but he can produce deliveries which will get any set batsman out.

 

[marc71178]

1st test: Australia won
2nd test: England won by 2 runs
3rd test: Draw (England should have won)
4th test: England won
5th test: Draw (Australia should have won)

So, all out victories says 2-1 to England. If Kaspa hadn't gotten out, it would have been 2-1 to Australia. Add the draws and it's 3-2 to Australia. It comes down to that two run test you won.

England aren't better than us, theoretically they won the Ashes by 2 runs, very lucky.

Did you actually watch any of the series?

And how can you say Australia should've won the 5th when they were set over 300 to win?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Did you actually watch any of the series?

And how can you say Australia should've won the 5th when they were set over 300 to win?

I don't think Australia "should have won" the 5th, but they certainly had the better of the play, despite terrible luck with conditions at the end of their first innings they still looked set to win before Pietersen's innings on the final day, and had he been caught on 0 or on 15 it's fair to say they probably would have.

It doesn't really matter who had the best of the play though, as England still won more tests. I think, based on the series as a whole, 2-2 would have been a fairly fitting result, with perhaps Australia winning the final test, or winning at Edbaston and England winning at Old Trafford, but either way it's strange to say that England were particularly lucky to win, as they dominated two tests while Australia only dominated one.

 

[tooextracool]

It certainly doesn't prove who bowled better... because Flintoff did. It does show though that he let himself down by being somewhat inconsistent at times, bowled way too many no-balls, and wasn't used perfectly by his captain. It's no conincidence that it's only in the final test that he really ripped Australia apart, as England were relying on him much more heavily by then. Far too often, like at Edgbaston for example, he came on and bowled wonderfully, looked set for a big haul, was taken off after a short spell and returned and wasn't able to follow it up. I also think the series showed that Flintoff isn't the best bowler around at new batsmen or at the tail, but he can produce deliveries which will get any set batsman out.

flintoff is a fairly decent bowler at tailenders, certainly a lot better than hoggard and harmison. simon jones though beats all of them combined as anyone who has followed his career would know, and its an absolute joke that he didnt get to bowl on the last day of that edgbaston test match

 

[greg]

flintoff is a fairly decent bowler at tailenders, certainly a lot better than hoggard and harmison. simon jones though beats all of them combined as anyone who has followed his career would know, and its an absolute joke that he didnt get to bowl on the last day of that edgbaston test match

To be fair Simon Jones hadn't CLEARLY shown it leading up to the Edgbaston test. At Lords for example he bowled well, but consistently let the batsmen off the hook with regular 4 balls. It is easy to say now, and with the benefit of hindsight, that Vaughan should have bowled him on the last morning at Edgbaston. The problem was runs were coming so quickly that he never found an appropriate opportunity.

FWIW my opinion is that Vaughan made a big mistake on the final morning as treating it as a situation of only 24-30 runs to win. They needed 100. He should have treated it like any other morning, opened with Hoggard and Harmison, switching quickly to Flintoff and/or Jones if things didn't go well. Having bowled what he considered his trump cards straight up (rather than necessarily his best bowlers for the situation) he mentally closed off almost all his options.

 

[greg]

I am using their past 4-5 year stats- yes, they are behind England against quality attacks but their success differential is about 10-15%. That is CLOSE.
And yes, a home victory against Aus with an away victory against RSA and comprehensive thumping of the minnows over the past 2 years is enough to put them at #2. But it is NOT a huge gap with #3, which IMO is India.

And yes, limited data makes it a massive margin of error. A massive margin of error suggests that they are anywhere from being a lil worse ( because the margin of error over 2 series is greater than the aggregate differential between ENG AND IND) to a lil better.

For example,
If your score is 10 +/- 2.5 and mine is 8 +/- 0.05, you are anywhere between 8 and 12, while i am anywhere between 7.95 and 8.05 while you are anywhere between 7.5 and 12.5- either almost equal/lil worse to a lil bit better.
Simple as that.

Again you duck the point I am making. You accept (although you try to avoid this from time to time when going back to England's results 4-5 years ago) that the only results which can be used to assess England are those over the last 2 years since the present team became clearly identifiable. Looking at these results there is no other test nation (other than Australia) that comes close to that sort of record against the same teams. To say that England are limited to being somewhere between a lil worse and a lil better than India is illogical. India's results against the same teams doesn't come close. (and that's even before you take issue with your questionable argument to dismiss India's poor performance against weaker teams simply because they are "minnows". You may be able to dismiss victories against minnows, but to dismiss defeats is ridiculous).

The bottom line is that England's results alone (even before you delve deeper into how they played) should place them very close to Australia. This may or may not be a misleading position due to the large margin of error, but that is what the data shows.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Again you duck the point I am making. You accept (although you try to avoid this from time to time when going back to England's results 4-5 years ago) that the only results which can be used to assess England are those over the last 2 years since the present team became clearly identifiable. Looking at these results there is no other test nation (other than Australia) that comes close to that sort of record against the same teams. To say that England are limited to being somewhere between a lil worse and a lil better than India is illogical. India's results against the same teams doesn't come close. (and that's even before you take issue with your questionable argument to dismiss India's poor performance against weaker teams simply because they are "minnows". You may be able to dismiss victories against minnows, but to dismiss defeats is ridiculous).

The bottom line is that England's results alone (even before you delve deeper into how they played) should place them very close to Australia. This may or may not be a misleading position due to the large margin of error, but that is what the data shows.

You're wasting your breath replying to them. The minnow garbage they come out with has been pointed out over and over and over and over again.

 

[C_C]

and yet they won test series during that time, both home and away and competed against almost every team.

You obviously were too young then if you think that Zimbabwe actually competed against those teams. And please post Zimbabwe's record from the 90s for all to see.

and well done in providing such clear facts to back your claim. fancy that, a player that averages 42 for one of the worst test playing nations at the time despite probably losing out on the prime of his career, and averaging over 50 in county cricket is now a mediocre batsman. what next? ganguly is a cricketing legend and should be knighted?

No, because i would think such an obvious fact would require no explanation but then again some of you teenagers are just way too frickin big-headed.
A player who is not in the top 20 batsmen of his era is obviously nothing more than a mediocre batsman.
And Ganguly is a cricketing legend - one of only 5 captains to have 10 overseas victory or more and an alltime great ODI batsman.
Whether he should be knighted or not depends on the views of nonsensical and largely irrelevant british monarchy- it means diddly squat to me.

collins and collymore are far far ahead of pathan and zaheer, both of whom are rubbish at the moment and dont deserve to be playing test match cricket.
as far as im concerned india is only marginally better than the WI now, and thats only because of dravid.

And as far as i am concerned, yer just a kid with very little understanding of cricket or its statistics. Neither Collins nor Collymore are far ahead of Pathan. To say so is to show complete lack of understanding of fast bowling. And India is definately #3 in the world - both on ICC ratings(that you hold oh so dear) and based on track record - plus India have some of the best batsmen in the last 10 years - Tendulkar ( whom you seem to hate dispite data showing tht he is the BEST batsman of his generation or at best, second best), Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and the best spin-bowling combo in the world ( Harbhajan-Kumble).

oh what an argument! so what you're trying to say here is that my argument doesnt matter(basically ignoring the fact that it proves you wrong completely) and only yours does?
if a team has been beating top 8 nations at home consistently i'd say they're doing a pretty decent job, and certainly not a minnow.

The team did not beat many top 8 nations consistently - they got an odd victory against IND and a rain-affected fluke-job against Sri Lanka. Thats pretty much about it minus the minnows. They've been thumped by RSA, ENG, AUS for a while now and have been thumped overseas by practically everybody. If you learn your cricket history accurately, you'd find that WI, even though superior to the BD/ZIM side, has been in the traditional minnow-spot defined by teams such as IND in the 30s/50s, WI in the 20s/30s, NZ in the 50s-70s, SL in the 80s-early 90s, etc.

what rain effected matches are you referring to?
the one in which WI had a 120 run first inning lead?

Given that BCL was unlikely to bat in the second innings, SL were half-way winners already.

and the same can be said about the indian team, how many people dont think the current indian team is worthless? its only you who talks them up to being very close to 2nd best in the world, when in fact they're 2nd best from the bottom.

No its only you and your paranoid delusions that believe that IND are anything outta the top 5, along with a few traditional pro-anglicists here.

and you can come on here and try to be as anti england and pro indian as you want, because the fact is that only 2 series have been against minnows. 10 tests have been against 2 quality teams- SA at home and australia in england.

And you can rant your idiocy as long as you want. But if you did posess a basic understanding of probability and statistcs, you'd realise that 10 tests against 2 quality teams is almost an insignificant sample-space.

 

[C_C]

Again you duck the point I am making. You accept (although you try to avoid this from time to time when going back to England's results 4-5 years ago) that the only results which can be used to assess England are those over the last 2 years since the present team became clearly identifiable. Looking at these results there is no other test nation (other than Australia) that comes close to that sort of record against the same teams. To say that England are limited to being somewhere between a lil worse and a lil better than India is illogical. India's results against the same teams doesn't come close. (and that's even before you take issue with your questionable argument to dismiss India's poor performance against weaker teams simply because they are "minnows". You may be able to dismiss victories against minnows, but to dismiss defeats is ridiculous).

The bottom line is that England's results alone (even before you delve deeper into how they played) should place them very close to Australia. This may or may not be a misleading position due to the large margin of error, but that is what the data shows.

No, i am not ducking any point you are making. I am rather, explaining to you a fundamental paradigm in probabilistic modelling.
The small sample space is what contributes to a large error in the data stream and a large error which overlaps two sample points ( india and england) means that the said value sample point can lie anywhere behind or beyond the other sample point.
The fact that IND's performance against those minnows span a bigger timeframe means India suffers a lot less from the uncertainty error.

 

[greg]

BTW, C_C, who do you fancy in the winter tours?

 

[Top_Cat]

It doesn't really matter who had the best of the play though, as England still won more tests. I think, based on the series as a whole, 2-2 would have been a fairly fitting result, with perhaps Australia winning the final test, or winning at Edbaston and England winning at Old Trafford, but either way it's strange to say that England were particularly lucky to win, as they dominated two tests while Australia only dominated one.

You really think 2-2 would have been a fitting result? Had that been the case, Australia would have been going home with the Ashes and no reasonable person who watched the series would think that was fair to England. Rain saved Australia in the middle Test and considering that, all things being equal, they might have won the 5th Test, 3-1 or 3-2 would have been a far more fitting result illustrating that although Australia weren't woeful, England were clearly the better side overall and deserved to win the series.

 

[marc71178]

No, i am not ducking any point you are making. I am rather, explaining to you a fundamental paradigm in probabilistic modelling.

Something which is completely irrelevant to the question.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You really think 2-2 would have been a fitting result? Had that been the case, Australia would have been going home with the Ashes and no reasonable person who watched the series would think that was fair to England. Rain saved Australia in the middle Test and considering that, all things being equal, they might have won the 5th Test, 3-1 or 3-2 would have been a far more fitting result illustrating that although Australia weren't woeful, England were clearly the better side overall and deserved to win the series.

Could you imagine Australia, (going along with your theory) already being beaten in 3 consecutive Tests, *upping* their game to win a dead rubber? They'd have struggled to chase 50 at the Oval, let alone 300+...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You really think 2-2 would have been a fitting result? Had that been the case, Australia would have been going home with the Ashes and no reasonable person who watched the series would think that was fair to England. Rain saved Australia in the middle Test and considering that, all things being equal, they might have won the 5th Test, 3-1 or 3-2 would have been a far more fitting result illustrating that although Australia weren't woeful, England were clearly the better side overall and deserved to win the series.

Rain saved Australia in the middle test, conditions saved England in the final test at least as much - Australia successfully defended for over a day at Old Trafford, it's not as if the final day was washed out. Before rain and bad light ruined days 3 and 4, Austraia were very much on top in the final test, just as England were at Old Trafford before the rain on day 3.

Regarding the general pattern of the series, the second test was much closer than most people seem to believe, given that Australia were very much on top at various points (like when England were 9/131 trying to set a total), just as England were at other points (like when they had a 99 run first innings lead, and then Australia 8 down with 100+ still needed). I'd say overall the 2nd and 5th tests were relatively even, while as I said England had the best of two tests (3 and 4) compared to Australia's one (Lords, obviously), so I think either a drawn series or an English win were fair results. The thing about claiming England were totally dominant is, if Australia had scraped home at Edgbaston, you'd find far more people claiming that England were merely competitive but Australia were clearly the better team, when in reality 3 extra runs makes no difference to the overall trend of the matches, which was in England's way significantly in two of them and in Australia's in one.

Had Kasprowicz made those runs, Australia would have won the series, so quite clearly it was incredibly close, and suggesting that Australia deserved to lose 3-1 on the balance of play is rather odd. The overall trend was slightly towards England.

 

[Top_Cat]

Regarding the general pattern of the series, the second test was much closer than most people seem to believe, given that Australia were very much on top at various points (like when England were 9/131 trying to set a total), just as England were at other points (like when they had a 99 run first innings lead, and then Australia 8 down with 100+ still needed). I'd say overall the 2nd and 5th tests were relatively even, while as I said England had the best of two tests (3 and 4) compared to Australia's one (Lords, obviously), so I think either a drawn series or an English win were fair results. The thing about claiming England were totally dominant is, if Australia had scraped home at Edgbaston, you'd find far more people claiming that England were merely competitive but Australia were clearly the better team, when in reality 3 extra runs makes no difference to the overall trend of the matches, which was in England's way significantly in two of them and in Australia's in one.

Australia were chasing 100+ with two wickets in hand, both of the batsmen at the crease tail-enders, and there was HEAPS of luck involved in getting as close as they did. How many balls went flying over the slips? How many very close LBW's were there? 9/10 times, England and most other sides would have wrapped up the match with about 80+ runs to spare. Brett Lee, Warnie and Kasper batted unusually well to get close in that match and even then, there was plenty of luck.

Could you imagine Australia, (going along with your theory) already being beaten in 3 consecutive Tests, *upping* their game to win a dead rubber? They'd have struggled to chase 50 at the Oval, let alone 300+...

I think you're probably right but in effect, Australia WERE 'beaten' in three consecutive Tests. England did enough in all three to win, put it that way so Australia really were coming back from three consecutive 'losses'. Even if they were three real losses, I don't think they would have folded. Well, you'd hope not anyway.

 

[Sanz]

whether you have faith in a player is irrelevant, as ive already pointed out, the fact is that flintoff would offer more to a team than mcgrath.

No, It is not irrelevant. I have more faith in Mcgrath's bowling ability than the combined batting/bowling abilities of Flintoff. It is because I have watched Mcgrath perform consistently over the years. And no it's not a fact that Flintoff will offer more to the team, its just your opinion.

well done in ignoring SL and australia though, makes you claim look so much better doesnt it? averaging 7 runs lower does not make up for mcgrath averaging 30 or so runs less with the bat in the last 2 years.

Oh yeah he took 9 wickets against SL at an avg. of 24 in 3 tests, Mcgrath took 10 in two test @17. Obviously it makes Flintoff look much better as bowler, Since Mcgrath cant' play against australia, we cant compare him, but let me guess Flintoff's avg against australia was under 25 in the last series ?

and you havent provided any argument to back it up. if the difference between flintoffs batting and mcgraths bowling is far far greater than their bowling then flintoff should be the more valuable player.

Dont need to. Mcgrath is a specialist player and one of the greatest. Flintoff isn't even one of the greatest allrounder yet, forget about being a great bowler/batsman which he never will be. I have already shown it to you the stats of Flintoff/Mcgrath as a bowler and Flintoff doesn't even come close.

to say that theres no case for flintoff being the first name on a team sheet is ignorance.

Ask australian members on this forum as who would they have in their team, Mcgrath or Warne the bowler or Flintoff the allrounder, why not initiate a poll and see how many people chose Flintoff over Mcgrath and how many of them are non-english.

oh bravo with the selective stats again. first of all his average against SA is 40 over the last 2 years, well done in ignoring the 2003 series against them.
and to look at his record in just 3 tests against mcgrath is ludicrous.

Dude you are the one who put the 2 years criteria to suit your argument. What now, are you going to compare Flintoff's entire career with Mcgrath. Duh...Is there a comparison ?

bradman averaged 99.94, which is nearly twice as much as dravid and about 60 runs more than flintoff over the last 2 years. dravid averages less than 20 runs more than flintoff in the last 2 years. i fail to see how you cant understand this?

Okay taking Bradman was not a great example, can Flintoff replace Steve Waugh, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Dravid. NO none of them. Can Flintoff come in at no. 3 and build an inning like Dravid can, no he cant. Can Flintoff come in at 100/5 and save the match like Waugh could, No he cant. Sorry Flintoff cant replace these players. The point is when the batting is down, a team will need someone to bat like Dravid/Lara/Waugh/SRT etc. something Flintoff has not shown so far.

you would, does that mean everyone else would? no it does not. its arguable as to whether flintoff or gilchrist is more valuable to a team at the moment.

And how do you know that everyone would ? As a matter of fact I never said everyone would. I dont talk about others . I know that I wouldn't have Freddie over Gilly and that's it.

what garbage. who in the world says that he cant replace strauss and trescothick?

Oh so Freddie can bat like Strauss/Tresco at opener's slot ? The point is Freddie isn't good enough with the bat to replace a top order batsman. So If I need an opener for England Team I will have Strauss over Freddie. If I need a wicketkeeper for my world XI I would have Gilly over Freddie.

is that why the australian side would let him walk into their side ahead of those 2?

And If Freddie is going to walk into Aussie side, it would be at the expense of Katich/Clark not at the expense of Gilli, Langer, Warne, Mcgrath, Ponting, Martyn.

and if you wouldnt have him, probably because you dont like him,

Same can be said about you that you will have him in your team because you seem to like him. I have never said I wont have him in my team, I have said that I wont have him ahead of Mcgrath.

it of course means that no one else would doesnt it?

And when did I say that ?

 

[Sanz]

the discussion here is that there was no assistance for the pace bowlers whatsoever. and if performances in conditions suitable for bowling can be eliminated then we can also eliminate performances on dead flat wickets with no swing or reverse.

That's why Aussie fast bowlers took 4 wickets in the first innings, and English bowlers went wicketless on second day.

what point of simon jones swung the ball conventionally do you not understand? you were indicating that simon jones is a one trick pony, when anybody who watched a ball of the trent bridge test would know that thats not the case.

Err when did I declare Jones as 'one trick pony' ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia were chasing 100+ with two wickets in hand, both of the batsmen at the crease tail-enders, and there was HEAPS of luck involved in getting as close as they did. How many balls went flying over the slips? How many very close LBW's were there? 9/10 times, England and most other sides would have wrapped up the match with about 80+ runs to spare. Brett Lee, Warnie and Kasper batted unusually well to get close in that match and even then, there was plenty of luck.

Sure there was luck. There was luck in lots of things in that match. There was luck in Flintoff repeatedly top edging Lee just wide of fielders or just over them for six in his first innings 50, there was luck in Warne getting several excellent LBW shouts turned down, and Lee getting one turned down as well. There was also bad luck for Warne in stepping on his stumps when he normally wouldn't have gotten out.

The fact is that the luck aside, which went in favour of both teams at different times, Australia lost by 2 runs and had Kasprowicz not been strangled down leg (not exactly clean bowled either) Australia would have won the test and most likely the series. The point I was making was, if Australia had won that test, would people still be saying Australia should have lost the series 3-1 and were totally outplayed? I very much doubt it. It was clearly a massively close series, with only one match result being clear at the start of the final day of the test, and three matches having very close finishes, and two matches being extremely tight the whole way through.