Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[social]

Like in the 3rd Test you mean where Australia were saved by the taff getting injured? Or in the 5th Test where Australia would have been significant odds against getting the 300+ in the 4th innings. Where's that picture of sour grapes...

Eng beat Aus over 5 tests - end of story.

There's no sour grapes because:

a. it was his fault, not Eng's, that he stepped on the ball; and

b. it was his and the Aus medical staff's decision to play him vs Northants where he further injured the elbow he first hurt in the 3rd test trying to compensate for the injured ankle (no doubt you'll ask how this could be the case, so I'll tell you - cant put pressure on his leg so attempts to gain pace by using more arm in the delivery).

Eng did what they had to do, beat the side pitted against them on the park.

Unfortunately for Aus, it was no coincidence that with McGrath (who incidentally took 19 wickets at 23) we played 3 tests and won those 1 - 0. Without him, we were 0 - 2 in 2 tests.

 

[marc71178]

He has a long way to go with the bat though, and I'd still be picking McGrath, Warne, Murali, Dravid, Kallis, Ponting, Lara and Gilchrist in my team before Flintoff right now.

So you'd not actually even pick Flintoff then.

 

[social]

So you'd not actually even pick Flintoff then.

I think that he was implying that Botham had forgotten about those players when claiming Freddie's new-found status.

 

[greg]

Well on recent evidence you'd be a foolhardy selector who picked Lara or Gilchrist until you were sure that Flintoff was nailed down into the same team as well

 

[Barney Rubble]

Also i do agree that Flintoff is the best allrounder in the world today, but to call him the greatest cricketer on the planet is a laugh.

Some would argue that being the best all-rounder in the world makes him the best cricketer in the world - a simple matter of linguistics. A cricketer is someone who plays cricket - if he's the best all-rounder (i.e. all-round cricketer, that's what it's short for) in the world, he's the best cricketer. He's not the best batsman, bowler or fielder, but he's the best cricketer.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So you'd not actually even pick Flintoff then.

Err, yes, I would. How many players did I just pick, and how many are in a cricket team?

A world XI right now would look something like:

Sehwag
Langer
Ponting/Kallis
Dravid
Lara
Flintoff
Gilchrist
Warne
Shoaib/Pollock/Bond
Murali
McGrath

That doesn't mean Flintoff would be the first name on the sheet, and if I had a choice between having Murali, Dravid, Warne, McGrath, Lara etc in my team or Flintoff, I'd rather the former. If I wanted a seamer, McGrath would be my first choice and then Flintoff, and if I wanted an all-rounder (bowling and batting, not keeping) Flintoff is a mile ahead of everyone else.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Some would argue that being the best all-rounder in the world makes him the best cricketer in the world - a simple matter of linguistics. A cricketer is someone who plays cricket - if he's the best all-rounder (i.e. all-round cricketer, that's what it's short for) in the world, he's the best cricketer. He's not the best batsman, bowler or fielder, but he's the best cricketer.

By that definition, Dravid or is a better all-rounder than Flintoff, because he's a better "all-round cricketer". That's clearly not how the term "all-rounder" is used, though.

 

[PY]

Eh?

Dravid can't bowl. Nor is he world-class in the wicketkeeping dept. I could understand all your points until that one.

 

[Sanz]

Eh?

Dravid can't bowl. Nor is he world-class in the wicketkeeping dept. I could understand all your points until that one.

Can Flintoff keep ?

 

[Deja moo]

Some would argue that being the best all-rounder in the world makes him the best cricketer in the world - a simple matter of linguistics. A cricketer is someone who plays cricket - if he's the best all-rounder (i.e. all-round cricketer, that's what it's short for) in the world, he's the best cricketer. He's not the best batsman, bowler or fielder, but he's the best cricketer.

Therefore, Sobers > Bradman ?

 

[PY]

Can Flintoff keep ?

I'd expect so, he's good enough at slip.

What I really meant was that Flintoff can do something in a world class fashion in every category of the game. He's a very good bat, excellent bowler and he's a brilliant 2nd slipper whereas Dravid is only very/normal good at two of those categories.

And Mr Moo, some people argue that Sobers was the better cricketer than Bradman (I don't agree but it is a school of thought), just speak to C_C I think it was. Though that is for another thread I reckon.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Therefore, Sobers > Bradman ?

By that definition, yes. But by the definition most people use, no, because Bradman was so much better than everyone else at batting he negates the whole argument.

Just like Lara is so much better than Flintoff at batting, he is the better cricketer.

Think of it as rating them out of 100, then averaging it out.

Say cricketer A gets 100 out of 100 for batting, and 30 for bowling, 50 for fielding. Cricketer B gets 70 out of 100 for batting, 70 for bowling, 70 for fielding.

Cricketer A's average rating is 60/100. Cricketer B's average is 70 out of 100. Cricketer B is technically the better cricketer, because he has a higher average rating, but Cricketer A is actually the better cricketer because he is the only one in history ever to be rated 100 out of 100 for anything.

Hopefully that'll clear my bizarre system of "who's better" up.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Eh?

Dravid can't bowl. Nor is he world-class in the wicketkeeping dept. I could understand all your points until that one.

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. Dravid is unquestionably a better cricketer than Rikki Clarke, but he's not an all-rounder. Hence, I don't really see how the phrases are interchangable, unless you're suggesting that an all-rounder is always the better all-round cricketer, meaning that say Chris Cairns (or whoever you like) was the best player in the world a decade ago and not Steve Waugh, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram or whoever else.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Fred gets 101/100 for boozing.

 

[Kweek]

OOI Barney Rubble, didnt know you joined our little society haha. welcome to the club. and im sure you are a good vice president..dont forget, im still the president haha

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Fred gets 101/100 for boozing.

Come on, can he drink 53 tinnies on the flight from Australia to England? Boonie's got to be the benchmark for 100/100.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Come on, can he drink 53 tinnies on the flight from Australia to England? Boonie's got to be the benchmark for 100/100.

I wouldn't bet against it, really.

Anyway Boon was probably drinking those half cans you lot seem to like so much, or schooners or whatever. We drink proper pints over here son

 

[PY]

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. Dravid is unquestionably a better cricketer than Rikki Clarke, but he's not an all-rounder. Hence, I don't really see how the phrases are interchangable, unless you're suggesting that an all-rounder is always the better all-round cricketer, meaning that say Chris Cairns (or whoever you like) was the best player in the world a decade ago and not Steve Waugh, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram or whoever else.

I wasn't comparing anyone BUT Flintoff with Dravid, does my second post make any more sense?

I think Flintoff is better than Dravid as an all-round cricketer, I'm not saying that it's an automatic thing if you're an all-rounder you're a better all-round cricketer but I just think if you compare those two players, Flintoff edges what Dravid brings to the table.

I do believe I've just beaten everyone hands down for the most confusing post ever, if you can make any sense of it you're a better man than me.

 

[marc71178]

Err, yes, I would. How many players did I just pick, and how many are in a cricket team?

A world XI right now would look something like:

Sehwag
Langer
Ponting/Kallis
Dravid
Lara
Flintoff
Gilchrist
Warne
Shoaib/Pollock/Bond
Murali
McGrath

That doesn't mean Flintoff would be the first name on the sheet, and if I had a choice between having Murali, Dravid, Warne, McGrath, Lara etc in my team or Flintoff, I'd rather the former. If I wanted a seamer, McGrath would be my first choice and then Flintoff, and if I wanted an all-rounder (bowling and batting, not keeping) Flintoff is a mile ahead of everyone else.

But that changes what you've previously said - since you said you'd select both Ponting and Kallis ahead of him.

 

[marc71178]

Can Flintoff keep ?

Can't be any worse than Geraint.