Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[Jono]

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.

Well I agree with your revised statement. Flintoff overall does edge out Dravid as a better 'all-round' cricketer. But all-rounder isn't short for all-rounder cricket IMO, as Faaip pointed out. I think that was his main argument.

 

[greg]

Well I agree with your revised statement. Flintoff overall does edge out Dravid as a better 'all-round' cricketer. But all-rounder isn't short for all-rounder cricket IMO, as Faaip pointed out. I think that was his main argument.

What is it short for then?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What is it short for then?

Either "best all-rounder" means the same thing as "best all-round cricketer" or it doesn't. You can't say "Flintoff is the best cricketer in the world" and when someone says "well what about Murali?" say "well Flintoff is a better batsman which means he's a better all-round cricketer and therefore the best cricketer". It's just doublespeak. If they do mean the same thing, then Rikki Clarke is a better all-round cricketer than Rahul Dravid, and if they don't then he's not and a batsman can be a better all-round cricketer than an all-rounder. (say that three times fast, if you please)

Yes, Flintoff is the best all-rounder. Yes, if you define all-round cricketing ability as meaning general ability across several areas of the game (ie: all-rounder), then he is also the best "all-round cricketer". He's not, in my opinion, the outright best or most valuable cricketer because guys like Murali, Warne, McGrath, Dravid, Lara etc would make any team that didn't have them ahead of Flintoff, assuming that team was looking for a generally valuable player rather than specifically an all-rounder.

 

[Mermaidman]

i agree with this thread title i am English and been watching cricket since aslong as i can remember (1990 i think) and delighted with the ashes victory, but the bloomin' press in my country are going mad saying that they are the best in the world as most REAL cricket fans know England have a long way to go yet. And i do believe that England played better in a few sessions of play and it was the closest series ever so how can it be a thrashing of Australia?. I am also disgusted by the idiots taunting the greatest cricketer (well behind bradman and possibly sobers anyway) of the 20th century SK Warne, i mean he held Australia together when they looked like they were going under and he is simply the greatest spin bowler ever.

 

[greg]

i agree with this thread title i am English and been watching cricket since aslong as i can remember (1990 i think) and delighted with the ashes victory, but the bloomin' press in my country are going mad saying that they are the best in the world as most REAL cricket fans know England have a long way to go yet. And i do believe that England played better in a few sessions of play and it was the closest series ever so how can it be a thrashing of Australia?. I am also disgusted by the idiots taunting the greatest cricketer (well behind bradman and possibly sobers anyway) of the 20th century SK Warne, i mean he held Australia together when they looked like they were going under and he is simply the greatest spin bowler ever.

They also serenaded him once the Ashes were lost with "We only wish you were English". A hell of a lot of the crowd stuff, and certainly its intent, is massively misunderstood IMO. The trouble is when individual players take offence where there is none intended (even if some of the songs do push the boundaries a bit far) and animosity starts bein generated. The changed attitude of Justin Langer to the crowds (he's now probably one of the "barmy army's" favorite Australians where originally the relationship between the two was extremely rocky) is a good example of why it's best to take it as good humoured banter where possible.

 

[Mermaidman]

yeah i do agree that the majority of cases ie Langer even McGrath was cheered and clapped on day 5 is good banter but their are still idiots out their who take it too far

 

[Deja moo]

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.

Arent you contradicting your previous post then ? :

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.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Arent you contradicting your previous post then ? :

Nope - I never said I believed Flintoff was the better cricketer because he is an all-rounder, merely that some would say that. I was just adding an extra dimension to the debate - I'd take Lara over Flintoff in my team any day, although it's becoming a closer and closer call.

 

[Deja moo]

Nope - I never said I believed Flintoff was the better cricketer because he is an all-rounder, merely that some would say that. I was just adding an extra dimension to the debate - I'd take Lara over Flintoff in my team any day, although it's becoming a closer and closer call.

Ah okay. For what its worth, there was a debate on CW around a month ago on who was the greatest sportsman in any field, and most members were of the opinion ( for whatever reasons) that Bradman>Sobers.

 

[C_C]

English fans getting overboard ?
You dont say!
Like...they dont have a reputition for that kinda thing, do they ?

 

[Pothas]

English fans getting overboard ?
You dont say!
Like...they dont have a reputition for that kinda thing, do they ?

Can i just clarifty something, whare would you rank England in the world at the moment?

 

[Barney Rubble]

Ah okay. For what its worth, there was a debate on CW around a month ago on who was the greatest sportsman in any field, and most members were of the opinion ( for whatever reasons) that Bradman>Sobers.

Bradman>Sobers - yeah, I agree. Although it can be judged on many, many criteria. I'm judging it on the effect they had on the game - the very fact that Australians say "Hell is a place where Bradman is English" means he has to win, even discounting his ability.

 

[C_C]

Can i just clarifty something, whare would you rank England in the world at the moment?

#2 in the world or maybe #3. But gap between #2, #3, #4 and #5 isnt very much in my mind.

 

[Pothas]

#2 in the world or maybe #3. But gap between #2, #3, #4 and #5 isnt very much in my mind.

i Think they are now clearly second in the world from their record and the way they have played the game in the last couple of years however if they go too the subcontinent and win the their then i think they will be very close to if not the best team in the world

 

[Barney Rubble]

#2 in the world or maybe #3. .

So if we're no3, who the hell is no2? And when did they beat Australia? Get a grip mate, if England aren't no1 in the world, they're definitely no2 - you don't outplay the Aussies for four Tests, especially four Tests in which Shane Warne takes 30-odd wickets, if you're not of a very similar standard.

 

[Sanz]

Can i just clarifty something, whare would you rank England in the world at the moment?

Actually I would rank them on #2 as well, its not like they have beaten australia 5-0 or something. It was closely fought series and they played better in 3 tests, Aus played better in 2. Although it must be mentioned that in the 3 tests Eng played better, Mcgrath wasn't fully fit.

 

[C_C]

i Think they are now clearly second in the world from their record and the way they have played the game in the last couple of years however if they go too the subcontinent and win the their then i think they will be very close to if not the best team in the world

If they win in the subcontinent, they will become clear #2. You still have to beat Australia in Australia and hold on to your title to become clear #1.
Australia didnt become the clear #1 based on two years of success bashing mostly minnows and neither did the west indies. The same standards should apply.

 

[C_C]

So if we're no3, who the hell is no2? And when did they beat Australia? Get a grip mate, if England aren't no1 in the world, they're definitely no2 - you don't outplay the Aussies for four Tests, especially four Tests in which Shane Warne takes 30-odd wickets, if you're not of a very similar standard.

By that definition, India has been clear #2 since 2001 or so.

 

[Pothas]

after India beat Australia they were the second best team in the world.

 

[C_C]

after India beat Australia they were the second best team in the world.

Disagree.
RSA were still the second best team in the world in 2001.
I rate series vs Champions disproportionately - a win gets marked higher than a win against minnows and a loss gets marked lower than a loss against minnows ( which is logical) but 1 series alone isnt enough to put a huge gap between you and your chasers, unless such a huge gap already exists - in England's case, such a gap doesnt exist because they have mostly fed on minnows for the past 2 years or so.