Bring in Collingwood for Giles?

[Swervy]

No, no innings in which somoene is let-off 4 times is classic or even close to it - it's just cringeworthy, as was that Flintoff knock.

no..i was saying that you saying White could have gotten 300 was a classic..what a gem

 

[Richard]

Anyone could get 300 - Flintoff could get 300 if he was dropped enough times.

 

[aussie]

Anyone could get 300 - Flintoff could get 300 if he was dropped enough times.

well i dont know if i agree with that even if he was dropped 5 times plus i dont think Freddie could get to 300....

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Anyone could get 300 - Flintoff could get 300 if he was dropped enough times.

Lara got 400 against a decent attack that had done for him and his fellow soldiers for all the preceding tests.

I'm leaving it there, 'cos I want to leave you confused, in a similar fashion to how I feel after some of your replies.

 

[Shane Warne]

No, no innings in which somoene is let-off 4 times is classic or even close to it - it's just cringeworthy, as was that Flintoff knock.

Good post.

Richard sure does know his cricket.

 

[aussie]

Good post.

Richard sure does know his cricket.

i think their are a few members here who would want to debate that

 

[tooextracool]

Really?
When have we seen Flintoff bat conservatively (aside from that rubbish innings in Antigua) and last that long?
Most of his good Test-match innings have been against wayward bowling where he's put it away hugely effectively.
Even since 2003 he's still rarely prospered when the bowling's been tight.

how about the 77 and 60 in SA?
or the 57* at old trafford last year?
or even the 77 in SL
or the 94 against NZ at headingly?
or the 54 at trent bridge against NZ?

and how many times has geraint jones played conservatively.
err whats 1 minus 1?

 

[tooextracool]

Craig white couldnt have....

did you by any chance catch the 121* at ahmedabad or the 93 at lahore?
wont see too much better....

 

[Richard]

well i dont know if i agree with that even if he was dropped 5 times plus i dont think Freddie could get to 300....

If he was dropped enough times he could - as could anyone.
No innings where someone is dropped 4 times has any credibility.

 

[greg]

If he was dropped enough times he could - as could anyone.
No innings where someone is dropped 4 times has any credibility.

Have you come out of a 2 month hibernation, yet to discover what happened in the Ashes?

 

[howardj]

Have you come out of a 2 month hiernation, yet to discover what happened in the Ashes?

....Australia retained the Ashes, Richard.

Now go back into your cave.

 

[Richard]

how about the 77 and 60 in SA?

Yes, the 60 off 112 balls (over 50-per-100) and the 77 off 144 (again over 50-per-100). Such wonderfully restrained innings, against brilliant bowlers like Boje and Steyn.

or the 57* at old trafford last year?

Wow, 57* off 92 balls, what a phenominally slow innings! Against the magnificently accurate bowling of Edwards, Collymore, Collins and Mohammed!

or even the 77 in SL

Off all of 109 balls, wow, that was restrained. Maybe he showed restraint against Murali but against the rest he scored at over a-run-a-ball. And was able to do so because the pitch could fairly be called the flattest in history.

or the 94 against NZ at headingly?

WOW, 94 OFF 144 BALLS! How restrained he must have been to achieve that! Against the wonderfully accurate bowling (yet again) of Tuffey, Martin, Styris and Cairns!

or the 54 at trent bridge against NZ?

Once again - how restrained someone must be to score 54 off 79 balls.
You need to learn the difference between restrained by normal standards and restrained by Flintoff standards. Gilchrist was "restrained" in scoring a 109-ball century; doesn't mean he was restrained by normal standards.

and how many times has geraint jones played conservatively.
err whats 1 minus 1?

You clearly missed the second-innings at Newlands, then.
Quite clearly demonstrated that he blatantly does have it in him to play the way he needs to for Test-match success - the problem is he seems to have it in his head that his normal way is the best bet.

 

[Richard]

Have you come out of a 2 month hibernation, yet to discover what happened in the Ashes?

No, I was too absorbed in it to visit the site.

 

[marc71178]

So this is look at balls faced and runs scored then decide if it is restrained or not then is it?

Because an innings when he is solid defence but still puts the balls away for 4 when the opportunity (as supposed to trying to hit it out of the ground) could easily end up as 80 from 110 balls or so but be entirely restrained.

 

[Richard]

To be restrained you have to be willing to bat slowly - ie below 50 per 100 balls at least - and if the bowling isn't accurate enough to make you do that you don't need to be restrained.

 

[marc71178]

So he has to turn down 4 balls because he daren't score too quickly

One could argue that just by the amount he keeps the ball on the ground now, he's already far more restrained.

 

[Richard]

So he has to turn down 4 balls because he daren't score too quickly

No, he doesn't need to turn-down four-balls. He needs to not get out when the four-balls don't come (something which has been an extremely rare occurrance over the last 2 years, given the standard of the bowling)

One could argue that just by the amount he keeps the ball on the ground now, he's already far more restrained.

Oh, one certainly could - any fool can see that Flintoff since summer 2003 has been a far more restrained, infinately better batsman than before.
The point is he's not as good, or as restrained, as perhaps some believe, and had he been playing in the 1990s he'd very probably not be averaging 43.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, the 60 off 112 balls (over 50-per-100) and the 77 off 144 (again over 50-per-100). Such wonderfully restrained innings, against brilliant bowlers like Boje and Steyn.

good job in leaving out pollock,ntini and nel all of whom were part of the game where he scored the 77, and 2 out of the 3 were part of the game where he scored 60 off 112.

Wow, 57* off 92 balls, what a phenominally slow innings! Against the magnificently accurate bowling of Edwards, Collymore, Collins and Mohammed!

Off all of 109 balls, wow, that was restrained. Maybe he showed restraint against Murali but against the rest he scored at over a-run-a-ball. And was able to do so because the pitch could fairly be called the flattest in history.

and could it be because the other bowlers were tripe and not scoring heavily against the likes of fernando and chandana would be a crime in itself. what matters though is that he was restrained against murali, and therefore realised the imminent danger of playing too aggressively early on against him.

WOW, 94 OFF 144 BALLS! How restrained he must have been to achieve that! Against the wonderfully accurate bowling (yet again) of Tuffey, Martin, Styris and Cairns!

Once again - how restrained someone must be to score 54 off 79 balls.
You need to learn the difference between restrained by normal standards and restrained by Flintoff standards. Gilchrist was "restrained" in scoring a 109-ball century; doesn't mean he was restrained by normal standards.

this is quite ludicrous. a player like flintoff is generally bound to score more runs of bad balls than most other players. to expect him to score at snails pace would be as stupid as expecting viv richards to do the same. flintoff showed plenty of application in all those innings and more importantly started of slowly, got himself in before he started playing his shots.

You clearly missed the second-innings at Newlands, then.
Quite clearly demonstrated that he blatantly does have it in him to play the way he needs to for Test-match success - the problem is he seems to have it in his head that his normal way is the best bet.

oh wow, a brilliant 38 then. did you watch the cricket in the summer at all? geraint jones once again proved exactly why he shouldnt be batting at 6 and why he shouldnt even be in the test side. the fact that hes never scored a 50 without batting like a dumba** and the fact that hes only scored a 50 after flintoff has either scored something signficant before him or at least in partnership with him says a fair bit about his batting above flintoff.

 

[Prince EWS]

If he was dropped enough times he could - as could anyone.
No innings where someone is dropped 4 times has any credibility.

I dont think "anyone" could. A complete bunny would eventually get out bowled or lbw.