Compton Miller

[GIMH]

Here's a question: would you take Flintoff 05 over Johnson 13/14? I know Johnson picked up a similar amount of wickets to Warne (and was surplus to requirements with the bat, frankly), but like Flintoff 05 his impact isn't really fully captured by stats.

Good question and tough to answer. I mean the context of their respective performances in a way make it apples and oranges.

 

[stephen]

Oh I do. But he scored a similar amount of runs to Moeen in this series. Good for an 8 and on top of his wickets outstanding. But Freddie delivered frontline performances in both disciplines (and was probably our best fielder too)

Purely looking at statistics, Warne wins the battle hands down. 16 wickets is worth way more than 150 runs over the length of a series.

The reason Flintoff won man of the series in 05 was entirely due to England winning the Ashes for the first time in 16 years. He had a better support cast with the ball and was a support player with the bat. Strauss, Trescothick and Pietersen were all more valuable to England in that series. Simon Jones was better with the ball than Flintoff too.

Warne played a lone hand with the ball in the middle three tests (i.e. the tests that mattered most to the series outcome). 40 wickets out of a possible 100 is just monstrous. Without Warne Australia would have been thrashed. In fact, take away Warne and Flintoff and England would still have won.

There was a lot of English emotion tied up in that series, but when looked at rationally, Warne should have been awarded man of the series.

 

[GIMH]

Nope. Without Freddie it's over after Edgbaston.

He scored more runs than Strauss and took more wickets than any of our bowlers. It was one of the best series an all rounder has ever had.

He literally provided contributions with both bat and ball that you'd be happy with from any specialist.

 

[stephen]

Nope. Without Freddie it's over after Edgbaston.

He scored more runs than Strauss and took more wickets than any of our bowlers. It was one of the best series an all rounder has ever had.

He literally provided contributions with both bat and ball that you'd be happy with from any specialist.

You can't forget that Warne was basically the only reason we were even in the game at Edgbaston. He took 10 for the match. Freddie had a bigger impact in that match perhaps (7 wickets and 150 odd runs), but without Warne running through you guys in the second innings, England would have walked it in. Admittedly that game was the key to the series, and Flintoff deserved man of the match for it, but Warne kept Australia alive in the last four tests.

 

[Uppercut]

Here's a question: would you take Flintoff 05 over Johnson 13/14? I know Johnson picked up a similar amount of wickets to Warne (and was surplus to requirements with the bat, frankly), but like Flintoff 05 his impact isn't really fully captured by stats.

That's a really good question. I'm tempted to go with Johnson in the same way that I would tend to go with England 10/11 over England 05- I find complete dominance more impressive than producing something spectacular at the key moments. But in another sense he was less decisive: you could argue Australia would probably have won without Johnson, but England almost definitely wouldn't have won without Flintoff.

 

[The Sean]

Nor was it his fault that he wasn't the best player in the series

Best bowler? Sure.

Flintoff was the second best bowler and third best batsman statistically. He was also the difference between the sides. Warne's series was MOTS in 95% of series. Flintoff's was better.

402 runs @ 40.2 and 23 wickets @ 27 iirc. Fielded like a champion. Colossus.

That’s pretty much it – I think there was very little between them when it comes to analysing the individual brilliance of their performances, but in those kind of cases it invariably comes down to who won in the end i.e. who had the biggest impact on the result of the series. And it was Freddie.

That’s no reflection on Warne’s efforts – it’s not his fault that he didn’t get the support he deserved – and had both men delivered the exact same performances but the series gone the other way then Warne would have won the Compton-Miller. But it didn’t, so he didn’t. And that’s fair enough.

 

[Furball]

Nope. Without Freddie it's over after Edgbaston.

He scored more runs than Strauss and took more wickets than any of our bowlers. It was one of the best series an all rounder has ever had.

He literally provided contributions with both bat and ball that you'd be happy with from any specialist.

Worth pointing out that Warne saved the 3rd Test with the bat.

I think it's marginal. I'd go with Flintoff as well for MOTS but I don't think it's as decisive as you do.