Fringe Aussie fringe Players who would excel in other teams..

[tooextracool]

Lee is bowling a lot better now than he was when his test career started to decline. Oneday cricket or not, anyone (unless they plainly just hate Lee) that knows anything about cricket or have played at a reasonable level will acknowledge that he was superb with the new ball though-out the VB series. He was man of the series remember.

All those Stats you've put together may be fact, they are completely irelevant to the way Lee is bowling at the moment(as opposed to 12 months ago). You've said yourself that Flintoff has improved as a bowler (to which I totally agree), then why can't Lee improve? You can't deny the Guy's potential and natural pace. The fact is he's bowling brilliantly at the moment and there is no reason that he won't find the same form in test cricket.

The key for Lee (or any express pace bowler) to be successful is to maintain "control". When he was struggling at test level (and it was a good couple of years) he had terrible control and got hammered by good batsmen. At the moment he clearly has got great control. Probably the best of his career.

No-one doubts your stats....but you know as well as me you've just used them conviently in this case to back up your argument.

Do you really think Lee was bowling crap thru-out the VB series??

Have you played cricket yourself at the top level? If so, surely you know your cricket and can appreciate great fast bowling when you see it.

How good are his full pitched fast swinging full deliveries to Lefthanders at the moment??

please, did you watch the vb series 2003?
i dont think hes bowling significantly better than he bowled in that series(and he did bowl extremely well in that series), and yet got clobbered in tests at the time.

 

[tooextracool]

1/63 from 9 overs inc. 2nb & 4w. I don't know but that isn't exactly great bowling in my book. That one wicket was Yasir Hameed who also has not been playing well as of late.


I never claimed Lee was rubbish all the time, he performed great on several occasions but I really must say I was surprised that he was given the Man of the Series. I really thought it would be given to McGrath. Yes McGrath does have his off games as you said but a lot less frequently than most. McGrath played 6 games Lee played 8. Lee took 17 wickets at 20 or so, McGrath took 15 at 12.

personally i find it hard to believe that kaspa who bowled well consistently throughout the series was dropped for the finals.

 

[tooextracool]

You mean he bats like Flintoff then??

i recommend that you watch flintoff bat then. surely noone who watched his 2 good innings in SA would claim that all he does is hammer bowling out of the park.

 

[tooextracool]

The above was TEC's reasoning when asked "how do you know Lee's wouldn't return a good test bowler?"

Now Lee's won the VB series player of the year. I notice TEC maintains Lee wouldn't make a good test bowler because he's always performed in onedayers.

Slight inconsistency...

when did i say that hes always performed in one dayers? no hes performed in patches in ODIs and hes failed miserably in tests. hence i would have kaspa ahead of him in both forms of the game.

 

[Zinzan]

because players like clarke are still unproven, players like hayden are overrated, and players like lehmann seem to be on the decline. having flintoff in the side improves the balance of any side, and the fact that they've picked watson only suggests that they are open to that idea. yes perhaps based on the recent series, you might consider batting gilchrist ahead of him, but it still doesnt mean that flintoff wouldnt make the side.

Amazing, Hayden overated??....yet Flintoff isn't??

 

[Zinzan]

Well it certainly doesn't detract from it...

Of course it does. What other world class bowler can you name that had only 1 five wicket bag in 45 test matches??

So i suppose you'd like us ignore this stat (5 wkts in innings) as well as his crap bowling average.

Why don't we just chuck all the stats away....

 

[tooextracool]

Amazing, Hayden overated??....yet Flintoff isn't??

ive explained why hayden is overrated so so many times that im really getting tired of it.
and if you want that truth, i'll give you that flintoff is overrated with the bat in tests, hes certainly not with the ball. and hes just as good as he is rated in ODIs.

 

[Mr Casson]

Of course it does. What other world class bowler can you name that had only 1 five wicket bag in 45 test matches??

So i suppose you'd like us ignore this stat (5 wkts in innings) as well as his crap bowling average.

Why don't we just chuck all the stats away....

I said that when his captain turned to him for a wicket, he obliged. Where does that say he scythes through batting lineups and takes bags of 5-wicket hauls? It's perfectly conceivable that a bowler can be a partnership breaker without ever being the chief destroyer.

 

[Zinzan]

i recommend that you watch flintoff bat then. surely noone who watched his 2 good innings in SA would claim that all he does is hammer bowling out of the park.

Same could be said for symonds. I personally think they are similar batsmen. Both have slightly suspect defences, and both can destroy bowling attacks on their day. I have seen Flintoff bat of late, and do think he is a good player on his day, but he still gives far to many chances and lacks the solid defense to be considered a really good test batsmen.

 

[tooextracool]

except that if you actually do end up watching flintoff, you might just realise that he has as good a defense as anyone else in the english side. no anyone who suggests that flintoff lacks technically is obviously out of their mind, flintoff lacks in term of temperament, even his failures in the series against SA were more often down to poor shots rather than poor technique.

 

[Zinzan]

I said that when his captain turned to him for a wicket, he obliged. Where does that say he scythes through batting lineups and takes bags of 5-wicket hauls? It's perfectly conceivable that a bowler can be a partnership breaker without ever being the chief destroyer.

Good. I accept that answer then, I was under the impression you did think of him as a chief destroyer. I do agree with the above assessment.

 

[Mr Casson]

except that if you actually do end up watching flintoff, you might just realise that he has as good a defense as anyone else in the english side. no anyone who suggests that flintoff lacks technically is obviously out of their mind, flintoff lacks in term of temperament, even his failures in the series against SA were more often down to poor shots rather than poor technique.

Yeah Flintoff's defence surprises me actually.. He isn't the sort of player you'd think would have a brilliant technique given the way he often hits the ball, but in defence he shows the full face of the bat and watches the ball carefully.

 

[Zinzan]

except that if you actually do end up watching flintoff, you might just realise that he has as good a defense as anyone else in the english side. no anyone who suggests that flintoff lacks technically is obviously out of their mind, flintoff lacks in term of temperament, even his failures in the series against SA were more often down to poor shots rather than poor technique.

We disagree. I do agree that when he plays dead straight in defence, his defence looks good, but it is his temperament that makes he his technique look awful at times, especially when he hits across the line early on in his innings.

 

[tooextracool]

which really has all to do with temperament then......

 

[Zinzan]

ive explained why hayden is overrated so so many times that im really getting tired of it.
and if you want that truth, i'll give you that flintoff is overrated with the bat in tests, hes certainly not with the ball. and hes just as good as he is rated in ODIs.

I never will and never have doubted his oneday abilities, so plse leave ODI's out of it when arguing with me about Flintoff.

I do however think Flintoff is overated with the ball in test cricket....

Even if you ignore his crap test bowling record - which all flintoff fans like to do - How someone who has taken 5 wkts in an innings in 45 tests just ONCE could be rated as one of the best bowlers in the world (Tests) is beyond me.

Facts are facts I'm sorry....

Hayden has a proven test record to show he's a great test batsmen (even if he did have a terrible 2004 when he only averaged 40)

Flintoff doesn't yet have the record to show he's a "great test player".

And please don't give me the "he was too young when he started excuse"..because Hayden had a very average record when he returned to test cricket in 2000.

If you believe he may turn his test record around over the next few years, I think that great. But, be patient. You can't expect people to take you seriously by talking him up in this way before he has the record to show for it

Otherwise he will go down as just another players who was talented but never really fulfilled their potential.

 

[Zinzan]

which really has all to do with temperament then......

Yes temperament that obviously affects his technique.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes temperament that obviously affects his technique.

then it has nothing to do with technique. the fact that someone has a good enough technique and is capable of playing it at the test match level would suggest that hes not weak technically. there is no such thin as temperament that affects technique. its simply called temperament.

 

[tooextracool]

I do however think Flintoff is overated with the ball in test cricket....

Even if you ignore his crap test bowling record - which all flintoff fans like to do - How someone who has taken 5 wkts in an innings in 45 tests just ONCE could be rated as one of the best bowlers in the world (Tests) is beyond me.

what is with this 5 wickets that gets you so excited? are you telling me that there is a significant difference between getting 4 and 5 wickets? are you seriously telling me that if flintoff takes 300 wickets with only 1 5 wicket haul at an average of under 25, he will be considered crap? 5 wickets is simply just a statistic nothing else, its like saying someone who scored 90 without scoring 100 is crap.

Facts are facts I'm sorry....

Hayden has a proven test record to show he's a great test batsmen (even if he did have a terrible 2004 when he only averaged 40)

except that ive said that its unproven whenever hes played on seamer friendly wickets. hence hes still unproven.

Flintoff doesn't yet have the record to show he's a "great test player".

and who has argued that he is a great test player already?

And please don't give me the "he was too young when he started excuse"..because Hayden had a very average record when he returned to test cricket in 2000.

and hes done little since then on seamer friendly wickets.

If you believe he may turn his test record around over the next few years, I think that great. But, be patient. You can't expect people to take you seriously by talking him up in this way before he has the record to show for it

Otherwise he will go down as just another players who was talented but never really fulfilled their potential.

the problem is that you are assuming that people think hes great, when noone has done that. ive already told you that hes overrated with the bat, but hes not with the ball, but what most people consider him to be is a very good bowler and a fairly good batsman, the word great hasnt been used to describe him at the moment.
and really if hayden had played in the 80s or even in the 90s he would have averaged below 30.

 

[Zinzan]

what is with this 5 wickets that gets you so excited? are you telling me that there is a significant difference between getting 4 and 5 wickets? are you seriously telling me that if flintoff takes 300 wickets with only 1 5 wicket haul at an average of under 25, he will be considered crap? 5 wickets is simply just a statistic nothing else, its like saying someone who scored 90 without scoring 100 is crap.



except that ive said that its unproven whenever hes played on seamer friendly wickets. hence hes still unproven.



and who has argued that he is a great test player already?



and hes done little since then on seamer friendly wickets.



the problem is that you are assuming that people think hes great, when noone has done that. ive already told you that hes overrated with the bat, but hes not with the ball, but what most people consider him to be is a very good bowler and a fairly good batsman, the word great hasnt been used to describe him at the moment.
and really if hayden had played in the 80s or even in the 90s he would have averaged below 30.

In reply to....

1) But he hasn't taken 300 test wickets at 25 has he....My whole point with the 5 wicket bags was just another stat we could look at without reverting to his crap bowling average. If both his average and 5 wkt hauls are irrelevant, what can we look at?? Should we just judge him on your opinion??

2)What batsmen do consistently perform well on seamer friendly wickets??

3) Swervy for one suggested he was great and wanted to compare him with Hadlee, Kapil, Imran and co. Many others on this forum consistently over-talk him in my opinion.

4) If Hayden would have averaged less than 30 in the 80s then there is no reason you wouldn't say the same about any of the current australian batsmen. Thats assuming you were going to use the argument that he'd come up against the W.indies bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

In reply to....

1) But he hasn't taken 300 test wickets at 25 has he....My whole point with the 5 wicket bags was just another stat we could look at without reverting to his crap bowling average. If both his average and 5 wkt hauls are irrelevant, what can we look at?? Should we just judge him on your opinion??

his average over the last year and a half gives a more accurate description of how well hes been bowling. 5 wkt hauls have never been the basis for comparison so i have no idea where you got that.

2)What batsmen do consistently perform well on seamer friendly wickets??

what kind of great batsman has never performed on a seamer friendly wicket? which is what hayden has done.

3) Swervy for one suggested he was great and wanted to compare him with Hadlee, Kapil, Imran and co. Many others on this forum consistently over-talk him in my opinion.

in which case swervy is wrong, as is anyone whos suggested that flintoff is already great.

4) If Hayden would have averaged less than 30 in the 80s then there is no reason

you wouldn't say the same about any of the current australian batsmen. Thats assuming you were going to use the argument that he'd come up against the W.indies bowlers.

no because the other aussie batsmen have proven to be more than capable on seamer friendly wickets.