Well I wouldnt class Flintoff and harmison as a 'pair' really, in that they dont share the new ball together.SJS said:Lot of credit for England's resurgence goes to Harmison and Flintoff (as bowlers).
Are Harmison and Flintoff a better pair for England than Gough and Caddick were ?
If so, how far do we go til we find a better pair ?
Even if one of them gets shot dead by gangsters in the meantime?luckyeddie said:Ask me in 2006
Yes.a massive zebra said:Even if one of them gets shot dead by gangsters in the meantime?
I think that is true...Marshall wasnt considered one of the best bowlers until quite late in his career.luckyeddie said:Yes.
It's a 'too early to make a meaningful judgement' thing.
For instance, when did you make up your mind that Marshall was the greatest-ever fast bowler? For me, I didn't consider him an all-time great until toward the end of his career. That's how it is with us old uns.
Not old enough to remember his career. Just made that judgement from what I have heard, read, the footage I have seen and his stats.luckyeddie said:Yes.
It's a 'too early to make a meaningful judgement' thing.
For instance, when did you make up your mind that Marshall was the greatest-ever fast bowler? For me, I didn't consider him an all-time great until toward the end of his career. That's how it is with us old uns.
Thats true.Swervy said:I think that is true...Marshall wasnt considered one of the best bowlers until quite late in his career.
I think its only really when a bowler is at the end of a career or even after retirement that things can be put into the correct context and a career evaluated properly.
Thats why I think its a bit hasty to write off the current era for the lack great bowlers..it will be in 5 years or so when we can look back at now and make that judgement
lol now how wrong is that statement.. saying murali has taken over 500 wickets cheaply is wrong.. give some credit to his talent as one of the best bowlers ..Muttiah Muralitharan have all taken their wickets more cheaply this century.
I think we'll find out how good they are over the next few years. You need more than one or two good seasons under your belt.SJS said:Lot of credit for England's resurgence goes to Harmison and Flintoff (as bowlers).
Are Harmison and Flintoff a better pair for England than Gough and Caddick were ?
If so, how far do we go til we find a better pair ?
There's no doubt that the nationality of the two players concerned had more than a little to do with that statementSon Of Coco said:I think we'll find out how good they are over the next few years. You need more than one or two good seasons under your belt.
haha, of course it did - now reading your posts on here LE I'm sure I'll learn in time not to reply taking a players nationality into account!luckyeddie said:There's no doubt that the nationality of the two players concerned had more than a little to do with that statement
/runs for cover
Me? NoooooooooSon Of Coco said:haha, of course it did - now reading your posts on here LE I'm sure I'll learn in time not to reply taking a players nationality into account!
You're reply to my reply wasn't a result of me being from Oz was it? Considering I said the same thing you did!?
Incidentally, is the converse true?biased indian said:even if we consider them as pair ,i think their real test will come in the next ashes series because that is the real pressure game comes . to do well in an ashes series is the ultimate for an english player
might not make then bad players ,but wont make then great playersluckyeddie said:Incidentally, is the converse true?
If one or the other FAIL against Australia, would that make them bad players?
Ah, THAT word again.biased indian said:might not make then bad players ,but wont make then great players