Is Flintoff number 1?

[Craig]

And, I remind you that the method behind the ICC Test Rankings is debatable at best and you ought to go off the CW ones which will be updated after the conclusion of the SL-SA series, also to include Aus-SL.

Blatant self-promotion

 

[Craig]

Obviously Bond should be above Pathan if he is eligible, but Bond has not played in ages and I take the view that he is not really part of the New Zealand side anymore - sadly his career is pretty much over.

Pathan has far more potential than Tuffey.

So are we picking on results or potential?

 

[tooextracool]

In spite of the fact that it's totally ridiculous to eliminate Zimbabwe games before WC2003?

no because they werent close to the standard of any of the other 8 test teams post 2000.

 

[Craig]

Errr no. They are 7th in the world. If India beat Australia this winter they go 2nd, even if its just 1-0 or 2-1. Excluding Mark Richardson and maybe Jacob Oram, New Zealand now have no top class players whatsoever. India have Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Sehwag, Kumble, Harbhajan and arguably Pathan.

And Stephen Fleming is not?

Sehwag lets face it rides on a lot of luck and dropped catches, Harbhajan has only really had one or two good Tests and Pathan has talent and potential but is still unproven.

 

[Mr. P]

Funny how Ponting recently said things along the lines of how he'd love to have him in his team.

Don't remember him saying that about Kallis.

OK Mr Look-at-me-i'm-so-bias, if you're saying you would select Flintoff over Kallis in a world XI, you're out of your mind. If not, I sort of forgive you.

Also marc stop taking advantage of the fact that my username used to be Mr. Ponting. Thats part of the reason I changed it. As soon as I said something remotely good about Ponting, people put it down to bias. I don't care what Ponting said, this is my opinion.

PS: For "Don't remember him saying that about Kallis" add "Don't remember him saying that about Lara, Tendulkar, Muttiah and so on." Not sure he intended to class Freddie above Jacques.

 

[Hit4Six]

And Stephen Fleming is not?

Sehwag lets face it rides on a lot of luck and dropped catches, Harbhajan has only really had one or two good Tests and Pathan has talent and potential but is still unproven.

and even without those 3 india still had lots o top shelf talent

 

[Mr. P]

But how long ago was his bowling prime though?

A long time.

No. Not really. No. And that is beside the point. The following stats are relevant however:

J Kallis
------

4D Batting average: 54.59
4D Bowling average: 30.88

OD Batting average: 45.90
OD Bowling average: 30.82

A Flintoff
---------

4D Batting average: 31.79
4D Bowling average: 38.64

OD Batting average: 33.61
OD Bowling average: 25.08

Hmm...now I WONDER who would be the better of the two!?! So hard. Say Flintoff is better then Kallis and you're a deluded chap. Kallis is obvious a good bowler. It has to be accepted.

 

[tooextracool]

No. Not really. No. And that is beside the point. The following stats are relevant however:

J Kallis
------

4D Batting average: 54.59
4D Bowling average: 30.88

OD Batting average: 45.90
OD Bowling average: 30.82

A Flintoff
---------

4D Batting average: 31.79
4D Bowling average: 38.64

OD Batting average: 33.61
OD Bowling average: 25.08

Hmm...now I WONDER who would be the better of the two!?! So hard. Say Flintoff is better then Kallis and you're a deluded chap. Kallis is obvious a good bowler. It has to be accepted.

then i assume you missed my post ?here it is again...

actually i should be asking you that question.....the kallis i've watched has bowled total rubbish recently, in fact lets look at his stats.
2001-2002 SAF v IND 41.60
2001-2002 AUS v SAF 66.50
2001-2002 SAF v AUS 33.91
2002-2003 SAF v SRL 18.50
2002-2003 SAF v PAK 40.33
2003 ENG v SAF 25.86
2003-2004 PAK v SAF 87.50
2003-2004 SAF v WIN 64.20
2003-2004 NZL v SAF 36.60
2004-2005 SRL v SAF 44.67
eliminating performances against zimbabwe and bangladesh over the last 3 years hes only really had 2 good series.....1 if you consider that his average in england would have been around 40 if it wasnt for that up and down trent bridge wicket on which any half decent bowler like kirtley could have taken wickets on.
now you tell me, is anyone with those stats worthy of being a test class bowler? the commentators may still go around calling him an allrounder,but if he doesnt have the stats he cant be anything more than a batsman who can bowl.

yes he said that flintoff is the best player in the world at the moment, not the best batsman in the world or the best bowler in the world....its the all round package and who would you pick over someone whos averaging over 55 with the bat in tests this year and 25 with the ball?.

and how is the fact that hes been rubbish as a bowler recently besides the point? you cannot be the best all rounder in the world at the moment if you were a decent bowler 5 years ago!

 

[Mr. P]

First of all, it wasn't five years ago. Second of all, he still is. People still rated SRT and Lara as the best when they were in their slumps. Anyway, at the time he wasn't taking the wickets, he was making 6 tons in a row!

You cannot "eliminate his performances against zimbabwe and bangladesh." Where's the logic there? Did those matches not happen?

Just because someone has a short form slump, does that mean they are not as good a player? Every man has his off day.

 

[Swervy]

First of all, it wasn't five years ago. Second of all, he still is. People still rated SRT and Lara as the best when they were in their slumps. Anyway, at the time he wasn't taking the wickets, he was making 6 tons in a row!

You cannot "eliminate his performances against zimbabwe and bangladesh." Where's the logic there? Did those matches not happen?

Just because someone has a short form slump, does that mean they are not as good a player? Every man has his off day.

the point of the thread though is to discuss whether Flintoff AT THIS MOMENT is the number one player in the world..if Kallis isnt performing brilliantly with the ball now, and Flintoff is and both players batting is comparable, then surely it is ok to say Flintoff is certainly the more effective player AT THE MOMENT

 

[marc71178]

OK Mr Look-at-me-i'm-so-bias, if you're saying you would select Flintoff over Kallis in a world XI, you're out of your mind. If not, I sort of forgive you.

Why not?

At the moment he is certainly performing better with the ball, and scoring a fair number of runs.

He also is more suited to coming in in the lower middle order as that is where he bats.

Kallis is not so if the spot open were at 6 or 7, Flintoff would be a better bet to fill it IMO.

 

[marc71178]

No. Not really. No. And that is beside the point. The following stats are relevant however:

J Kallis
------

4D Batting average: 54.59
4D Bowling average: 30.88

OD Batting average: 45.90
OD Bowling average: 30.82

A Flintoff
---------

4D Batting average: 31.79
4D Bowling average: 38.64

OD Batting average: 33.61
OD Bowling average: 25.08

Hmm...now I WONDER who would be the better of the two!?! So hard. Say Flintoff is better then Kallis and you're a deluded chap. Kallis is obvious a good bowler. It has to be accepted.

Look at recent form (ie since start of 2003 as that's easy enough to get from CI, but today's games haven't been included on Stats Guru yet):

Tests - Flintoff: 1233 runs @ 47.42, 46 wickets @ 32.54.
ODIS - Flintoff: 1002 runs @ 50.10, 35 wickets @ 20.40.

Tests - Kallis: 1496 runs @ 71.24, 26 wickets @ 43.85.
ODIS - Kallis: 1075 runs @ 59.72, 22 wickets @ 38.95.

Now yes, Kallis is batting better, but his bowling suggests more a filling in option rather than a genuine front-line attack member.

Hence, as an all-rounder, you pick the man performing with both bat and ball...

 

[tooextracool]

First of all, it wasn't five years ago

the last time he bowled consistently well(ie had 2 good series in a row was in 98/99)

Second of all, he still is. People still rated SRT and Lara as the best when they were in their slumps

except that unlike SRT and lara this isnt a form slump....you dont have a form slump for 3 years i can assure you.

Anyway, at the time he wasn't taking the wickets, he was making 6 tons in a row!

it makes him a very good batsman,not an all rounder.

You cannot "eliminate his performances against zimbabwe and bangladesh." Where's the logic there? Did those matches not happen?

because it doesnt take too much brilliance to get wickets against b'desh or zimbabwe....

Just because someone has a short form slump, does that mean they are not as good a player? Every man has his off day.

and however good you are, you dont have 3 off years, unless you happen to no longer be good enough.

 

[Richard]

no because they werent close to the standard of any of the other 8 test teams post 2000.

Yes, they were - they were just the worst of the bunch.
They were close enough to be worthy of Test-status. Unlike after WC2003, and unlike Bangladesh at any time.

 

[Langeveldt]

The way I see it, if you call Flintoff the number one cricketer because of what he has done in recent times, you should be calling Sachin one of the worst batsmen ever... And that would be a bit silly, oh wait, everyone is saying that anyway

 

[Swervy]

http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...NEWS/2004/AUG/024627_ENGWI2004_15AUG2004.html

 

[Craig]

Look at recent form (ie since start of 2003 as that's easy enough to get from CI, but today's games haven't been included on Stats Guru yet):

Tests - Flintoff: 1233 runs @ 47.42, 46 wickets @ 32.54.
ODIS - Flintoff: 1002 runs @ 50.10, 35 wickets @ 20.40.

Tests - Kallis: 1496 runs @ 71.24, 26 wickets @ 43.85.
ODIS - Kallis: 1075 runs @ 59.72, 22 wickets @ 38.95.

Now yes, Kallis is batting better, but his bowling suggests more a filling in option rather than a genuine front-line attack member.

Hence, as an all-rounder, you pick the man performing with both bat and ball...

But in that time you could say Kallis started to concentrate more on his batting and his bowling dropped off, and Flintoff started to get his game in act.

 

[Mr. P]

because it doesnt take too much brilliance to get wickets against b'desh or zimbabwe....

I'll dismiss all your other points because they tire me and I am sick of arguing. They are all idiotic anyway...

This one however, is so dumb I have to talk back.

1/ It is not as easy as it seems to takes wickets against these sides. Any team that can make over 250 against Australia have skill. What, do you think the bowlers put in no effort? Believe me, it may not be as hard as other nations, but hell, it ain't easy.
2/ Kallis isn't NOT going to take the wickets. He's not going to be thinking, hey, some person on CW won't include these matches in some random argument hes having, better not take them.
3/ Taking these wickets is an indicator that he did bowl well. Ill bet he did better then some South African bowlers. It tells you that he bowled on a good line and length. Logically wouldn't Bangladesh have more trouble with a Ntini or Pollock then a Kallis? Or any of their main bowlers?

And in reply to marc saying Kallis is not a front line bowler, you're in dream land mate. Test bowling averages of 30 are GOOD. Front line bowlerish.

 

[voice fc]

Flintoff has not played any tests against Australia and only two ODI's against them. Hence he has still not proven himself. Playing against WI @ home is one thing and playing against Aus in an ashes test is the real tester.

 

[marc71178]

And in reply to marc saying Kallis is not a front line bowler, you're in dream land mate. Test bowling averages of 30 are GOOD. Front line bowlerish.

Yes, his career average is 30, but what is his recent average - a lot higher than that! He is not a front-line bowler anymore, a very handy 5th change bowler and top class batsman.

You're the one in dream land, although looking at Brett Lee, perhaps he is a front line bowler after all!