Is Flintoff number 1?

[Mr. P]

Don't mind your last sentence. But your first two are pure crap. When a front line bowler is out of form, hes doesn't 'not become one!' You're saying (And don't argue because this is what you DID say) that if Gillespie or McGrath go out of form they are suddenly not a front line bowler?!!

 

[marc71178]

No, but are Gillespie and McGrath selected on the grounds of they're batsmen predominantly and the bowling is a secondary consideration?

 

[Craig]

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.

I some what agree with most of what you have wrote.

Certainly next year will be the big testers for Flintoff and Harmison can step up against the big boys (ie number one) of Test cricket.

 

[luckyeddie]

England's only exciting cricketer for sure .

<quack> Who let the door of the loony bin open again?

Now then, DD. Everyone's entitled to their opinion

<quack> You lot wouldn't listen to me when I told you that Steve Wayward-Harmison was good

That's true

<quack> And Robert Key

True again

<quack> And Freddie

You can certainly spot them, DD

<quack> And Rikki Clarke

Tru.... what?

 

[luckyeddie]

Blatant self-promotion

I agree, but Neil has a point. Just go back to when he first started doing the CW rankings - and the reason behind them - the absolute farcical situation where SA were poised to take over the top spot from Australia in the ICC rankings.

 

[luckyeddie]

I some what agree with most of what you have wrote.

Certainly next year will be the big testers for Flintoff and Harmison can step up against the big boys (ie number one) of Test cricket.

No doubt, but if one or the other doesn't perform, that won't make them bad players.

 

[Andre]

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.

I'd love to ride lots of luck and dropped catches too if I averaged over 50 in Test cricket.

 

[Swervy]

I'd love to ride lots of luck and dropped catches too if I averaged over 50 in Test cricket.

yeah I am a beleiver of making your own luck in this game...Sehwag offers the bowlers something, but he hits the ball hard, sometimes it works (and it does work quite a lot to be averaging over 50)sometimes it doesnt...thats cricket

 

[Craig]

I'd love to ride lots of luck and dropped catches too if I averaged over 50 in Test cricket.

Yeah but how many chances does he give?

And how flat are the wickets he is getting them on?

I would back most people to get runs on the wicket he got his 309 on.

 

[Andre]

Yeah but how many chances does he give?

And how flat are the wickets he is getting them on?

Chances don't mean much if they aren't taken IMHO. As Swery said, he makes his own luck and cashes in on his occasional good fortune. I dare say you haven't seen enough of him to say with any surety that he is offering 5 chances an innings.

The wickets are irrelevant - you need to score runs on whatever type of pitch you are given - to be averaging over 50 at Test level after a decent number of matches suggests he is a more than decent player.

I would back most people to get runs on the wicket he got his 309 on.

Funny, cause I seem to remember the opposition side being well humbled - and they are hardly mugs with the bat. Besides, 309 is a fantastic testament to his concentration and ability - doesn't matter how good or bad the wicket and attack is, to concentrate for that period of time at a high level is a fantastic achievement by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Craig]

So if a guy makes 132 and gives 7 chances in it, is that particularly (sp) great/good batting?

Hey I watch him when I can when the cricket is on, it may come as a shock I do watch cricket, and quite a bit of it as well when I can.

 

[luckyeddie]

So if a guy makes 132 and gives 7 chances in it, is that particularly (sp) great/good batting?

What?

Is Gilchrist batting?

 

[Craig]

Anybody - take your pick.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No doubt, but if one or the other doesn't perform, that won't make them bad players.

well............no, not bad players, but if you're holding claims to being the best at your craft you'd hope that you'd perform better than poorly. I can't imagine either of them having terrible series though.

As for Gilchrist...........still wouldn't swap you for the world. haha

 

[Richard]

Chances don't mean much if they aren't taken IMHO.

How on Earth are a dropped catch and a caught catch different as far as the batsman's ability is concerned?
What has he done that makes them different?

 

[Richard]

yeah I am a beleiver of making your own luck in this game...Sehwag offers the bowlers something, but he hits the ball hard, sometimes it works (and it does work quite a lot to be averaging over 50)sometimes it doesnt...thats cricket

He offers the bowlers something, or he offers the fielders something?
If he offers the fielders something and they don't take them what does that say about him?
Absolutely nothing.
The "he hits the ball hard" excuse is one we hear time and again and it doesn't begin to explain the fact that occasionally players get lots of simple dropped catches, whether or not they "hit the ball hard".
Gilchrist might hit the ball hard, but that had nothing to do with the number of dropped catches he got in 2001 and 2002 because most of them were straightforward dropped catches that were not made difficult by a thunderbolt stroke.
It is exactly the same with Sehwag. The number of slip, deep and ring catches he has had spilled off him in Test-matches in the last 10 months is unbelievable.

 

[Richard]

I'd love to ride lots of luck and dropped catches too if I averaged over 50 in Test cricket.

Most of us probably would.
Fortunately there aren't that many of us who have our ability exaggerated in that way.
But there are one or two. Sehwag included.

 

[Richard]

<quack> And Rikki Clarke

Tru.... what?

Ahh, let's just wait...

 

[Swervy]

He offers the bowlers something, or he offers the fielders something?
If he offers the fielders something and they don't take them what does that say about him?
Absolutely nothing.
The "he hits the ball hard" excuse is one we hear time and again and it doesn't begin to explain the fact that occasionally players get lots of simple dropped catches, whether or not they "hit the ball hard".
Gilchrist might hit the ball hard, but that had nothing to do with the number of dropped catches he got in 2001 and 2002 because most of them were straightforward dropped catches that were not made difficult by a thunderbolt stroke.
It is exactly the same with Sehwag. The number of slip, deep and ring catches he has had spilled off him in Test-matches in the last 10 months is unbelievable.

so you just it down to luck then..the fact that in a 5 year test career Gilchrist averages over 50 with the bat...purely down to luck.

So given his talent (or lack of )..what would you say his average should be, if he had the luck of a normal player

 

[Aylott]

Flintoff is a great player but his real test will come when he plays Australia for the first time.