Is Flintoff number 1?

[Craig]

I would definatly vote for him to be the number 1 ODI all-rounder.

 

[Mr. P]

I would definatly vote for him to be the number 1 ODI all-rounder.

I don't want to indulge in a full blown argument again, but how anyone can go past Kallis i'll never know.

 

[Slats4ever]

England's about the only team playing cricket at the moment Mr P that's why everyone's getting so excited

 

[Scallywag]

Kallis for sure and Flintoff and Lehman would be hard to separate on recent form.

 

[marc71178]

I don't want to indulge in a full blown argument again, but how anyone can go past Kallis i'll never know.

Because all-rounders need to bowl as well as bat.

 

[marc71178]

Kallis for sure and Flintoff and Lehman would be hard to separate on recent form.

Flintoff and Lehmann hard to separate on recent form?

Over the last year, Flintoff is averaging in excess of 80 with the bat, and under 20 with the ball.

Is Lehmann?

 

[Scallywag]

Looking at the last 25 games Flintoff has ave 63 with bat and 20 with ball and Lehman has ave 51 with bat and 18 with ball.

Flintoff slightly better with bat Lehman slightly better with ball, nothing in it.

 

[marc71178]

Lehmanns figures are helped by the 12 he's taken against minnow sides (it's about 30 when you take them out)

He also has bowled less than 100 overs in those 25 games - hardly all-rounder status that!

 

[Scallywag]

I noticed you didnt mention Flintoffs batting against Zim and Bangers.

Lehman has played 3 games in that 25 against Bangers and did not bat once.
Flintoff took the chance and increased his ave.

How many wickets has Flintoff taken against minnows.

 

[Scallywag]

Infact I checked the same stats with Bangledesh taken out and Lehman seems to have done a lot better than Flintoff. Flintoffs batting takes a huge dive when you delete the Bangledesh stats.

 

[Swervy]

I am a big fan of Lehmanns but I wouldnt class him as an allrounder in the same league as Flintoff...whether the averages suggest it or otherwise

 

[superkingdave]

Infact I checked the same stats with Bangledesh taken out and Lehman seems to have done a lot better than Flintoff. Flintoffs batting takes a huge dive when you delete the Bangledesh stats.

Okay - last 25 matches with all minnows taken out(Zim, Ban, NL, Nam)

Lehman 832 runs @ 43.79, 18 wickets at 27.5, 110 overs, ER 4.5

Flintoff 929 runs @ 46.45, 28 wickets at 26. 171.5 overs ER 4.23

Stats are very close. Flintoff shading both but he also bowled a lot more overs.

 

[marc71178]

Okay - last 25 matches with all minnows taken out(Zim, Ban, NL, Nam)

Lehman 832 runs @ 43.79, 18 wickets at 27.5, 110 overs, ER 4.5

Flintoff 929 runs @ 46.45, 28 wickets at 26. 171.5 overs ER 4.23

Stats are very close. Flintoff shading both but he also bowled a lot more overs.

And I note that those stats go back a lot further and include the previous version of Flintoff, rather than the current one.

If Lehmann is so close to him, how come PwC has Flintoff better in both forms with Lehmann nowhere near?

 

[tooextracool]

I was talking about Tests; who ever doubted his ability as a one-day player? The questions have been about his credentials in the longer game where he took a stupidly long time to find his feet.

because indias test bowling attack is significantly better than their ODI bowling attack?

 

[tooextracool]

I would definatly vote for him to be the number 1 ODI all-rounder.

and by my definition of an all rounder there couldnt be much doubt that hes the best test all rounder by quite a big margin too.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't want to indulge in a full blown argument again, but how anyone can go past Kallis i'll never know.

the fact that kallis hasnt been able to bowl for the last 3 years perhaps?
a batsman that can bowl a bit doesnt make an all rounder.

 

[tooextracool]

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

or perhaps because you dont have an answer to them maybe?

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.

point being? taking wickets against these nations dont make you a bowler though, especially if you fail against every other team after that.

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.

well lets see him take wickets then? believe me it doesnt matter who you are but you dont not bowl well for 4 years unless you are not good enough anymore

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 logically how much of a difference did he make? if he were in fact good enough then why is he only taking wickets against poor batting sides?

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.

are you out of your mind? kallis wouldnt even make it into the side if it wasnt for his batting, let alone being a frontline bowler.....

 

[marc71178]

a batsman that can bowl a bit doesnt make an all rounder.

Note, this also applies to Darren Lehmann!

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

hahaha, Gilchrist's ability is exaggerated? ok..............then.

 

[Craig]

I don't want to indulge in a full blown argument again, but how anyone can go past Kallis i'll never know.

Because he has lost his edge as a bowler and IMO is bowling just for the balance of the team.