**Official** 2004 Natwest Series (Eng, NZL, WI)

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

you fail to look at his 4 wicket hauls here....you seem to think that 5 wicket hauls are all that matters and completely ignore the fact that he averages 25 runs for every wicket which is as good as darren gough's record.

Agreed there. The fact that we recognize 4w hauls in ODI cricket as an official statistic tells a story.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If Gough bowled as well as in his best days (still a lot better than all other pacers in the team) and made use of his experience, and if Harmison carried on his Test form in ODI's, they would be more effective than Flintoff.

This is quite a ridiculous argument for the pure fact that it has nothing to do with perspective and opinion. 'Short and wide' is short and wide - it's not subject to individual opinion. Flintoff does not bowl short and wide. You can argue over talent and skill, but you can't argue over something that's blatantly visually obvious.

New topic: IMO Lara is a right-handed batsman and Hayden doesn't have any hands at all.

 

[Arjun]

Agreed there. The fact that we recognize 4w hauls in ODI cricket as an official statistic tells a story.

So close...yet so far. That is what can be said about 4-wicket hauls. They are just a statistic and don't change the course of a match the way a 5-wicket haul does. The reason why Lance Klusener is a far better bowler than Flintoff is that he has more 5-wicket hauls and they have had a winning hand in most matches.

 

[marc71178]

4 wickets in 10 overs make a big effect, hence they're the stats that are ranked alongside a 5 wicket match in First Class Cricket.

There is no way on Earth that Lance Klusener (187 wickets @ 29.48, S/R of 37.5, E/R of 4.70) can be rated a better ODI bowler than Flintoff (71 wickets @ 25.08, S/R of 35.6, E/R of 4.22).

 

[Arjun]

There is no way on Earth that Lance Klusener (187 wickets @ 29.48, S/R of 37.5, E/R of 4.70) can be rated a better ODI bowler than Flintoff (71 wickets @ 25.08, S/R of 35.6, E/R of 4.22).

Flintoff barely averages a wicket a match, while Klusener would get as much as 2 a match. His bowling is not so effective now, since he is played as a bits-and-pieces bowler. Flintoff's bowling has rarely changed the course of a match, except in Mumbai, but Klusener has won matches with his bowling in Tests and ODI's a lot more often. If Flintoff can do the same as a bowler, he can be rated as good as, or even better than Klusener, who is a proven success.

 

[superkingdave]

To be fair, Flintoff has not bowled in 15 of his ODI's
He did nit bowl all his 10 overs till like his 27th match

Check out these matches
4-17 Eng won by 33runs d/l
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...G_IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/ENG_NZ_ODI4_23FEB2002.html

4-32 Eng won by 4 wickets
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...WC/SCORECARDS/ENG_PAK_NWC_ODI3_22JUN2003.html

He took just nine wickets in his first 26 matches, but since then 62 wickets in 45 at 23.14 ER 4.00

In his last 25 its even better 35 wickest at 20.40 ER 3.52


look at Kluseners strike rate 37.5 to Freddies 35.6 to see that Freddie wins on both economy and wicket taking

 

[Craig]

IMO Dwayne Smith is a poor mans Ricardo Powell.

Powell who has improved greatly over the last year or so, but is atalented player messed about by poor coaching/or lack of proper coaching, and is a brilliant fielder.

Powell's best innings for the WI when he made 50 v South Africa at Durban off 71 balls, which is so unusual for him.

Dwayne Smith is similar, he has started his Test career off with a bang, with a century on Test debut and made the world sit up and notice.

He has talent too do well as an explosive batsman and by all reports a good fielder, but he himself needs some time to develop his game.

 

[Arjun]

To be fair, Flintoff has not bowled in 15 of his ODI's
He did nit bowl all his 10 overs till like his 27th match

Looks like the local Flintoff fan club is active. If he as great a bowler as he is made out to be, why not play him as a strike bowler?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Looks like the local Flintoff fan club is active. If he as great a bowler as he is made out to be, why not play him as a strike bowler?

No one is saying he's a great bowler! The point of this argument is that you stated Flintoff bowls short and wide - which is incorrect.

 

[luckyeddie]

Looks like the local Flintoff fan club is active. If he as great a bowler as he is made out to be, why not play him as a strike bowler?

Haven't we had this conversation so many times before, Arjun?

If I've told you once, I've told you a billion times. Don't exaggerate.

( )

 

[Arjun]

The point of this argument is that you stated Flintoff bowls short and wide - which is incorrect.

Not all the time! Just 4 good balls mixed with 2 bad ones. However, over a long time, he has not been as effective as a McGrath, Gillespie or even Brett Lee.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not all the time! Just 4 good balls mixed with 2 bad ones. However, over a long time, he has not been as effective as a McGrath, Gillespie or even Brett Lee.

That would be incorrect too. How could he possible have an economy of around 4.2 if he bowls two bad balls an over. Even if half of those were hit for 4, he'd have to have surrendered more or less no runs from his other deliveries to end with such economy.

Brett Lee is a different bowler who bowls short and wide far more often than Flintoff.

 

[marc71178]

Flintoff barely averages a wicket a match, while Klusener would get as much as 2 a match.

187 in 164 matches = 1.14 (which is nowhere near 2) - take out the 7 he didn't bowl in and that's 1.19.
Flintoff averages exactly 1 a match, but when you look at how many he hasn't bowled in it's 72 in 57 = 1.26

Klusener has won matches with his bowling in Tests and ODI's a lot more often.

What relevance is Tests?

If Flintoff can do the same as a bowler, he can be rated as good as, or even better than Klusener, who is a proven success.

Klusener is a proven success as an all-rounder, but in recent times, so is Flintoff, and there is no way on earth he is a better ODI bowler than Flintoff.

 

[Langeveldt]

Sajjid Mahmood in the ODI squad.... Im expecting them to put the pope in for WC2007...

Good luck to the guy, but I hope he has improved metiorically since I saw him last year...

 

[marc71178]

Anyone else puzzled by the McGrath selection?

To be fair he didn't do anything wrong in the West Indies, but how can Clarke go from being ahead of him to behind him?

 

[Langeveldt]

Anyone else puzzled by the McGrath selection?

To be fair he didn't do anything wrong in the West Indies, but how can Clarke go from being ahead of him to behind him?

It always puzzles me when those two are picked... Like the proverbial Robbie P's of world cricket...

 

[twctopcat]

Finally someone has seen sense as Clarke is out of the ODI squad. But mcgrath is still there, dont know why. Feel a bit sorry for Read, his batting for notts has been good of late. Should be good seeing Mahmood for the first time though and see if Key can make an impact. See him more as a test player though but there you go.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Anyone else puzzled by the McGrath selection?

To be fair he didn't do anything wrong in the West Indies, but how can Clarke go from being ahead of him to behind him?

McGrath is another one whos pally with the england management, much like Giles, I'm really surprised Bell isnt in for McGrath, he's better in both batting and bowling and fielding.

 

[Tim]

The more I see it..the more I believe NZ is turning into Glouc's.
They've lost serious ground in test cricket but have made a couple of giant strides in ODI cricket..and I expect that they'll be alot tougher in the Natwest Series.

 

[superkingdave]

McGrath is another one whos pally with the england management, much like Giles, I'm really surprised Bell isnt in for McGrath, he's better in both batting and bowling and fielding.

Mcgrath looks like he's very pally with the local butcher