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

[Revelation]

all i have to say is: sigh...but i agree with the wickets point if only for one match that i have witnessed....the opener of WC2003: WI-63/2 after 25 overs got to 277/8 off 50.

 

[Nate]

haha thanks mate, thats really helpful!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

and 1/26 * 5 = 130 in 50 overs

Because teams continue to not take risks and are happy to bat out to 130/5 with five in hand!

 

[Arjun]

Flintoff is perhaps the most accurate ODI bowler in world cricket.

Not that accurate. You don't have to make him into a Glenn McGrath, do you? Agreed McGrath is not his usual self these days, but he is a role model for accuracy. If Flintoff was really as accurate as many say, he would not only have an average of 21 and a few 5-wicket hauls, he would also be able to carry on that form in Tests, where, he's not that great a bowler as many say he is. A bit difficult to imagine how a bowler with a Test average of 41 can be considered the most accurate bowler, even in ODI's.

yet he was the best fast bowler in that series...

Best, but not great.

i would much rather have a bowler who takes 1/26 in 10 overs than someone who takes 4/60 in 10 in ODIs. E/R is just about as important in ODIs, especially considering how flat ODI pitches are these days.despite that he does have 3 4fers in his career already....not too bad at all

I would have either- both are equally good, but way better than 1/41 or 0/42. Even that is a godo ecnomy rate. If you want someone with a good economy rate, it should be a lot less than 4.

Besides, if one of them takes 4/60, he is a more attacking bowler. The others can just keep things tight. Attacking bowlers go for runs, but they also get wickets.

A performance of 1/26 is very difficult to maintain for a long time. Besides, if he kept bowling so tightly, chances are that the opposition, if they are an attacking batting side, will take their chances against him and may even get him more wickets.

 

[garage flower]

A very hard series to call, not least because all 3 teams have explosive batsmen capable of completely turning a game on its head.

I think NZ will continue to miss Bond immensely and that, together with their other injury worries, could see them miss out on the final.

If Windies are able to include any 3 of Bravo, Powell and the Smiths (that is Devon and Dwayne, not Morrissey, Marr, Rourke and Joyce) and still post decent scores, their fielding could make the difference.

I'm worried about the pace bowling though, which as Mr M suggests, would probably benefit from the addition of an experienced campaigner like Collins. He bowls pretty well at the death, though my abiding memory of him in ODIs is that horrific f*** up (sorry, but there's no other description for it) when "catching" Klusener in the World Cup.

 

[MoxPearl]

just remember we aint had bond for a long time

 

[Arjun]

1. Gayle is one of the best ODI allrounders in the world. His record (84 wickets @ 29.53, 39 SR, 4.53 econ) is outstanding for an opening batsman who bowls a bit. How can you say it's not promising? Also, Dwayne Smith has been very impressive with the ball in limited opportunity. Clearly you haven't seen him.

First of all, I said that except for Gayle and Smith, none of them are promising. Besides, these two should be bowling a lot more overs, shouldn't they? The best I have seen of Gayle was in the final ODI against the Australinas in the ODI series in 2003, so you can bowl him a lot longer. As for Dwayne, let's see how well he lasts the full 10 overs. The others, except probably Wavell Hinds (where is he?), are not far better than most 2-over bowlers.

2. Edwards would still be effective on a slower pitch in England because he swings the ball so profusely.
3. Best is not as off-target as you'd think.

The progress of these two will be interesting. Best is off-target occasionally, but he is an attacking bowler.

4. Clearly you're making judgements on Collins without having seen him bowl lately. Collins has been outstanding and I wish he were in the ODI squad.

Sometimes, he is a flat pitch target and sprays the ball a lot. Let's see how he performs against good batting sides.

5. The West Indies ODI fielding has been much much better in recent times, due to the addition of Dwayne Smith and Dwayne Bravo to complement the already sharp Ricardo Powell.

Let's just hope the likes of Pedro Collins, Ian Bradshaw and Fidel Edwards don't mess up the good work done by the better fielders like Bravo, Smith and Powell.

 

[Arjun]

A very hard series to call, not least because all 3 teams have explosive batsmen capable of completely turning a game on its head.

Of all three, the West Indians have the best batsmen, since all of them- Gayle, Smith, Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Powell- can post 50+ scores or even go on to 100, and they can dominate a match by their hitting power.

 

[luckyeddie]

Of all three, the West Indians have the best batsmen, since all of them- Gayle, Smith, Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Powell- can post 50+ scores or even go on to 100, and they can dominate a match by their hitting power.

Powell tends to be an aberration waiting to happen.
Wonderful to watch for the 3 minutes he's in, though.

 

[garage flower]

just remember we aint had bond for a long time

Fair point, but you seem to have struggled away from home without him and on the evidence of the test series your Bond-less attack has no licence to kill.

Oh dear....*leaves quickly, head bowed in shame*

 

[MoxPearl]

Fair point, but you seem to have struggled away from home without him and on the evidence of the test series your Bond-less attack has no licence to kill.

Oh dear....*leaves quickly, head bowed in shame*

LOL .. well done

 

[luckyeddie]

Fair point, but you seem to have struggled away from home without him and on the evidence of the test series your Bond-less attack has no licence to kill.

Oh dear....*leaves quickly, head bowed in shame*

Got no licence to Kyle either, from what I've seen of Mr Mills' first over in test cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

If Flintoff was really as accurate as many say, he would not only have an average of 21 and a few 5-wicket hauls

accuracy doesnt always give you wickets....it often lends a hand to the bowler at the other end

he would also be able to carry on that form in Tests, where, he's not that great a bowler as many say he is.A bit difficult to imagine how a bowler with a Test average of 41 can be considered the most accurate bowler, even in ODI's.

and how many times must it be said that his average is improving?in his last 3 test series he averages 24,27 and 32. that isnt phenomenal but it is a decent average for a 2nd change seamer who seems to have a catch dropped off him every match.

Best, but not great.

yet better than gough and harmison who you seem to rate as better bowlers....ive never said that flintoff was a great bowler but i do believe that he is the best ODI bowler that we have. it would be stupid to dismiss him off as that " short and wide" bowler because that is far from what he actually is.

I would have either- both are equally good, but way better than 1/41 or 0/42. Even that is a godo ecnomy rate. If you want someone with a good economy rate, it should be a lot less than 4..

you seem to be confusing test cricket with ODI cricket....there are very few bowlers in these flat pitch days who go at less than 5 runs an over let alone less than 4. on a 300 run wicket i would gladly take 1/40 from my bowlers.

Besides, if one of them takes 4/60, he is a more attacking bowler. The others can just keep things tight. Attacking bowlers go for runs, but they also get wickets.

keeping it tight isnt as easy as you make it out to be though.....after watching the india-pak series where we saw nearly 700 runs in a match i dont think that it is something that 'the others' can be counted on for.

A performance of 1/26 is very difficult to maintain for a long time. Besides, if he kept bowling so tightly, chances are that the opposition, if they are an attacking batting side, will take their chances against him and may even get him more wickets.

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.

 

[biased indian]

accuracy doesnt always give you wickets....it often lends a hand to the bowler at the other end

Can u name a few england games were other bowlers have benifitted from flintoff's accuracy

 

[MoxPearl]

just remember again everyone.. we did not have bond for the last couple of series.. and look at what happened...

 

[marc71178]

Koch_Cha quite easily when I have the time to.

 

[Arjun]

yet better than gough and harmison who you seem to rate as better bowlers....ive never said that flintoff was a great bowler but i do believe that he is the best ODI bowler that we have.

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.

and how many times must it be said that his average is improving?in his last 3 test series he averages 24,27 and 32. that isnt phenomenal but it is a decent average for a 2nd change seamer who seems to have a catch dropped off him every match.

Wasim Akram was one bowler who got wickets in Bowled or LBW a lot more often. To be honest, he is one bowler who can do a good job leading the attack, as he has against the Indians, especially if you look at his 4-wicket haul in Bangalore, which is one of his most convincing bowling performances.

you seem to be confusing test cricket with ODI cricket....there are very few bowlers in these flat pitch days who go at less than 5 runs an over let alone less than 4. on a 300 run wicket i would gladly take 1/40 from my bowlers.

This is why a lot of current bowlers are not as great as in the 70's or 80's. They are not as effective in the shorter version of the game. Besides, the 1/40 comes up becuase the other bowlers go for 50, 60 or even 80. The McGraths, Muralis, Warnes and Pollocks are equally good in Tests and ODI's, which is what I expect from at least 2 English bowlers.

keeping it tight isnt as easy as you make it out to be though.....after watching the india-pak series where we saw nearly 700 runs in a match i dont think that it is something that 'the others' can be counted on for.

That was because the average Indian pace bowler has no pace and is likely to get smacked on flat pitches- the Indians had three. Besides, the bits-and-pieces bowlers were bowling absolute rubbish as Inzamam got his team out of trouble repeatedly. It is the case of a team depending on a weak pace attack and the opposition having a strong pace attack bowling a lot of no-balls, wides and bad balls, with a lot of catches dropped. If the Pakistani speedsters bowled a lot less extras and fielders supported them, the Pakistanis would have won 4 straight matches. Throw in Muttiah Muralitharan, he would have an economy of 2-3. That separates average bowlers from great ones.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

all i have to say is: sigh...but i agree with the wickets point if only for one match that i have witnessed....the opener of WC2003: WI-63/2 after 25 overs got to 277/8 off 50.

Actually, it was 67/2 after 25 overs and 278/5 after 50.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sometimes, he is a flat pitch target and sprays the ball a lot. Let's see how he performs against good batting sides.

He was very good on the flattest pitch I've ever seen - the ARG. Collins is a confidence bowler. When his confidence is high, he's outstanding (v NZ), but when it's low, he can be horrible (v Aus). IMO he's an under-rated ODI bowler.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Powell tends to be an aberration waiting to happen.
Wonderful to watch for the 3 minutes he's in, though.

Interesting case.

He's recently tightened up his defence and looked to bat more cautiously, but still isn't going on from his starts. I think he's taken the coaching comments too much to heart as I really do miss the breezy innings he used to play and he was probably more effective than he is now. A classic case of talent without guidance.