***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[tooextracool]

Officially, England won't be the best in the world but They, like the Aussies in the last two years, have beaten just about everyone else they've played so if they knock off the Aussies in this series, then the will deserve the 'unofficial' world champion status.

i cant see it happening, if england win this series, and then beat india in india, then there might be a case, but those are some pretty big ifs and even then there will be question marks about them.

 

[Burpey]

How can England be called 'unofficial' world champions ? Australia have not lost a Test series in more than four years, and that was in India. Just because they lose a series in England doesn't mean they should lose their crown.

 

[krishneelz]

Few better over the same period he'll have played though, and thats all that matters. Not how he ranks over past players.

In this period we can all agree that warne murali lara dravid tendulkar gilchrist and kallis are better players than freddy. I just found it funny how the media was touting him as world number 1

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It depends how you define world champions. In boxing a boxer could be unbeaten for 10 years but lose the title to someone with only a few fights under their belt. The new champion only has to beat the current champion to acquire the title. If you go down that road then if England lose their next series(not forgetting for a moment that they haven't yet beaten Australia) the team that beats them become world champions.
I know that's a fairly nonsensical theory, but in my defence it is very early here in the Uk.

 

[krishneelz]

if england do win this series i think the super series where the aussies play the world 11 will not be so exciting in the knowledge that the aussies are not playing their best cricket for a while and are now on the decline

 

[James90]

if england do win this series i think the super series where the aussies play the world 11 will not be so exciting in the knowledge that the aussies are not playing their best cricket for a while and are now on the decline

Did you ever get your bat off the neighbours roof?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It depends how you define world champions. In boxing a boxer could be unbeaten for 10 years but lose the title to someone with only a few fights under their belt. The new champion only has to beat the current champion to acquire the title. If you go down that road then if England lose their next series(not forgetting for a moment that they haven't yet beaten Australia) the team that beats them become world champions.
I know that's a fairly nonsensical theory, but in my defence it is very early here in the Uk.

That doesn't apply to cricket though. If it did, India would have been in the best in the world after 2001 and very close after 2003/04, which they certainly weren't at all. The way I see it, you overtake another team in one of two ways:

a) you achieve consistently better results than them in various conditions around the world against various other opposition (this is why Australia were ahead of India despite losing to them a couple of times in the 90s)
or b) you prove yourself against them directly, preferably away from home, and match their efforts against other opposition in varied conditions. (this is why Australia were ahead of South Africa despite not really outplaying them against any other opposition in the 90s)

To take the example of Australia and the West Indies in 95, that was a clear case of number 2. The West Indies hadn't been beaten in a test series in a long time... only two losses in 20 years. They had consistently beaten or at least matched all other opposition in all other conditions, but in the most recent series against Australia had been pushed and only just got over the line. Australia since 1989 had been strong, and since the previous series against the West Indies in 92/93 they hadn't lost to anyone. Australia went to the West Indies in foreign conditions, faced them at full strength with both teams clearly ahead of everyone else in the world and beat them comprehensively.

I don't think that sort of example exactly applies in this case. England haven't really dominated world cricket to the extent Australia have in recent times, they haven't beaten Australia in Australia, and Australia haven't shown any signs of a general decline anywhere else. I think if Australia show evidence of a decline over the next year or so and England continue to beat everyone else, or if both teams continue to dominate and England win the next Ashes series, the "world championship" will be passed then.

 

[marc71178]

See what rickys whining has now done. He somehow bribes umpires to change rules in my opinion

Erm, you what?

The rules aren't being changed in that hypothetical situation.

 

[marc71178]

In this period we can all agree that warne murali lara dravid tendulkar gilchrist and kallis are better players than freddy. I just found it funny how the media was touting him as world number 1

Kallis?!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Kallis?!

It's hard to compare a batsman with an all-rounder, but Kallis is clearly one of the best batsmen in the world, so I think if Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar all warrant inclusion he does as well.

 

[Mister Wright]

It's hard to compare a batsman with an all-rounder, but Kallis is clearly one of the best batsmen in the world, so I think if Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar all warrant inclusion he does as well.

I think we'd all agree that Kallis is a better batsman than Flintoff (probably much better). So he's added ability with the bat, makes up for what Flintoff can do with the ball IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think we'd all agree that Kallis is a better batsman than Flintoff (probably much better). So he's added ability with the bat, makes up for what Flintoff can do with the ball IMO.

Yep. Flintoff in my opinion hasn't quite reached his potential yet. Obviously he's been magnificent in this series, but I still get the feeling when I watch him that he hasn't quite done justice to his abilities with either bat or ball yet. He's bowled probably the best of his career this series but the likes of Jones, McGrath and Warne have all come out of it with much better figures and Flintoff has struggled to run through the tail and really finish the job after taking a few top order wickets, and while he's been excellent with the bat if he played like he did at Trent Bridge more often he'd do a lot better.

 

[greg]

In this period we can all agree that warne murali lara dravid tendulkar gilchrist and kallis are better players than freddy. I just found it funny how the media was touting him as world number 1

I hadn't noticed Murali scoring many runs, or the others taking many wickets. And clearly Gilchrist can't be considered the best player in the world "at the moment". (It is no coincidence IMO that those Australian players who regularly hit the ball in the air (Hayden and Gilchrist) are the ones suffering the most in this series). Nobody has said that Flintoff is the best batsman in the world, or the best bowler. They've said he is the best player, and probably would be the first name on any teamsheet (except perhaps in the subcontinent esp. India).

btw final career averages of 36 and 28 would be an incredible achievement, to rival most test allrounders in history, especially considering the bases he had to come from.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yep. Flintoff in my opinion hasn't quite reached his potential yet. Obviously he's been magnificent in this series, but I still get the feeling when I watch him that he hasn't quite done justice to his abilities with either bat or ball yet. He's bowled probably the best of his career this series but the likes of Jones, McGrath and Warne have all come out of it with much better figures and Flintoff has struggled to run through the tail and really finish the job after taking a few top order wickets, and while he's been excellent with the bat if he played like he did at Trent Bridge more often he'd do a lot better.

Yeah, that's the scary thing though. If he is like this when he hasn't reached his full potential just imagine what he could be like if he ever does.

 

[greg]

Yeah, that's the scary thing though. If he is like this when he hasn't reached his full potential just imagine what he could be like if he ever does.

His average would also improve somewhat if he cut out the noballs - 64 in this series!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I hadn't noticed Murali scoring many runs, or the others taking many wickets. And clearly Gilchrist can't be considered the best player in the world "at the moment". (It is no coincidence IMO that those Australian players who regularly hit the ball in the air (Hayden and Gilchrist) are the ones suffering the most in this series). Nobody has said that Flintoff is the best batsman in the world, or the best bowler. They've said he is the best player, and probably would be the first name on any teamsheet (except perhaps in the subcontinent esp. India).

btw final career averages of 36 and 28 would be an incredible achievement, to rival most test allrounders in history, especially considering the bases he had to come from.

By that standard though, Andrew Symonds would be the best player in Australia just because he can both bat and bowl to a higher level than any other regular member of the international team. The fact is, if it was a choice between having Flintoff or McGrath or Warne in the Australian/English team, I'd pick McGrath or Warne every time. Flintoff might be a better batsman than McGrath or Warne, but in terms of their impact on games and overall value to a team, McGrath and Warne are easily more important players, and you can't simply say that someone who does a bit of everything is automatically better than a specialist.

Flintoff is a great player and would make a World XI right now, but he's a long way from being the first name on the teamsheet, and indeed the choice to pick him over a batsman at 6 would be a tough one.

 

[luckyeddie]

In this period we can all agree that warne murali lara dravid tendulkar gilchrist and kallis are better players than freddy. I just found it funny how the media was touting him as world number 1

Could you point me towards this please?

I read a 'proper' newspaper, and they are probably more full of praise (to the point of reverence) for Shane Warne than Freddie.

Or are you just making it up?

 

[Craig]

I don't know from what I saw Flintoff didn't see that fired up at Trent Bridge. I mean he wasn't as fired up as he was at Lords, Edgbatson, and OT when he was bowling.

However if we are going about comparing Kallis to Flintoff, my question is who is the better fielder

 

[Craig]

Kallis?!

Well you could legitmatley claim he is the better batsman.

 

[superkingdave]

Essex 95-0 from 15 overs

Lee 4-0-24-0
Gillespie 5-0-31-0
Tait 4-0-24-0
Mcgill 2-0-14-0