***Official*** England in India

[Sanz]

because its clearly obvious that flintoff was clearly drafted into the side while he was not ready and was not even half the player he is now.

He had the potential to be good and that's why he was selected. If It took him 5-6 years to mature at the international level, then it was the fault of the system. If he had made his debute at 25-26 there is no gaurantee that he would have fit International Cricket right away. It could possibly have taken him at least 2-3 years to adjust to International cricket. He is lucky that he got his break so early in his career, Not many players in England get international break that early.

 

[tooextracool]

But the fact my dear is the tag 'All Time Great' cant be given to someone who has been good/comparable with the best only at his peak but pathetic for rest of his career. No one says flintoff is rubbish, infact far from it, he is superb but I am not willing to say that he is all time great as of now. He could very well become one in next few years, but not right now.

i think that hes done enough to at least be classified as a great. he might not have done enough to merit being as good as the other 4, but even in this short period hes done as good as amost any all rounder has done in his prime.

 

[Sanz]

because one can come to a conclusion about a pattern in a players international career, based on a couple of series against a particular team? especially considering how many flat pitches we've seen in those series.

Just how many India-Aus(in Aus) have you watched ? Please dont tell me that majority of Aussie pitches are flat in nature esp when SRT walks out to bat.

No one (except you ofcourse) here sees that pattern here.

 

[Sanz]

i think that hes done enough to at least be classified as a great. he might not have done enough to merit being as good as the other 4, but even in this short period hes done as good as amost any all rounder has done in his prime.

So if Flintoff stops playing today, he can be considered a great allrounder ? On that note, I guess Vinod Kambli is the greatest Indian batsman ever.

As for him doing as good as any other all rounder in Prime, Care to explain how many centuries Botham made in his prime or how many Fifers Botham took in his prime and in comparison how many centuries/fifers flintoff has under his name ?

 

[aussie]

almost anyone will tell you that England competing with Australia was largely a freak of cricket and was due to a fair many Australians being out of form(Gillespie, Kaspa,Ponting etc). Strauss was miserable all ODI series against Australia, as was vaughan. when you remove Strauss' performance against bangladesh, he averages 29 in ODIs he hasnt had a single successful ODI series in over a year.



Vaughan has been playing ODI cricket for nearly 4 years now. i dont know how long people are going to expect him to suddenly come good, because its not going to happen. as ive said before, he does not hit the ball in the air often enough and is unable to pinch singles(at least one of which is a major requirement to succeed in ODI cricket). as far as hussein is concerned, there was not one point in his ODI career where he merited selection as a batsman, not a single one.


England were hardly anything but a very ordinary side before 2002, so aiming to be better than that would hardly be anyting briliant. further at least that side had players like nick knight, alec stewart, darren gough, andrew caddick, craig white etc all of whom were very capable ODI players.

1. Ok but the way you are writing Strauss off as a possible successful ODI players is unfair.

2. Well maybe he may not come good, but its solely due to this fact aslo because he has this knee injury which may restrict him for the rest of his career, because in my opinion if Vaughan could have gotten back the test form he had down in australia he could still transform that form into ODI's. Also i mentioned Hussain is because like Vaughan are good captains and didn't have great OD records but regardless will continue to lead england in the shorter form of the game.

3. Yes they were ordidnary but they never got their best team together & they had a good crop of OD players, think about if it weren't for injuries & retirements this could have been england best OD team then that may have went to the WC.

Trescothick
Knight
Hussain
Thorpe
Stewart
Collingwood
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Caddick

Plus Vaughan was in hot form then, the side england have now is the best they have had since then.

 

[Sanz]

there is no connection whatsoever. without flintoffs 73 vs Australia at edgbaston, England would have lost not just the test but the series. i dont see what that has to do with tendulkar being incapable of scoring runs in seamer friendly conditions.

So that innings of 73 is better than SRT's 155 in chennai against Australia, right ??

And I am talking about the inconsistency in your argument, you claim flintoff as an All Time Great when he isn't even proven in the subcontinent (4 Countries if you include BD) whereas SRT has proved his quality all over the world against all kinds of attacks in all kinds of conditions, yet he isn't an all time great.

 

[Salamuddin]

Hoggard batting brilliantly on 32 -- I think he has more batting potential than Geraint Jones

 

[irfan]

Hoggard batting brilliantly on 32 -- I think he has more batting potential than Geraint Jones

Word

 

[andyc]

I've got no idea why England are batting for a draw in a tour match. They should be batting normally so that their batsmen actually get practice, and then maybe give their new ball bowlers a bit more time with the ball.

 

[Jono]

Hoggard batting brilliantly on 32 -- I think he has more batting potential than Geraint Jones

LOL

 

[Salamuddin]

Munaf Patel scalps Flintoff......oh my god, why is this guy not in the Indian test side ?
Seven wickets in the match and counting.......

 

[Salamuddin]

and VRV Singh joins in on the act claiming Ian Bell

 

[Jono]

Good stuff.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Good stuff.

Not from an England point of view.....

I'm worried. Very worried.

 

[Tom Halsey]

no, when i first went to a cricket match at OT in 97 & i saw the events in that test i became a strong supporter of the team and at that time england weren't to good, but i was barely 8 i didn't understand the game well enough to make much of a judgement all i knew i liked the aussie team because seeing them play make me like cricket & i've supported them since..

So you supported them because they hammered England in the OT Test of 1997, then.

If you weren't old enough to make a judgement, why didn't you change who you supported once you could make a judgement?

 

[IqbalJaved]

Munaf has just picked up 5 wickets for a ten wicket haul for the match and he wasn't picked in the Indian squad despite being a lot more match fit than VRV

 

[Arjun]

England are 158 all out and here's what happened

• Strauss edged one faster Patel delivery to slips.
• Trescothick was castled by an inswinger by Paul.
• Ramesh Powar turned the ball the other way and night watchman Hoggard was caught at midwicket by Raina– and a very difficult catch at that.
• It was a terrible match with the bat for Flintoff, who edged a Patel delivery to the keeper.
• Another thin edge got Ian Bell out, this time to VR Singh.
• I have no idea what Geraint Jones was thinking, but one loose sweep off Powar that missed had him out leg-before.
• Patel bowled two into Plunkett and Blackwell, both were out bowled.
• Tailender Monty Panesar was a tad unlucky, but one incoming delivery by Patel had him out leg-before. That was all over for them, as Pietersen didn't come out to bat.

 

[Arjun]

Munaf has just picked up 5 wickets for a ten wicket haul for the match and he wasn't picked in the Indian squad despite being a lot more match fit than VRV

The selectors declared the team BEFORE this match went past the first session of the first day. Now they have to include him in the team for the next two Tests.

 

[Arjun]

Jadeja said that SS Paul was a steady medium-pacer, with one line, one length, not too bad, but not express pace. He bowled particularly well coming in second-change and his 14 overs just gave away 26 runs. When I saw him in the post-tea session, he mixed straighter deliveries with some wide ones, all at just over 120k.

 

[Dasa]

So you supported them because they hammered England in the OT Test of 1997, then.

If you weren't old enough to make a judgement, why didn't you change who you supported once you could make a judgement?

I really can't understand why it's such a big deal that he supports Australia. So he decided to support the Aussies, what difference does it make? There are plenty of people who support teams not from their birth country or country of origin....there's nothing wrong with it.