***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[tooextracool]

Flintoff and KP, meanwhile, are great strikers of the ball but both have really dodgy techniques and it is difficult to see them scoring consistently this series.

err what? i beg you to show me 1 and only 1 weakness in flintoff's technique that was exposed in this series.
like it or not you cant have a dodgy technique when you mi**** balls to the fielder at the boundary, which hes done what 2 out of 3 times this series. its more a case of his shot selection, which was evident even yesterday when he played at a delivery that he should have left.
as far as KP is concerned, he looked decent for all of the deliveries that he was at the crease for, and when he did get out it was more a case of a good ball than poor technique.

 

[tooextracool]

Strange time to choose to attack Gillespie, this. He bowled better yesterday than he has all tour... surely everyone can agree on that point? His second spell was quite good indeed.

maybe its because he was the most expensive out of all the bowlers bar hussey?

 

[Mister Wright]

err what? i beg you to show me 1 and only 1 weakness in flintoff's technique that was exposed in this series.
like it or not you cant have a dodgy technique when you mi**** balls to the fielder at the boundary, which hes done what 2 out of 3 times this series. its more a case of his shot selection, which was evident even yesterday when he played at a delivery that he should have left.
as far as KP is concerned, he looked decent for all of the deliveries that he was at the crease for, and when he did get out it was more a case of a good ball than poor technique.

Yeah, couldn't agree more. Flintoff & KP both have very good techniques - not conventional - but good enough, especially with their eye-hand co-ordination being so good.

 

[tooextracool]

You're not having a 'TEC moment' and making it up to suit your point, are you?)

even though the giles bowling till 44 instead of 46 made no real difference to my argument?

 

[luckyeddie]

it was an amazing game, and it was something that rekindled my dying interest in ODI cricket(even if only temporarily) because even as overplayed as it is these days, its still worth watching occasionally. but just because it was you cannot just exclude mistakes and poor performances from certain players from it.

That's where you and I differ. I'm primarily interested in the game as a spectacle and have no wish whatsoever in taking anything away from people who have proved that they can do something which I (and more than likely you) can only dream about.

For me, the game yesterday was first and foremost, and will remain in my memory for a long time. I suspect that Trescothick's indiscriminate wafting at balls leaving him will keep you awake for a long, long time, because he will remain part of England's set-up for a while.

One question - are you old enough to have seen David Gower bat? I bet he drove you bonkers too. Perhaps it's part of a left-hander's make-up, but there's probably never been one (well, an English one) who really knew where his off peg was.

 

[luckyeddie]

even though the giles bowling till 44 instead of 46 made no real difference to my argument?

last 3 overs by Giles went for about 10. My point entirely was that you were looking at the match situation with the benefit of hindsight. It's one thing 'going for the kill', but it doesn't always work that way - ask Ricky Ponting. You probably applauded him for trying to blast England out - well, you ought to if there's any consistency about your argument, because it is almost exactly the same scenario, although one is trying to defend a hypothetical target, the other a real one.

To suggest that keeping Giles on for 1 extra over (thus ensuring that Flintoff could only bowl 9) was Vaughan's biggest-ever mistake as captain strikes me as complete and utter hogwash. By all means criticise Vaughan for allowing Collingwood and Giles 16 overs between then instead of 10 (and in that you would be wrong too - would you have fancied another 6 overs of Gough and Jones the way they were taken apart?), but 16 instead of 15 is silly.

 

[Scaly piscine]

What I didn't like was Harmison had 3 overs left and Flintoff 4 getting towards the end, Harmison came on for the 43rd over and Flintoff came on for the 46th, that was the wrong way around and meant Gough had to take one the 49th over which he conceded 9 from (before even McGrath fancied having a go at him).

As for Lee I don't think it'll be as straight forward as people make out for him to replicate the form in Tests and keep getting Strauss etc. The ball probably won't swing anywhere near as easily as it has done in the ODIs with the white ball and the helpful conditions for a start, and suddenly those fullish, straight inswingers he does pull off get defended instead of driven at and they don't get batsmen out so often.

 

[Top_Cat]

err what? i beg you to show me 1 and only 1 weakness in flintoff's technique that was exposed in this series.

The ball he got from McGrath (admittedly a good'un) laid bare his tendency to not cover off-stump as well as other players. KP, same thing. Again, good bowling but certainly if there's one area where the Aussies will be targeting in the Test series against both players (if KP gets a start), it's there.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The ball he got from McGrath (admittedly a good'un) laid bare his tendency to not cover off-stump as well as other players. KP, same thing. Again, good bowling but certainly if there's one area where the Aussies will be targeting in the Test series against both players (if KP gets a start), it's there.

That's not the weakness in their technique unless it's the technique that's making it difficult for them to judge the line of the ball (like for example the head being too far over).

 

[superkingdave]

The ball he got from McGrath (admittedly a good'un) laid bare his tendency to not cover off-stump as well as other players. KP, same thing. Again, good bowling but certainly if there's one area where the Aussies will be targeting in the Test series against both players (if KP gets a start), it's there.

it is a strange one, because flintoff used to get done there a lot - but he went a year to eighteen months from 2003 when he very very rarely got caught behind or in the slips, he did get out 2 or 3 times in the tests vs SA in the winter tho, I think its more to do with him being in form which he clearly isn't at the moment

 

[King_Ponting]

I'd say that Flintoffs weakness, much like pontings, is that early in his innings he goes too hard at the ball.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's not the weakness in their technique unless it's the technique that's making it difficult for them to judge the line of the ball (like for example the head being too far over).

Well, that's the point. Not covering off-stump means you don't get your body behind the ball and end up playing the ball 'outside' of your body which makes it more difficult to avoid getting an edge. When that happenes, everything goes out of whack; suddenly the bat isn't played as straight, you're off-balance, etc. That's just what I observed in Flintoff last night and in KP on a few occasions. Get a guy who can bowl in the corridor moving it away and if you're not covering off-stump, it makes them that much more difficult to play.

it is a strange one, because flintoff used to get done there a lot - but he went a year to eighteen months from 2003 when he very very rarely got caught behind or in the slips, he did get out 2 or 3 times in the tests vs SA in the winter tho, I think its more to do with him being in form which he clearly isn't at the moment

Indeed when one is hitting the ball as well as Flintoff has been for the last two years, his propensity to not cover off-stump matters little. But when you're out of form, any weaknesses get magnified. And as you get out to them more often, so does the anxiety.

Flintoff when out of form, tends to rely on his leg-side shots and that on-drive he hit off Lee was sweeeeeeetly timed. But the shot which got him out, the shot was far less certain and definite, as was his footwork. Both he and KP are leg-side dominant players and this may well be their undoing. I'm hoping not because I like watching them but weaknesses like that are ruthlessly exploited by guys like McGrath who puts the ball in that very area consistently.

 

[social]

I will admit that Lee does seem to have the edge over Strauss atm, but that is in the ODI format, Lee has always bee destructive in the ODIs, however hasn't been able to do it in tests (consistently) because batsman don't feel the same pressure to score. If he does have good tour games and Kaspa doesn't, he will likely play, but then the selectors will face a bigger dillema if he does play and performs poorly. The selectors should take the easy option and select Kasprowicz and that way if either he or Gillespie are poor Lee can play. Considering if Kasprowicz is left out it could be the end of his career.

The problem for Kaspa is that there is only one "tour" game to speak of before the third or fourth test.

He has looked sluggish, has been inaccurate, and is ordinary in the field compared to Lee.

Lee, IMO, looks to have matured (despite the bouncer), his action is excellent and provides variety in pace and movement. He clearly knows what Strauss' weakness is and has the ability to deliver that ball consistently. The one great unknown is his ability to perform when 20-25 overs are required per day.

 

[social]

I'd say that Flintoffs weakness, much like pontings, is that early in his innings he goes too hard at the ball.

Flintoff does not get behind the ball and is ordinary against spin.

Great eye and all, he is no Gilchrist and is unlikely to score consistently against an attack that will attack his weaknesses unmercifully.

 

[luckyeddie]

Flintoff does not get behind the ball and is ordinary against spin.

Great eye and all, he is no Gilchrist and is unlikely to score consistently against an attack that will attack his weaknesses unmercifully.

No-one else IS a Gilchrist - the man is unique in world cricketing history.

Flintoff's principal problem has always been one of patience and shot selection early in his innings - a tendency to get caught up 'in the occasion'. I can see Warne and McGrath giving him huge problems in the tests, but if he gets in, then of course it can be mayhem - and I could certainly envisage a scenario where McGrath could be systematically taken apart - at least for a while.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Flintoff does not get behind the ball and is ordinary against spin.

Great eye and all, he is no Gilchrist and is unlikely to score consistently against an attack that will attack his weaknesses unmercifully.

It's only when he's wafting away at the ball a foot or so outside off stump that he doesn't get behind the ball and he shouldn't be playing at those anyway. If he puts away the stupid shots which are the main problem he'll average 40+ against anyone (excluding maybe spin dominated attacks), including Australia.

 

[social]

err what? i beg you to show me 1 and only 1 weakness in flintoff's technique that was exposed in this series.
like it or not you cant have a dodgy technique when you mi**** balls to the fielder at the boundary, which hes done what 2 out of 3 times this series. its more a case of his shot selection, which was evident even yesterday when he played at a delivery that he should have left.
as far as KP is concerned, he looked decent for all of the deliveries that he was at the crease for, and when he did get out it was more a case of a good ball than poor technique.

Flintoff - doesnt move his feet and, as such, is a sitting duck early in his innings against quality seam (McGrath) and ordinary spin (Hogg).

As for yesterday, his dismissal was a carbon copy of how McGrath has undone people for the past 10 years. A number of delivery slanting into the batsman, flollowed by one that holds its' own. In summary - great bowling.

Ive been mightily impressed with his bowling (I stated before the series that he was England's best bowler and nothing has changed) but he will struggle for runs unless the wickets are really flat.

KP - if he is to be successful at test level, I guarantee that his technique will have to change significantly in the future.

Before the bowler delivers, he walks across to the off. After delivery, nothing.

Any movement, whether seam, swing, or spin, has the potential to leave him leaden-footed and in his brief innings McGrath was already working on LBWs. Lee has also beaten him with pace a number of times in very few deliveries.

If Thorpe is anything like fit, they should pick him and save KP for flatter tracks later in the summer.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree with social on KP, and think his technique is quite lacking. That's not to say he will be a failure though... plenty of batsmen with technical flaws have had success, even against good bowlers. But, I would be fairly surprised if he made all that many runs in the Ashes if he plays. I can see a big innings or two, but not consistency.

Flintoff though, strikes me as very, very solid in defence, with a wire range of shots and the ability to score or survive against any sort of pace bowling, even if he may well get undone by McGrath if he's bowling as well as he usually does (that's hardly rare though... everyone has a tough time against McGrath). Basically, I think he has an excellent technique. Against spin it's a different story, and I can see Warne picking him up over and over honestly.

 

[shaka]

Strauss has been worked out, even though he thought Australia would not find any areas to target when Strauss is batting.

 

[social]

No-one else IS a Gilchrist - the man is unique in world cricketing history.

Flintoff's principal problem has always been one of patience and shot selection early in his innings - a tendency to get caught up 'in the occasion'. I can see Warne and McGrath giving him huge problems in the tests, but if he gets in, then of course it can be mayhem - and I could certainly envisage a scenario where McGrath could be systematically taken apart - at least for a while.

If either KP or Flintoff get in, you'll have mayhem against anybody.

Whether they can get in consistently against Warne and McGrath is highly debatable at this stage.