*Official** New Zealand in England

[marc71178]

and oram scored 67 while cairns got 82(in quick time mind you).....so how exactly did england's lower middle order out perform NZ's?

I was talking about the likes of McCullum, Vettori, ...

 

[a massive zebra]

since most of you're arguments seem completely illogical i assumed that you would rate someone like murali as the best all rounder in the world.i still havent got an answer as to who you rate as the best all rounder in the world?

My arguments are a lot more logical than a lot of people who believe Fletcher is a good coach and believe England are right to select players randomly. Anyone who thinks Flintoff is the best allrounder in the world or think Tendulkar is the most overrated player ever is obviously completely illogical. Flintoff is clearly not in the class of Kallis, Pollock or Cairns, nor does he have the potential of Oram. Worth his place in the England side - yes. Best allrounder in the world - far from it.

In my opinion the best allrounder in the world is Kallis with Pollock not far behind.

 

[marc71178]

interesting, flintoff gets the news ball instead of hoggard. thats ridiculous captaincy considering thats the only thing hoggard is good for.

And if you believe that that move came from Trescothick, you'll believe anything.

From the bits I saw, Flintoff did bowl well, and if the correct decision had been made when McCullum gloved that one at 10-1, who knows what might've happened?

 

[marc71178]

haha. Flintoff - the best allrounder in the world.

Wasn't that in the ODI team he put him?

Ever heard of Kallis, Pollock, Cairns, Oram or Streak?

A list that rather peters out after Pollock.

 

[tooextracool]

I was talking about the likes of McCullum, Vettori, ...

so cairns and oram arent part of the "lower middle order" then?

 

[chicane]

A list that rather peters out after Pollock.

Streak's bowling and fielding is better than Flintoff's and his batting is decent though not as good.

 

[marc71178]

Streak's bowling takes more wickets, but then again he doesn't have any real competition for taking wickets, but it isn't necessarily better.

And I assume you've not seen Flintoff fielding much?

 

[PY]

Streak's bowling

Yes. Just.

fielding is better than Flintoff

Not at second slip it isn't.

his batting is decent though not as good.

For me, there is a vast gap.

 

[tooextracool]

My arguments are a lot more logical than a lot of people who believe Fletcher is a good coach and believe England are right to select players randomly.

right considering they've won an away series in SL and pakistan.

Anyone who thinks Flintoff is the best allrounder in the world or think Tendulkar is the most overrated player ever is obviously completely illogical. Flintoff is clearly not in the class of Kallis, Pollock or Cairns, nor does he have the potential of Oram. Worth his place in the England side - yes. Best allrounder in the world - far from it..

Oram???because oram bowled better than flintoff in this innings? once again it looks like you've brought stats into the equation considering oram has only played 11 tests that is just plain crazy.
kallis couldnt make it into the test side(or ODI side For that matter) on his bowling alone....cairns is far past his prime. pollock wouldnt ma

In my opinion the best allrounder in the world is Kallis with Pollock not far behind.

because kallis is a good enough bowler?pollock wouldnt make the test side on his batting alone....in fact flintoff has already scored more centuries than pollock

 

[a massive zebra]

Streak's bowling takes more wickets, but then again he doesn't have any real competition for taking wickets, but it isn't necessarily better.

And I assume you've not seen Flintoff fielding much?

Streak is a much better bowler. He has never had any support but has still taken his wickets cheaply and was rated in the top 10 bowlers for some time. Flintoff cannot take wickets cheaply even though the England bowlers are better and has never been among the top 30 bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

And if you believe that that move came from Trescothick, you'll believe anything.

From the bits I saw, Flintoff did bowl well, and if the correct decision had been made when McCullum gloved that one at 10-1, who knows what might've happened?

yes flintoff bowled well, but on that pitch there was no point even bowling hoggard unless you gave him the new ball. i would have preferred it if flintoff and hoggard took the new ball despite the fact that harmison took the only wicket

 

[a massive zebra]

right considering they've won an away series in SL and pakistan.

Several years ago! Last time they were in Sri Lanka it was very one-sided.

Oram???because oram bowled better than flintoff in this innings? once again it looks like you've brought stats into the equation considering oram has only played 11 tests that is just plain crazy.
kallis couldnt make it into the test side(or ODI side For that matter) on his bowling alone....cairns is far past his prime. pollock wouldnt make the South Africa side for his batting alone.

Flintoff wouldn't make the England Test side for his batting or bowling alone! Cairns has proved himself as a top player for many years. Pollock is simply in a different class to Flintoff. Oram only played 11 Test yes but how successful had Flintoff been after 11 Tests?

 

[chicane]

Streak's bowling takes more wickets, but then again he doesn't have any real competition for taking wickets, but it isn't necessarily better.

And I assume you've not seen Flintoff fielding much?

Streak may not have an able bowling partner, which is even worse. Fast bowlers are supposed to work better in pairs and need support from the other end. The way streak bowled to Matthew Hayden in Australia esp. in Hobart was amazing. And do you rate Flintoff a better fielder and catcher (in all positions) than Streak?

 

[chicane]

Yes. Just.
Not at second slip it isn't.
For me, there is a vast gap.

1 - There's a noticable difference IMO. Flintoff's a lot quicker but Streak's L&L is impeccable.
2 - But Overall?
3 - Agreed.

 

[Loony BoB]

cairns is far past his prime.

*cough* Hmm, let's see.

To say Cairns is past his prime is fairly naive. In the last ten matches, he has averaged 42 with the bat and 29.6 with the ball, has taken two 5 wicket bags (and 4/60 against SA), made two half centuries and one century - and you may note that this century is his highest score of 158 and was against a full strength South African bowling attack.

His last five scores are as follows:

28 (40 balls)
158 (171)
69 (82)
41 (68)
And, in case you weren't watching the test, 82 off 47 balls yesterday morning against a firing English bowling attack.

Excuse me while I ask you what makes you think he is past his prime? I expect a full justification because clearly you are entirely correct with what you say and I am completely incorrect and quite possibly misled.

 

[a massive zebra]

Excuse me while I ask you what makes you think he is past his prime? I expect a full justification because clearly you are entirely correct with what you say and I am completely incorrect and quite possibly misled.

He just made that up to back up his claim that Flintoff is better than Cairns, because in reality there is no real evidence to back up his claim because it is untrue.

 

[tooextracool]

Several years ago! Last time they were in Sri Lanka it was very one-sided.

so?it was the same coach wasnt it?so are you trying to tell me that fletcher used to be a good coach and now hes gotten worse?dont be ridiculous.
they just beat the WI 3-0 and had a respectable series against SA recently too.

Flintoff wouldn't make the England Test side for his batting or bowling alone!.

further proof that you have never seen him play!he has been by far the best bowler from either side in this test match and bowled respectibly in the WI. his batting has improved immensely over the last year so using stats is just ridiculous.

Cairns has proved himself as a top player for many years.

cairns is by far the best all rounder since the 90s but ATM flintoff is a better all rounder.

Pollock is simply in a different class to Flintoff.

especially since flintoff has already scored more centuries than flintoff against better attacks too. you fail to back your argument which shows how valid your argument is

Oram only played 11 Test yes but how successful had Flintoff been after 11 Tests?

what kind of a ridiculous argument is this? kambli averaged more than ponting did in his first 17 matches(averaged only 39 mind you) so does that make kambli a better player?please think before you post or dont post at all.

 

[tooextracool]

1 - There's a noticable difference IMO. Flintoff's a lot quicker but Streak's L&L is impeccable..

righto are you saying that flintoff isnt accurate? the same person who was the most economical player in the wc and against the WI. streak is only marginally a better bowler now but once flintoff gets a little more experience he will be a much better bowler. and in the batting department...its like comparing lara vs chanderpaul

2 - But Overall?.

you havent seen much of flintoffs fielding have you....hes pulled off some of the most amazing catches that you'll ever see and i dont think ive ever seen him drop a catch.

 

[tooextracool]

He just made that up to back up his claim that Flintoff is better than Cairns, because in reality there is no real evidence to back up his claim because it is untrue.

if you want to lay cheap shots like this then theres no point in having a decent discussion with you. i think its you who make up facts like simon jones didnt bowl well in the first innings without even watching the match and that duncan fletcher isnt a good coach because he picks players who he likes.despite winning series in SL, PAK and the WI and also coming up with a draw in the ODI series in india(the test series could easily have been completely different but enough about that) you say that england have been unsuccessful under him

 

[tooextracool]

*cough* Hmm, let's see.

To say Cairns is past his prime is fairly naive. In the last ten matches, he has averaged 42 with the bat and 29.6 with the ball, has taken two 5 wicket bags (and 4/60 against SA), made two half centuries and one century - and you may note that this century is his highest score of 158 and was against a full strength South African bowling attack.

His last five scores are as follows:

28 (40 balls)
158 (171)
69 (82)
41 (68)
And, in case you weren't watching the test, 82 off 47 balls yesterday morning against a firing English bowling attack.

Excuse me while I ask you what makes you think he is past his prime? I expect a full justification because clearly you are entirely correct with what you say and I am completely incorrect and quite possibly misled.

dont get me wrong here....cairns is IMO the best allrounder since the bothams, imrans etc. but i think its fairly clear that hes only half the bowler he used to be. he no longer has the pace to worry batsman and therefore doesnt have the edge he used to have anymore. you can bring up his bowling average over the last 10 tests but the fact is his last 10 tests extend right uptil 2000-2001.
he failed to pick up a wicket against pakistan and averaged 32 against SA with the ball.