***Official*** South Africa in England

[GIMH]

Yeah, look in ODIs they are almost certainly the best two all-rounders. Happy that we have Flintoff though tttt

 

[Woodster]

Very disappointed that OT is not seeing a Test for a while, never mind not being the chance to stage an Ashes Test next year. Think I know where the England players and the majority of cricket fans would like the Ashes to be kicking off next year. Probably only Australia happy with the change.

 

[GIMH]

Exactly. Though the unknown quantities of Cardiff will surely work in our favour more than theirs.

My Lancs bias and desire to see a match in Manchester for personal reasons aside, Nottingham is also a glaring omission. The ball would surely have swung there, with Anderson/Sidebottom in the side it would have benefitted us much more than them, not to mention their bad memories of 05. Oh well. Let's play two Tests at Lord's Six draws in a row and counting, last time to win a Test there....yes, ye crims.

 

[Woodster]

The aussies will have bad memories of Cardiff, following their defeat to Bangladesh there, although they have played more ODI's at Cardiff than England has.

 

[pup11]

The aussies will have bad memories of Cardiff, following their defeat to Bangladesh there, although they have played more ODI's at Cardiff than England has.

Nah... the only Aussie that might have bad memories from Cardiff might be Symonds, rest of them would have got over that defeat, me thinks.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, look in ODIs they are almost certainly the best two all-rounders. Happy that we have Flintoff though tttt

*Points at the commentary box where Shaun Pollock used to be*

Like the SA ODI team, i am still yet to get over his retirement...


But seriously, Fisherman Symonds is the best ODI all-rounder when you take fielding into consideration. Well, definitely better than Oram. Debateably better than Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

No way for mine is Symonds an all-rounder, never mind a better one than Flintoff and Oram.

Symonds is really not that good a bowler, even when he bowls seam-up.

He's a better fielder, and sure he's a more valuable ODI cricketer than either, but there's no way he's a better all-rounder (ie, someone roughly equal in batting and bowling skills).

 

[Richard]

My Lancs bias and desire to see a match in Manchester for personal reasons aside, Nottingham is also a glaring omission. The ball would surely have swung there, with Anderson/Sidebottom in the side it would have benefitted us much more than them, not to mention their bad memories of 05. Oh well. Let's play two Tests at Lord's Six draws in a row and counting, last time to win a Test there....yes, ye crims.

Regardless of the fact we've won 1 Test against Aus there since 1899 or whenever it is, no-one is ever going to seriously suggest not playing an Ashes Test there. If they do they need to have their loyalties questioned. You can't put it down to much more than coincidence - and the fact that in recent years we've not won that many Tests against them anywhere.

Similarly, I think the "they've bad memories from there" is overrated. You can say someone has bad memories of having lost any game anywhere - apart from the fact most professional cricketers aren't going to be worried by that, there's going to be not-a-few players who weren't even involved in such defeats (be it to Bangladesh or in a Test) in the next series. I really don't think the "they'll have bad memories" should be given the slightest of consideration in handing-out the Tests - the only thing that should matter is the quality of the facitilies and capacity at the ground.

And as I've said before - Lord's' lack of results would be very different if lost play could be made-up. It's probable to certain that the last 5 before the most recent one against SA would've had results had a full 450 overs been played. And who knows - with better weather to prepare the wicket for the most recent game, maybe there'd have been a result there too.

 

[Uppercut]

No way for mine is Symonds an all-rounder, never mind a better one than Flintoff and Oram.

Symonds is really not that good a bowler, even when he bowls seam-up.

He's a better fielder, and sure he's a more valuable ODI cricketer than either, but there's no way he's a better all-rounder (ie, someone roughly equal in batting and bowling skills).

That concept will make comparing all-rounders very awkward indeed.

 

[Richard]

I just think the term "all-rounder" is bandied-about far too much - often in order to try and compare players who have little in common.

For me, there's few people like Flintoff and Oram (or to go back a few years, the old Kallis and Cairns) around and to compare many people to them is pointless. Similarly to compare Hadlee to Imran Khan, Kapil Dev or Botham was pointless, because he just wasn't the same as any of them.

 

[Flem274*]

Symonds is a bat who can bowl a bit, like Nathan Astle or Scott Styris. Watson is the genuine allrounder in Australia.

 

[Briony]

Cardiff should be banished from the international calendar. What a dank show it put on and it's meant to be summer.

What a disgrace it is getting an Ashes test. Must have been some powerful lobbying taking place on their behalf.

Good win to England in the ODIS - absolutely pathetic from SA who must go back to the drawing board in this form of the game.

Looks like they're trying to poach Ryan McLaren from Kent but I don't know if he is the panacea for them.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, but calling him a batsman doesn't really do justice to his value to the team, taking his superhuman fielding and two modes of bowling into account. As a batsman alone, he isn't worth as much as Oram or Freddie in ODIs but when you consider the whole picture he is. So while i agree about "all-rounder" being overused, in this case it was somewhat necessary.

 

[Richard]

I just think you should use the term "all-round cricketer" rather than "all-rounder" as this takes fielding too into consideration. All-rounders, to me, is purely about batting and bowling. And in these stakes, Symonds doesn't even qualify, never mind compete with Flintoff and Oram.

 

[Richard]

Looks like they're trying to poach Ryan McLaren from Kent but I don't know if he is the panacea for them.

It'd be far more accurate to say that Kent poached McLaren from whichever SAfrican franchise he was playing for last year. They were only able to do that because of a ruling which has now been regarded as errant.

If McLaren goes back to SA he'll be going back where he belongs.

 

[Uppercut]

I just think you should use the term "all-round cricketer" rather than "all-rounder" as this takes fielding too into consideration. All-rounders, to me, is purely about batting and bowling. And in these stakes, Symonds doesn't even qualify, never mind compete with Flintoff and Oram.

Technicality.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah, but calling him a batsman doesn't really do justice to his value to the team, taking his superhuman fielding and two modes of bowling into account. As a batsman alone, he isn't worth as much as Oram or Freddie in ODIs but when you consider the whole picture he is. So while i agree about "all-rounder" being overused, in this case it was somewhat necessary.

Depends how we define allrounder I suppose. I've always seen it as somebody who is an international class bowler and batsman and bowls in the frontline 4 or 5. Symonds is the best fielder in the world, though Oram is quite the gully (no idea wrt Flintoff, GIMH will asure me of his fielding prowess no doubt ).

In short, Symonds is too wierd a player to fit in any category so he's excluded.

Kidding (slightly), good player but his category sorts fits inbetween allrounder and batsman who bowls a bit.

 

[Richard]

Technicality.

Well, I'm not terribly sure it is TBH. It's a bit like saying the difference between a granny-smith and a cox is a technicality.

 

[Richard]

Depends how we define allrounder I suppose. I've always seen it as somebody who is an international class bowler and batsman and bowls in the frontline 4 or 5. Symonds is the best fielder in the world, though Oram is quite the gully (no idea wrt Flintoff, GIMH will asure me of his fielding prowess no doubt ).

Flintoff is one of the best slippers you're likely to see.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, I'm not terribly sure it is TBH. It's a bit like saying the difference between a granny-smith and a cox is a technicality.

Huh? I don't follow.

I believe all-rounder is just an abbreviation of all-round cricketer. Saying that its meaning has now evolved to mean only batting and bowling is a technicality, and it's one for the linguists to debate. Not me.