***Official*** South Africa in England

[tooextracool]

It was all a very long time ago i suppose.

I'll put it another way. Flintoff hasn't bowled in a very long time, and i'm not entirely sure of whether he'll ever reach the standard he was at. Jones has done a lot more to prove that he's still a quality bowler, and while he played for England, he was at Flintoff's level- if over a much shorter period of time.

It's a bit like if i were to say Dale Steyn is a better test bowler than Shaun Pollock. Probably true at the moment, but not at all true in the terms you're thinking of.

I agree with both Liam and your points, but i think both of you are arguing 2 different things. Simon Jones, potentially, could and should have been (and still might be) a significantly better bowler than Flintoff. Flintoff, despite what many think, is not that good. Yes hes one of the better bowlers going around but hes nowhere near a great bowler. He swings the ball occasionally, both conventional and reverse, but doesnt do so consistently and doesnt swing the ball generously. He bowls fast but doesnt bowl express. Thats the thing about Flintoff, he provides a little bit of everything. He'll bowl his heart out, break important partnerships bowl some great deliveries occasionally but he'll still never be the Simon Jones circa Ashes 2005. He'll take 3fers and 4fers without conceding too many but hes not going to run through sides. Which is why he has 2 5fers in tests and 3 in all of FC cricket. Jones on the other hand has 3 5fers in 18 tests and 14 5fers in FC cricket. And he hasnt even played very much. If i want someone to bowl his heart out on a flat wicket, I'll throw the ball to Freddie. But if i want someone to run through a side, I'll throw it to Simon.

 

[aussie]

Firstly, your idea of what constitutes a good bowling attack is biased and based around his failures. For example, the Indian bowling attack from 2002 was an absolute joke. Kumble and Harbhajan bowled poorly as they almost always do away from home and Zaheer, Nehra and Agarkar at the time are better left without mentioning a word. Certainly that attack posed less of a threat and certainly did not come anywhere near close to the quality of bowling that was often on display by Collins, Collymore and occasionally Fidel Edwards from 2004. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Flintoff's batting only came off age in the summer of 2003 on his next return to the side in the series against Australia.
In the period from the summer of 2003 to 2007:

-scored against SA, as good a bowling attack going around at the time after Australia
failed in SL, due solely to his inability to play spin.
-failed against the WI against a not so good attack
-scored against NZ against arguably the worst attack of the lot
-scored against WI against what was actually a pretty decent attack, or at least an attack that performed above expectations
-failed against SA against a good attack
-scored against a good Australian attack
-failed against a good pakistan attack
-scored against a good attack in India
-failed against an ordinary SL attack. Although to be fair he only had 3 innings.
-failed in the Ashes

In a period of 10 test series, he succeeded against 5 attacks, 4 of which were perfectly acceptable to great. This is no worse than a lot of regular test batsmen going around these days.

For example, lets take a look at Graeme Smiths record:

Failed against Australia
Failed against SL
Scored against a piss-poor Pakistan attack
scored against a poor England attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
scored against a poor WI attack
scored against a poor Kiwi attack
scored against a good SL attack
did ok against a good India attack
failed against a good England attack
scored against a poor Wi attack
failed * 2 against Australia
did ok against a poor NZ attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
did ok against a good India attack
scored against a poor pakistan attack(at least on those pitches)
failed against a decent NZ attack
scored against a good India attack

Thats 4 good series out of 12 and not much better than Flintoff Im afraid. Yet you happen to champion this man.

I'm glad you said this, Smith clearly has a lot to prove as a batsman againts top bowling attacks.

 

[aussie]

Actually, Anderson as part of a 5 man bowling attack would be something I would think he was born for. A 5 man bowling attack would essentially mask his inconsistencies and make him less of a liability to the side in that case. We saw how Hoggard and Harmison reaped the benefits from the 5-man bowling attack and bowled far less when the conditions didnt suit them in the Ashes. Similarly, if Anderson did the same it could be beneficial as we all know how great he can be on his day. Ideally, yes you'd want 4 bowlers that could bowl sides out in any conditions, but the flexibility of a 5-man bowling attack allows you this luxury of having bowlers for different seasons even if it weakens the batting a little bit. Furthermore, it might be the only way to accomodate both Jones and Flintoff in the same side as I cannot see the 2 of them being part of a 4 man bowling attack in the near future.

Although it pains me to admit you are probably right about Jones/Flintoff not being able to be fit enough to bowl in a 5-man attack in the near future.

But if thats the case i reckon one would need Flintoff batting to really step up & maybe recall Prior if his keeping has really improved as Alec Stewart claims.

 

[wpdavid]

Although it pains me to admit you are probably right about Jones/Flintoff not being able to be fit enough to bowl in a 5-man attack in the near future.

But if thats the case i reckon one would need Flintoff batting to really step up & maybe recall Prior if his keeping has really improved as Alec Stewart claims.

Do you have a link for the Stewart quote?

 

[aussie]

I actually heard him say it on the radio while on the road on the last day of the test.

 

[wpdavid]

I actually heard him say it on the radio while on the road on the last day of the test.

Fair enough. I woudn't bet against him being England's keeper in India this winter.

EDIT
Prior that is, not Stewart

 

[Zinzan]

Firstly, your idea of what constitutes a good bowling attack is biased and based around his failures. For example, the Indian bowling attack from 2002 was an absolute joke. Kumble and Harbhajan bowled poorly as they almost always do away from home and Zaheer, Nehra and Agarkar at the time are better left without mentioning a word. Certainly that attack posed less of a threat and certainly did not come anywhere near close to the quality of bowling that was often on display by Collins, Collymore and occasionally Fidel Edwards from 2004. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Flintoff's batting only came off age in the summer of 2003 on his next return to the side in the series against Australia.
In the period from the summer of 2003 to 2007:

-scored against SA, as good a bowling attack going around at the time after Australia
failed in SL, due solely to his inability to play spin.
-failed against the WI against a not so good attack
-scored against NZ against arguably the worst attack of the lot
-scored against WI against what was actually a pretty decent attack, or at least an attack that performed above expectations
-failed against SA against a good attack
-scored against a good Australian attack
-failed against a good pakistan attack
-scored against a good attack in India
-failed against an ordinary SL attack. Although to be fair he only had 3 innings.
-failed in the Ashes

In a period of 10 test series, he succeeded against 5 attacks, 4 of which were perfectly acceptable to great. This is no worse than a lot of regular test batsmen going around these days.

For example, lets take a look at Graeme Smiths record:

Failed against Australia
Failed against SL
Scored against a piss-poor Pakistan attack
scored against a poor England attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
scored against a poor WI attack
scored against a poor Kiwi attack
scored against a good SL attack
did ok against a good India attack
failed against a good England attack
scored against a poor Wi attack
failed * 2 against Australia
did ok against a poor NZ attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
did ok against a good India attack
scored against a poor pakistan attack(at least on those pitches)
failed against a decent NZ attack
scored against a good India attack

Thats 4 good series out of 12 and not much better than Flintoff Im afraid. Yet you happen to champion this man.

Point very well made. Everyone knows Richard has a habit of excluding and manipulating stats to suit his argument but of course only when it suits him. Be interesting what kind of warped logic he comes up with in defense of Smith in this instance.

 

[Richard]

Point very well made. Everyone knows Richard has a habit of excluding and manipulating stats to suit his argument but of course only when it suits him. Be interesting what kind of warped logic he comes up with in defense of Smith in this instance.

Bull****, on so many counts.

Firstly, your idea of what constitutes a good bowling attack is biased and based around his failures. For example, the Indian bowling attack from 2002 was an absolute joke. Kumble and Harbhajan bowled poorly as they almost always do away from home and Zaheer, Nehra and Agarkar at the time are better left without mentioning a word. Certainly that attack posed less of a threat and certainly did not come anywhere near close to the quality of bowling that was often on display by Collins, Collymore and occasionally Fidel Edwards from 2004. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Flintoff's batting only came off age in the summer of 2003 on his next return to the side in the series against Australia.
In the period from the summer of 2003 to 2007:

-scored against SA, as good a bowling attack going around at the time after Australia
failed in SL, due solely to his inability to play spin.
-failed against the WI against a not so good attack
-scored against NZ against arguably the worst attack of the lot
-scored against WI against what was actually a pretty decent attack, or at least an attack that performed above expectations
-failed against SA against a good attack
-scored against a good Australian attack
-failed against a good pakistan attack
-scored against a good attack in India
-failed against an ordinary SL attack. Although to be fair he only had 3 innings.
-failed in the Ashes

In a period of 10 test series, he succeeded against 5 attacks, 4 of which were perfectly acceptable to great. This is no worse than a lot of regular test batsmen going around these days.

For example, lets take a look at Graeme Smiths record:

Failed against Australia
Failed against SL
Scored against a piss-poor Pakistan attack
scored against a poor England attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
scored against a poor WI attack
scored against a poor Kiwi attack
scored against a good SL attack
did ok against a good India attack
failed against a good England attack
scored against a poor Wi attack
failed * 2 against Australia
did ok against a poor NZ attack
failed against a good pakistan attack
did ok against a good India attack
scored against a poor pakistan attack(at least on those pitches)
failed against a decent NZ attack
scored against a good India attack

Thats 4 good series out of 12 and not much better than Flintoff Im afraid. Yet you happen to champion this man.

I really don't see what Smith has to do with anything. Because he has failed, this affects Flintoff's failures how?

 

[Richard]

I know you're talking about his batting, but assuming he's fit (big assumption) - he's England's best bowler by miles, yeah? Play him as a bowler, bat him at 7 and treat him as a lower-middle order contributor. To win the series, you'll have to bowl SA out twice, probably in more than one test. Surely he enhances your chances of doing that? in the context of the series, don't look at him as a top 6 player. Anway, that's my tuppence worth.

There was precisely nothing in that post suggesting he shouldn't be picked now. I was simply trying to offer an assessment of his batting.

 

[Richard]

The NZ series at home was the first time Collingwood has averaged under 30 in a test series since Sri Lanka 2006. He was England's best batsman in New Zealand before that series as well (consistency>>>one off centuries after a poor series).

He's not completely out of touch. I know you can't equate ODI form to tests but he didn't do horribly/badly against NZ in the ODI series and it suggests he is in some batting form (more than Flintoff or Fulton at least).

I'd give him the remaining 2 tests grace before deciding upon his test future. He's been more than a fine servant in the English middle order for sometime when the rest of the line up has gone AWOL, and certainly others somewhat getting a free ride (Bell, Strauss - even Vaughan and Pietersen).

Meh, you know me and Collingwood - I don't rate him because the reason his average is so high is that his good performances are exceptional but very rare. In most of his Tests Collingwood has scored little.

For that reason, a very poor run like this needs be shorter than for some for me to consider it terminal. And let's not forget, this is seriously bad. This is Graeme Hick 1996 stuff.

 

[Richard]

I've always thought he looked out of place down the order. Should have been opening years ago.

He actually did open years ago. And failed dimsally. Then he got put in his natural position in the middle-order and did well.

Unfortunately in 2003/04 he failed and lost his place. For a long time.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with both Liam and your points, but i think both of you are arguing 2 different things. Simon Jones, potentially, could and should have been (and still might be) a significantly better bowler than Flintoff. Flintoff, despite what many think, is not that good. Yes hes one of the better bowlers going around but hes nowhere near a great bowler. He swings the ball occasionally, both conventional and reverse, but doesnt do so consistently and doesnt swing the ball generously. He bowls fast but doesnt bowl express. Thats the thing about Flintoff, he provides a little bit of everything. He'll bowl his heart out, break important partnerships bowl some great deliveries occasionally but he'll still never be the Simon Jones circa Ashes 2005. He'll take 3fers and 4fers without conceding too many but hes not going to run through sides. Which is why he has 2 5fers in tests and 3 in all of FC cricket. Jones on the other hand has 3 5fers in 18 tests and 14 5fers in FC cricket. And he hasnt even played very much. If i want someone to bowl his heart out on a flat wicket, I'll throw the ball to Freddie. But if i want someone to run through a side, I'll throw it to Simon.

Hmm, interesting about the 5fers, didn't know that. In a way it's another reason why it's not desirable, if it is avoidable, to have Flintoff as one of a four-man attack.

Over his career, Flintoff will be looked upon as the better bowler, but as for who would have the most success were they recalled to the team right now, i'd certainly have my money on Jones.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I know it was only against Bangladesh, but Jones was bowling jaffas ball in and ball out at Lords. The signs were there before that Ashes series that he was going to be a huge threat.

I consider him a fine bowler, but he has not done enough to be called better than Flintoff. Not nearly enough.

 

[Jono]

Fair enough. I woudn't bet against him being England's keeper in India this winter.

EDIT
Prior that is, not Stewart

The fact that you had to edit your post to make sure we didn't think you meant Stewart probably sums up England's wicket keeping problem over the last 4 years.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The fact that you had to edit your post to make sure we didn't think you meant Stewart probably sums up England's wicket keeping problem over the last 4 years.

So true! To think some people actually wanted Stewart to retire earlier!

 

[jammay123]

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvrsa/content/current/story/361436.html
yay. somebody is trying to put test cricket first

 

[SpaceMonkey]

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvrsa/content/current/story/361436.html
yay. somebody is trying to put test cricket first

Best news for a long while!

 

[GIMH]

Yes!

 

[Jono]

That's so good.

 

[GIMH]

Would be good to see it happen with more series though, wouldn't it?