One Cloned Player

[Neil Pickup]

Because he bats too low. He is the type of batsman, while he can be destructive, he needs time to play himself in, he usually comes in too late, whenver he has batted earlier or come in when there is time he has done better in odi's.

His bowling in odi's is pretty good.

That's totally, totally erroneous!

At 3: 12.75
At 4: 10.50
At 5: 22.50
At 6: 11.95
At 7: 26.30
At 8: 24.16
At 9: 18.00

Do you want him opening?

 

[psxpro]

That's totally, totally erroneous!

At 3: 12.75
At 4: 10.50
At 5: 22.50
At 6: 11.95
At 7: 26.30
At 8: 24.16
At 9: 18.00

Do you want him opening?

Then maybe he is just a crap odi batsman. I think he would do fine at no 6 now as he has improved.

But I have never said Oram is a better odi batsman than flintoff but in tests cricket he has proven he is much better.

 

[age_master]

In all 3 cases you're weak in 1 or other of the forms, although it would allow Warne to extend his batting record for most runs without a ton!

you never know he may make you eat those words in a few months
















but i doubt it

 

[psxpro]

Anyway he has only batted 5 times at no5, so that stat isn't proving much at all.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Anyway he has only batted 5 times at no5, so that stat isn't proving much at all.

It doesn't prove much, but it disproves this: "whenver he has batted earlier or come in when there is time he has done better in odi's."

 

[marc71178]

But I have never said Oram is a better odi batsman than flintoff but in tests cricket he has proven he is much better.

Where is this proof?

Certainly not in any World Ratings or anything (which does measure the performances and takes into account opposition strength)

 

[psxpro]

Well the world rankings must be stupid, if stats arent important neither are world rankings. Oram has proved he is a brilliant test batsman.

 

[Zinzan]

Over whole careers maybe, but what's to say Flintoff won't continue the way he has been for the last 18 months or so?

Whats to say he is going to be as successful in the next 18 months. Especially when you consider Australia are the first cab off the ranks.

Personally I think Flintoff is a better test bowler than Oram and Oram is the better test batsmen. Quite simply really. Flintoff is clearly better at both disciplines than oram in Oneday cricket.

What I do find interesting with the arguments is that Flintoff fans are quick to only focus convienently on performances in the last 18 months when comparing him with the likes of Oram. Whereas the fact remains the Flintoff hasn't played against the best (australia) in the this time so Of course his record in the period will be better.

So when looking at the likes of Oram and even to an extent Chis Martins declining test bowling record, Its mainly that they have been mauled by Australia (and to a lesser extent England ) recently.

For me this Ashes series is the test of whether or not Flintoff is the player that his fans make him out to be. If he has a brilliant series personally even if England get hammered, I'll be the first to say that I got it wrong and he's not overated. If he has just an average or poor series, I maintain he's just a good test player - nothing more.

 

[chaminda_00]

actaully it is all I have to say..I was in a rush this morning.

The whole Flintoff vs Oram thing started because someone (a NZ'er) said that beyond all doubt Oram is better than Flintoff.

My response was that there is no way in the period of time that Oram has been playing tests has the Kiwi been close to being an allround force like Flintoff has.

oram started ok with the ball, but has badly tailed off, he has done pretty well with the bat, but not as good as Flintoff has in that time.

Oram bowling hasn't really tailed if you consider that last couple of test he has played were aganist Australia, a batting line up that Flintoff has played yet in Test. If you take out figures aganist Australia he averages 30, which not as good as Flintoff recently, but a lot better then him throughout his whole career. You can't just keep forget that he played test before 2003.

What Flintoff did in 1998 or whenever is not relevent to the debate..Flintoff recently (ie the last 2 years has been the dominant all rounder in the game..he has performed with the bat and with the ball pretty consistantly)..

Flintoff record at the start of career is relevent to some like Oram who only played 17, as his performances at that time were at the same experience level of Oram right now. If you were going to compare Pathan and Vaas, your not just going to compare the time frame of their careers when they have crossed are you. You would compare Pathan to Vaas when they were at the same experience level. Flintoff has no doubt in the last 2 years beeen consistant ball, but he hasn't really been consistant with the bat when coming up aganist top bowlers, as his record aganist South Africa with Pollock shows and Sri Lanka with Murali shows.

and then we get onto ODI's...Flintoff has played 80, Oram 70

Orams all round figures dont come close...Flintoff averages about 35, with 3 hundreds and 13 half centuries, at a strike rate of 93..with the ball Flintoff averages under 24, an ecc rate of 4.20 and a SR of 34

Oram averages with the bat 17.60, with 3 half centuries with a SR of 75..with the ball he averages 28.6, has an ecc rate of 4.43 and a strike rate of 39...and lets not forget Flintoff has almost twice as many catches as well

I just cant see where the problem is...its blatently obvious who has been the player in the last 2 years.

No doubt if Flintoff doesnt hit a hundred vs Australia this summer,we will be hearing all sorts of stuff saying Oram must be better etc

Oram

Well i would never say that Oram is better in ODIs, Flintoff is clearly the number one all rounder in world ATM when it comes to ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

Firstly by batting at 6 he wouldn't have the chance.

Secondly I don't expect England's top order to be that bad.

err what?
you dont expect the england top order to be bad enough to be in a position of 158/5 against australia?
dream on.....

 

[tooextracool]

If he has just an average or poor series, I maintain he's just a good test player - nothing more.

which is what most sane people have said he is anyways.

 

[tooextracool]

but he hasn't really been consistant with the bat when coming up aganist top bowlers, as his record aganist South Africa with Pollock shows and Sri Lanka with Murali shows.

then maybe you'd like to explain this:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2148&Series=0493

if you're going to use something against flintoff the batsman, then perhaps you should at least come up with something accurate? such as how his record gets worse when he plays away from home.

 

[chaminda_00]

then maybe you'd like to explain this:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2148&Series=0493

if you're going to use something against flintoff the batsman, then perhaps you should at least come up with something accurate? such as how his record gets worse when he plays away from home.

Let give him a clap he has one good series aganist South Africa, how about you look at his overall record aganist SA, 822 runs @ 32.9, or maybe his record in South Africa, 382 runs @ 27.3. Or maybe his records aganist Sri Lanka 185 runs @ 20.6. If you don't believe their accurate then have a look at this

 

[tooextracool]

Let give him a clap he has one good series aganist South Africa, how about you look at his overall record aganist SA, 822 runs @ 32.9, or maybe his record in South Africa, 382 runs @ 27.3.

except that that series suggests that hes more than capable of scoring runs against SA. btw inzamam averages 33 and 34 against SA and australia respectively. so i guess oram is a better batsman than inzamam.

 

[psxpro]

This has nothing to do with Inzamam, the stats so clearly show that Oram is the better batsman.
Flitntoff isn't even in the same class.

 

[chaminda_00]

except that that series suggests that hes more than capable of scoring runs against SA. btw inzamam averages 33 and 34 against SA and australia respectively. so i guess oram is a better batsman than inzamam.

Except all that shows that he isn't runs consistently aganist a side with quality bowlers. Inzi averages 50 in Test Cricket, he is in a different league to both these two when it comes to batting.

 

[tooextracool]

This has nothing to do with Inzamam,

yes it does if you read. inzamam has struggled overall against australia and SA, a similar claim was made about flintoff. hence one can assume that they are interchangeable.

the stats so clearly show that Oram is the better batsman.
Flitntoff isn't even in the same class.

thats rubbish. im extremely watchful off flintoff, i havent gone on to claim that hes a better batsman that oram, nor is there sufficient evidence that he is any worse though. to say that hes not even in the same class as oram, is complete tripe.

 

[tooextracool]

Except all that shows that he isn't runs consistently aganist a side with quality bowlers. Inzi averages 50 in Test Cricket, he is in a different league to both these two when it comes to batting.

why? just because he averages 50? so if he fails against the good attacks and scores against the poor ones, hes still in a different league to them is it? thats exactly why you claimed flintoff wasnt especially good, because he was scoring against poor bowling attacks

 

[chaminda_00]

why? just because he averages 50? so if he fails against the good attacks and scores against the poor ones, hes still in a different league to them is it? thats exactly why you claimed flintoff wasnt especially good, because he was scoring against poor bowling attacks

The difference is that he doesn't struggle aganist all quality attacks as his averages aganist Sri Lanka and England show, 63 and 48 respectively.

 

[sportychic33]

i'm a huge oram fan, but i'll try not to be too bias.

i think oram and flintoff are both different types of players especially when it comes to bowling. i don't think that you can compare the players in test bowling as flintoff is more attacking and gets more speed than oram, whereas oram sees himself as a stock bowler supporting the more attacking bowler such as bond, tuffey martin(?). I think that there batting skills in tests are quite similar, but think that at this stage oram might have a slight upperhand with his batting after consistent form before injury in the last 12 -18 months, but i think that we would be able to make a fair decision after we hae seen flintoff play australia.
In ODI'S flintoff clearly has the upperhand in the batting stakes, because of the position he bats and the way the English team plays ODI cricket, Flintoff gets more of an opportunity to come in and get 100's, as he bats higher up the order and the English openers were probably out pretty early. Whereas Oram bats between 6-8 in the One Dayers, the way NZ plays cricket is that we base it on the top 3 getting a decent score, backed up by styris and marshall (whatever the batting order is) the NZ team try to get to about he 35th over stage with about 3-5 down to let players like Oram come in and give it a whack. Oram when he has come in earlier has shown that he has the skill to get his eye in then launch from there but at the moment most of the time he is only required to have a slog at the end. At this stage Flintoff has the upper hand.
In ODI bowling, i am not that sure and am not going to look at the stats as I haven't seen Flintoff bowl as he was out in the NatWest Series, but Oram is a very effective ODI bowler a he has shown throughout his career, his economy rate is great and has the ability to frustrate the batters, use his bounce and get about 2 wickets in a game.
Fielding stakes, pretty even, they are both big guys, but you can't really compare as Flintoff fields at slip and Oram at gully or on the boundary. So if you are doing it on a purely stastical basis, it is a bit onesided as Flintoof at slip will get more chances than Oram in gully or on the boundary.