One Cloned Player

[sportychic33]

but what I think that we can all say, is that Oram and Flintoff are both vital parts of their respective teams and that they both bring different qualities to their teams.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

even though neither of those 2 sides consisted of quality pace bowlers for most of those games?
australia and SA(until recently) are the only 2 teams that have boasted quality attacks consistently, both home and away, and inzamam has struggled against the 2.

 

[chaminda_00]

even though neither of those 2 sides consisted of quality pace bowlers for most of those games?
australia and SA(until recently) are the only 2 teams that have boasted quality attacks consistently, both home and away, and inzamam has struggled against the 2.

Well Darren Gough and Chaminda Vaas are quality pace bowlers, regardless it is not as bad as Flintoff who struggles aganist quality Fast Bowlers (Shaun Pollock) and spin bowlers (Murali)

[EDIT] sorry just had a look he hasn't played aganist Darren Gough

 

[marc71178]

This has nothing to do with Inzamam, the stats so clearly show that Oram is the better batsman.

It all depends on what you look at.

It's a similar argument to that used with Brett Lee - there's a clear split in his career, making the 2 bowlers (Lee 1 and Lee 2) different bowlers IMO.

 

[psxpro]

Yeah but Oram's batting hasn't declined at all, infact its improving all the time.

 

[Swervy]

the initial question was, if you could clone a player, who would you have 11 of....common sense suggests that you pick a player who has performed in tests or ODI's in recent history....Considering Oram has played tests for just over 2 years, I think its fair enough to say the last 2 years is a fairly good indicator of recent form.....in that time Flintoff has outperformed Oram in both forms of the game in both batting and bowling....for me how Flintoff played in 1998 means nothing as to how he is playing now (or in the last dozen or so tests)..he was brought into a joke England side at the age of 19, really because England were desparate for the new Botham, ..the guy wasnt ready....and so are those early performances always going to be a millstone around his neck when it comes to evaluating him at the end of his career....I would suggest people who understand the game will disregard those early days, because they will know that he shouldnt have been close to international selection at that time.

 

[Link]

for a team, wicketkeeping and captaining is also an issue. thats why probally tesco and taibu are probally the only candidates that really fit the glove

 

[Neil Pickup]

Captaincy less so - bowling changes really not much of an issue!

 

[tooextracool]

Well Darren Gough and Chaminda Vaas are quality pace bowlers, regardless it is not as bad as Flintoff who struggles aganist quality Fast Bowlers (Shaun Pollock) and spin bowlers (Murali)

one quality bowler in the entire side doesnt really make that much of a difference. in vaas' case well hes so inconsistent, that he barely even counts as a quality bowler. and if flintoff struggles against pollock, then how in the blue hell did he hammer him all over the park in the series at home in 03?

[EDIT] sorry just had a look he hasn't played aganist Darren Gough

actually hes played 2 series against gough, one at home in 00 and another in england in 01.

 

[chaminda_00]

one quality bowler in the entire side doesnt really make that much of a difference. in vaas' case well hes so inconsistent, that he barely even counts as a quality bowler. and if flintoff struggles against pollock, then how in the blue hell did he hammer him all over the park in the series at home in 03?

When it comes to Inzi and Flintoff, a bad series for Inzi in general is when he averages 30 to 35, whereas bad series for Flintoff have been 20 to 30, that why their in different leagues.

On Pollock v Flintoff, Pollock has got him out the most in Test Cricket, 7, that clearly shows he struggles aganist him.

On the home series in 2003, one look at the stats shows that the pitches were quite flat. 4 batsmen from each side averaged over 50 and only two bowlers that averaged under 25, on of which was James Kirtley who only played two games, the other being Pollock. Also only 4 other bowlers averaged under 30 (i didn't include Rudulph as he is not a bowler), two for those guys that averaged under 30 only played 1 or 2 games, Kabir Ali and Bicknell.

 

[psxpro]

the initial question was, if you could clone a player, who would you have 11 of....common sense suggests that you pick a player who has performed in tests or ODI's in recent history....Considering Oram has played tests for just over 2 years, I think its fair enough to say the last 2 years is a fairly good indicator of recent form.....in that time Flintoff has outperformed Oram in both forms of the game in both batting and bowling....for me how Flintoff played in 1998 means nothing as to how he is playing now (or in the last dozen or so tests)..he was brought into a joke England side at the age of 19, really because England were desparate for the new Botham, ..the guy wasnt ready....and so are those early performances always going to be a millstone around his neck when it comes to evaluating him at the end of his career....I would suggest people who understand the game will disregard those early days, because they will know that he shouldnt have been close to international selection at that time.

If you were to pick a TEST team cloned to play Aus I'd still pick Oram over Flintoff, He has proved he can bat well vs Aus where as flintoff hasn't even played them yet, I have a feeling that he will struggle against the real good bowlers.

Flitntoff hasn't outplayed oram at all.

 

[Swervy]

If you were to pick a TEST team cloned to play Aus I'd still pick Oram over Flintoff, He has proved he can bat well vs Aus where as flintoff hasn't even played them yet, I have a feeling that he will struggle against the real good bowlers.

Flitntoff hasn't outplayed oram at all.

so in effect you are basing that on 1 innings by Oram, whereas the numerous innings Flintoff has played with the bat that have had major influences on games arent considered....and then we go onto the bowling side of things, an issue you seem to conveniently avoid

 

[Neil Pickup]

When it comes to Inzi and Flintoff, a bad series for Inzi in general is when he averages 30 to 35, whereas bad series for Flintoff have been 20 to 30, that why their in different leagues.

On Pollock v Flintoff, Pollock has got him out the most in Test Cricket, 7, that clearly shows he struggles aganist him.

On the home series in 2003, one look at the stats shows that the pitches were quite flat. 4 batsmen from each side averaged over 50 and only two bowlers that averaged under 25, on of which was James Kirtley who only played two games, the other being Pollock. Also only 4 other bowlers averaged under 30 (i didn't include Rudulph as he is not a bowler), two for those guys that averaged under 30 only played 1 or 2 games, Kabir Ali and Bicknell.

Flintoff has played sixteen Tests against SA out of 45.

You would expect a South African to have more dismissals against him...

 

[tooextracool]

When it comes to Inzi and Flintoff, a bad series for Inzi in general is when he averages 30 to 35, whereas bad series for Flintoff have been 20 to 30, that why their in different leagues.

clearly, what a difference that makes. both players fail against good bowling attacks, yet because one fails marginally more than the other hes in a different league

On Pollock v Flintoff, Pollock has got him out the most in Test Cricket, 7, that clearly shows he struggles aganist him. .

err no, pollock has got him out more times than anyone else simply because flintoff has played more tests against SA than any other side. flintoff has played more than 15 tests against SA, so those 7 dismissals equate to not even once every 2 games.

On the home series in 2003, one look at the stats shows that the pitches were quite flat. 4 batsmen from each side averaged over 50 and only two bowlers that averaged under 25, on of which was James Kirtley who only played two games, the other being Pollock. Also only 4 other bowlers averaged under 30 (i didn't include Rudulph as he is not a bowler), two for those guys that averaged under 30 only played 1 or 2 games, Kabir Ali and Bicknell.

and if you look at the recent SA-eng series - only 2 bowlers averaged under 25, one of them was just 0.04 under 25 too. you can go ahead and say whatever you want, but if you're going to use flat pitches against flintoff, then theres no way that you can claim that his failures in the recent series were anything due to seamer friendly wickets.

 

[chaminda_00]

and if you look at the recent SA-eng series - only 2 bowlers averaged under 25, one of them was just 0.04 under 25 too. you can go ahead and say whatever you want, but if you're going to use flat pitches against flintoff, then theres no way that you can claim that his failures in the recent series were anything due to seamer friendly wickets.

I never said he was a flat pitch his just inconsisent and that would be the main reason why he failed in the recent series not seamer friendly conditions. Also isn't South Africa the first side he played again since he played well, ie at Test Standard. I think you will find that the South African worked what they were doing wrong when bowling to him in the 2003 away series and bowled better too him, this time around.

 

[tooextracool]

I never said he was a flat pitch his just inconsisent and that would be the main reason why he failed in the recent series not seamer friendly conditions. Also isn't South Africa the first side he played again since he played well, ie at Test Standard. I think you will find that the South African worked what they were doing wrong when bowling to him in the 2003 away series and bowled better too him, this time around.

no if you watched the series you'd see that SA didnt work him out at all. certainly most of flintoffs dismisalls had to do with brainless batting rather than any brilliant bowling, and that certainly is not something that can be exploited by the bowlers.

 

[chaminda_00]

no if you watched the series you'd see that SA didnt work him out at all. certainly most of flintoffs dismisalls had to do with brainless batting rather than any brilliant bowling, and that certainly is not something that can be exploited by the bowlers.

Brainless batting that says it all !!!

 

[marc71178]

Brainless batting that says it all !!!

Yes, it makes a mockery of what you said about the bowlers.

 

[psxpro]

so in effect you are basing that on 1 innings by Oram, whereas the numerous innings Flintoff has played with the bat that have had major influences on games arent considered....and then we go onto the bowling side of things, an issue you seem to conveniently avoid

Oram has batted well vs pretty much every team he has played.
If you take out oram's bowling average vs Aus he averages better than flintoff, which is fair since flintoff hasn't played aussies yet.

So Oram is clearly better.

 

[marc71178]

By that token how come you don't take out the figures against Bangladesh (as Flintoff hasn't played them) and also the figures against India (as Flintoff has never had the chance to bowl on the wickets produced for that series)?