Pick your 30!

[Pratters]

All he says is that Flintoff is a regular bowler.

Surely that can't be argued, with about 25-30 overs every match?

No he says No 3 bowler above Jones earlier. Which is why I asked.

 

[superkingdave]

well since the end of the SA series in 2003 he's averaged 25.07 with the ball, would be interesting to see which bowlers have matched or better that in the period

 

[a massive zebra]

No he says No 3 bowler above Jones earlier. Which is why I asked.

I would guess he has bowled more overs than Jones in matches where they both played together.

 

[Pratters]

I tried out statsguru

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

Yeah Flintoff was basically crap in South Africa's tour of England in 2003 but after that he has been pretty good, outclassing Jones.

Righto Marc.

 

[marc71178]

I would like you to explain/elucidate and make clear why Flintoff is regarded so highly as a bowler.

Oh, I don't know, probably something to do with the way he consistently picks up wickets (as indicated by his average over the past couple of seasons of about 25)?

Maybe it's something to do with his 2004 figures of 43 @ 25.76 followed by 2005 to date of 15 @ 23.40?

I assume from the question that you are suggesting he shouldn't be so highly rated, can I ask why?

 

[Pratters]

Well did you not read the above post before replying. I agreed with your claim after raising doubt.

So I take all your points in without your sarcastic question marks in the end

 

[tooextracool]

Strauss/Trescothick - Im leaning towards strauss here, opening with both Tres and

i cant believe you are actually considering trescothick, let alone that you are in a dilemma between strauss and tresco.

 

[tooextracool]

So Flintoff is a better bowler than Murali, Vaas, Ntini, Kumble & Kaneria?

given that only 2 of those bowlers are applicable, one that averages 30 and is the most inconsistent bowler around and another that averages nearly 40 away from home and nearly 50 against australia, gee i wonder who id pick.

 

[tooextracool]

Especially with just one five wicket haul in 45 matches.

and why is taking 4 wickets so much worse than taking 5?
ok so flintoff isnt a strike bowler, nor will he play in the world XI side as one, but it doesnt mean that he isnt a good bowler. and id rather have someone who takes 3-4 wickets a game consistently over someone who takes the 5-6 wickets once in a blue moon.

 

[dinu23]

and why is taking 4 wickets so much worse than taking 5?
ok so flintoff isnt a strike bowler, nor will he play in the world XI side as one, but it doesnt mean that he isnt a good bowler. and id rather have someone who takes 3-4 wickets a game consistently over someone who takes the 5-6 wickets once in a blue moon.

precisely. I'd have Flintoff not only in the OD team but also in the test team. he may not be a great, but he's a player u can count on.

 

[chaminda_00]

and why is taking 4 wickets so much worse than taking 5?
ok so flintoff isnt a strike bowler, nor will he play in the world XI side as one, but it doesnt mean that he isnt a good bowler. and id rather have someone who takes 3-4 wickets a game consistently over someone who takes the 5-6 wickets once in a blue moon.

Maybe it got something to do with the fact that he doesn't regular take 3 or 4 wickets. In the last two years his had 35 innings where his taken less the 3 wickets and only 9 where his taken more then 3. He doesn't consistently take 3-4 wickets a game, he consistently takes less.

The reason he has a lower average then Vaas and Ntinti is that on the regular days that he can't take a wicket, England have the luxury of being able to hide him under the other four bowlers, which South Africa and Sri Lanka don't have. If he bowled as many over as Ntini and Vaas then his average would be as high and you would see that he is even more inconsistent then both of them.

He would make the World XI side as a fifth bowler not a the top four, as you can't afford to have a guy that regular only takes 1 or 2 wickets a innings, if that, if want to bowl out Australia twice on what likely to be a very flat pitch.

 

[bradman2005]

Maybe it got something to do with the fact that he doesn't regular take 3 or 4 wickets. In the last two years his had 35 innings where his taken less the 3 wickets and only 9 where his taken more then 3. He doesn't consistently take 3-4 wickets a game, he consistently takes less.

The reason he has a lower average then Vaas and Ntinti is that on the regular days that he can't take a wicket, England have the luxury of being able to hide him under the other four bowlers, which South Africa and Sri Lanka don't have. If he bowled as many over as Ntini and Vaas then his average would be as high and you would see that he is even more inconsistent then both of them.

He would make the World XI side as a fifth bowler not a the top four, as you can't afford to have a guy that regular only takes 1 or 2 wickets a innings, if that, if want to bowl out Australia twice on what likely to be a very flat pitch.

spot on,well said

 

[howardj]

Picking it on reputation then, rather than performances.

Mate, you are way off the mark. You honestly have no clue if you are so adamant that Tendulkar should not be picked. With selections - as anyone knows - it's a combination of factors: experience, reputation, career record, current form, opposition, team balance etc. Yes, current form is a consideration, but it's only one element.

Besides, you say Tendulkar is out of form like it's some indisputable fact. One can only look at his most recent series against Pakistan, where he averaged 51. Furthermore, in his last 16 Tests, he averages more than 60. Granted, he's not in peak form but, as these figures demonstrate, he's hardly struggling to 'get it off the square'.

Furthermore, even if he was not in form, what did he do to Australia, in Sydney, the last time he was supposedly out of form? He came out and grafted an unvanquished double-century. That's what champions - who average nearly 60 - do. The SuperTest is in Sydney, and against Australia. He will, and thoroughly deserves to, play.

 

[chaminda_00]

. Furthermore, in his last 16 Tests, he averages more than 60. Granted, he's not in peak form but, as these figures demonstrate, he's hardly struggling to 'get it off the square'.

Well in the last 16 games he averages 45, unless your including Bangladesh matches, but 45 isn't that bad when you consider his over career record or his record aganist Australia compared to others.

 

[nookie_lk]

Whatever said....Cricket is entertainment....and this match is definitely played to pull crowds...So even if tendulkar is in form or not...he should play this match !!!

 

[howardj]

Well in the last 16 games he averages 45, unless your including Bangladesh matches.

Why shouldn't one include the Bangladesh matches? Everyone else gets the chance to play against them also. You can't just take matches in and out of records - the series was sanctioned by the ICC, so it should be included. More broadly though, my point is that, granted, Tendulkar has not been in sparkling form. But geez, one is setting the benchmark pretty high, to say that he shouldn't be included, just on the basis of current form- which, as I've outlined, is not all that bad anyway.

 

[chaminda_00]

Why shouldn't one include the Bangladesh matches? Everyone else gets the chance to play against them also. You can't just take matches in and out of records - the series was sanctioned by the ICC, so it should be included. More broadly though, my point is that, granted, Tendulkar has not been in sparkling form. But geez, one is setting the benchmark pretty high, to say that he shouldn't be included, just on the basis of current form- which, as I've outlined, is not all that bad anyway.

I agree with you on the Tendulkar issue, but on the Bangladesh issue. Scoring runs aganist Bangladesh doesn't show how good runs your in at the highest level. Scoring runs aganist them is like scoring runs aganist a bad FC team or a very good Grade/Club team. Would you rate highly someone that score runs aganist Sydney Uni or a Lancashire League side.

 

[JASON]

7 players from RSA..... When exactly did they become a great side? I don't remember too many of their guys performing well against Australia too much.

Agree with you, 7 South africans in the side is totally unjustified, when you consider the likes of Chris Cairns and Stephen Fleming (temporary drop in form) have missed out !!

I fear that in view of the large number selected from SA - more of their players will make it into the Test and ODI teams, despite their Team's recent form in last 2 years being absolute rubbish !!

I have no problem with Kallis, Pollock getting into both Teams. But I cannot justify the other selections including Hershelle Gibbs and Graeme Smith, considering the form of players of the calibre of Sehwag , Strauss and Vaughan.

I fear some of the players who should make the Team automatically will drop out through injury and some of the nondeservers will end up playing !!

For Instance I cannot see how AB De Villiers even made it into this selection , when quality players like Fleming and Cairns are punished for lack of recent form !! These guys have played several hundred ODIs and scored runs !! What the heck !!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ntini, Pollock, Kallis and Smith are all obviously justified selections. Gibbs and De Villiers are a bit more questionable I think, but De Villiers did score a century against England. Boucher was a poor pick.

 

[howardj]

I agree with you on the Tendulkar issue, but on the Bangladesh issue. Scoring runs aganist Bangladesh doesn't show how good runs your in at the highest level. Scoring runs aganist them is like scoring runs aganist a bad FC team or a very good Grade/Club team. Would you rate highly someone that score runs aganist Sydney Uni or a Lancashire League side.

Of course, in isolation, you would not rate someone highly just because they have scored runs against Bangladesh. Where exactly did I say that? I merely said that when calculating averages, it is intellectually dishonest not to include all Test playing nations.