Pick your 30!

[tooextracool]

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.

and how many players take 3-4+ wickets every game then?
fact is that hes maintained an excellent average over quite a period of time. hence hes bowled well.

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.

thats absolute rubbish, is that why he bowled 97 overs in SL? 102 in WI, 104 against NZ and 201 in SA? compare it to the rest of the england attack, and you'll find that hes bowled just as much as they have.

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.

and since when was he being picked as a top 4? he was picked to bat at 6 and be the third seamer. and hes certainly a better bowler than both vaas and ntini.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

how is boucher a poor pick? hes easily the 2nd best choice behind sangakkara.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sure there have been cases in the past where guys have got solely on their captaincy.

there have been very rare cases, mostly restricted to poor sides who wouldnt have been too much poorer had they possessed another poor player yet brillaint captain in it. yes so brearly made it into a decent england side, but how long are people going to keep pulling that example given that it almost never happens? and no matter how good brearly was as a captain even he wouldnt make a world XI solely based on captaincy.

And Mr Cool, please don't go about stating the obvious to me pal, I'm fully aware of these things and yes shock horror to you I do watch cricket. But hey in your eyes I don't know anything, isn't that right?

hardly, i actually think you know far more about cricket than some of the pretentious wise people that go around here thinking that they know so much, when in reality they couldnt tell if someone was a good player even if it hit them in the face.and i think thats fairly evident from some of your posts.

 

[tooextracool]

An annual event? Is that true? I thought I was going to be every 2 or 4 years.

looks like they plan to do it frequently enough, so that it loses sheen and bores the hell out of people eventually....much like the india-pakistan series'.

 

[Mister Wright]

looks like they plan to do it frequently enough, so that it loses sheen and bores the hell out of people eventually....much like the india-pakistan series'.

I think the reasoning behind the regular featuring of it is because Australian crowds are starting to crave competitive cricket. If this SUPER test match is over in 2 1/2 days I don't think the idea will last much longer.

 

[chaminda_00]

and how many players take 3-4+ wickets every game then?
fact is that hes maintained an excellent average over quite a period of time. hence hes bowled well.

Did i ever said that there was bowlers who take 3-4+ wickets a game, all i said that was that he takes 3 plus every blue moon. 9 times in 44 innings is averages in anyone books and clearly shows he isn't a major wicket takers at all. Well his only maintained a good average for a short 18 month period of his career, if you take it back to two years his averages is 30. If you look at his averages through any other stage in his career its higher.

thats absolute rubbish, is that why he bowled 97 overs in SL? 102 in WI, 104 against NZ and 201 in SA? compare it to the rest of the england attack, and you'll find that hes bowled just as much as they have.

I never compared him to the other English bowlers, i compared him to Vaas and Ntini who in the same period average 37 and 39 OPM, compared to Flintoff's 32. Over the 20 odd Test played in that time is hell of a lot of extra overs.

and since when was he being picked as a top 4? he was picked to bat at 6 and be the third seamer. and hes certainly a better bowler than both vaas and ntini.

Well read further up the thread and you will see where it was talked about him playing as one of the top 4 bowlers. And their is no way a guy hardly ever takes a major wicket taker is better then Ntini or Vaas and has only had 18 months of good Cricket with the bowl.

 

[tooextracool]

Did i ever said that there was bowlers who take 3-4+ wickets a game, all i said that was that he takes 3 plus every blue moon. 9 times in 44 innings is averages in anyone books and clearly shows he isn't a major wicket takers at all. Well his only maintained a good average for a short 18 month period of his career, if you take it back to two years his averages is 30. If you look at his averages through any other stage in his career its higher.

and your point is? fact is that hes taking them at a good average, certainly far better than ntini and vaas are taking them.

I never compared him to the other English bowlers, i compared him to Vaas and Ntini who in the same period average 37 and 39 OPM, compared to Flintoff's 32. Over the 20 odd Test played in that time is hell of a lot of extra overs.

oh yes a whole 5 and 7 overs! clearly not a regular bowler
and did it ever occur to you that the only reason ntini and vaas bowled more is because they are both part of poorer bowling attacks and thus takes them longer to get the opposition out?

Well read further up the thread and you will see where it was talked about him playing as one of the top 4 bowlers. And their is no way a guy hardly ever takes a major wicket taker is better then Ntini or Vaas and has only had 18 months of good Cricket with the bowl.

yes yoiu'd rather of course have ntini, who averages nearly 40 away from home and 50 against australia over an entire career
and vaas whos been so inconsistent away from home, for god knows how long.
flintoff isnt a strike bowler, but as a third or 4th seamer, hes more than good enough.

 

[chaminda_00]

and your point is? fact is that hes taking them at a good average, certainly far better than ntini and vaas are taking them.

The reason why his average is lower is cus when he doesn't take wickets like he usually does he bowls less overs, cus England hide him in the attack. If he was made to bowl more overs on those days that he usually doesn't take wickets then he would take them at a higher average.BTW his only been takeing them at a good average for 18 months, the rest of his career his taken them a really crap average.

oh yes a whole 5 and 7 overs! clearly not a regular bowler

5 to 7 overs is a lot when you consider it is over 20 odd matches.

yes yoiu'd rather of course have ntini, who averages nearly 40 away from home and 50 against australia over an entire career
and vaas whos been so inconsistent away from home, for god knows how long.
flintoff isnt a strike bowler, but as a third or 4th seamer, hes more than good enough.

Yes i would rather someone who can bowl out a side and who has bowled well for more then just 18 months of his whole career. Yes Flintoff maybe an ok 3rd or 4th seamer, but i would rather stike bowler over a third or forth seamer anyday. Especially if your only picking four bowlers.

Does Ntini record aganist Australia come in consideration when Flintoff hasn't played them and Ntini himself has only played 4 Test aganist them.

It also interesting to note that Flintoff record at home is as bad a Ntini away, oh wait i forget we can't look at his whole career just last 2 years. Even that shows an average of 34.7, and in the same time Ntini has averaged 35 away from home

 

[tooextracool]

The reason why his average is lower is cus when he doesn't take wickets like he usually does he bowls less overs, cus England hide him in the attack. If he was made to bowl more overs on those days that he usually doesn't take wickets then he would take them at a higher average.

well done in explaining why too, especially with his 32 overs a game.

BTW his only been takeing them at a good average for 18 months, the rest of his career his taken them a really crap average..

point being? ntini has been bowling rubbish against australia and away from home for an entire career. well done in ignoring that.

5 to 7 overs is a lot when you consider it is over 20 odd matches.

and as has already been explained its because of the fact that englands bowling attack have dismissed the opposition faster. and certainly in the series against WI and NZ recently, that has happened on many many occasions.

Yes i would rather someone who can bowl out a side and who has bowled well for more then just 18 months of his whole career.

so why do you want vaas and ntini then, given havent been doing that either?

Yes Flintoff maybe an ok 3rd or 4th seamer, but i would rather stike bowler over a third or forth seamer anyday. Especially if your only picking four bowlers.

your picking 5 bowlers, flintoff will be batting at 6. if you pick 4 bowlers flintoff is still better than ntini and vaas.

Does Ntini record aganist Australia come in consideration when Flintoff hasn't played them and Ntini himself has only played 4 Test aganist them.

exactly, hes unproven, ntini is a failure.

It also interesting to note that Flintoff record at home is as bad a Ntini away, oh wait i forget we can't look at his whole career just last 2 years. Even that shows an average of 34.7, and in the same time Ntini has averaged 35 away from home

2 things,
1) hes clearly become a better bowler since the series in the WI last year.
2) last time i checked the series was not being played in england

 

[chaminda_00]

point being? ntini has been bowling rubbish against australia and away from home for an entire career. well done in ignoring that.

Point being that Flintoff has bowled rubbish throughout his career and even at his best his still not a wicket taker, unlike the other at their best or even just in the same period

and as has already been explained its because of the fact that englands bowling attack have dismissed the opposition faster. and certainly in the series against WI and NZ recently, that has happened on many many occasions.

If that the case then why does Harmison bowl the same as the other two, if England conistently bowled sides for faster then he would also be lower, would it not?

your picking 5 bowlers, flintoff will be batting at 6. if you pick 4 bowlers flintoff is still better than ntini and vaas.

You have to bowl side out remember and i would rather have guys that can do that unlike Flintoff, if your picking 4 bowlers

2 things,
1) hes clearly become a better bowler since the series in the WI last year.
2) last time i checked the series was not being played in england

1) He may have improved his bowling but he still is not a wicket taker and doesn't desire a place in a World XI to play Australia as a top 4 bowler
2) Consider it is played in Australia a place that Flintoff never played and the fact that Ntini has improved his bowling away from home in the last six months and has experience their. Also with Vaas having the thrid best average aganist Australia out of all the fast bowlers in the squad. It pretty obvious who you would go for if you picked four bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

Point being that Flintoff has bowled rubbish throughout his career and even at his best his still not a wicket taker, unlike the other at their best or even just in the same period

and that explains why he had 43 wickets last year. not a wicket taker

If that the case then why does Harmison bowl the same as the other two, if England conistently bowled sides for faster then he would also be lower, would it not?

what period(From which series to which) are you referring to?

You have to bowl side out remember and i would rather have guys that can do that unlike Flintoff, if your picking 4 bowlers

and by taking 2-3 wickets you are still assisting in bowling the side out. ntini with his 1/200 odd is not doing that.

1) He may have improved his bowling but he still is not a wicket taker and doesn't desire a place in a World XI to play Australia as a top 4 bowler

maybe so, but hes playing as an all rounder. and if the other options are vaas and ntini, i think flintoff is light years ahead.

2) Consider it is played in Australia a place that Flintoff never played and the fact that Ntini has improved his bowling away from home in the last six months and has experience their.

oh really?and how much of that has to do with the WI series? he was pathetic in SL, pathetic in india, disgraceful in NZ, and got hammered in pakistan.

Also with Vaas having the thrid best average aganist Australia out of all the fast bowlers in the squad. It pretty obvious who you would go for if you picked four bowlers.

wow give him a medal. 3rd best, clearly brilliant, with hasan and pathan in the side.

 

[chaminda_00]

and that explains why he had 43 wickets last year. not a wicket taker

Yeah great he did that in one good season lets give him a medal.Compare that to Ntini who in the last four has taken 40, 59, 39 and 38. A lot better then a two year wonder like Flintoff. Also Vaas took 34 wickets from 9 games (not including Zim games) and also been doing that for most of his career unlike Flintoff.

what period(From which series to which) are you referring to?

Last 2 years, not including ZIM and BAN matches

and by taking 2-3 wickets you are still assisting in bowling the side out. ntini with his 1/200 odd is not doing that.

The only reason that Flintoff hasn't got 1/200 is cus he gets hiden in the attack unlike South Africa can do with Ntini. Also now your going from saying he takes 3-4 wickets to saying he taken 2-3 wickets, next you will be agree with me that his not a wicket taker at all. Ntini ability to take 4-5 plus more often then Flintoff assist a bowling attack more then Flintoff 2-3 wickets anyday of the week.

maybe so, but hes playing as an all rounder. and if the other options are vaas and ntini, i think flintoff is light years ahead.

Yes and Vaas can'y bat at all , if your picking just four bowler, bowling comes into consideration before batting and that put Ntini and Vaas infront Flintoff.

oh really?and how much of that has to do with the WI series?

How much does Flintoff improved performances have to do with playing the Windies recently

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah great he did that in one good season lets give him a medal.Compare that to Ntini who in the last four has taken 40, 59, 39 and 38. A lot better then a two year wonder like Flintoff. Also Vaas took 34 wickets from 9 games (not including Zim games) and also been doing that for most of his career unlike Flintoff.

im sorry, incase you didnt get the point, i meant taking wickets, and doing it at an average less than 40 odd away from home.

Last 2 years, not including ZIM and BAN matches

and of course those 2 years included his performances against the WI in england, where he was just recovering from injury and bowled considerable less than usual, and performances in SL where harmison didnt tour and the spinners did the bulk of the bowling. like it or not 32 overs is more than enough for any front line bowler per game, especially given those conditions.

The only reason that Flintoff hasn't got 1/200 is cus he gets hiden in the attack unlike South Africa can do with Ntini.

yes and with 32 overs a game, hes certainly being hidden. but then i guess when ntini bowls 5 overs more a game, he just manages to go for more runs and take less wickets.

Also now your going from saying he takes 3-4 wickets to saying he taken 2-3 wickets, next you will be agree with me that his not a wicket taker at all.

clearly, with his 25 average and 43 wickets, we can all agree that hes not a wicket taker.
brilliant sherlock, simply brilliant.

Ntini ability to take 4-5 plus more often then Flintoff assist a bowling attack more then Flintoff 2-3 wickets anyday of the week.

oh yes his ability to take 4-5 wickets at home yes, i can see how useful that would be in australia. not to mention the fact that hes far more likely to be rubbish every game than flintoff.

Yes and Vaas can'y bat at all

because he averages 40 and 52 in his last 2 years isnt it?
and he can bat at no 6

, if your picking just four bowler, bowling comes into consideration before batting and that put Ntini and Vaas infront Flintoff.

clearly, becausing averaging 40 odd away from home and 30 odd with the ball is better than someone averaging 25.

How much does Flintoff improved performances have to do with playing the Windies recently

considering he averaged 24 in SA, 24 in SL and 27 against NZ, id say not very much.

 

[howardj]

I'd want the side with the best chance of winning the match.

At the moment that doesn't give Tendulkar a hope of making the 11.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you mate?

Firstly, you think that a guy who has the following on his resume has 'no hope' of making the team:

* averages 60 in Test Cricket;
* has scored over 10 000 Test runs;
* averages 53 against Australia in Tests;
* averages even more in Australia in Tests;
* scored an unbeaten double-century the last time he played at the SuperTest venue against Australia;
* averaged 50 in his last Test series.

Then you say - stating it like it's the modern day equivalent of the Magna Carta - that he can ONLY be selected INSTEAD of either Lara, Dravid or Kallis, despite the fact that there are as many as SIX batting spots up for grabs. Why can't all four of them make it? As I say, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[dinu23]

my final IX for the test
1.shewag
2.strauss
3.dravid
4.lara
5.inzi
6.sangakkara
7.flintoff
8.pollock
9.kumble
10.akthar
11.murali

for the ODs
1.shewag
2.gayle
3.sachin
4.lara
5.inzi
6.sanga
7.afridi
8.razzaq
9.pollock
10.murali
11.akthar

i guess it's still to early to post the final IX, but what do u guys think?

 

[chaminda_00]

im sorry, incase you didnt get the point, i meant taking wickets, and doing it at an average less than 40 odd away from home.

Well considering you only want us to look at Flintoff as a bowler in the last 18 months then you will see that Ntini in the samne period doesn't average 40 away from home.

and of course those 2 years included his performances against the WI in england, where he was just recovering from injury and bowled considerable less than usual, and performances in SL where harmison didnt tour and the spinners did the bulk of the bowling. like it or not 32 overs is more than enough for any front line bowler per game, especially given those conditions.

Did i ever say he wan't used as a front line bowler, all i have ever said was that when he doesn't take wickets he get hiden, which is correct. Look at how many overs he bowls when he takes 0-2 wickets compared to the other two

because he averages 40 and 52 in his last 2 years isnt it?
and he can bat at no 6

No doubt that Flintoff is a better batsmen then Vaas, but Vaas more then meets the requirement of a number 8 batsmen in a four man attack, considering he is a lot better bowler, then the one or two season wonder

clearly, becausing averaging 40 odd away from home and 30 odd with the ball is better than someone averaging 25.

Well why are you comparing Flintoff current figures to Vaas and Ntini career figures. Either campare then all to current figures or all to career figures. Don't just mix and match to make figures just to make your agruement sound better

considering he averaged 24 in SA, 24 in SL and 27 against NZ, id say not very much.

When it comes down to if you take out his matches aganist West Indies in the last two years, his averages is 32, on par with his career record. I gather your only talking about away form, but just cus he performaned in SA, NZ and SL doesn't mean he will perform in Australia aganist stronger batting line ups

 

[masterblaster]

I'd like to throw my hat in making up a final XI.

Tests

1. Sehwag
2. Strauss
3. Dravid (Captain)
4. Tendulkar
5. Lara
6. Kallis
7. Sangakkara (w/k)
8. Pollock
9. Kumble
10. Akhtar/Harmison (depending on who's fit, or whoever's feeling less homesick)
11. Muralitharan

That there includes two proper openers, no makeshift ones (if Australia love anything, it's makeshift openers). Includes Dravid, Lara, Tendulkar and Kallis, in which Sehwag, Tendulkar and Kallis can contribute with the ball. It includes Anil Kumble who did exceedingly well last tour to Australia and also includes the off spinner Muralitharan which looks like a really nice leg spin/off spin bowling combination.

I know the English supporters here will really get on my case for not including Flintoff, but I'd say all of these players deserve to be in the side ahead of him at this stage.

*Runs and hides*

 

[Deja moo]

That there includes two proper openers, no makeshift ones (if Australia love anything, it's makeshift openers).*

They hated Sehwag

 

[masterblaster]

They hated Sehwag

Lol, good point. I'd classify Sehwag as more of an opener now as he's made the spot his own. Im talking about the Nayan Mongia category of makeshift openers

 

[marc71178]

I didnt say I will leave out Kallis from the team. If Kallis keeps his good form, you can play him as an opener or Sangakarra as an opener. The actual make up of the squad will be much clearer after the ashes actually.

So either the best batsman in the world on current form has to be shunted around to somewhere he's not played before or the wicket-keeper has to open the batting as well, just so we can include someone who not in anywhere near the same form?