Richard Johnson

[marc71178]

Who's betting against him taking 9 in Sri Lanka?

To be honest, in those conditions, I think he could very easily end up with that number...

Would be spooky though!

 

[marc71178]

I can point to their South Africa series averages:

9 wickets at 45.88 for Harmison
10 wickets at 59.20 for Flintoff (career average 49.95 now)

I think I can.

I point out that Flintoff was not selected as a bowler, and did very very well with the bat, whilst bowling too many overs for the role he should have had.

I will also ask what (other than personal prejudice) means you claim that England's highest ranked bowler is "not performing"?

 

[Craig]

Ok oh noble wise one, how many overs should Flintoff bowl per innings (max.)?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ok oh noble wise one, how many overs should Flintoff bowl per innings (max.)?

That question is not one that can be given an answer to because of the myriad other variables involved!

 

[marc71178]

Ok oh noble wise one, how many overs should Flintoff bowl per innings (max.)?

Well, seeing as he's the 4th seamer, I wouldn't expect him to bowl more overs than the rest of the seamers...

 

[JohnnyA]

Well, seeing as he's the 4th seamer, I wouldn't expect him to bowl more overs than the rest of the seamers...

He's the only one who looks proficient at bowling to south paws. Hoggard can't. Anderson clearly has trouble. Harmy seems OK ... he's ever improving. Not really sure about Simon Jones.

I fear the the work load on Freddy aint gonna get any easier. I also fear he'll end up as third seamer in Sri Lanka ... and if the "spinners" go around the park, he'll have to bowl.

They played him last summer with a serious hernia ... then he missed the ashes. They over bowled him again this summer, and he misses the Bagledesh tour. One day the penny will drop, that if you bowl a player into the ground, at some point he won't get up. I hope it's not to late -- the England management really need to get their collective fingers out of their ars*s. Freddy's their most valuable commodity.

Fingers crossed your right, and he only bowls his quota ... that will mean Engalnd are doing well

 

[Craig]

Without any proof, I dont think anyone can seriously say he was missed during the Ashes.

 

[Rik]

I point out that Flintoff was not selected as a bowler, and did very very well with the bat, whilst bowling too many overs for the role he should have had.

I will also ask what (other than personal prejudice) means you claim that England's highest ranked bowler is "not performing"?

Flintoff is classed as one of the main bowlers by Fletcher now, even ahead of Hoggard it seems, after reading his anti-praise of Hoggard.

It's not prejudice, the answer is in the previous pages, in the mid 40s, against sides who can bat. It's sitting there staring you in the fact, I've had to explain in countless times in the past and still you act as if it doesn't exist. Well, now you know it does. I'll leave you in peace to pass them off as not telling the truth because Graeme Smith and Matthew Hayden edged every ball he bowled to the boundary. Either that or we get the good old Marc patented "totally ignore the fact that they exist yet argue around them"

Which one this time? I know I'll toss a coin *tosses coin* Tails it is, looks like the latter to me.

By the way have you forgotten the meaning of AGREEING TO DISAGREE? Because you've obviously forgotten.

Leave it or a lot of bored people are going to get even more bored with it.

 

[JohnnyA]

Without any proof, I dont think anyone can seriously say he was missed during the Ashes.

Comon sense mate. Take potentially your best player out of the team, and you will suffer ... see Austrailia in the last 2 ashes tests without Warne and McGrath ... lost one, could have lost the other. In additoin, Flintoff is England's best bowler against lefties (after White) ... and these are precisiely the players England had most difficulties with.

Would they have won with Flintoff? I think not. Would they have been better? Yes. They would have batted down to eight. If a fully functional Thorpe had've toured, they could very well have made an even series of it:

Tres
Vaughn
Butch
Thorpe
Hussain
Stewart
Freddy
White
Jones
Giles
Harmison

Probably England's best potential team for the last 15 years. Excellent depth in both batting and bowling. Shame they never played together due to injury. Look at the team now, and compare it to this.

 

[Richard]

Comon sense mate. Take potentially your best player out of the team, and you will suffer ... see Austrailia in the last 2 ashes tests without Warne and McGrath ... lost one, could have lost the other. In additoin, Flintoff is England's best bowler against lefties (after White) ... and these are precisiely the players England had most difficulties with.

Would they have won with Flintoff? I think not. Would they have been better? Yes. They would have batted down to eight. If a fully functional Thorpe had've toured, they could very well have made an even series of it:

Tres
Vaughn
Butch
Thorpe
Hussain
Stewart
Freddy
White
Jones
Giles
Harmison

Probably England's best potential team for the last 15 years. Excellent depth in both batting and bowling. Shame they never played together due to injury. Look at the team now, and compare it to this.

I disagree very strongly that this could be England's best team for 15 years. IMO it's not a patch on this:
Atherton
(Trescothick - I'd prefer Butcher but his axing was entirely justified - no 50s in 23 innings)
Hussain
Vaughan (Thorpe was batting here)
Stewart
Thorpe (him and Vaughan were mostly the wrong way around)
Hick then Ramprakash
White
Cork
Caddick
Gough
Flintoff, England's best bowler against lefties bar White? Still doesn't get them out any more than righties. Anyway, the problem was not left-handedness (Ponting was easily the most accomplished of the series) but the customary injuries and dropped catches which have afflicted each of the last 3 Ashes in almost equal measure.
And Flintoff, potentially England's best player? He would have gone into that series with an average of 19.8something with the bat and 47.something with the ball. Hardly figures suggesting a potential best player. Yes, the batting has improved since then but we can't possibly say it was likely to in The Ashes given that all batsmen went downhill in that series bar Vaughan.

 

[Richard]

Yet in tests they were (as near as dammit) identical.

I guess it's simply that Corkie's peak and mini-peak were less recent than Caddy's.
Corkie's big peak was his first 2 series, his secondary one was in 2000 against West Indies. Caddick's big peak was from 1999 against New Zealand to 2001 against Pakistan (ended halfway through The Second Test) and his secondary one for most of the New Zealand away series.
Caddick and Cork are the best bowlers in the country IMO, but both of them have immensely disappointing Test records and slightly disappointing domestic First-Class records, too (Corkie's average could be 2 or 3 lower, Caddie's economy-rate could be 0.2-an-over lower).
Remember, if you don't get picky you won't get the best out of players.

 

[Richard]

I'd be really worried if we had to rely on Harmison and Flintoff to get the wickets.

To tell the truth, throw Jones and Clarke into that equation too.

I'd be really worried if we had to rely on Anderson to keep things tight.

I'm still not convinced by Hoggard - although I'm getting there slowly.

Face it - England's seam attack can go either way at the moment. It could develop into one of the more potent in world cricket - or it could be total shash.

Watch this space.

I agree entirely. All the bowlers have potential, but only Hoggard looks to me like making a Test impression in the near future. Even that's only based on a third of a domestic season and a Bangladesh series.

 

[Richard]

They played him last summer with a serious hernia ... then he missed the ashes. They over bowled him again this summer, and he misses the Bagledesh tour. One day the penny will drop, that if you bowl a player into the ground, at some point he won't get up.

I mentioned exactly this point in another thread.
It's seriously alarming that no-one's picked-up the concept yet. It doesn't apply only to Flintoff, either, he's just the best example of it.
People push seamers far too hard these days and Flintoff, like Ronnie Irani in last summer's NatWest Series (although for completely different reasons) is over-committed. He thinks too much about the present and doesn't refuse to bowl when he knows he shouldn't be.
Seamers have cottoned-on to the fact that they don't need silly 29-pace run-ups so they can conserve more energy, but 6 consecutive overs (which happened more than a few times in Ban) in some conditions is asking far too much.

 

[Richard]

I point out that Flintoff was not selected as a bowler, and did very very well with the bat, whilst bowling too many overs for the role he should have had.

Flintoff is classed as one of the main bowlers by Fletcher now, even ahead of Hoggard it seems, after reading his anti-praise of Hoggard.

This is the point. While there is no disputing Flintoff's Test place as a batsman, to class him as a bowler is absurd. And that is the point; not that Flintoff does not merit a place in the Test-side.

 

[marc71178]

And Flintoff, potentially England's best player? He would have gone into that series with an average of 19.8something with the bat and 47.something with the ball. Hardly figures suggesting a potential best player.

IIRC he had a superb series relative to the rest of the side (except for Vaughan) against India.

Hence he was performing well in excess of the numbers and was definitely the key absentee in Australia.

 

[PY]

This is the point. While there is no disputing Flintoff's Test place as a batsman, to class him as a bowler is absurd. And that is the point; not that Flintoff does not merit a place in the Test-side.

But he is a bowler? Maybe to class him as a bowler 'full-stop' isn't right because obviously his batting has been much more prominent recently but he is an option for Michael Vaughan so therefore IMO he has the right to be classed as a bowler when the opposition is batting.

 

[Richard]

But he is a bowler? Maybe to class him as a bowler 'full-stop' isn't right because obviously his batting has been much more prominent recently but he is an option for Michael Vaughan so therefore IMO he has the right to be classed as a bowler when the opposition is batting.

Well, Mark Butcher is an option. He himself is an option. Nasser Hussain and Graham Thorpe are options. Just not options who are likely to be very econimical. Neither are Butcher or Vaughan because they're both part-timers.
Flintoff is classed as a bowler (or part of an all-rounder) because he is an option who is expected to be economical (no-one is going to be econimical all the time, even Pollock and Murali). Basically, the difference between part- and full-time bowlers is the likelihood of their economy-rates. However, Flintoff, IMO, offers less penetration than Vaughan and Butcher (Butcher's bowling average is significantly lower) and in Test-cricket there is no place in my reckoning for bowlers who are not likely to be a penetrative threat.

 

[Richard]

IIRC he had a superb series relative to the rest of the side (except for Vaughan) against India.

Hence he was performing well in excess of the numbers and was definitely the key absentee in Australia.

Flintoff averaged 17 in the India series - less than Butcher, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart and White. And Trescothick, but he only played 1 Test. With the ball he had a high average (like everyone else) but the inadequecies of everyone else doesn't disguise his inadequecies, as I've pointed-out countless times.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

I was just wondering, what would you say IF,

all but one of the bowlers had an average of 19 or 18 with the ball, the exception had an average of say, 25.

Would you [anyone here] drop him because he was worse than the rest or would you keep him because his average is still great.

This situation is hypothetical and (i hope that it will happen to England) is opposite to the current England one...

 

[Neil Pickup]

I was just wondering, what would you say IF,

all but one of the bowlers had an average of 19 or 18 with the ball, the exception had an average of say, 25.

Would you [anyone here] drop him because he was worse than the rest or would you keep him because his average is still great.

This situation is hypothetical and (i hope that it will happen to England) is opposite to the current England one...

Depends on the competition for places.

VVS Laxman in the Indian batting is a fairly similar scenario.