Shane Watson or Muhammad Hafeez? All formats

[kingkallis]

Kallis still best in ODIs

 

[Zinzan]

lol wut
I'd bet guys like Hafeez and Oram played more than a few Tests against lesser opposition.

Lol, hand your money over. 4 of Oram's 5 test hundreds were against Aust in Brisbane in '05, England at Lord's '08 and SA at Hamilton and Centurion in '04 & '06, saying nothing of his match winning 90 vs. SA in Auckland.

You couldn't be more wrong with that assumption.

 

[Furball]

For me, this guy, absolutely any day.

Nah, it's Flintoff. The best death bowler of his generation and a bloody good batsman as well.

 

[Bahnz]

lol wut

Flintoff's bowling stats isn't any better compared to Watsons than Watson's batting is compared to Flintoffs

Perfect example of what i'm talking about re. people's memories playing tricks on them. Flintoff was such an enigma that people will always remember him fondly and elevate his status, whereas Watson is the opposite.

What the hell are you talking about? Flintoff took 226 wickets in 79 tests, compared to Watson's 75 in 59. And he has a much superior strike-rate. There's a hell of a difference between coming on and bowling a sneaky 5 overs here and there to give the actual bowlers a rest as Watson did, and basically leading the bowling attack. Their averages may be similar, but Flintoff was faster, bigger, better and just as good with the older ball, which is why he bowled about 2500 overs in his career compared to Watson's 900. Absolute rubbish.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What the hell are you talking about? Flintoff took 226 wickets in 79 tests, compared to Watson's 75 in 59. And he has a much superior strike-rate. There's a hell of a difference between coming on and bowling a sneaky 5 overs here and there to give the actual bowlers a rest as Watson did, and basically leading the bowling attack. Their averages may be similar, but Flintoff was faster, bigger, better and just as good with the older ball, which is why he bowled about 2500 overs in his career compared to Watson's 900. Absolute rubbish.

Flintoff was a better Test bowler, no doubt. But stupid ****ing post ^.

You say Flintoff took more wickets per test. Then you say he bowled a lot more overs. As if both these are individually signs he is better. One is a direct result of the other.

edit: The primary reason Watson was never as good or as prolific a bowler as Flintoff was his body and fitness. The primary reason he won't be remembered (for a few years at least) by many as even being in the same league as Flintoff (very unfairly) is his body language and (seeming) attitude which is the polar opposite of Flintoff's.

 

[Bahnz]

Flintoff was a better Test bowler, no doubt. But stupid ****ing post ^.

You say Flintoff took more wickets per test. Then you say he bowled a lot more overs. As if both these are individually signs he is better. One is a direct result of the other.

edit: The primary reason Watson was never as good or as prolific a bowler as Flintoff was his body and fitness. The primary reason he won't be remembered (for a few years at least) by many as even being in the same league as Flintoff (very unfairly) is his body language and (seeming) attitude which is the polar opposite of Flintoff's.

Did you notice my comment about how Flintoff has a much better strike rate? And that the reason why he bowled so many overs was because he wasn't a Gavin Larsen-esque trundler? As for Watson's injury problems, it's not exactly like Flintoff's career was injury free. He retired at 31 because his ankle was held together by bits of tin foil at the end. And even then he was still winning tests for England with the ball.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did you notice my comment about how Flintoff has a much better strike rate? And that the reason why he bowled so many overs was because he wasn't a Gavin Larsen-esque trundler? As for Watson's injury problems, it's not exactly like Flintoff's career was injury free. He retired at 31 because his ankle was held together by bits of tin foil at the end. And even then he was still winning tests for England with the ball.

He had a better Strike rate because he was a more attacking bowler, which is a good thing for a strike bowler. Watson had a better economy because that's the type of bowler he became (largely because he was an unfit **** imo). For me bowling average is a more accurate depiction of value for a bowler, you win games by making more runs than the other team, not by making them faster or bowling them out quicker.

Point I've been making is the gap between them as players (even as bowlers) is not as big as everyone will think for years to come. And I don't blame people, Flintoff could average 45 with the ball and Watson average 20 and I'd still probably rate Flintoff higher because of the way he went about it.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

4 of Oram's 5 test hundreds were against Aust in Brisbane in '05, England at Lord's '08 and SA at Hamilton and Centurion in '04 & '06, saying nothing of his match winning 90 vs. SA in Auckland.

In hindsight Oram should've been a very good no 5 who bowled a bit, rather than an allrounder. Too much bowling lead to far too many injuries, but NZ already had lots of those sorts of players (Astle, McMillan, Styris, Ryder) during Oram's career. That was why Styris would sometimes bat 3 and Oram 7 for example - trying to fit them all in. That and the fact Fleming was better than all our openers not called Richardson.

 

[Zinzan]

In hindsight Oram should've been a very good no 5 who bowled a bit, rather than an allrounder. Too much bowling lead to far too many injuries, but NZ already had lots of those sorts of players (Astle, McMillan, Styris, Ryder) during Oram's career. That was why Styris would sometimes bat 3 and Oram 7 for example - trying to fit them all in. That and the fact Fleming was better than all our openers not called Richardson.

Possibly, although remember Oram totally lost confident with the bat from about 2009, in fact, he practically forgot how to bat. Even when he was in his best batting form around 2004-08, I think he needed the bowling part of his game to bat with the confidence he did. He really was a bit of an enigma Big Jake, and one of the most underrated ODI bowlers going around in the 2000s.

 

[Bahnz]

Possibly, although remember Oram totally lost confident with the bat from about 2009, in fact, he practically forgot how to bat. Even when he was in his best batting form around 2004-08, I think he needed the bowling part of his game to bat with the confidence he did. He really was a bit of an enigma Big Jake, and one of the most underrated ODI bowlers going around in the 2000s.

I have a suspicion that a big part of the problem was that his eyesight started to go. He was never a particularly technically correct player with some very plodding footwork. You could see it starting to happen in 2008, and his final hundred at Lords in 2008 was a tortured innings in many respects.

 

[Daemon]

lol wut

Flintoff's bowling stats isn't any better compared to Watsons than Watson's batting is compared to Flintoffs

Perfect example of what i'm talking about re. people's memories playing tricks on them. Flintoff was such an enigma that people will always remember him fondly and elevate his status, whereas Watson is the opposite.

Watson has been an ODI great btw. Batting average over 40 and bowling average in the 30s.

And in both forms he's generally played a lot of quality opposition, a lot of tests against South Africa, India in India, England with Broad and Anderson and not a single Test against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. I'd bet guys like Hafeez and Oram played more than a few Tests against lesser opposition.

Watto would have played a high percentage of overseas tests as well, he missed 2 or 3 entire home seasons with injury

He had a better Strike rate because he was a more attacking bowler, which is a good thing for a strike bowler. Watson had a better economy because that's the type of bowler he became (largely because he was an unfit **** imo). For me bowling average is a more accurate depiction of value for a bowler, you win games by making more runs than the other team, not by making them faster or bowling them out quicker.

Point I've been making is the gap between them as players (even as bowlers) is not as big as everyone will think for years to come. And I don't blame people, Flintoff could average 45 with the ball and Watson average 20 and I'd still probably rate Flintoff higher because of the way he went about it.

Flintoff was a better Test bowler, no doubt. But stupid ****ing post ^.

You say Flintoff took more wickets per test. Then you say he bowled a lot more overs. As if both these are individually signs he is better. One is a direct result of the other.

edit: The primary reason Watson was never as good or as prolific a bowler as Flintoff was his body and fitness. The primary reason he won't be remembered (for a few years at least) by many as even being in the same league as Flintoff (very unfairly) is his body language and (seeming) attitude which is the polar opposite of Flintoff's.

hahahahahahhahahahah

 

[Zinzan]

Flintoff was a better Test bowler, no doubt. But stupid ****ing post ^.

You say Flintoff took more wickets per test. Then you say he bowled a lot more overs. As if both these are individually signs he is better. One is a direct result of the other.

edit: The primary reason Watson was never as good or as prolific a bowler as Flintoff was his body and fitness. The primary reason he won't be remembered (for a few years at least) by many as even being in the same league as Flintoff (very unfairly) is his body language and (seeming) attitude which is the polar opposite of Flintoff's.

Sorry, but there's just no argument that works when trying to compare 75 wickets in 59 tests vs. 226 wickets in 79 tests, and I think deep down you know that.

I think initially you were trying to make the point that Watson does tend to get more harshly assessed than others since he's a bit of a nob, which may actually be true to an extent, but trying to compare him to Flintoff as an all-rounder (in either form) just totally discredits that point.

 

[Zinzan]

I have a suspicion that a big part of the problem was that his eyesight started to go. He was never a particularly technically correct player with some very plodding footwork. You could see it starting to happen in 2008, and his final hundred at Lords in 2008 was a tortured innings in many respects.

Now you mention it, I do recall big Jake wearing specs in interviews as his career was winding down, so you may have something there. Not sure if he tried contact lenses in matches towards the end, but yeah the signs were there in that 2nd test in '08 at Headingley when Taylor scored that 154* and played the short ball with relative ease compared to Oram.