The CW50 - No.50-41

[pasag]

Don't remember him averaging 27 with the ball in the same series as averaging 40 with the bat against them

Doesn't disprove my theory anyway

He does amazingly vs Aus and no-one considers him a great. Also Fred's figures vs Aus even less flattering then his career figures

 

[GIMH]

He does amazingly vs Aus and no-one considers him a great. Also Fred's figures vs Aus even less flattering then his career figures

Yeah - but that actually helps my point IMO, it is selective. If when comparing great players, their performances against the greatest teams are what count the most, then why isn't it that way all the time? Basically your Laxman point actually in my mind furthers what I'm saying, it's a selective use of criteria.

And yeah, I thought someone might throw in Fred's career figures against your lot, I was hoping they wouldn't

But the 2009 team wasn't a great one so only 05 and 06-07 should be looked at, still would only be average mind you, fair

This post probably makes no sense, bitch of a hangover and struggling to think but I know what I mean, it's all good

 

[Pratters]

Go and sleep with Flintoff, you know you want to corrin.

 

[GIMH]

I've never once denied it

 

[pasag]

Yeah - but that actually helps my point IMO, it is selective. If when comparing great players, their performances against the greatest teams are what count the most, then why isn't it that way all the time? Basically your Laxman point actually in my mind furthers what I'm saying, it's a selective use of criteria.

And yeah, I thought someone might throw in Fred's career figures against your lot, I was hoping they wouldn't

But the 2009 team wasn't a great one so only 05 and 06-07 should be looked at, still would only be average mind you, fair

This post probably makes no sense, bitch of a hangover and struggling to think but I know what I mean, it's all good

Are you questioning the fact that people detract from a player if he doesn't perform against the best in comparing him to his peers, but generally won't lift a player up just because he performs against the best?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah.

Things must be bad when someone who disagrees with me has to tell me what I'm arguing.

 

[pasag]

Haha, I think they're different arguments though. Not performing against the best could be enough to keep you out of the top 25, but that doesn't mean performing against the best should put you in there.

 

[NUFAN]

Just a question: What's the least number of Tests a Cricketer from the last decade or two would need to play before you would consider voting for him?

I wonder if some people thought Flintoff and Donald didn't play enough, even though they both played close to 80 Tests..

 

[Uppercut]

I think Freddie deserves his place personally. Winning back the Ashes for England after 804 years doesn't make him an especially good cricketer but the memories of that series alone are more than enough for people to consider him great.

 

[silentstriker]

I think you can make a case for Flintoff above either as a cricketer. No-one would seriously argue he's a better bowler, but in terms of all-round (pun intended) ability those who can play a meaningful hand in either suit are useful to any team.

I don't necessarily agree & didn't have any of the three in my 25, but "seriously crazy" is a stretch, IMHO. I mean, regardless of where one stands on the Murali/Warne or Lara/Sachin debates, as cricketers the latter is the more useful in both cases because their second suit is by far the stronger.

Well, obviously Flintoff is an allrounder, but I don't think you could argue (or maybe someone could) that even just taking into account the bowling of Garner or Donald, they'd win you more matches, over a longer term, than Freddie could or would. Obviously, some people disagree.

I think Freddie deserves his place personally. Winning back the Ashes for England after 804 years doesn't make him an especially good cricketer but the memories of that series alone are more than enough for people to consider him great.

Not arguing with that, but I'm seriously asking if people would actually pick him before either Donald or Garner.

 

[Pratters]

Flintoff ahead of the likes of even Kapil Dev is a joke. I reiterate, Flintoff didn't do enough in his career and shouldn't be near the top 50 cricketers of all time.

 

[The Sean]

Kapil came in ten spots ahead of Flintoff.

 

[Pratters]

Fair that, then.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Kapil came in ten spots ahead of Flintoff.

pwned

 

[G.I.Joe]

If ever proof was needed of how fickle CW is..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If ever proof was needed of how fickle CW is..

He also lost a poll to Tony Greig.

 

[Pratters]

If ever proof was needed of how fickle CW is..

Only 2-3 few people voted for him.

 

[GIMH]

Seriously Pratters, get over it

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just a question: What's the least number of Tests a Cricketer from the last decade or two would need to play before you would consider voting for him?

I wonder if some people thought Flintoff and Donald didn't play enough, even though they both played close to 80 Tests..

I'm more about time/longevity in years than the number of tests.