What 100th ODI for Flintoff?

[Raymond]

Cricinfo has this Glamorous Headline about Flintoff Playing for Pride in his 100th ODI

...but he hs played 102 already, so whats this 100th about

..and about the Pride, well he lost his 100th anyways

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOverview_ODI.asp?PlayerID=2148

 

[Pothas]

i assume its his 100th one day match for England, the others must have come in the superseries

 

[Raymond]

So Super Series is counted? was it same for others too

 

[Neil Pickup]

So Super Series is counted? was it same for others too

Of course they counted - don't you remember the statisticians' uproar at their being designated as official Tests and ODIs?

 

[Armadillo]

It is quite annoying seeing [name of country]/ICC world XI next to each player.

 

[Jono]

Yeah it is.

Freddy was barely interested in the ODIs anyway, so its fair enough he pretends he didn't play them.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Of course they counted - don't you remember the statisticians' uproar at their being designated as official Tests and ODIs?

Many statisticians refuse to acknowledge those matches still though. I support them in that stance.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In all seriousness, I wonder how many would have dismissed the Super Series as irrelevant if Australia had lost all of them? A lot of people seem to take the view that the world XI lost, therefore the world XI weren't interested.

 

[Jono]

No, Freddy wasn't interested. Just the way he batted and his celebrations when he got a wicket made it obvious enough really.

Murali, Vettori, Ntini, Dravid, Pollock and Sanga obviously showed some interest. You could tell.

 

[honestbharani]

In all seriousness, I wonder how many would have dismissed the Super Series as irrelevant if Australia had lost all of them? A lot of people seem to take the view that the world XI lost, therefore the world XI weren't interested.

I don't think it was about that. The English players were in no position to play cricket so soon after the Ashes euphoria. I don't think he would have done much better even if he had played for England against some other side so soon after the Ashes. They seemed to have some hangovers even in Pak.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In all seriousness, I wonder how many would have dismissed the Super Series as irrelevant if Australia had lost all of them? A lot of people seem to take the view that the world XI lost, therefore the world XI weren't interested.

I would have dismissed it in the same manner. A World XI is not a team. A World XI is a showpiece and should therefore not be catered for in official statistics of the sport. Yes, sport is meant to be entertainment, but it has evolved to a level of seriousness where statistics are very important in the minds of the masses.

Eleven of the best players does not equate the best team.

 

[Richard]

Any "Rest Of" team is not credible as any team, really.
Certainly, absolutely no way should any team reprisenting "The Rest" be classed as a Test or ODI.
I was always against the Super Series one-dayers being designated ODIs (I'd not even designate them List-A-ODers) and I haven't changed that stance since they took place.
I'm just greatful StatsGuru has a function which can easily eliminate games which weren't played for your country.