What do you do with a Freddie Flintoff?

[Flem274*]

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebum
Hoggard
MSP

Bell, IMO, is a player who is selling himself short. Very talented and has a good average but for the life of me I can't actualy remember the last time he did something significant. He's a good player but fact is the other batsmen bar Strauss are better and Flintoff IMO adds enough to get in ahead of Bell. Ambrose looks a good batsman and seems to go well with Colly so I'd trust him at 6. Strauss survives but is on a very short leash, if he stuffs up Key comes in. Likewise if that middle order doesn't get its arse into gear Bell comes in.

Vaughan shouldn't open.

 

[grecian]

My mistake. It was meant to be obviously Harmison. My mistake in not being clear enough.

Oh I was wrong, I thought MSP. Personally Harmison has to do a lot in county cricket for me to pick him again.

I've been one of his supporters on this forum, but I have to say he's angered me recently more then any other England player ever. Certainly wouldn't want to see him back for at least the first two tests.

We may have to start our thinking without Freddie (for injury reasons0 and GBH because he's crap

 

[_Ed_]

Bell, IMO, is a player who is selling himself short. Very talented and has a good average but for the life of me I can't actualy remember the last time he did something significant.

He got a frustratingly good ton against us in the Napier Test.

 

[Flem274*]

He got a frustratingly good ton against us in the Napier Test.

His team were already in a dominant position though weren't they?

Hope there's some greentops. Our batting will get mowed but there's no way in hell Englands batting will escape from this series without getting ripped to shreds a bit as well.

Ya don't think we could draft in Fleming again?

Also, to the Brits, how is Jones coming along?

 

[GIMH]

Think he's bowled a handful of overs, took a wicket then got a sore neck

 

[Richard]

He got a frustratingly good ton against us in the Napier Test.

Well... I'm really not sure he did TBH. That century was indeed reassuring, for it showed us that Bell hadn't completely lost his touch, but that innings was fairly similar to much of his previous work, in that it came when we were already on top and the advantage had merely to be rammed home, and against an attack that, well... Grant Elliot third seamer.

It wasn't an innings of particularly high calibre. It proved nothing we didn't already know about him.

 

[Richard]

Think he's bowled a handful of overs, took a wicket then got a sore neck

His figures so far this season read 3 overs; either 1 or 2 runs, can't remember which; 1 wicket.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd like to make it clear that, if given Flintoff fit for the NZ series, I would most certainly drown him.

 

[Leslie1]

Because he will destroy the NZ batting lineup, bowling in tantem with Sidebottom?

 

[Flem274*]

Because he will destroy the NZ batting lineup, bowling in tantem with Sidebottom?

Highly likely yes.

 

[gettingbetter]

Highly likely yes.

Why do people always assume that he will go back to O5 form.

 

[Flem274*]

Why do people always assume that he will go back to O5 form.

Not assuming, just very worried. Especially as our youngsters already have Sidebum to handle.

 

[gettingbetter]

I wouldn't, the guy averages around 35 with the ball before and after 05 (give or take a few runs).

 

[shortpitched713]

Why do people always assume that he will go back to O5 form.

Thats because 05 was no fluke. That is the bowler that he had clearly grown to become, and there would be no reason for him not to bowl at that level unless he had some injury related issues/concerns.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, we all know Freddie got off to a terrible start to his career, which makes his average look fairly mediocre. Yet he's been our best bowler, by far, in the last four or five years, when he plays IMHO.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't, the guy averages around 35 with the ball before and after 05 (give or take a few runs).

Most of the poorness after is because of the last 4 Tests in The Ashes 2005/06, though (in which he took 3-126, 0-112, 3-77 and 1-56). And equally, he was obviously woefully substandard between his debut in 1998 and 2000 (when mercifully for everyone's sake he only played 9 Tests - just a shame it wasn't 0), averaging 55. He was still mostly very poor 2001/02-2003 too, averaging 48.97 in that time.

However, between the tour of Sri Lanka in 2003/04 and the First Test of 2005 he averaged 26.09 (though personally I still didn't think he bowled remarkably well TBH). And between the Pakistan tour of 2005/06 and the First Test of 2006/07 he averaged 30.22. And of course we all know how superlative he was in the last 4 Tests of 2005, taking 7-131, 5-136, 3-137 and 5-78.

It would be very apt to say he was England's most effective bowler, and by far, for 34 consecutive Tests over a 3-year period. This is no mere 2-month, single-series fluke.

 

[GIMH]

Thanks Rich, saved me saying it