Who is the best allrounder of your current national cricket team

[marc71178]

But Flintoff has played his last 10 matches against West Indies and New Zealand

Yet again, it's write off the Windies because England are beating them.

This West Indian line-up includes the likes of Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan - all of whom are far from useless batsmen.

And guess what, Flintoff's dismissed all of them on more than one occasion.

 

[superkingdave]

But Flintoff has played his last 10 matches against West Indies and New Zealand, while Kallis has faced far tougher opposition. And Kallis is obviously the better batsman of the two.

Far tougher opposition being 3 tests against NZ, 4 Against WI?

Remind me who Flintoff has played against?

Dont bring up the two tests in Sri Lanka either because Flintoff averaged 24.50 with the ball there!

So tell me how is that 'Far tougher opposition'?

 

[superkingdave]

Yet again, it's write off the Windies because England are beating them.

This West Indian line-up includes the likes of Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan - all of whom are far from useless batsmen.

And guess what, Flintoff's dismissed all of them on more than one occasion.

He fails to recognise that Kallis has played 7 of the 10 tests against the same opposition as Flinftoff I guess it was just a throwaway comment, but he really should have looked at who Kallis played before opening his Keyboard

 

[a massive zebra]

Yet again, it's write off the Windies because England are beating them.

This West Indian line-up includes the likes of Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan - all of whom are far from useless batsmen.

And guess what, Flintoff's dismissed all of them on more than one occasion.

No, its write them off because they are not very good - 7th and 8th in the world to be precise. Sarwan has ability but is not yet that good, if you take away his 261* against Bangladesh he is hardly setting the world on fire. Lara is inconsistent and at the moment going through a bad patch, a lot of people have got him out cheaply recently. Chanderpaul is a good player in good form but has almost 400 runs this series so you can hardly say Flintoff got the better of him. And they have a very long tail.

 

[Swervy]

He was arguably the best allrounder of all time because of his great batting and fielding in addition to his useful bowling. The fact is that throughout his entire career no frontline bowler with such a modest record played more than a handful of matches for the West Indies.

You cannot say Sobers would have made the side for his bowling if Kallis would not have made the South Africa side for his. Kallis was a better bowler at his best and throughout their entire careers. Kallis might not be a great bowler now but Sobers was only effective between 1961-66 and even then far from world class. Furthermore, the West Indies attack of Sobers time was normally stronger than the current South African one.

you dont take 230-240 (?) test wickets by being an average bowler especially when you take into consideration that around that time the world record number of wickets in tests was only about 300

 

[marc71178]

There's no winning with some people

How come so many people were talking of the tour of the West Indies being a close series before it, yet suddenly the West Indies are awful (when they still have 3 World Class middle order players)

Similarly with NZ - beforehand it was a close series in most people's views. Afterwards it's NZ are rubbish.

 

[a massive zebra]

Yet again, it's write off the Windies because England are beating them.

This West Indian line-up includes the likes of Lara, Chanderpaul and Sarwan - all of whom are far from useless batsmen.

And guess what, Flintoff's dismissed all of them on more than one occasion.

None of those Sri Lanka matches was in the last 10 - 4 vs West Indies, 3 vs New Zealand, 3 vs West Indies = 10. And New Zealand were suffering with injuries when they played England. Kallis has played against Pakistan and Sri Lanka in his last 10 matches.

 

[superkingdave]

None of those Sri Lanka matches was in the last 10 - 4 vs West Indies, 3 vs New Zealand, 3 vs West Indies = 10. And New Zealand were suffering with injuries when they played England.

But 2 of Kallis matches are, and they must clearly be a poor batting side if Flintoff can take wickets at 24.55 against them

 

[a massive zebra]

you dont take 230-240 (?) test wickets by being an average bowler especially when you take into consideration that around that time the world record number of wickets in tests was only about 300

Because he played a lot of matches. Two and a half wickets a match and a strike rate of just under 100 is nothing exceptional. 160 wickets in 40 matches is far preferable to 230 in 93 matches. He would never have got the opportunity to take that many wickets if he had not been such a great batsman.

 

[superkingdave]

Please explain the statement 'Kallis has faced far tougher opposition'

 

[a massive zebra]

How come so many people were talking of the tour of the West Indies being a close series before it, yet suddenly the West Indies are awful (when they still have 3 World Class middle order players)

Similarly with NZ - beforehand it was a close series in most people's views. Afterwards it's NZ are rubbish.

I never said that. To me the best teams are Australia, India, South Africa and if England do well in South Africa, them aswell.

 

[Swervy]

I never said that. To me the best teams are Australia, India, South Africa and if England do well in South Africa, them aswell.

But flintoff performed well vs SA

 

[superkingdave]

and Kallis' figures are ordinary against Australia and he's only played 4 tests against India

 

[a massive zebra]

Please explain the statement 'Kallis has faced far tougher opposition'

Sri Lanka + Pakistan + New Zealand + West Indies > New Zealand + West Indies

p.s. Where did I say Kallis was bowling better than Flintoff at the moment? I made the point that your comparison was unfair because Flintoff has only played the 7th and 8th ranked teams in his last 10 matches, while Kallis has faced Sri Lanka and Pakistan aswell.

 

[a massive zebra]

and Kallis' figures are ordinary against Australia and he's only played 4 tests against India

But Flintoff has either done worse or not played against these teams.

 

[Swervy]

But Flintoff has either done worse or not played against these teams.

but Flintoff is so obviously ready for test cricket as a batsman now when really he wasnt back when he played vs India...and in India I thought Flintoff was probably Englands most dangerous bowler

 

[superkingdave]

Sri Lanka + Pakistan + New Zealand + West Indies > New Zealand + West Indies

p.s. Where did I say Kallis was bowling better than Flintoff at the moment? I made the point that your comparison was unfair because Flintoff has only played the 7th and 8th ranked teams in his last 10 matches, while Kallis has faced Sri Lanka and Pakistan aswell.

Okay
Kallis
1 Vs Pakistan October 2003 (Rank at Time 6)
4 vs West Indies (8)
3 New Zealand (6)
2 Sri Lanka (7th)
Gives us 70 ranking points in total
Flintoff

4 vs West Indies (8th)
3 Vs New Zealand (5th)
3 vs West Indies (8th)
gives us 71 points in total

Not far tougher!

You have to compare the teams rank at the time otherwise you could say anyones performance against WI in the 80's was rubbish because they are 8th ranked now

 

[Tom Halsey]

why is he NOT in the side then ?

Have you heard of the AAAS?

 

[Tom Halsey]

a)But Flintoff has played his last 10 matches against West Indies and New Zealand, while Kallis has faced far tougher opposition.
b) And Kallis is obviously the better batsman of the two.

a) Ah, yes, NZ and WI are clearly much worse than the same NZ and WI that Kallis played against!

b) Where's your proof?

 

[marc71178]

I made the point that your comparison was unfair because Flintoff has only played the 7th and 8th ranked teams in his last 10 matches, while Kallis has faced Sri Lanka and Pakistan aswell.

So go back longer then (ie the since Jan-03 figures I posted)