Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[BoyBrumby]

Oh, and by the way, I'm no whingeing Aussie, but what Jardine did was, yes within the Laws, but only just. He bent them somewhat and certainly had no respect for the spirit of the game. I have actually found some of the footage from that series quite sickening. I have every respect for Bill Bowes, who refused to do what Jardine wanted because he did not believe it was right to play the game in that way. And quite right too. Play hard, bloody hard, with a degree of sledging, but play fair, and there're many, many people who believe to their souls that Jardine did not play fair.
Just my two penn'orth.

Peter

This is undoubtedly true, but there are many more who respect him as a tactician & fine man.

In his autobiography DRJ speaks of the occasion in 1953 when he was persuaded by Jack Fingleton (a close friend of Jardine's, as was Bill O'Reilly, which may be surprising to some given DRJ's reputation) to visit Oz as a representative of the Scottish Australian Company. Jardine hesitated, for the obvious reasons, but Fingleton assured him that his countrymen were "a noisome (sic) lot, but quick to forgive & forget and to offer to 'come and have a beer, mate'".

A reunion lunch was arranged with then PM Menzies, with Larwood, Mailey, Bardsley & Oldfield also in attendance. From all accounts is was a convivial affair, with jokes made about "bodyline" without embarrassment. In Jardine's own words he was treated as "an old so-an-so who got away with it".

Now this may simply be an instance of time healing all, but does suggest that DRJ was certainly respected by his contemporaries, with perhaps one notable exception: DGB. For all Sir Don's qualities as a batter his personal qualities are perhaps less worthy. He would never acknowledge Larwood as the very good bowler he was, nor Jardine as a worthy opponent; he was ruthless, certainly, but not unfair.

Such was DGB's standing in his later years in Oz as a living demi-god it's no surprise that his view of DRJ has become the accepted received wisdom.

 

[marc71178]

No, you think it.
As far as I'm concerned if Flintoff, or anyone else, thinks his improvement in bowling-figures started at Bridgetown, they're wrong - simple as.

But you cannot know more about him then he himself does.

That is an inescapable fact.

Flintoff knows how he's been training, what he's been told and how he has executed it.

You've looked at the scorecards.

 

[marc71178]

Look at Flintoff's bowling in the relevant matches, look at his figures from them and before them, and work-out that the change started when it is most commonly said to have. Or rather look at them and come to the more logical conclusion that the change started when I say it did.

Or, ask the man himself, seeing as he actually is the person, he may know a bit more about it?

 

[SJS]

Well, what a kindergarden party this thread has turned out to be, and here I was thinking we were all mature individuals. Ho hum.

Peter

All the more reason why should visit and post here more often. Dont you think.

By the way, your two penny worth is appreciated by quite a few.

 

[Swervy]

And you'll forgive me for not wanting nor feeling the need for any of that rubbish, forgive me for finding the game of cricket far more interesting. IMO that passage and the first one said far more about you than it does about me.

sure does

 

[Richard]

And while I don't mind your happy-go-luckiness most of the time it does irritate me every now and then.

 

[Richard]

But you cannot know more about him then he himself does.

That is an inescapable fact.

Flintoff knows how he's been training, what he's been told and how he has executed it.

You've looked at the scorecards.

Or actually, I've looked at what's happened in the matches, not what's happened in training or anything else.
You can train as many things as you want, it's all well and good - but you have to execute them in matches. Flintoff has executed nothing differently from Bridgetown onwards to how he had in the previous 5 games. Nor, for that matter, in any of the games before that.

 

[Richard]

Or, ask the man himself, seeing as he actually is the person, he may know a bit more about it?

Except that it is not set-in-stone that someone is the best judge of their own bowling.

 

[marc71178]

He certainly knows more about it than someone who can only watch on TV.

That is inescapable.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not.
He can watch every ball no closer than anyone on TV can.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, it's not.
He can watch every ball no closer than anyone on TV can.

But surely you aren't suggesting there is no difference between actually doing something & merely watching it on telly? Flintoff must know more cos he actually bowled the ball, he can feel how the ball came out & how his body responds.

If there's no difference between doing & seeing I'd like to announce that I've made love to Pamela Anderson!!!

 

[Richard]

But surely you aren't suggesting there is no difference between actually doing something & merely watching it on telly? Flintoff must know more cos he actually bowled the ball, he can feel how the ball came out & how his body responds.

How his body responds is not relevant.
What matters is how the batsman responds - you can see that equally well from the bowling or TV-viewing position.

 

[BoyBrumby]

How his body responds is not relevant.

Er, tres bollo , for any quick, but particularly those with chequered fitness histories, how their body responds is utterly relevant.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's not.
He can watch every ball no closer than anyone on TV can.

So, what were his thought processes when he stood at the end of his run up?

What training has he done on his bowling and his mindset?

You are in a hole, and if you keep digging, can only get deeper.

 

[Sussexshark]

All the more reason why should visit and post here more often. Dont you think.

By the way, your two penny worth is appreciated by quite a few.

Well, that's very nice of you to say so! I take your point about visiting the site more often. Wish I could, is all I can say at the moment.

Peter

 

[Sussexshark]

Er, tres bollo , for any quick, but particularly those with chequered fitness histories, how their body responds is utterly relevant.

Absolutely. For anyone to suggest otherwise is just being ridiculous. And in fact it does not matter whether the bowler has a a history of injury - as Freddie undoubtedly has - or not. For any bowler to bowl how he wants (ie the optimum) everything has to be 100% right, or bang goes the rhythm, bang go the lline and length and bang goes the ball to the boundary as the batsmen think Christmas has come early.

Peter

 

[Swervy]

And while I don't mind your happy-go-luckiness most of the time it does irritate me every now and then.

I know it does...and thats because I know more about what goes on in your brain, just from your posts on here then you actually do

 

[Richard]

Er, tres bollo , for any quick, but particularly those with chequered fitness histories, how their body responds is utterly relevant.

And of course I was talking about how the deliveries correspond to his fitness, wasn't I?
No, I was talking about wicket-taking effectiveness - for which how the batsman responds is the only thing of relevance.

 

[Richard]

So, what were his thought processes when he stood at the end of his run up?

What training has he done on his bowling and his mindset?

You are in a hole, and if you keep digging, can only get deeper.

No, you say I'm in a hole.
By bringing-up irrelevant stuff like his mindset upon being about to bowl the delivery you are not going to create one.
Like it or not, simply by thinking "I'm going to get a wicket" you make absolutely no impact whatsoever on the likelihood of doing so, and that is demonstrated quite clearly for anyone who is not blinkered enough to refuse to see it by the fact that the change in figures started before the change in mindset.
Anyone who didn't know about the chat with Troy Cooley would never have the slightest clue about any supposed point where it is placed by so many; they'd all look at the figures and see that the change happened at the start of Sri Lanka.
Your only defence against this blatant fact has been "you can't know more about Flintoff than he does", despite the fact that I've provided hard evidence as to why I - and anyone else who wants to - can.

 

[Richard]

Absolutely. For anyone to suggest otherwise is just being ridiculous. And in fact it does not matter whether the bowler has a a history of injury - as Freddie undoubtedly has - or not. For any bowler to bowl how he wants (ie the optimum) everything has to be 100% right, or bang goes the rhythm, bang go the lline and length and bang goes the ball to the boundary as the batsmen think Christmas has come early.

All well and good - but not actually relevant to the discussion.