[Reynard]

RedWeb, on Aug 24 2009, 13:20, said:

Ah well the end for auld Fred. The most overrated cricketer since The Nawab of Pataudi Snr. Plenty of heart and some great moments but overall nowhere as good as the media would make you believe. Three 5'fers in 79 tests and a piss poor batting average of 31. As Shine Warne says the mark of a true all rounder is where the bowling average is below the batting one. Fred's wasn't. Nice lad and all that but never a world class all rounder.

He was definitely overrated. BUT he was obviously a vital part of the team for whatever reason. His stats will never show up very well against the true greatall rounders, but he was pretty good on his day.

For all the pasting I have been giving Broad this summer, I think he definitely has the game to take Flintoffs place in the side with relative ease. He is a far better batsman than Flintoff ever was and although his bowling isn't great, it's a technical issue. His action is pretty sound and coaching will improve him vastly.

I'll still miss watching Flintoff in the test matches. He was just one of those big confident b*****ds everyone knew a school. The sort of guy that would be flicking you with a wet towel and delivering massive wedgies to all and sundry. Good for team spirit and all that as well as being able to play a bit.

[RedWeb]

Reynard, on Aug 24 2009, 21:58, said:

For all the pasting I have been giving Broad this summer, I think he definitely has the game to take Flintoffs place in the side with relative ease. He is a far better batsman than Flintoff ever was and although his bowling isn't great, it's a technical issue. His action is pretty sound and coaching will improve him vastly.

Agreed. Broad was an opening batsman who decided to take up bowling and from time to time it looks that way. However, I reckon he'll end up with a batting average around 30 and take 300+ wickets. Think he gets too many LBW decisions which are going over the stumps but he's a promising all rounder.

Talking of all rounders just had a look at Jacques Kallis's stats and they are amazing. Average of 55 with the bat and 260 wickets. Now that's a real all rounder

[Yoss]

I've said this earlier in the thread but I'm going to say it again.

Flintoff was a much better player than his stats suggest, he was in the team too young and those stats includeahis first twenty Tests after which his bowling average was something like 50 and batting about 20. For an extended period over three years or so between 2003 and 2006 he was batting at 40 and bowling at about 24 - and having a greater influence on what was at the time a thriving team than even those figures suggest. After that he was never fit enough again to give his best but still produced moments of brilliance.

The revisionism that says he was never all that good really is a sack of shite, he's been far and away the best player England have had in the past twenty five years, and for a briefish period in time he was the best player in the world.

[Reynard]

Yoss, on Aug 25 2009, 01:10, said:

I've said this earlier in the thread but I'm going to say it again.

Flintoff was a much better player than his stats suggest, he was in the team too young and those stats includeahis first twenty Tests after which his bowling average was something like 50 and batting about 20. For an extended period over three years or so between 2003 and 2006 he was batting at 40 and bowling at about 24 - and having a greater influence on what was at the time a thriving team than even those figures suggest. After that he was never fit enough again to give his best but still produced moments of brilliance.

The revisionism that says he was never all that good really is a sack of shite, he's been far and away the best player England have had in the past twenty five years, and for a briefish period in time he was the best player in the world.

He's never been the best player in world cricket.

He has been very very good at times.

[MB]

Yoss, on Aug 25 2009, 01:10, said:

I've said this earlier in the thread but I'm going to say it again.

Flintoff was a much better player than his stats suggest, he was in the team too young and those stats includeahis first twenty Tests after which his bowling average was something like 50 and batting about 20. For an extended period over three years or so between 2003 and 2006 he was batting at 40 and bowling at about 24 - and having a greater influence on what was at the time a thriving team than even those figures suggest. After that he was never fit enough again to give his best but still produced moments of brilliance.

The revisionism that says he was never all that good really is a sack of shite, he's been far and away the best player England have had in the past twenty five years, and for a briefish period in time he was the best player in the world.

I largely agree with that, though I'm not sure he was ever the best player in the world. His very presence in the side has provided the team with good balance and whenever he came on to bowl it was always posssible something might happen. He will never be a truly great player in the mould of a Sobers, Botham or Khan but Flintoff will be sorely missed by England over the years to come. What Flintoff has in common with those greats is his ability, on occasion, to be destructive with bat and ball and turn a match on its head. It's possibly rather harsh to compare him with the great all-rounders of yesteryear because they are a dying breed. How many true all-rounders are playing at a good level these days? Kallis, Bravo, Vettori and of those three Kallis is in a league of his own. He's a great player, while Flintoff was just very good.

[Skyline Drifter]

Yoss, on Aug 25 2009, 01:10, said:

The revisionism that says he was never all that good really is a sack of shite, he's been far and away the best player England have had in the past twenty five years, and for a briefish period in time he was the best player in the world.

The stats may cause him to be under-rated but come on. "Far and away" the best player since the mid-80's? Not just better than the likes of Gooch and Pietersen, but way better than them?

Best player in the world? At a time when Warne and McGrath were at their peak? Sorry, can't possibly agree with that.

[Savage Henry]

Skyline Drifter, on Aug 24 2009, 20:04, said:

Would tend to agree with that. I'm not a cricket aficionado by any means, more a casual passing interest in it, but I've never really seen where Flintoff gets quite the adoration and deification that he has had. He's popular as a bit of a lad's lad but does his cricket actually back up his standing in the game? They talk about he and Pietersen as the stars of English cricket but at least Pietersen's stats actually back that standing. I'm not sure at all that Flintoff's do. And I'm not sure they'll actually miss him all that much really.

I completely disagree. I think Freddy is almost irreplaceable and his retirement causes a massive hole for England to plug. Edited to add; for a while there, he was in the top ten in the world rankings for both batting and bowling. He was, for a time, the most complete cricketer in the game, certainly comparable to Jacques Kallis.

Not that it matters, but Flintoff is generally regarded as an absolutely top bloke. He'll certainly be missed in the dressing room. There has to be someone there with a touch of humility to defuse Pietersen's fondness for himself. He'll also be missed in the slips. He's one of the best slip fielders England has ever had.

We saw in the test where he took a five-for that bowling at his best, Flintoff is England's best bowler. Even now, with a dodgy knee and wrecked ankle. He very rarely bowls badly and when he gets it spot on, he can be relied on not to go for runs.

He's also England's only test calibre all rounder. The whole balance of the team will change with his retirement. Broad is a test number 8 at best. Pushing Prior back down and bringing in a batter may be one way to go.

This post has been edited by Jim Pansy: 25 August 2009 - 08:53

[Reynard]

Jim Pansy, on Aug 25 2009, 09:50, said:

I completely disagree. I think Freddy is almost irreplaceable and his retirement causes a massive hole for England to plug. Edited to add; for a while there, he was in the top ten in the world rankings for both batting and bowling. He was, for a time, the most complete cricketer in the game, certainly comparable to Jacques Kallis.

Not that it matters, but Flintoff is generally regarded as an absolutely top bloke. He'll certainly be missed in the dressing room. There has to be someone there with a touch of humility to defuse Pietersen's fondness for himself. He'll also be missed in the slips. He's one of the best slip fielders England has ever had.

We saw in the test where he took a five-for that bowling at his best, Flintoff is England's best bowler. Even now, with a dodgy knee and wrecked ankle. He very rarely bowls badly and when he gets it spot on, he can be relied on not to go for runs.

He's also England's only test calibre all rounder. The whole balance of the team will change with his retirement. Broad is a test number 8 at best. Pushing Prior back down and bringing in a batter may be one way to go.

No way. He's a seven at worst. The guy is a top notch batsman. If he can get his bowling up to the mark then he will be a more than adequate replacement for Flintoff. Flintoff wasn't the greatest of bowlers either when he turned up, but at some points he was arguably being picked for it over his batting.

Flintoff will be a definite loss, there;s no real argument about that at all. He had a great spell in his test career for a while but injury has blunted his effectiveness with the ball. He was never going to be as dangerous a bowler. He had altered his bowling technique anyway and it was putting too big a astrain on his body. Anyone that has ever bowled will know that you are putting up to 6g through your knee and ankle when you hit the crease. He was extracting good pace and bounce by putting his body on the line and he;s had to retire because of it. His batting was always a bit hit or miss for where he was in the line up. Broad will definitely be more consistent in there and a more reliable guy at leading the tail through a crisis.

[Skyline Drifter]

Jim Pansy, on Aug 25 2009, 09:50, said:

I completely disagree. I think Freddy is almost irreplaceable and his retirement causes a massive hole for England to plug. Edited to add; for a while there, he was in the top ten in the world rankings for both batting and bowling. He was, for a time, the most complete cricketer in the game, certainly comparable to Jacques Kallis.

When was this though? That player disappeared for England somewhere around about 2005, no? The one that's been seen since hasn't been anywhere near that level.

Maybe I (and RedWeb) were harsh in terms of his overall contribution career-wise but I don't think he's irreplaceable in terms of how he plays now. If he is irreplaceable that says more about the candidates to replace him than it does about Flintoff himself.

[Savage Henry]

Skyline Drifter, on Aug 25 2009, 09:18, said:

When was this though? That player disappeared for England somewhere around about 2005, no? The one that's been seen since hasn't been anywhere near that level.

Maybe I (and RedWeb) were harsh in terms of his overall contribution career-wise but I don't think he's irreplaceable in terms of how he plays now. If he is irreplaceable that says more about the candidates to replace him than it does about Flintoff himself.

The 2005 England team was as good a side as is likely to be produced in the next 25 years. Flintoff's bowling at Lord's (taking a five wicket haul, bowling 90mph off a shortened run up) was as good as it ever has been - that he did with a dodgy knee and in a significant amount of pain says it all about the guy's character.

[Skyline Drifter]

Jim Pansy, on Aug 25 2009, 10:37, said:

The 2005 England team was as good a side as is likely to be produced in the next 25 years. Flintoff's bowling at Lord's (taking a five wicket haul, bowling 90mph off a shortened run up) was as good as it ever has been - that he did with a dodgy knee and in a significant amount of pain says it all about the guy's character.

Yes it does. No-one doubted his character. But producing an end product to match his reputation once in a test series isn't the sort of performance that's "irreplaceable".

[kullibino]

Flintoff was a top class player, but certainly not irreplaceable, especially given England's record over the last few years when he's (mainly) been missing.

If they continue to pick 5 bowlers then I guess you're potentially looking at a 6,7, 8 of

Prior
Broad
Swann/Rashid

Which is none to shabby.


Now if only the middle order looked that solid!

[Yoss]

Skyline Drifter, on Aug 25 2009, 09:35, said:

The stats may cause him to be under-rated but come on. "Far and away" the best player since the mid-80's? Not just better than the likes of Gooch and Pietersen, but way better than them?

Best player in the world? At a time when Warne and McGrath were at their peak? Sorry, can't possibly agree with that.

Fair enough, there was a bit of alcohol-induced hyperbole last night. Scratch "far and away" but the point stands.
Best player in the world is a bit of an arcane and pointless debate at any time, even if you're restricting it to all-rounders then Kallis was around at the time too. But Flintoff for that three year-or-so period was good enough to be talked about in that context.

As for Broad, too early to say how good he's going to be as a batsman, you often don't find out until they're moved up the order a bit and have the chance ot prove themselves. But he's shown enough to merit being given that chance.

[MB]

kullibino, on Aug 25 2009, 11:11, said:

Flintoff was a top class player, but certainly not irreplaceable, especially given England's record over the last few years when he's (mainly) been missing.

If they continue to pick 5 bowlers then I guess you're potentially looking at a 6,7, 8 of

Prior
Broad
Swann/Rashid

Which is none to shabby.


Now if only the middle order looked that solid!

I agree. It looks a decent 6, 7, 8 and England's main concerns lie at 2 and 3, assuming Pieterson at 4 and Trott at 5. Cook has little competition for the opening slot and the other middle order players (Bell, Bopara and Collingwood) do not fill me with confidence. Until England sort out their batting, there will be further collapses.

[Shengus Khan]

MB, on Aug 25 2009, 12:39, said:

I agree. It looks a decent 6, 7, 8 and England's main concerns lie at 2 and 3, assuming Pieterson at 4 and Trott at 5. Cook has little competition for the opening slot and the other middle order players (Bell, Bopara and Collingwood) do not fill me with confidence. Until England sort out their batting, there will be further collapses.

I agree. I think they need to bring in more new faces. Bell and Collingwood have had plenty of chances and fail more often than not. Bopara has only struggled recently so I think he deserves another go. They should be looking to guys like Joe Denly and Michael Carberry

[Savage Henry]

MB, on Aug 25 2009, 12:39, said:

I agree. It looks a decent 6, 7, 8 and England's main concerns lie at 2 and 3, assuming Pieterson at 4 and Trott at 5. Cook has little competition for the opening slot and the other middle order players (Bell, Bopara and Collingwood) do not fill me with confidence. Until England sort out their batting, there will be further collapses.

Why assume Jonathan Trott at 5? That's Collingwood's spot. He'll be there for a while yet, rightly or wrongly. The problem spot is three, as well as six/seven depending on where Prior bats, which most likely will be six from here on in, but is, like almost all of the English lower half, one place too high.

[Skyline Drifter]

MB, on Aug 25 2009, 12:39, said:

I agree. It looks a decent 6, 7, 8 and England's main concerns lie at 2 and 3, assuming Pieterson at 4 and Trott at 5. Cook has little competition for the opening slot and the other middle order players (Bell, Bopara and Collingwood) do not fill me with confidence. Until England sort out their batting, there will be further collapses.

As I said earlier, I don't have any great depth of knowledge of cricket. I'm a reasonably casual watcher and my watching is limited to various forms of international cricket, I never watch County stuff.

Is there really grounds for presuming Trott is a lock in at No 5 (or indeed anywhere in the team) for the foreseeable future on the back of one Test? Yes he got a century but he won't be the first or last to do that. Beginner's luck maybe? I'd concede I know nothing about him, I don't think I'd even heard of him before his call up to the 5th Test, but if he was all that good surely he'd have already been a regular. We've all seen footballers with promising first team debuts fade away to nothing fairly rapidly. I'm sure there will be plenty of examples in cricket too (Alistair Cook in fact potentially being one).

This post has been edited by Skyline Drifter: 25 August 2009 - 12:00

[Shengus Khan]

Skyline Drifter, on Aug 25 2009, 13:00, said:

As I said earlier, I don't have any great depth of knowledge of cricket. I'm a reasonably casual watcher and my watching is limited to various forms of international cricket, I never watch County stuff.

Is there really grounds for presuming Trott is a lock in at No 5 (or indeed anywhere in the team) for the foreseeable future on the back of one Test? Yes he got a century but he won't be the first or last to do that. Beginner's luck maybe? I'd concede I know nothing about him, I don't think I'd even heard of him before his call up to the 5th Test, but if he was all that good surely he'd have already been a regular. We've all seen footballers with promising first team debuts fade away to nothing fairly rapidly. I'm sure there will be plenty of examples in cricket too (Alistair Cook in fact potentially being one).

He scored a shed load of runs in all forms of the game at county level, hit a decent knock in his first test innings (very unlucky dismissal) and then hit a ton in arguably the most pressurised situation an English batsman could ever face. I agree that it could be beginner's luck but he has to have a chance simply because the other guys in the frame have failed so often.

[RedWeb]

Shengus Khan, on Aug 25 2009, 12:55, said:

They should be looking to guys like Joe Denly and Michael Carberry

Seen him a few times and looked like a decent county player having a decent season. For me he is not test class. Watched him closely in a game against Yorkshire recently and looked to have a technique the top boys would expose. He's also 29 and England need to get younger players. As for Denly he has potential but at 23 you'd probably expect a better average than 37 for a prospective England batsman. Of the two Denly would be the most progressive pick.

As a Yorkshire fan I will be gutted to see Adil Rashid on an England contract as it means we'll never see him again (has anyone ever seen KP play for Hampshire !!). That said 5'fers and big tons in the last 2 championship games has shown his class and if England manage him correctly he will end up with more runs and wickets than auld Fred. Wouldn't surprise me if another White Rose spinner, Azim Rafiq, was also England bound in the next 2-3 years.

This post has been edited by RedWeb: 25 August 2009 - 12:16

[Yoss]

Skyline Drifter, on Aug 25 2009, 13:00, said:

As I said earlier, I don't have any great depth of knowledge of cricket. I'm a reasonably casual watcher and my watching is limited to various forms of international cricket, I never watch County stuff.

Is there really grounds for presuming Trott is a lock in at No 5 (or indeed anywhere in the team) for the foreseeable future on the back of one Test? Yes he got a century but he won't be the first or last to do that. Beginner's luck maybe? I'd concede I know nothing about him, I don't think I'd even heard of him before his call up to the 5th Test, but if he was all that good surely he'd have already been a regular. We've all seen footballers with promising first team debuts fade away to nothing fairly rapidly. I'm sure there will be plenty of examples in cricket too (Alistair Cook in fact potentially being one).

Bopara scored a century on debut earlier this year and he's out on his ear already. Even when he was scoring runs it was a bit streaky and unconvincing though, whereas Trott seemed right at home technically and temperamentally. He's earned himself a run in the side, at any rate.

[btb]

Congrats to England, while I reckon Australia were the stronger team (although not by much) England took their chances when conditions favoured them at Lords and The Oval.

Apparently world domination is the next step on the agenda.............................

[btb]

Yoss, on Aug 25 2009, 13:21, said:

Bopara scored a century on debut earlier this year and he's out on his ear already. Even when he was scoring runs it was a bit streaky and unconvincing though, whereas Trott seemed right at home technically and temperamentally. He's earned himself a run in the side, at any rate.

Certainly did well to be overlooked for the Headingley Test in favour of The Oval where Australia picked the wrong attack. Will he be able to establish himself on the fortcoming tour of South Africa where the pitches & conditions will be unfamiliar, oh wait.................

[MB]

Jim Pansy, on Aug 25 2009, 12:55, said:

Why assume Jonathan Trott at 5? That's Collingwood's spot. He'll be there for a while yet, rightly or wrongly. The problem spot is three, as well as six/seven depending on where Prior bats, which most likely will be six from here on in, but is, like almost all of the English lower half, one place too high.

I stuck Trott at 5 because that's where he bats for Warwickshire and I'd be happy for England to dispense with Collingwood. I certainly wouldn't want to put undue pressure on him by slotting him in at 3. Collingwood is not one for the future (and has so many technical deficiencies) and I can't see England taking any more than seven batsmen to South Africa (discounting Prior). Definites are Strauss, Pieterson and Trott. Cook and Bell will be there as well. For the final two spots, one should be a specialist opener (e.g. Key or Denly) and the other comes down to a straight choice between Bopara and Collingwood. However, in saying all that you're probably right and Collingwood will likely be chosen for the touring party. I'm useless at second-guessing the selectors and they never seem to agree with me in any case!

Skyline Drifter, on Aug 25 2009, 13:00, said:

Is there really grounds for presuming Trott is a lock in at No 5 (or indeed anywhere in the team) for the foreseeable future on the back of one Test? Yes he got a century but he won't be the first or last to do that. Beginner's luck maybe? I'd concede I know nothing about him, I don't think I'd even heard of him before his call up to the 5th Test, but if he was all that good surely he'd have already been a regular. We've all seen footballers with promising first team debuts fade away to nothing fairly rapidly. I'm sure there will be plenty of examples in cricket too (Alistair Cook in fact potentially being one).

Trott appears to have a good temperament and even at this early stage he clearly has a chance. He certainly deserves a run in the side.