Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    Monty didnt get anything out the wicket, as he was bowling over the wicket and is basically ****. Remember the indians are the masters at playing spin and monty isnt even one of them.

    Harmison has been off form for some time now and jones had ONE good series so you can hardly say that was englands best attack.
    (Original post by Suc-Cesc!!!)
    I doubt it. The bowling doesn't seem to be the problem. In the series so far, England have actually bowled quite well. Anderson and Sidebottom are getting a lot of swing, and Tremlett has been effective with his bounce. It's the fielding and batting where England have been beaten.

    And as a side point, Flintoff must be one of the most overrated players ever.
    I think you can say that Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Jones and Monty > Tremlett, Anderson, Sidebottom and Monty + a batsman.

    Harmison was finding some form before his hernia problem. Jones didn't have one GOOD series, he had a GREAT series. There hasn''t been a better bowling performance in the art of reverse swing bowling in modern times. He was England's best bowler in the '05 Ashes IMO. Flintoff is not overrated when he is batting/bowling at his best, I don't know what you're on about.

    Tremlett is good, but he's not quite there yet. He needs to find that right length and get the batsmen playing at the ball more often. His pace seems to vary a bit as well, he needs to be bowling at 87mph 5 balls out of 6. Anderson is still inconsistent and leaks runs - too wide, too short, too many times. I can't really criticize Sidebottom in any way though, he has been excellent all summer, a perfect replacement for Hoggard.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Flintoff is not overrated when he is batting/bowling at his best, I don't know what you're on about.
    I think I'll post it again.

    At the age of 29, he's only achieved 5 test centuries and he's got a batting average of 32.50 in test matches (67 tests) - a lower average than India's first 7 batsman. And as a bowler, he has never had a 10 wicket haul, and has only achieved a 5fer twice. Add to that a fairly modest bowling average of 32.02.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i didnt realise his record is so poor, at 29 his best years are coming to an end, especially as he is concentrating on his bowling and getting injured alot in the process. Most of the time he relies on bowling with 110% effort and "hitting the deck" as opposed to skillful/swing bowling, and therefore i cant see him lasting many more years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    I think you can say that Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Jones and Monty > Tremlett, Anderson, Sidebottom and Monty + a batsman.
    I do agree that without injuries, England would be better off, but I think the difference in class would probably show through and India would still be in a similar commanding position in this test series.

    Harmison and Hoggard - like Flintoff also have a bowling average of over 30. And Monty has pretty much been raped by the Indian batsman in this game, despite it being decent conditions for spin (it was turning and it was a fairly dusty pitch). Even if these guys were fit, India would've edged it I think. Add to that, this test series is in England - where England are very, very strong. England haven't lost a test series in England since 2001. If England were playing in India, it would probably end in a whitewash win for India.

    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Harmison was finding some form before his hernia problem. Jones didn't have one GOOD series, he had a GREAT series. There hasn''t been a better bowling performance in the art of reverse swing bowling in modern times. He was England's best bowler in the '05 Ashes IMO.
    How, exactly, was Harmison finding his form? He was all over the place against West Indies. And so what if Jones did have one great series? It was just that - one great series. Besides, Prior pretty much averaged 100 after the West Indies series, England wouldn't have replaced him anyway. The press were talking him up as the next big thing. And please don't tell me you're still using an Ashes example from 2005. :rolleyes: Since then, he was also playing in the Ashes where the Aussies thrashed England.

    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Tremlett is good, but he's not quite there yet. He needs to find that right length and get the batsmen playing at the ball more often. His pace seems to vary a bit as well, he needs to be bowling at 87mph 5 balls out of 6. Anderson is still inconsistent and leaks runs - too wide, too short, too many times. I can't really criticize Sidebottom in any way though, he has been excellent all summer, a perfect replacement for Hoggard.
    Anderson is looking very promising indeed. He has the knack of bowling a brilliant delivery every so often. The ball that bowled Dravid is a prime example. Tremlett - it would be worth giving him another chance, but he seems like another Harmison in the making. He can be inconsistent but the bounce he generates causes problems for batsman.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    i didnt realise his record is so poor, at 29 his best years are coming to an end, especially as he is concentrating on his bowling and getting injured alot in the process. Most of the time he relies on bowling with 110% effort and "hitting the deck" as opposed to skillful/swing bowling, and therefore i cant see him lasting many more years.
    Well, with the press - good ol' Freddy can do no wrong. :rolleyes: So you'd be forgiven for not knowing the facts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Synergetic)
    I think I'll post it again.

    At the age of 29, he's only achieved 5 test centuries and he's got a batting average of 32.50 in test matches (67 tests) - a lower average than India's first 7 batsman. And as a bowler, he has never had a 10 wicket haul, and has only achieved a 5fer twice. Add to that a fairly modest bowling average of 32.02.
    Flintoff made his Test debut when he was 20. He has improved a lot since then. Averages don't always paint a true picture when you have been playing a long time from a young age. Arguements based on saying that a player with an average of 34 then a player with an average of 32 are rubbish.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    I think you can say that Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Jones and Monty > Tremlett, Anderson, Sidebottom and Monty + a batsman.

    Harmison was finding some form before his hernia problem. Jones didn't have one GOOD series, he had a GREAT series. There hasn''t been a better bowling performance in the art of reverse swing bowling in modern times. He was England's best bowler in the '05 Ashes IMO. Flintoff is not overrated when he is batting/bowling at his best, I don't know what you're on about.

    Tremlett is good, but he's not quite there yet. He needs to find that right length and get the batsmen playing at the ball more often. His pace seems to vary a bit as well, he needs to be bowling at 87mph 5 balls out of 6. Anderson is still inconsistent and leaks runs - too wide, too short, too many times. I can't really criticize Sidebottom in any way though, he has been excellent all summer, a perfect replacement for Hoggard.
    The wickets were swinging and he was a fairly new man on the block so the aussies were off guard, just like when monty first entered the scene he took batsmen by surprise and now look at him. Plus i watched most of the ashes and jones granted did get the ball to swing, but saying hes the best in modern times is ridiculous as rp singh was just as good at Trent bridge and Akram/Younis also come to mind as it wasnt that long ago they were around.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XH5hgqqIbLU
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Flintoff made his Test debut when he was 20. He has improved a lot since then. Averages don't always paint a true picture when you have been playing a long time from a young age. Arguements based on saying that a player with an average of 34 then a player with an average of 32 are rubbish.
    Um.....facts don't lie. I'm sorry - the record shows it. Freddy really does have a poor batting average. And you say he has improved a lot. Well unless his average was below 10 in his first few years, it shouldn't be very hard to improve an average of 30 odd. :rolleyes: You're argument falls apart right there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Flintoff made his Test debut when he was 20. He has improved a lot since then. Averages don't always paint a true picture when you have been playing a long time from a young age. Arguements based on saying that a player with an average of 34 then a player with an average of 32 are rubbish.
    yeh i partly agree you cant always compare cos there are variables such as your team, captain etc, however they are still a good indicator when you compare at the end of your career. Also when you are in your prime at 29 your average should be higher as with most players it may go down 30+. But the case is that people are saying hes a world class player which isnt true and tendulkar played from even a younger age (16 yrs old) and look at his average!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    yeh i partly agree you cant always compare cos there are variables such as your team, captain etc, however they are still a good indicator when you compare at the end of your career. Also when you are in your prime at 29 your average should be higher as with most players it may go down 30+. But the case is that people are saying hes a world class player which isnt true and tendulkar played from even a younger age (16 yrs old) and look at his average!
    Comparing Tendulkar to Flintoff is like comparing Pele's goalscoring record to Simon Davies. First of all, they play different roles. Tendulkar is a batsman only, so his average is always going to be higher. Secondly, Flintoff has achieved nothing when comparing him to a legend like Tendulkar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    im not comparing them, the guy was saying freddy started at a younger age and therefore his average is lower and i was pointing out so did tendulkar, dravid and others so this is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    because i have only just become a member you clearly have no cricket knowlege what so ever when all you are doing is waiting for bad balls it is the easiest game in the world when u are forced into scoring runs this is it what makes it hard this is why monty was bowling over the wicket to force something to happen. A spinner is going to get the treatment every once in a while especially when sloggers like Dhoni are playing. Shame he cant use his top hand or play the short the ball really
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    im not comparing them, the guy was saying freddy started at a younger age and therefore his average is lower and i was pointing out so did tendulkar, dravid and others so this is irrelevant.
    No, I think he was saying that Flintoff started off quite poorly, but then he gradually got a lot better - so how good he is now isn't reflected in his averages because they're brought down by his early days.

    Whilst that might be true, it doesn't justify which such a low batting average. Say - between the ages of 20 and 23 his average was very low for an England middle-order batsman: say 22. Then, assuming the same number of test matches are played ever year - which is again arguably wrong since he would be more likely to play more tests in his latter years as he's more established. But anyway, assuming that for simplicities sake, his average must only have been around 36 for the last 6 years for him to have settled at an average of 32.

    It's a poor average, and over 67 tests, if he was really a very good batsman he would've established a much higher record now. e.g. Laxman, a no.6 Indian batsman has an average of 42 after playing 87 tests. Now, in contrast to Freddy, he had a flying start to his career, but in the last few years, he's been awful. But his average is still respectable despite his blip.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Synergetic)
    How, exactly, was Harmison finding his form? He was all over the place against West Indies. And so what if Jones did have one great series? It was just that - one great series. Besides, Prior pretty much averaged 100 after the West Indies series, England wouldn't have replaced him anyway. The press were talking him up as the next big thing. And please don't tell me you're still using an Ashes example from 2005. :rolleyes:
    Batting averages over one series is a pointless argument. Batting averages are inflated if you're not out and having one big score really does inflate your average even more. Prior scored his century at the first test, where the Windies were bowling as well as my local village sunday XI. Simon Jones had a great series because he was consitantly taking wickets, he was on the spot first ball of ever spell, and he got some very good Australian batsmen out.


    (Original post by Synergetic)
    Since then, he was also playing in the Ashes where the Aussies thrashed England.
    He bowled 7 overs and took one wicket before he got injured in the first test, so yeah, he did play when the Aussies thrashed England. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Synergetic)
    Anderson is looking very promising indeed. He has the knack of bowling a brilliant delivery every so often. The ball that bowled Dravid is a prime example. Tremlett - it would be worth giving him another chance, but he seems like another Harmison in the making. He can be inconsistent but the bounce he generates causes problems for batsman.
    Anderson bowls magic balls. His ball that bowled Ganguly was the best ball of the series IMO. It doesn't get much better then that for a swing bowler bowling to a left hander. Apart from the first test, every 2 spells out of 3 he hasn't been bowling the right line or length. Tremlett looks like he could be another Harmison in the making, but then again, Broad looks pretty good as well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Synergetic)
    No, I think he was saying that Flintoff started off quite poorly, but then he gradually got a lot better - so how good he is now isn't reflected in his averages because they're brought down by his early days.

    Whilst that might be true, it doesn't justify which such a low batting average. Say - between the ages of 20 and 23 his average was very low for an England middle-order batsman: say 22. Then, assuming the same number of test matches are played ever year - which is again arguably wrong since he would be more likely to play more tests in his latter years as he's more established. But anyway, assuming that for simplicities sake, his average must only have been around 36 for the last 6 years for him to have settled at an average of 32.

    It's a poor average, and over 67 tests, if he was really a very good batsman he would've established a much higher record now. e.g. Laxman, a no.6 Indian batsman has an average of 42 after playing 87 tests. Now, in contrast to Freddy, he had a flying start to his career, but in the last few years, he's been awful. But his average is still respectable despite his blip.
    Flintoff never did establish himself as a very good bastmen, only really as a good batsmen. But that's is just my point - he is an all rounder and he can be compared to batsmen as a batsmen or he can be compared as a bowler to other bowlers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegman!)
    because i have only just become a member you clearly have no cricket knowlege what so ever
    I don't understand. How can there be a relationship between the fact that you've just become a member, and my cricketing knowledge? :toofunny:


    (Original post by thegman!)
    when all you are doing is waiting for bad balls it is the easiest game in the world when u are forced into scoring runs this is it what makes it hard
    But in the second test match, both sides were just 'waiting for bad balls'. In fact, you could argue India were on the offensive and were looking to score relatively quickly and if England were trying to save the match, they were the ones playing the 'waiting game'.

    A similar scenario applies in this test match, now, too.

    (Original post by thegman!)
    this is why monty was bowling over the wicket to force something to happen. A spinner is going to get the treatment every once in a while especially when sloggers like Dhoni are playing.
    Yeah, but if the spinner was very good, he could use this to his advantage and take wickets. Not try to bowl 70 odd miles an hour because Dhoni is waiting to pounce on anything at the other end.

    (Original post by thegman!)
    Shame he cant use his top hand or play the short the ball really
    What's a bigger shame is that he managed to rape England anyway. Cheers. :beer:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't say slogging is performing rape but if you get your pleasures like that its up to you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    The wickets were swinging and he was a fairly new man on the block so the aussies were off guard, just like when monty first entered the scene he took batsmen by surprise and now look at him. Plus i watched most of the ashes and jones granted did get the ball to swing, but saying hes the best in modern times is ridiculous as rp singh was just as good at Trent bridge and Akram/Younis also come to mind as it wasnt that long ago they were around.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XH5hgqqIbLU
    Jones wasn't just off the block, he played his first test match in 2002, although, he never performed as well as he did in the Ashes before that point. RP Singh was not bowling as well as Jones, simply put. He took 3 wickets at Trent Bridge. By "modern times" I just meant after the Akram/Younis era.

    edit: about Dhonis innings: any remotly agressive middle order batsmen would have done the same to Kumble in that situation, so it's no surprise that Monty went all over the place. India already had a lot of runs on the board, he got through that awkward start and when the spinner comes on, you know that any batsmen would be looking to attack. No doubt Dhoni is one of the bigger strikers of ball in cricket, but any other batsmen would have done the same, just not hit it as far out of the ground maybe :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Batting averages over one series is a pointless argument. Batting averages are inflated if you're not out and having one big score really does inflate your average even more. Prior scored his century at the first test, where the Windies were bowling as well as my local village sunday XI. Simon Jones had a great series because he was consitantly taking wickets, he was on the spot first ball of ever spell, and he got some very good Australian batsmen out.
    I agree. It is very misleading. But everyone starts somewhere. If I'm not mistaken, Pieterson also averaged over 60 after his first series, and he went on to, arguably, become England's best current batsman. After Prior scored so many runs, the selectors were never going to drop him for the India series - and that's a fact. If a striker scores consecutive goals in 5 matches, you don't drop him for the 6th.




    (Original post by AesopRock)
    He bowled 7 overs and took one wicket before he got injured in the first test, so yeah, he did play when the Aussies thrashed England. :rolleyes:
    Ah yes. My bad - I totally forgot about that. Still, going on about that Ashes to prove his ability seems a little desperate for me. It was 2 years ago - so much can change, especially after a lengthy injury.



    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Anderson bowls magic balls. His ball that bowled Ganguly was the best ball of the series IMO. It doesn't get much better then that for a swing bowler bowling to a left hander. Apart from the first test, every 2 spells out of 3 he hasn't been bowling the right line or length. Tremlett looks like he could be another Harmison in the making, but then again, Broad looks pretty good as well.
    I haven't seen much of Broad tbh. I reckon Anderson could become a good bowler for England. He is still quite young. He just needs to become a little more consistent. His natural swing movement is very dangerous. What's more impressive that he can generate that swing even on a pitch and weather like this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    Flintoff never did establish himself as a very good bastmen, only really as a good batsmen. But that's is just my point - he is an all rounder and he can be compared to batsmen as a batsmen or he can be compared as a bowler to other bowlers.
    A good batsman should be able to have a better average than 32 after 60 odd tests. He is average.

    As a bowler, he is better. Even so, just two 5fers suggests he's far from a match-winning bowler.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.