Squads for Bangladesh

[mcshane in the 79th]

I think Flintoff is one of the most over-rated cricketers ever. I think everyone loves him because he's a character and seems like a really nice bloke but his actual test record is quite modest. As I've pointed out before, Jacob Oram of NZ has a better record as a batsman and bowler in tests.

Flintoff's character was an important part of his game. He gave such a psychological boost to the team when he played, which won't necessarily reflect in his own stats, which I agree are as you say, somewhat modest. I think England are badly missing him already

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If you look at stats alone, then yes I'd agree Flintoff was hugely overrated.

However, stats don't show the series defining over at Edgbaston or a quick 40 he mullered off 20 balls to set up a winning position. He brought so much more to a side than weight of wickets and runs. Take into account his outstandin slip fielding and he I still believe he was a truly great all-rounder.

No-one is doubting that Flintoff was a good cricketer, who at times was critical to England's success [or otherwise].

A GREAT all-rounder, though? Sorry, but no.

A truly great all-rounder is worthy of his place in the side as a batsman AND as a bowler - good enough at each to be selected for that alone.

They are very few in number. Sobers was one. Botham another. Kallis before his injuries cost him his pace was easily the world's best all-rounder - far above Flintoff. In the past Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee could probably make a case, although neither were THAT good with the bat.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What Wisden and Cricinfo haven't come up with is a stat for game-changing ability and fear factor.

The presence of players like Flintoff and Pietersen make opposition captains alter their game plans, i.e. declarations totals have to be that much higher than one would wish.

 

[sten_super]

If I was anumber 7 in county level I would be over the moon with an average of 30.

Sorry should have qualified; I don't particularly have a problem with the batting average, but 53 wickets at 35 doesn't bode well if he's being picked as a bowler.

Where the f*** is Rashid? should definitely be in the team, another talent being ruined by England.

Rashid is what, 21? I'd much rather they took their time with him and played him when he was ready than turn him into another Schofield...

The one thing I do think we are missing in our bowling is someone a bit more aggressive. We have bowlers that can swing the ball but if conditions aren't right we are toothless. Hopefully Plunkett can bowl consistently quick and accurately because I'd much rather have him near the side than Sidearse. The problem with him last time round was he was very wayward at times.

Agreed. I think it's time to abandon the Siders experiment now; it's clear he doesn't have the pace anymore to play Test match cricket. Was disappointed that they dropped Onions for the last Test, and I think you are right that Plunkett is the natural 'agressive' out-and-out fast bowler in the squad.

If you look at stats alone, then yes I'd agree Flintoff was hugely overrated.

However, stats don't show the series defining over at Edgbaston or a quick 40 he mullered off 20 balls to set up a winning position. He brought so much more to a side than weight of wickets and runs. Take into account his outstandin slip fielding and he I still believe he was a truly great all-rounder.

I think the Flintoff argument depends on what you mean by over-rated. He certainly never fully justified the hype, but the confidence that he gave England, through almost his presence almost, meant that he was key to team when he played. He didn't produce the goods often enough, but that didn't seem to matter to his team or the opposition; it still gave England and boost, and the opposition a worry, when he came in to bowl.

 

[The Wizard]

No-one is doubting that Flintoff was a good cricketer, who at times was critical to England's success [or otherwise].

A GREAT all-rounder, though? Sorry, but no.

A truly great all-rounder is worthy of his place in the side as a batsman AND as a bowler - good enough at each to be selected for that alone.

They are very few in number. Sobers was one. Botham another. Kallis before his injuries cost him his pace was easily the world's best all-rounder - far above Flintoff. In the past Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee could probably make a case, although neither were THAT good with the bat.

Flintoff was definitely a truly great all-rounder until all of his knee injuries in my opinion, but after those injuries he seemed to become more of a bowler than an all rounder.

Broad is almost 10 years younger than Flintoff so there is definitely time for his game to develop.

 

[Common as Mook]

No-one is doubting that Flintoff was a good cricketer, who at times was critical to England's success [or otherwise].

A GREAT all-rounder, though? Sorry, but no.

A truly great all-rounder is worthy of his place in the side as a batsman AND as a bowler - good enough at each to be selected for that alone.

They are very few in number. Sobers was one. Botham another. Kallis before his injuries cost him his pace was easily the world's best all-rounder - far above Flintoff. In the past Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee could probably make a case, although neither were THAT good with the bat.

It modern cricket it is nigh-on impossible to be an allrounder in the Kapil Dev/Khan/Botham/Hadlee mould. There is simply too much cricket played. The reason that we can mention Kallis in the same breath is because he started his career earlier than Flintoff. Maybe I should clarify what I meant - in modern times I would say he was a great all rounder.

I think we also under-estimate how highly he was thought of around the world and not just here. The greatest test side of all time were terrified of him. I was at a Q&A session at Hove when the Aussies were over this summer and you could literally see Gilchrist's face drop at the mere mention of Flintoff's name.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

He was far better a bowler than a batsman, but what a bowler. While he was nowhere near his best during the 2009 Ashes series I watched the highlights the other day and they way he worked out how to get people out was hugely intelligent, not something that people often gave him credit for.

Gilchrist was rightly terrified of him. Flintoff dessimated him during the 2005 series and his lack of runs during the series was a huge reason for us winning it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Flintoff was definitely a truly great all-rounder until all of his knee injuries in my opinion, but after those injuries he seemed to become more of a bowler than an all rounder.

Broad is almost 10 years younger than Flintoff so there is definitely time for his game to develop.

Before the injuries robbed him of the ability to sustain decent spells at pace, he certainly was a top drawer bowler. He's never been a very good test batsmen though. And that's nothing to do with stats, thats just the truth.

Even more so for the last couple of years - you were more likely to get a quick fifty out of Broad or Swann than Flintoff.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Well BLOW me, Liam Plunkett isn't even 25 yet.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It modern cricket it is nigh-on impossible to be an allrounder in the Kapil Dev/Khan/Botham/Hadlee mould. There is simply too much cricket played. .

That is a myth, and a complete nonsense. Whilst there is more TEST cricket played nowadays, back then, those guys would have been playing for their counties in every spare week, between tests.

At a guess, I'd wager that the likes of those listed above bowled THREE times as many overs a year than a current test bowler.

 

[Common as Mook]

That is a myth, and a complete nonsense. Whilst there is more TEST cricket played nowadays, back then, those guys would have been playing for their counties in every spare week, between tests.

At a guess, I'd wager that the likes of those listed above bowled THREE times as many overs a year than a current test bowler.

Not sure if it is possible to find out, but I would wager otherwise.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Not sure if it is possible to find out, but I would wager otherwise.

Someone wisden/cricinfo literate like Gwylan might be able to work it out, but yes for us mortals too hard!

By way of example though, Hadlee bowled 772 overs for Nottinghamshire in the 1984 season. Add in whatever he bowled in NZ domestic cricket and then Tests and ODI's on top, it would be way, way, way in excess of what Broad, Flintoff or the like would ever bowl.

 

[sten_super]

Not sure if it is possible to find out, but I would wager otherwise.

Thanks to the joys of cricinfo, we can approximate.

Sir Ian Botham bowled 21815 (26% of combined total) balls in Tests. He bowled 63547 (74%) in first class cricket. His career spanned 1974-93, giving an average of 4493 balls per year.

Kapil Dev bowled 27740 (36%) in Tests, 48853 (64%) in FC. Career over 75-93 averaging 4255 balls per year.

Matthew Hoggard has so far bowled 13909 (28%) in Tests, 35561 (72%) in FC. Career so far spans 96-09, giving an average of 3805 balls per year.

Jimmy Anderson has so far bowled 9430 (34%) in Tests, 18604 (66%) in FC. Career to-date spans 2002-09, giving an average of 4005 balls per year.

Also worked out Harmison; 13375 (27%) Tests, 36484 (73%) FC, 96-09 = 3835 per year.

So using this as an approximation, in the past bowlers bowled more balls/overs in the course of a year.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Thanks to the joys of cricinfo, we can approximate.

Sir Ian Botham bowled 21815 (26% of combined total) balls in Tests. He bowled 63547 (74%) in first class cricket. His career spanned 1974-93, giving an average of 4493 balls per year.

Kapil Dev bowled 27740 (36%) in Tests, 48853 (64%) in FC. Career over 75-93 averaging 4255 balls per year.

Matthew Hoggard has so far bowled 13909 (28%) in Tests, 35561 (72%) in FC. Career so far spans 96-09, giving an average of 3805 balls per year.

Jimmy Anderson has so far bowled 9430 (34%) in Tests, 18604 (66%) in FC. Career to-date spans 2002-09, giving an average of 4005 balls per year.

Also worked out Harmison; 13375 (27%) Tests, 36484 (73%) FC, 96-09 = 3835 per year.

So using this as an approximation, in the past bowlers bowled more balls/overs in the course of a year.

Those stats are averaged across their careers though, so miss the point. The modern England players' figures are boosted by the number of overs they'd have bowled in County cricket when NOT in the test squad. Please check, for example, how nmany balls Anderson bowled altogether last year

 

[hans kraay fan club]

And either way, even if my THREE times as many, was rash, it still proves the point that the idea that you can't have a top class all-rounder now, due to the amount of cricket, is a MYTH.

 

[Common as Mook]

And either way, even if my THREE times as many, was rash, it still proves the point that the idea that you can't have a top class all-rounder now, due to the amount of cricket, is a MYTH.

If you're doing it on purely the amount of balls bowled then fair enough I'll concede on that one.

However, I reckon the intensity at which international cricket is played now a days and the increase in overseas tours will have an impact on the ability to become a top class inetnational all rounder.

There must be a reason for it as since Kallis and Flintoff (wicket-keeper batsmen aside) there haven't been any world-class all rounders.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Do you not think that past Ashes series were 'intense' then?

 

[Common as Mook]

Do you not think that past Ashes series were 'intense' then?

Ashes - of course.

India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka used to be whipping boys for years and we barely ever toured there.

No-one toured South Africa for years.

Windies - mega intense.

 

[sten_super]

Those stats are averaged across their careers though, so miss the point. The modern England players' figures are boosted by the number of overs they'd have bowled in County cricket when NOT in the test squad. Please check, for example, how nmany balls Anderson bowled altogether last year

You aren't at all demanding, are you?!

I can tell you that he bowled 633.4 overs (3802 balls) in all international cricket in 2009 though. 51 overs (306 balls) for Lancs in CC Div 1, and 6 overs (36 balls) in the Friends Provident, giving a total of 690.4 overs, or 4144 balls.

Incidentally, the stats in my previous post are incorrect, as I stupidly seperated out FC and Tests, when of course Test numbers are included in FC games

 

[Gwylan]

The arrival of four world class all-rounders in the 70s and 80s was a bit of an aberration. If you look throughout history there weren't many genuine all-rounders: Australia can really only come up with Gregory, Miller and Benaud (and Benaud was more of a batting bowler). England have been a bit more blessed: Fry, Tate, Woolley, Rhodes, Hirst and Hammond were impressive performers (I interviewed John Langridge for The Cricketer once and he named Hammond as the most impressive bowler he faced, something of a revelation for people who reckon as a batsman).

For some reason South Africa do well with all-rounders; besides Kallis, they've produced Dave Nourse, Mike Procter, Clive Rice, Brian McMillan and Shaun Pollock - Eddie Barlow was no slouch either

So, I don't think you can put it purely down to the lack (or excess) of cricket played - I think that genuine all-rounders are a bit of a statistical fluke. What you are seeing is a lot of batsmen who turn their arm over in one-day cricket and bowlers who are good at containing rather than taking wickets - hence my remarks about bits and pieces cricketers.

I was probably being a bit unfair to Broad who is a decent prospect but I do think that if he batted like Panesar, he'd have been told to go back to the county championship to sharpen up his game before he got the chance to take those wickets at the Oval.