Ashes 2009 - Predict Today, Laugh Tommorow!

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by marc71178

I'd say that's being generous to Collingwood...

He averaged over 48 in the series, I don't see how that's being generous.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

He averaged over 48 in the series, I don't see how that's being generous.

Scored a double ton on an absolute road and fair play to him for that, but never once got past 30 thereafter. He was our second most effective batsman, but there was a big drop off after KP.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by marc71178

I'd question if he were actually the worst number 6 in the Ashes...

Err, what? Flintoff scored two fifties in the Ashes. The Australian number 6 across the five tests scored two centuries, one for each of the batsmen who batted there, and Clarke and Symonds together scored 433 runs @ 72.17 batting at 6. Symonds 232 @ 58 and Clarke 201 @ 100.50. It wasn't even close, even given that Australia's bowlers were generally better.

In general I'd say Flintoff is probably a better test batsman than Symonds, but Symonds is really a stop-gap player, selected on his fielding and bowling as much as his batting, and because of injuries and Martyn's retirement. Granted, if he was a long term selection at 6 and didn't improve dramatically he'd probably be worse than Flintoff, but I think Australia could get away with it given the strength of the batsmen below him. Clarke is quite obviously a much better test batsman than Flintoff, so I assume you're talking only about Symonds.

Flintoff simply hasn't been good enough to be a test number 6. An average of 32 from more than 60 tests is horrible for a top order batsman, especially when he's the last recognised batsman in the order. He'd be a pretty good number 7, but it's obvious IMO that the current setup leaves England very weak from 6 and below, and that was a major weakness in the recent series.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

TBF it was a Pakistan without Ahktar & (until the 4th test) Asif and Kaneria was having an ordinary series. With Asif we were getting our arses handed to us until you-know-what happened.

Good point. I remember a Pakistani forum member labelling it one of the worst bowling line-ups Pakistan ever put out, so I think runs against them is hardly a massive achievement.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

TBF it was a Pakistan without Ahktar & (until the 4th test) Asif and Kaneria was having an ordinary series. With Asif we were getting our arses handed to us until you-know-what happened.

Yeah, I actually forgot that Asif only played one test in that series. I thought it was Asif and Gul throughout.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Err, what? Flintoff scored two fifties in the Ashes. The Australian number 6 across the five tests scored two centuries, one for each of the batsmen who batted there, and Clarke and Symonds together scored 433 runs @ 72.17 batting at 6. Symonds 232 @ 58 and Clarke 201 @ 100.50. It wasn't even close, even given that Australia's bowlers were generally better.

In general I'd say Flintoff is probably a better test batsman than Symonds, but Symonds is really a stop-gap player, selected on his fielding and bowling as much as his batting, and because of injuries and Martyn's retirement. Granted, if he was a long term selection at 6 and didn't improve dramatically he'd probably be worse than Flintoff, but I think Australia could get away with it given the strength of the batsmen below him. Clarke is quite obviously a much better test batsman than Flintoff, so I assume you're talking only about Symonds.

Flintoff simply hasn't been good enough to be a test number 6. An average of 32 from more than 60 tests is horrible for a top order batsman, especially when he's the last recognised batsman in the order. He'd be a pretty good number 7, but it's obvious IMO that the current setup leaves England very weak from 6 and below, and that was a major weakness in the recent series.

I think in The Ashes itself you're absolutely right, however in fairness to Marc I think he meant Flintoff wasn't the worst batsman to play at number six in The Ashes generally speaking. You said

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh, or at least close

& I'd guess most people would take Flintoff as a test batsman over Symonds most of the time.

As I said tho, there's no doubt that Australia's number 6 was more effective than than ours in the series just past.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by Craig

And there is no reason to suggest some Australia's replacement players will be great successes.

Why not? I've grown accustomed to expecting gun replacements from Australia.. I think Jacques has played an ODI already, and looked better than any England ODI batsman for a long time.. Brad Hodge his 200 against South Africa and was deemed to be not good enough.. We seem to be taking Hussey for granted, he hasn't been playing for a long time at all, Clarke has had his blips, but looks to be a class act, and Stuart Clark looks like he's been bowling against the very best for ten years.. Australia produce the best newcomers, and thats why they are the best team, I have little reason to doubt they will continue producing the best