• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What 100th ODI for Flintoff?

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
i assume its his 100th one day match for England, the others must have come in the superseries
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Raymond said:
So Super Series is counted? was it same for others too
Of course they counted - don't you remember the statisticians' uproar at their being designated as official Tests and ODIs?
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah it is.

Freddy was barely interested in the ODIs anyway, so its fair enough he pretends he didn't play them.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Neil Pickup said:
Of course they counted - don't you remember the statisticians' uproar at their being designated as official Tests and ODIs?
Many statisticians refuse to acknowledge those matches still though. I support them in that stance.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
In all seriousness, I wonder how many would have dismissed the Super Series as irrelevant if Australia had lost all of them? A lot of people seem to take the view that the world XI lost, therefore the world XI weren't interested.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
No, Freddy wasn't interested. Just the way he batted and his celebrations when he got a wicket made it obvious enough really.

Murali, Vettori, Ntini, Dravid, Pollock and Sanga obviously showed some interest. You could tell.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
FaaipDeOiad said:
In all seriousness, I wonder how many would have dismissed the Super Series as irrelevant if Australia had lost all of them? A lot of people seem to take the view that the world XI lost, therefore the world XI weren't interested.
I don't think it was about that. The English players were in no position to play cricket so soon after the Ashes euphoria. I don't think he would have done much better even if he had played for England against some other side so soon after the Ashes. They seemed to have some hangovers even in Pak.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
FaaipDeOiad said:
In all seriousness, I wonder how many would have dismissed the Super Series as irrelevant if Australia had lost all of them? A lot of people seem to take the view that the world XI lost, therefore the world XI weren't interested.
I would have dismissed it in the same manner. A World XI is not a team. A World XI is a showpiece and should therefore not be catered for in official statistics of the sport. Yes, sport is meant to be entertainment, but it has evolved to a level of seriousness where statistics are very important in the minds of the masses.

Eleven of the best players does not equate the best team.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Any "Rest Of" team is not credible as any team, really.
Certainly, absolutely no way should any team reprisenting "The Rest" be classed as a Test or ODI.
I was always against the Super Series one-dayers being designated ODIs (I'd not even designate them List-A-ODers) and I haven't changed that stance since they took place.
I'm just greatful StatsGuru has a function which can easily eliminate games which weren't played for your country.
 

Top