Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18

Thread: Which 4 are better?

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    If it annoys you, that's all the more reason to do it even more than I already do.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    FBU
    FBU is offline
    International 12th Man FBU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    The thing about this is, it's a case of times. Caddick, especially, had a very up-and-down career. His 1993-1998 spell was, by-and-large, less good than poor; his 1999-May2001 one was superb; and his June2001-2002 one was pretty average with the odd good bit mixed in.

    Caddick, simply, was a volatile bowler. You never really knew what was going to turn-up.

    Gough, Jones, White and maybe now Flintoff, are all bowlers who had their careers damaged seriously by injury. Cork had it damaged by other factors, mostly relating to poor selection.

    Harmison is simply rubbish, and White is IMO massively underrated. He had the ability to do more with the ball - and at 90mph pace - than most bowlers ever do. Sadly, the injuries took their toll.

    In 2000 and 2000\01, however, that attack (with the addition of Giles and Croft when spin was neccessary) bowled better than I've ever seen any attack bowl, including Flintoff and Jones (and that's virtually all it was, with Hoggard making a belated contribution) in 2005. Both attacks had conditions that suited them, whether that be seam in the pitch, good balls (and outfields) for conventional or reverse swing, whatever. Sadly, neither attack has ever really had the chance to prove themselves in other conditions, because none stayed together for more than a year.

    Combined figures, TBH, don't really tell you anything (not least because the latter includes games against substandard sides, which none of the former ever played against - the last Test any played in was 2002\03, just before England played their first series against substandard opposition, Zimbabwe in 2003). It's the figures - and the team feats they engineered (both, for instance, were playing alongside powerful but brittle batting-line-ups) in those two short periods which count. May 2000 to May 2001 (14 Tests), and March 2004 to September 2005 (17 Tests). Everything else relates to different parts of said bowlers' careers.
    I have to agree that Caddick and co were better. White was the only all rounder that could replace Flintoff when he was injured or out of form although White's batting wasn't up to much. These days there is no one and England have to play the extra batsman. Injuries have affected all the bowlers except Hoggard and this is only his second injury in seven years.

  3. #18
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I honestly think there isn't a hell of a lot between White and Flintoff as batsmen. White, indeed, undoubtedly helped take the pressure off Flintoff - in the 5 years when he was utterly hopeless, he played less than he otherwise might have due to White's excellence around that time.

    I've always said that Flintoff's batting is just a little overestimated by some - only on three occasions has he done well against particularly good bowling-attacks. White, too, did such a thing, and had precious little opportunity to face the seriously average attacks that Flintoff has several times gorged himself on.

    People who looked at White purely on his overall career averages would get the misleading impression that he was a very, very average all-rounder. But that's far from the truth. He was no Botham, but neither, IMO, is Flintoff.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •