***Official*** West Indies in England

[GIMH]

When Geraint was in the side Flintoff was in his purple patch anyway, so it didn't really matter. I guess that's kind of Rich's point, though, and I think on the whole he might well be right, I just take issue with the idea that Flintoff isn't out of form

 

[The Masterplan]

When Geraint was in the side Flintoff was in his purple patch anyway, so it didn't really matter. I guess that's kind of Rich's point, though, and I think on the whole he might well be right, I just take issue with the idea that Flintoff isn't out of form

Solution? Put Geraint back in at number 7 in place of Prior, or any other english keeper

 

[Furball]

Well yeah he would have to be a pretty awful batsman to not be out of form. I do actually think that the vast majority of England cricket fans and commentators realise that he should not be batting at 7. But I think Richard is right in some regards in saying this was not the case a few years ago as I would freely admit to supporting the idea of Flintoff at 6 when Geriant Jones was in the side and I think I and everyone else was perfectly right in doing so.

Flintoff at 6 was fine 2003- India 2006 (I'm aware he batted 7 against South Africa) because he was averaging 40 during this period.

I think I'm right in saying that his last First Class hundred was against Australia in 2005 though. That's not the form of a number 6.

IMO Flintoff has always been best suited to playing the Gilchrist role at 7 - an incredibly dangerous lower order hitter - but with the exception of a couple of glorious years of form, he's never been capable of batting any higher.

 

[Evermind]

IMO Flintoff has always been best suited to playing the Gilchrist role at 7 - an incredibly dangerous lower order hitter - but with the exception of a couple of glorious years of form, he's never been capable of batting any higher.

Gilchrist averaged 47 with the bat. Flintoff averages 50% less. Gilchrist was a lot more than just a slogger, and that's sadly what Flintoff has become of late - a slogger whose slogs don't come off (Afridi style).

 

[Richard]

No, even of late Flintoff has been better than Afridi. Much better.

 

[Richard]

I actually think he is out of form though, can hardly remember him getting into double figures lately, and he ain't tailender bad

Flintoff since his return to the side last summer has played 13 innings'. He made a pair in his last Test, but in the previous 11 he scored 17, 38, 36*, 2, 9, 11*, 18, 4, 62, 43, 24. As I say - the memory plays tricks. Flintoff has been pretty moderate of late but certainly not terrible. However, people have inflated expectations, so this moderate performance appears terrible. Yet he's not been either constantly being dismissed for single-figure scores nor playing-and-missing four times an over at everything.

He's just been getting out before getting many runs. Which is exactly what he's done against good bowling in every series of his career except South Africa 2003, Australia 2005 and India 2005/06.

 

[Furball]

Gilchrist averaged 47 with the bat. Flintoff averages 50% less. Gilchrist was a lot more than just a slogger, and that's sadly what Flintoff has become of late - a slogger whose slogs don't come off (Afridi style).

Flintoff averaged 43 at 7 during his golden spell.

 

[Jarquis]

Gilchrist averaged 47 with the bat. Flintoff averages 50% less. Gilchrist was a lot more than just a slogger, and that's sadly what Flintoff has become of late - a slogger whose slogs don't come off (Afridi style).

Tests 26 46 1 1683 156 37.40

Afridi's stats...
Not all that bad really.

 

[Richard]

Afridi's Test stats are utterly incomparable to those of just about any other player as he only ever played Test cricket when the odds were stacked in his favour. Because even Pakistan's clueless selectors knew that when they weren't he'd just make a complete and total fool of the team and them.

 

[Richard]

<something>

Yeah, it is, toolmanteam.

 

[Richard]

<something>

And if you consider the fact that that post is utterly, well, non-sequiteurial, it is.

 

[Richard]

<something>

Indeed. Because I want never gets.

Now, given this is (or will be soon) an *Official* tour thread, best stop making silly comments in it.

EDIT: ITSTL, the above posts from the account in question are now gone. Just to make it clear, as I don't bother quoting posts which are directly above, there were posts there.

 

[sammy2]

I see windies winning this series, I can't wait.

 

[Uppercut]

Just to make it clear, as I don't bother quoting posts which are directly above, there were posts there.

 

[Redbacks]

sure

 

[Evermind]

Flintoff averaged 43 at 7 during his golden spell.

Of what, 5 games? No point isolating little periods. Zaheer Khan averaged 16 with the ball during his "golden spell". Samaraweera averages 100+ during his "golden spell". Hell, Gilchrist averaged 56+ during his golden spell, so Flintoff loses again. See what I mean?

Boy it is tiring to rebut arguments concerning Flintoff and Botham; players who had like 2 good years and 8 bad ones, and people still judge them based on those 2 (mostly because it's so rare that England win the Ashes). If only everyone was as kind with other players.

 

[shivfan]

I'm not really following the IPL, so I'm not totally clear who's in and who's out, and why....

But, suffice to say, I'm quite pleased Shiv won't be playing in the IPL again, and will now be touring England. That means, only Gayle and Edwards will miss the three warm-up games.

 

[Richard]

Boy it is tiring to rebut arguments concerning Flintoff and Botham; players who had like 2 good years and 8 bad ones, and people still judge them based on those 2 (mostly because it's so rare that England win the Ashes). If only everyone was as kind with other players.

Botham actually had considerably more than that. He had 4 outstanding years and 5 moderate ones. It's far too easy for various dunderheads to overestimate the bad and underestimate the good because of what they're spoon-fed by basic stats packages.

 

[oitoitoi]

Botham actually had considerably more than that. He had 4 outstanding years and 5 moderate ones. It's far too easy for various dunderheads to overestimate the bad and underestimate the good because of what they're spoon-fed by basic stats packages.

What about the other 6?

I always think Botham - started spectacularly, tailed off a bit too early with sporadic moments of brilliance.

 

[zaremba]

Botham actually had considerably more than that. He had 4 outstanding years and 5 moderate ones. It's far too easy for various dunderheads to overestimate the bad and underestimate the good because of what they're spoon-fed by basic stats packages.

Not sure what you mean by "overestimating the bad" (ie over-rating him, or under-rating him?).

If you mean that Botham wasn't as bad a player in his latter years as some people think, well, call me a dunderhead, but I disagree: he really was that bad.