As I've seen you do with some batsmen, you're concentrating too much on aesthetics over results.
I dont know which batsmen are these. But there is nothing wrong with looking at aesthetics overr stats - since stats never tell the whole truth in cricket. If Victor Trmuper can be recognised as a great batsmen despite an average of 39, despite common knowledge via stats spoon feeding us that great batsmen have to average at minimum 45. The same thing applies with Flintoff's bowling to a degree.
Top_Cat said:
One 5-fer in the whole series. That's a fact.
Bowled better than, was unlucky not have taken 5 for in Edgbaston & OT. Which does happen to bowlers in test cricket.
Top_Cat said:
Seriously, as well as he bowled, I've seen far more lethal series from many other bowlers.
So have i technically. But i would say his over to Ponting in Birmingham is argubably the best first over a batsman has ever had since Holding to Boycott - Barbados 1980..
Top_Cat said:
From my perspective, even that series was a metaphor for why he wasn't a great Test match wicket-taker; a couple of decent bursts when he actually threw the ball up surrounded by long periods of back-of-a-length seam which, whilst hard to score from, didn't exactly run through the Aussies.
All this is irrelevant since i am not basing the argument about what he did solely in the 05 Ashes. I addressed why his back-of-a-lenght bowling after the Ashes prevented him from taking his bowling to the next gear in the quote just below the same posted you quoted:
me said:
What prevented from taking it to next gear (which in my opinion he certainly had another gear to go as a bowler after Ashes 05 to IND 05/06) was his injuries.
Since between SRI 06 to Ashes 09 as you should have remembered although his bowling (unlike his batting which took a while to find form, which is why he basically turned into a bowling all-rounder during this period) was on the mark from ball one, regardless of how long he was absent for & remainded test quality. It defiantely was level below his Ashes 05heroics.
The Ashes was the beginning of his Zenith as a bowler, he never got to complete it.
Top_Cat said:
Simon Jones was by far the more threatening bowler.
Disagree IMO they where even.
Top_Cat said:
Averaging 25 with the ball as a peak is pretty average as far as Test bowlers go too. A bloke like Glenn McGrath averaged a few runs less for his whole career. What made Flintoff brilliant for that period was his batting coupled with that bowling (which was a monumental effort to do both that well). The bowling alone was good, solid Test stuff.
Interesting you bring up McGrath here in this talk of Flintoff's "lack of 5-wicket hauls". Since that 2 year peak in mentioned which ender in IND 06. Flintoff bowled superbly that series but he never took a 5 wicket haul. If my memory is correct McGrath despite his superb record in India never took a 5 wicket haul in IND either.
Exactly, Flintoff was a solid back of a length bowler who was very difficult to get away and caused all sorts of top batsmen problems, however his bowling wasn't good enough to consistently get wickets.
The sooner you get this mischaracterisation of Master Fred's career out of your head & clearly understand the dynamics of the high & lows of his test career - the better it will be for you IMHO.
Even his 5 wicket haul at the Oval was on the back of a 17 over spell unchanged.
Ha why is the lenght of the spell important?. Of course it wasn't Ambrose 7-1 Perth 93 stuff. But the pitch was flat ATT & he swung the course of AUS innings with that spell (although the place got a bit overcast during that spell). Warne bowled 30+ overs in day 1 his 5 wicket haul, is the less significant because he didn't rip through ENG in 15 overs??
Flintoff is every bit as much the classic 5th bowler as Kallis is.
WTF haha this is madness. So you are telling me currently ENG now that Flintoff has retired, we have just lost a "classic 5th bowler"??? Really try again..
Except Kallis has been a world class batsman for over 10 years. Flintoff hasn't.
Correction Kallis has not be WC batsman for OVER 10 years - nobody was calling him WC in 99 or 2000. Kallis started to peak as batsman this era around 2003/04 i think when he scored like 5/6 consective test centuries or something.
But again all this irrelevant, as i keep asking give me a series this decade where Kallis had a better series as an "all-rounder" than Flintoff in Ashes 05 & IND 06??. No one apparantley knows...
How can you be classified as a true "all-rounder" in the case of Kallis when you have not done the double of scoring a hundred & taken a 5-wicket haul againts quality test opposition in 6 1/2 years??