Best 11 of the decade in ODI and TEST

[Ikki]

Tests:

Hayden
Sehwag
Ponting (c) - no one else to captain really. Warne didn't captain so can't really select him.
Kallis
Lara
Dravid
Gilchrist+
Warne
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

Yeah great team. Only one that makes sense with 2 spinners IMO.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah great team. Only one that makes sense with 2 spinners IMO.

agree

 

[stephen]

Yes that was his best & most memorable series. But he did back it up vs IND 05/06 when he averaged 52 with the bat & 30 with the ball.

Flintoff entire peak period as an all-round between Brdigetown 2004 to Mumbai 2006, where he combined quality top 6 batting & top class bowling he averaged 41 with the bat - 25 with the ball. I highly doubt Johnson could match this, as afomentioned at best i think Johnson would become an all-rounder in the Hadlee/Pollock/Davidson mode batting @ # 7 at best.

So you would pick a batsman who averaged 42 in their 3 year peak if they had nothing else to offer? In this day and age that would be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Most keepers around the world these days get close to that at their peak. Flintoff's real advantage was that he was not too much worse than a top 6 batsmen so England could afford to bat him at 6 and pick the extra bowler. Bear in mind that for much of this period England made very conservative picks with their wicket keepers and bowlers to ensure that their tail was strong. Part of the thinking, I'm sure, was to cover Flintoff's back.

- Firstly as already mentioned by poster bagapath can't group the series as one given the home/away advantage thing.

- Secondly i dont think Johnson's batting has exactly gotten worse since those 6 tests for you to consider that a peak period TBF. Johnson's batting is still on that level i'd say.

- Thirdly you can't compare his batting @ 8, to what Flintoff did at his peak.

I agree, you can't directly compare batting at 6 and batting at 8. Johnson's role has largely been to be a hitter and to make quick runs, meaning that he can't cash in against lesser bowling attacks as easily as a top 6 batsman. On good batting surfaces he ends up either being declared upon or has to make quick runs.

Still, I could easily see Johnson finishing test match cricket with a batting average of 35 and a bowling average of 26 with a good 300+ wickets, 3-4000 runs and 5 test tons to his name.

Thats because you got their peak periods especially Flintoff's wrong my friend...

Would have to disagree with both here. Flintoff at his best as a batsman definately was good enough to bat in the top 6 for ENG.

Johnson ATM although i'd agree that he is capable of batting @ 7 in test - he aint fully there yet. Since he aint better batsman than Haddin at all ATM.

Haddin is probably underperforming with the bat by comparison to what he is capable of. Haddin probably has the potential to finish with a 45 average if he applies himself to his batting, and a high 40s average if he wasn't wearing the gloves. So I agree that Johnson is not a better bat than Haddin at the moment. Having said that, he's probably on a par or better than a number of keepers around the globe.

Johnson is definately capable of #7 batting, though maybe not #6 (at least I can't imagine Aus ever fielding a #6 who is going to average under 40 in the forseeable future - remember people are already baying for North's blood and his average is closer to 50).

Flintoff was a bowling all-rounder from SRI 06 to Ashes 09, in that period you could say Johnson was better than him. since that was the period after Freddie's peak, in which injuries severly affecting his game. So Johnson being a better "bowling-allrounder" than a consistenly injured Flintoff is the last stages of his career does say much.

His batting never was able to build on the great improvements he had made between Ashes 05 to IND 06 & although his bowling still remained ENGs best bowling option in tests during that period, it also regressed slightly which was the MAIN reason why Freddie never was able to take his bowling to next level & take more 5 wicket hauls.

Secondly as i showed above Flintoff clearly was capable of batting @ 6 during his peak, so the point about the keeper is irrelevant.

Flintoff would never ever in a million years have batted at #6 for Australia. He was not a better batsman than Marcus North, who is probably our weakest #6 for 20 or so years.

Thirdly why does it matter that ENG never had an attack capable of taking 20 wickets consistently without a 5-man attack?. No team outside AUS in the last decade with McGrath/Warne had the luxury, so i dont see the issue..

It matters because it explains why he batted at #6 for England. Given Flintoff as a batsman only, he would probably have played no more than 5 tests, if he was lucky. Given Flintoff the bowler, England would have given him 79 test caps (actually probably less, given he'd have been dropped more regularly in the early years). Ideally, Flintoff was a test #7. He'd have slotted in nicely behind Gilchrist at 8 in the batting order if he had have played in Australia. At that position I couldn't see him averaging more than 30 in test cricket as a batsman, even if he was at his peak for the whole time.

Ha no way sir, unfortunately i dont think you have followed Flintoff's career that well

I have followed it well enough. He played 3 opponents of note in his peak period - Australia, South Africa and India. He did exceptionally well against all three. That makes him a very good player and definately one of the best of the decade. However, I still think that Johnson has more potential with both bat and ball.

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff's peak performance was against Australia in the 05 ashes series. In that 5 test series he made 402 runs at 40 with 1 century. He took 24 wickets at 27, giving him 4.8 wpm.

Johnson's peak performance so far was against South Africa. In those 6 tests (which effectively could be considered as a single series, given how close the tests were chronologically) he made 401 runs at 60 with 1 century. He took 33 wickets at 25, giving him 5.5 wpm.

Statistically there is very little to separate them at their peaks, except that Johnson got out less and took more wickets per match. Flintoff was always batting 1 spot too high and I think that Johnson bats 1 spot too low (though I wouldn't suggest swapping him with Haddin, who would possibly be a top 6 bat if it wasn't for his keeping).

Both Johnson and Flintoff were bowling all rounders and the only reason that Flintoff batted at 6 was because England never had a keeper who could bat 6 or a bowling attack that was good enough to take 20 wickets without 5 men. If Flintoff couldn't bowl there is no way he'd make any test match side, and he would have been picked for England even if his batting average was 4, which certainly makes him a bowling allrounder.

I really can't be bothered to get into a big stats war, but his Ashes figures were not a one off, his stats with both bat and ball in that series were a little bit worse than his overall figures for the period around 03-06. He was a consistently top-class all-rounder for around three years, Johnson is yet to be a consistently top-class bowler away from Australia, so let's hold steady hey.

 

[Ikki]

IMHO I actually think Johnson's bound to get even better both as a bowler and batsman.

 

[stephen]

I really can't be bothered to get into a big stats war, but his Ashes figures were not a one off, his stats with both bat and ball in that series were a little bit worse than his overall figures for the period around 03-06. He was a consistently top-class all-rounder for around three years, Johnson is yet to be a consistently top-class bowler away from Australia, so let's hold steady hey.

Never have I said anything other than that Johnson has the potential to be better than Flintoff. In their best 5-6 tests against a single opponent they were almost inseperable. That was the only reason I brought up those statistics. Of course Flintoff's peak was longer than Johnsons. I'm not even sure we have seen Johnson's peak yet. He's still got a good 5-7 years of cricket ahead of him and will only get better with the bat as he gains experience.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I dont rate Gilly as a batsman because I think he was the one to prosper most from the quality of the top 6 Australian batters and cashing in on attacks that had been demoralized. By the end of his career he had been worked out and was a dodgy player of spin throughout.

Sorry, but that's plop. Several of Gilchirst's tons were made in extremis.

His maiden 100, for instance. Arrived at 126/5, Waugh declared on 369/5.

& at Wankhede in 2000/01; Oz 99/5 when Gilchrist arrives, 326/7 when he departed.

Or Newlands in 01/02; our hero arrives at 176/5 & is unbeaten on 138 when Oz are all out having added 206 for the last five wickets.

Even the SCG test of the 02/03 Ashes; 150/5 on arrival, 349/9 on exit.

Batting at #3 in the 2nd dig in Sri Lanka in 03/04 Gilchirst arrives with Oz reeling at 11/1 having conceded a 91 run first innings lead and walks off with the ship steadied at 226/3.

Famously too v Bangladesh in 05/06. Oz on the verge of humiliation at 79/5 when he makes his way in & is last man out with the score on 269.

 

[GIMH]

Last one doesn't count, was against Bangladesh

 

[BoyBrumby]

Last one doesn't count, was against Bangladesh

Of course. Silly me.

 

[aussie]

So you would pick a batsman who averaged 42 in their 3 year peak if they had nothing else to offer? In this day and age that would be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Most keepers around the world these days get close to that at their peak. Flintoff's real advantage was that he was not too much worse than a top 6 batsmen so England could afford to bat him at 6 and pick the extra bowler.

Why is is relevant to speculate if Flintoff was just a batsma & only was able to average 42 @ his best?. His role in the team was an all-rounder, so this hypotetical scenerio is fairly irrelevant.

I would say also thanks to injuries again, Flintoff's batting never really reached its peak.

Bear in mind that for much of this period England made very conservative picks with their wicket keepers and bowlers to ensure that their tail was strong. Part of the thinking, I'm sure, was to cover Flintoff's back.

This is true. Thats why the best glovesman in James Foster didn't play more test. Then ENG could have played 6 bats, Flintoff 7 & 3 bowlers. But the covering of Flintoff's back here was again because of his injury record, it would have been crazy for ENG to ever attempt to attempt to go into a test with Flintoff as part of just a 4-man attack.

Still, I could easily see Johnson finishing test match cricket with a batting average of 35 and a bowling average of 26 with a good 300+ wickets, 3-4000 runs and 5 test tons to his name.

I see that potential in him indeed as well. But i won't put my head on block that will happen just yet. To date as i've said before i dont think his batting will be much better than a Davidson/Hadlee/Pollock level.

Flintoff by trade was always a batting all-rounder. Johnson is the opposite. Freddie batted @ 3 & in the top 5 domestically, Johnson has never done that..

Johnson is definately capable of #7 batting, though maybe not #6

# 6 not all yet. # 7 yea, but no consistent quality as yet. He is still a # 8 to date.

(at least I can't imagine Aus ever fielding a #6 who is going to average under 40 in the forseeable future - remember people are already baying for North's blood and his average is closer to 50).

Yea its the most irriatubg thing in the AUS team ATM. I want North to stay @ 6, since i personally as you might know want AUS to play 4 seamers & drop Hauritz. North then would have to spin it.

Flintoff would never ever in a million years have batted at #6 for Australia. He was not a better batsman than Marcus North, who is probably our weakest #6 for 20 or so years.

He'd have slotted in nicely behind Gilchrist at 8 in the batting order if he had have played in Australia. At that position I couldn't see him averaging more than 30 in test cricket as a batsman, even if he was at his peak for the whole time.

Sure he wouldn't have batted # 6 for AUS. But at his best i could have easily seen him batting @ 7 instead of @ # 8 in a team circa 2004 of:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Lehmann
Glichrist
Flintoff
Warne
Gillespie
Kasper
McGrath

One of Clarke, Katich would have not played. Since Flintoff would made that team even better than a extra batsman @ 6.

It matters because it explains why he batted at #6 for England. Given Flintoff as a batsman only, he would probably have played no more than 5 tests, if he was lucky. Given Flintoff the bowler, England would have given him 79 test caps (actually probably less, given he'd have been dropped more regularly in the early years). Ideally, Flintoff was a test #7.

This is where the mischaracterisation of Flintoff batting comes from on your part & many other people.

As i said above Flintoff as a test batsman never reached his true peak. Just like his bowling between Ashes 05 to IND 05/06 it was the beginning of his zenith as a great all-rounder, but consistent injuries caused both his batting & bowling to regress & not go to the next gear.

Too many people when they think of Flintoff label Ashes 05 as his "ultimate peak" which is far from the truth. Look at IND 05/06 where his batting againts the spin & the defensive approach he brought to his batting was an improvement to how he was playign Warne in the Ashes. Since younger Flintoff was an absolute joke with the bat vs spin.

I have followed it well enough. He played 3 opponents of note in his peak period - Australia, South Africa and India. He did exceptionally well against all three. That makes him a very good player and definately one of the best of the decade. However, I still think that Johnson has more potential with both bat and ball.

With the ball Johnson can potentially match for sure no debates there. I certainly dont believe Johnson will ever be able to bat 6 for AUS & i have doubts he will be able to bat @ 7 consistently.

 

[Johnners]

FWIW, North's test Average isn't even close to 50, it's 39.5.

 

[stephen]

FWIW, North's test Average isn't even close to 50, it's 39.5.

Hmmm the last I saw it it was 49. He's in that stage though that his average will go up and down rapidly. Cricinfo says his current average is 41.5.

 

[Johnners]

Go to the live commentary for this match, Statistics, and then select the career tab

 

[stephen]

Go to the live commentary for this match, Statistics, and then select the career tab

He'd want to start improving that soon or he'll be given the axe.