Flintoff's Bowling

[silentstriker]

Yea, of course. I never take into account non-Test performances. I don't find them relevant.

After McGrath retired, Lee was consistantly excellent. Especially in that India series, some of those spells were amazing, and were the best I've seen post-McGrath until Steyn came along last week .

 

[L Trumper]

Yea, of course. I never take into account non-Test performances. I don't find them relevant.

After McGrath retired, Lee was consistantly excellent. Especially in that India series, some of those spells were amazing, and were the best I've seen post-McGrath until Steyn came along last week .

Don't forget english bowlers(Anderson mostly) who do their clark kent to super man transformation for one deadly session for an entire series.

 

[Richard]

Yea, of course. I never take into account non-Test performances. I don't find them relevant.

Domestic First-Class cricket is merely a level down; it's not a different game with separate rules. It is of relevance, just less relevance in the modern age than Tests are.

After McGrath retired, Lee was consistantly excellent.

Yeah, for a whole 1 season and 8 Tests. Thereafter he was woeful again, same as he had been 2001-2005 and in 2006/07.

 

[Pup Clarke]

How odd then, that he averages 27 from the beginning of 07 (when McGrath retired) to present time.

 

[L Trumper]

How odd then, that he averages 27 from the beginning of 07 (when McGrath retired) to present time.

What do you mean by odd? Is it surprising?

Apart from 6 tests richard mentioned , he had a reasonably successful tour against WI and thats it. He is not good in IND 08 series, poor against SA and injuries. He played around 15-20 tests since mcgrath's retirement in which he had two of his best series. So averages in high 20s.

 

[Richard]

In 2007/08 (8 Tests), Lee averaged IIRR about 20 and bowled superbly. In 2008/09, which he played only the first 8 Tests of the 12, he averaged IIRR about 65 and bowled routinely woefully (that featured 1 sensational game and 7 diabolical ones).

That 2007/08 mirrorred Lee's early work in 1999/2000 and 2000/01 where he played 7 Tests and averaged 16.

But in between 2000/01 and 2007/08, apart from in 2005/06 when he was decent, he was routinely poor - so poor that he was left-out of the Test side completely for 13 consecutive Tests in 2003/04, 2004 and 2004/05.

 

[Streetwise]

Lee is so poor he took more wickets at a lower average than Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

That demonstrates why career averages, and wicket tallies, are so irrelevant.

 

[Streetwise]

That demonstrates why career averages, and wicket tallies, are so irrelevant.

I thought it demonstated how different reality is from opinions.

 

[Furball]

I know Im in the minority but I thought he bowled pretty well in 05.

I'm with you, he was a lot better than his series average would suggest he was.

Lee's problem was simply that for every superlative effort he had, he would have an innings (or in the case of the 5th Test, a match) where he was utterly dire.

I think the Trent Bridge Test summed up his tour - shocking in the 1st innings, then him and Warne almost managed to drag Australia to victory in the 2nd innings. His spell to get rid of Pietersen and Flintoff is still one of the best I've seen. When he got rid of Flintoff's offstump with an absolute beauty, I really doubted England's chances - and I still get goosebumps every time I see Lee celebrate that wicket.

 

[Streetwise]

Despite his extreme pace I regarded him as easy pickings for our batsman in the 05 ashes with his bowling average of about 43 in the series confirming this, and in this period he was consistently racking up 95mph.

In the 06/07 Ashes series Flintoff was easy pickings for the Aussie batsmen and his average of 43 confirmed this.

In the 09 Ashes series Flintoff was easy pickings for the Aussie batsmen and his average of 52 confirmed this.

 

[Richard]

I thought it demonstated how different reality is from opinions.

Relativism dictates that reality is merely an agglomeration of opinions.

 

[Richard]

I'm with you, he was a lot better than his series average would suggest he was.

Lee's problem was simply that for every superlative effort he had, he would have an innings (or in the case of the 5th Test, a match) where he was utterly dire.

Lee in my book bowled well on a handful of occasions that series. Did just about enough to exploit the extremely friendly deck in the First Test, taking 5-95 (that was dreadful compared to McGrath's figures); was briefly a threat in the second-innings of the Second Test; bowled absolutely superbly on the opening morning of the Third; and had another brief spell on the fourth evening of the Fourth Test. But for the rest of the time he was as woeful as he had been 2001-2003/04.

 

[Richard]

In the 06/07 Ashes series Flintoff was easy pickings for the Aussie batsmen and his average of 43 confirmed this.

In the 09 Ashes series Flintoff was easy pickings for the Aussie batsmen and his average of 52 confirmed this.

And?

Believe it or not The Ashes isn't all there is to Test cricket.

 

[L Trumper]

Lee is so poor he took more wickets at a lower average than Flintoff.

If every thing is that simple then jayawardene is better batter than richards,gavaskar,miandad et al.

 

[Streetwise]

And?

Believe it or not The Ashes isn't all there is to Test cricket.

Sorry didnt mean to point at the elephant sitting in the room.

 

[Richard]

If that's meant to mean anything whatsoever you'd do well to phrase it differently.

 

[Streetwise]

If every thing is that simple then jayawardene is better than richards,gavaskar,miandad et al.

To be honest I havent seen any of these players bowl so I will have to take your word for it.

 

[L Trumper]

To be honest I havent seen any of these players bowl so I will have to take your word for it.

You commented like stats are everything. According to your theory jayawardene is better batsman than richards,gavaskar et al.

Evaluating a player's capability and merits is not merely looking at his wickets and average or runs and average. They are only a part.

P.S. I edited my previous post so that you will understand what I meant, in a clear way.

 

[Streetwise]

You commented like stats are everything. According to your theory jayawardene is better batsman than richards,gavaskar et al.

Evaluating a player's capability and merits is not merely looking at his wickets and average or runs and average. They are only a part.

P.S. I edited my previous post so that you will understand what I meant, in a clear way.

When the stats point to a different outcome to an opinion why is it that the opinion which is based on only what someone thinks overrides data of actual factual evidence.

Like car time trials, one driver might drive very well and looks very fast and another drives a bit rougher around corners.

Whos the better driver the one with the fastest time or the one who looked better.