• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The allrounder cut-off

smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
and yeah, Flintoff wasn't too flash as an all rounder.....let me search for Wasim's best years as an "all rounder"
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Just check for peak years of Mustaq Moahmmed and few spinning allrounders that Pakistan had. I am pretty sure you will end up with some impressive figures.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I've stated time and again that Flintoff's peak was impressive not just for the stats but who he did it against, how he got the runs and when he got the wickets. But you choose to ignore all that
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
GingerFurball said:
I don't agree that Flintoff wouldn't have worked in a 4 man attack ftr. There were a few occasions in 2005 when England effectively were a 4 man attack - 2nd innings at Edgbaston where Hoggard bowled 6 (IIRC) overs and 2nd innings at Trent Bridge where Simon Jones got injured.

edit: as for batting 6, that positio was largely occupied by Paul Collingwood from 2005-11, and he averaged 40 - the same as Flintoff managed between 2003 and 2006.

If England appear to be a better balanced side without Flintoff then in part it's because England have better players now than they did in Flintoff's day.
Click to expand...
Just a note - Collingwood batted only 26 of his 115 Test innings at 6

As for balance, for example -- what would have helped England more? Flintoff at 7 and a 4 man attack with an extra batsman or Flintoff at 6 with a 5 man attack including a light workload for Saj or Plunkett?

I think Flintoff could have bowled in a 4 man attack (in fact I think his selection would demand it) but the prevailing wisdom on here at the time and in the England camp is that his injuries were too severe and his ankle too vulnerable to carry a full workload.

Flintoff at 6 and 5 bowlers was a bad idea. Also, this isnt revisionist history. I think I wrote on here - looking at the stats - about 5 years ago that England performed better without Flintoff in the team during his career. Not a knock on him (well perhaps it is as he mistakenly considered himself primarily a batsman) but more the role he was given.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Goughy said:
Just a note - Collingwood batted only 26 of his 115 Test innings at 6

As for balance, for example -- what would have helped England more? Flintoff at 7 and a 4 man attack with an extra batsman or Flintoff at 6 with a 5 man attack including a light workload for Saj or Plunkett?

I think Flintoff could have bowled in a 4 man attack (in fact I think his selection would demand it) but the prevailing wisdom on here at the time and in the England camp is that his injuries were too severe and his ankle too vulnerable to carry a full workload.

Flintoff at 6 and 5 bowlers was a bad idea. Also, this isnt revisionist history. I think I wrote on here - looking at the stats - about 5 years ago that England performed better without Flintoff in the team during his career. Not a knock on him (well perhaps it is as he mistakenly considered himself primarily a batsman) but more the role he was given.
Click to expand...
England's record between 2005 and 2009 is as much to do with the oppositio played as it is to do with Flintoff playing.

Flintoff played in:

Pakistan (a)
India (a)
Sri Lanka (h)
Australia (a)
South Africa (h)
India (a)
West Indies (a)
Australia (h)

and missed

Pakistan (h)
West Indies (h)
India (h)
Sri Lanka (a)
New Zealand (a)
New Zealand (h)
West Indies (h)

Regardless of who was or wasn't playing you'd expect better results in the 2nd lot of fixtures.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
GingerFurball said:
England's record between 2005 and 2009 is as much to do with the oppositio played as it is to do with Flintoff playing.

Flintoff played in:

Pakistan (a)
India (a)
Sri Lanka (h)
Australia (a)
South Africa (h)
India (a)
West Indies (a)
Australia (h)

and missed

Pakistan (h)
West Indies (h)
India (h)
Sri Lanka (a)
New Zealand (a)
New Zealand (h)
West Indies (h)

Regardless of who was or wasn't playing you'd expect better results in the 2nd lot of fixtures.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, though strange dates you have selected. Maybe to ignore the fact that during Flintoff's fantastic year in 2004 he was playing WI and NZ every other week? I dont know.

I wish people would read my original post, I actually like and rate Flintoff.

However, it may prove a little of your point and a little of mine, but I thought Id quickly look into the games in the period you selected -- again, Im not sure why this time period was chosen.

Im not making a point just listing the numbers - which I hope are correct

From 2005 until Flintoff's retirement:

With Flintoff England won 10 out of 37 Tests (lost 16)
Without Flintoff: Won 11 out of 25 (lost 3)
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Well I know the 'England did worse with Flintoff in the side' stat is definitely true post 05 Ashes, which is why I picked those dates.

I'm just playing devil's advocate really :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top