How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

[Stephen Waugh]

Don't forget everyone else.

I think that it would be largely inaccurate to say that Flintoff and Harmison are the two definite matchwinners for England. I have great respect for England, having played countless test matches and one-dayers against them. I truly believe that England need to realise - there is more than just Flintoff and Harmison in the English county circuit. Promising young cricketers are coming through, yet they do not have a window - pitches are ideal for run-of-the-mill medium pacers, but not for inventive, experimenting spinners. They are a haven for defensive bowling.

Yet there is something there. There is something there already, that doesn't require any change, whatsoever, in the county system. It's the other ten players in the team (including the 12th man). They make contributions. Pit two players against an entire Australian team. It would be a laughing-fest.

So, people like Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss - don't they deserve some attention?

 

[luckyeddie]

So, people like Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss - don't they deserve some attention?

This is very much a 'defensive' thread, not so much extolling the virtues of two cricketers but ramming the facts down the throats of those on here who have been continually dismissive of their abilities and results over the last couple of years.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think that it would be largely inaccurate to say that Flintoff and Harmison are the two definite matchwinners for England. I have great respect for England, having played countless test matches and one-dayers against them. I truly believe that England need to realise - there is more than just Flintoff and Harmison in the English county circuit. Promising young cricketers are coming through, yet they do not have a window - pitches are ideal for run-of-the-mill medium pacers, but not for inventive, experimenting spinners. They are a haven for defensive bowling.

Yet there is something there. There is something there already, that doesn't require any change, whatsoever, in the county system. It's the other ten players in the team (including the 12th man). They make contributions. Pit two players against an entire Australian team. It would be a laughing-fest.

So, people like Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss - don't they deserve some attention?

Is his the real Steve Waugh?

 

[luckyeddie]

Is his the real Steve Waugh?

If he was, I doubt he would be advertising the fact.

 

[marc71178]

This is very much a 'defensive' thread, not so much extolling the virtues of two cricketers but ramming the facts down the throats of those on here who have been continually dismissive of their abilities and results over the last couple of years.

And those that still persist in doing so now!

 

[Richard]

We'll see.
What will the situation be if Harmison and Flintoff have terrible series against South Africa, Australia and India?
I mean, who would have ever guessed, in January 2003, that someone who maintained that Vaughan should not be opening the batting in Test-cricket (like me) would turn-out to be right after all?

 

[Richard]

No, Richard - it only implies those things to a pedant extreme.

Any normal, sensible person reads the words 'match-winning performance' and instantly deciphers the code therein to imply 'performance of high significance, fundamental in swinging the game his team's way'. It's shorter - and to the point.

It's shorter - and less to the point, and less accurate.
The 'performance of high significance, fundamental in swinging the game his team's way' is a far better one.

 

[luckyeddie]

We'll see.
What will the situation be if Harmison and Flintoff have terrible series against South Africa, Australia and India?
I mean, who would have ever guessed, in January 2003, that someone like me who maintained that Vaughan should not be opening the batting in Test-cricket (like me) would turn-out to be right after all?

Even you, Richard, by the laws of averages, are bound to fluke a result sooner or later, but playing 'what if' over the next 18 months might well try everyone's patience sorely.

It amazes me how you can so often be proved wrong in the eyes of so many reasonable-thinking individuals, yet still you clutch desperately at the occasional hypothetical straw that virtually floats by.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but a 2-2 series a) is significantly more fun to watch

No, not neccesarily.

b) at least signifies you have been willing to take a risk to win a game

So, the like of that is all a matter of personal attitudes and values - myself, I hate to see silly risks paying-off, and love it when they blow-up in the taker's face.

c) at least proves you are capable of winning a game.

Again, so? It's series, not match, victories that count.

If a team drew every Test match it played, it would prove that its batsman were incapable of chasing a target and that its bowlers were incapable of taking 20 wickets. A team that wins even 10% of its matches at least proves it is good enough to do so.
And that wouldn't matter in the slightest if you lost all your series. It would be much better to have a lower win-ratio and win more series.

In a football season, if you win half your matches and lose half, it gets you 19 more points than drawing all of them. There's a reason for that - sport is about taking risks, and if you are unwilling to take a risk, then the fact is you will never be a successful sportsperson. The same is true about most aspects of life.

And it's not true in cricket - a 2-2 draw is the same as a 0-0 draw.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's shorter - and less to the point, and less accurate.
The 'performance of high significance, fundamental in swinging the game his team's way' is a far better one.

It just trips off the tongue.

 

[Richard]

Even you, Richard, by the laws of averages, are bound to fluke a result sooner or later, but playing 'what if' over the next 18 months might well try everyone's patience sorely.

It amazes me how you can so often be proved wrong in the eyes of so many reasonable-thinking individuals, yet still you clutch desperately at the occasional hypothetical straw that virtually floats by.

No-one has ever "proved" or even shown any reason why judging players on what they have earnt rather than what is against their name in the scorebook is incorrect.
The reason I am so commonly "proved wrong" in the eyes o so many "reasonable-thinking" individuals is mainly because they misinterpret that I have said I don't think someone will do what I judge on for saying I don't think they'll do what they judge on.
For instance, I've never said Harmison won't get good figures in Test-cricket, I've said he hasn't so far earnt many. But because most people judge success or failure on scorebook figures, in their eyes I've been proven wrong.

 

[Swervy]

No-one has ever "proved" or even shown any reason why judging players on what they have earnt rather than what is against their name in the scorebook is incorrect.
The reason I am so commonly "proved wrong" in the eyes o so many "reasonable-thinking" individuals is mainly because they misinterpret that I have said I don't think someone will do what I judge on for saying I don't think they'll do what they judge on.
For instance, I've never said Harmison won't get good figures in Test-cricket, I've said he hasn't so far earnt many. But because most people judge success or failure on scorebook figures, in their eyes I've been proven wrong.

this is what confuses me..you go on about how good Caddick was for that short period of time a few years back compared to Harmison (the use of their averages was meant to prove this I think)..but now you are knocking people for using the figures in the scorebook as a way of judging success or failure..an average is just a culmination of what goes into the scorebook isnt it.

make your mind up

 

[age_master]

interesting neither of them did much against Australia last night

 

[Scaly piscine]

Harmison did well on a pitch that didn't help him one iota, but unfortunately it was one of those days when the edges went for runs instead of wickets. Still he compares well with some of the Aussie bowling figures...

 

[luckyeddie]

interesting neither of them did much against Australia last night

In which case, seeing as most people reckon they are England's most likely match-winners, you ought to be just getting a little uneasy about next year.

 

[a massive zebra]

In which case, seeing as most people reckon they are England's most likely match-winners, you ought to be just getting a little uneasy about next year.

Or looking at it another way, their performance in this match suggests they might not be good enough to trouble the Aussies.

 

[Swervy]

Or looking at it another way, their performance in this match suggests they might not be good enough to trouble the Aussies.

or another way of looking at it is that one game proves jack ****

 

[a massive zebra]

or another way of looking at it is that one game proves jack ****

 

[luckyeddie]

Or looking at it another way, their performance in this match suggests they might not be good enough to trouble the Aussies.

But Trescothick, Vaughan (top all-rounder), Strauss, Gough, Giles - all are clearly too good for Australia (as I am clearly too good for you, friend)?

 

[Son Of Coco]

or another way of looking at it is that one game proves jack ****

I agree with that one, the game proved nothing as far as future contests go, England were better on the day and played extremely well.