• 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.

Flintoff and Warne in the Ashes...

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
More effective, obviously, but the reasons for him being more effective were multiple.
While the 1993 attack mightn't have been strong after McDermott went home early, it was beyond question stronger than the attack of 2005. Even Tim May, a relatively nondescript bowler most of his career, had his moments. You're forgetting Merv Hughes, too.
And there's simply no doubt about the fact that England hopelessly misjudged their approach in 2005. While they still won the series, countless times they got themselves out to Warne. This didn't happen in 1993 - as you say, most of the time they were seeking to shut-down the Warne end full-stop. Currently, the flavour-of-the-month is attack, and that was the strategy they chose to use this time. But it was less effective, because Warne got more wickets at a much, much better strike-rate.
I reckon Warne bowled as well in 2005 as he did in 2001 - both times he was superb. But in 2001 he had McGrath for every game and in the first 3 a firing Gillespie.
Like I say - capturing the imagination is a lot, and it made a huge impact in both 1993 and 2005.
 

Gottaluvcricket

Cricket Spectator
Richard said:
More effective, obviously, but the reasons for him being more effective were multiple.
While the 1993 attack mightn't have been strong after McDermott went home early, it was beyond question stronger than the attack of 2005. Even Tim May, a relatively nondescript bowler most of his career, had his moments.


You are an idiot Richard....or should I call you D1ck. Any bowler, even a relatively nondescript bowler, will have his moments when playing the mentally soft English.
Roy (Symonds) being the latest example. :laugh:

You say the 93 attack was beyond question a stronger attack. I beg to differ. McGrath is better then McDermott or Hughes ever were, Lee is as good or better then Reiffel was, and Tim May, well, he's like Giles, nothing to write home about, just the best of a bad bunch. So what are you babbling on about?

In 93 Warne was new and unexpected. By 05, he'd been video taped and studied, you'd faced him and knew what to expect, you guys even invented a legspin bowling machine to practice with. Yet...well, the figures speak for themselves, regardless of who is bowling at the other end.
Ture, he doesn't get the rev's on the ball he did pre-operation, but his wicket-taking ability has gotten better, as the stats show.

And btw, Ponting DOES face Warne in the domestic competition, not only in the nets.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
andyc said:
Oh sorry mate, guess I didn't explain myself before when I told you about it. As Scaly said, you have to remove the dots. I included them because otherwise I would have just written in a quote
:laugh:
 

Top