• 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 Showing Signs of Wear and Tear?

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
luckyeddie said:
Might I remind you that you need to take 20 wickets in order to win a test match?

If England's 'Big 4' seam attack are all fit, then I might just agree with you a bit (that's because I'm being particularly charitable today).
Thats what i meant, once the Big 4 fast-bowlers are fit.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
So reduece the problem by giving him a bigger workload - good logic there 8-)
Clearly thats not what i meant, but you won't understand that since your comprehending skills aren't that great anyway. Flintoff's workload even if you pick the spinners (as is the case with England) or even if you drop the spinner which i am suggesting won't make a difference since he is England's best bowlers & he will have to live with it until his effectiveness decreases with age.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
aussie said:
Clearly thats not what i meant, but you won't understand that since your comprehending skills aren't that great anyway. Flintoff's workload even if you pick the spinners (as is the case with England) or even if you drop the spinner which i am suggesting won't make a difference since he is England's best bowlers & he will have to live with it until his effectiveness decreases with age.

Yes he may be the best and one of the guys a captain would turn to for a wicket, but having no spinner in the team means he has to bowl a bigger normal workload and he suddenly can't put 100% into a short spell when the captain needs one.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Autobahn said:
Yes he may be the best and one of the guys a captain would turn to for a wicket, but having no spinner in the team means he has to bowl a bigger normal workload and he suddenly can't put 100% into a short spell when the captain needs one.
can't disagree here, but the entire idea is debatable England definately would look stronger on paper without the main spinner, but the negative side to it is what you have mentioned here plus working with 4-seamers throughout a days play could cause problems with the over-rate.

Having a spinner covers this, but the upside to that is that since England currently don't have a steady test standard keeper/batsman, the bottom half of the batitng is exposed.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
aussie said:
Clearly thats not what i meant, but you won't understand that since your comprehending skills aren't that great anyway.
Reducing England's bowling attack from 5 to 4 will clearly put more burden on the 4 that are left...
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
Reducing England's bowling attack from 5 to 4 will clearly put more burden on the 4 that are left...
yes, but its obvious that once fit the 4 seamers are very capable of causing most internationl batting line-ups much headaches, thus its very likely that if these guys can play together regularly they can keep restricting sides for sub 400 totals without the need for an average or a word-class spinner.

But since these guys especially Jones & Freddie are proned to injury & knowing how the way Fletcher does things i dont expect England to go for that option.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
aussie said:
yes, but its obvious that once fit the 4 seamers are very capable of causing most internationl batting line-ups much headaches, thus its very likely that if these guys can play together regularly they can keep restricting sides for sub 400 totals without the need for an average or a word-class spinner.
Except it isn't obvious, because they've never bowled as a foursome, one of the reasons being the workload would be too much, and also it allows a bowler to have on offday without knackering the other 3.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yes, while the England seamers hunt as a pack, throughout the Ashes one of the main differences between Eng & Aus was that Australia's only plan of action was, when all else fails, give the ball to Warne, Vaughan seemed to produce a wicket with every bowling change, because if one bowler wasn't having the best day, another would step up.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes, while the England seamers hunt as a pack, throughout the Ashes one of the main differences between Eng & Aus was that Australia's only plan of action was, when all else fails, give the ball to Warne, Vaughan seemed to produce a wicket with every bowling change, because if one bowler wasn't having the best day, another would step up.
Yep and just as important as knowing when to step-up is the ability to step-down if someone at the other end is bowling REALLY well. The English bowlers did that really well, seeming to understand the overall picture better than the Aussie bowlers did. The big clue was that each of the English bowlers shone at different stages during the series, I reckon; Harmi 1st Test, Jones 2nd Test, Ash 3rd Test, Hoggy 4th Test and Freddie (who was consistently good value too) in the 5th Test.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Top_Cat said:
Yep and just as important as knowing when to step-up is the ability to step-down if someone at the other end is bowling REALLY well. The English bowlers did that really well, seeming to understand the overall picture better than the Aussie bowlers did. The big clue was that each of the English bowlers shone at different stages during the series, I reckon; Harmi 1st Test, Jones 2nd Test, Ash 3rd Test, Hoggy 4th Test and Freddie (who was consistently good value too) in the 5th Test.
exactly thats why i feel the idea of the 4 seamers being England main attacking options once all are fit would work. But since blokes like Jones & Flintoff are injury prone it probably its safer to have the spinner to cover them.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
aussie said:
exactly thats why i feel the idea of the 4 seamers being England main attacking options once all are fit would work. But since blokes like Jones & Flintoff are injury prone it probably its safer to have the spinner to cover them.
Well, you'd better include Harmison in that assessment as well. He's probably only played in about 75% of the tests that he could have, due to recurring injuries - ankle, back, shin (you know - 'fast bowler' injuries).

Hoggard's been the exception, of course - find us three more as resiliant as him and you can have your damned four seamer attack - provided one has the strength of an ox and is a gem of a batsman, one is nearly six and a half foot and makes batsmen jump about and the third is one of the best exponents of reverse-swing in the world.

Even then I'd still play a fifth bowler.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Didn't he need ankle surgery before the Ashes last year? Following the SA test series?

Maybe its a good omen, or a good luck charm. ;)
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Hopefully. After a rest Fred can come back firing on all cylinders, and peak in November, showing everybody just why he is the world's greatest Cricketer....
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It'll be disappointing if he's not fit and firing come Ashes time, both from a neutral perspective and an Australian one. It'd be a shame to regain the Ashes and have to deal with 2 and half years of "if only we'd had Flintoff!".
Add Jones to that now;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ausveng/content/current/story/249962.html

This doesn't bode well. Sad; if England come here without Jones and with a half-fit Freddie, well there's two of he big reasons they won the Ashes right there.
 

Top