Flintoff's Bowling

[L Trumper]

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.

It depends , if it is about who reach first then the fastest one is better, if it is drift race then the other one is better. Cricket is compromised of individual battles with in a team game and lot more complex than winning a race.

 

[Streetwise]

It depends , if it is about who reach first then the fastest one is better, if it is drift race then the other one is better. Cricket is compromised of individual battles with in a team game and lot more complex than winning a race.

Well in cricket its about getting the most wickets for the least runs.

 

[Richard]

And no two batsmen have ever walked out to bat under the exact same set of circumstances. Ever. As pointed-out by McNamara (2009).

And Dickinson (2010) might add that no two bowlers have ever run in to bowl a delivery under the exact same set of circumstances. Ever.

So thus cricket statistics are not of a scientific nature and a career average by-and-large tells you virtually nothing important about a player, or about >1 player in comparison. You need to understand as much as possible at what has made those career averages what they are before you can truly gain insight.

 

[Streetwise]

Flintoff can bowl more economically than Lee has ever been able to dream of and is thus clearly a fair bit better in ODIs.

I did think you wrote this in jest, but ater reading some of your other posts I'm starting to think you could actually believe this. I hope it was jest because if not I just want to tell you one thing.

Flintoff 141 matches for 167 wickets.
Lee 186 matches for 324 wickets.

Number of batsmen Lee has dismissed for less than 10 runs 180

Can you see that Lee has dismissed batsmen for less than 10 runs more times than Flintoffs entire career wickets. Thats how large the gap is.

 

[L Trumper]

Well in cricket its about getting the most wickets for the least runs.

Flintoff till 2003 played in his team as a batsman not as a bowler. After that he is a stock bowler rather than strike bowler. His main job is to apply the pressure.

If you want stats that much flintoff since 2004 averaged less than 29 in his career.
Brett lee's career average is above 30 if we discard his super human debut season it raises to 31.54.
So by stat picking flintoff can be shown as a better bowler too

 

[Streetwise]

And no two batsmen have ever walked out to bat under the exact same set of circumstances. Ever. As pointed-out by McNamara (2009).

And Dickinson (2010) might add that no two bowlers have ever run in to bowl a delivery under the exact same set of circumstances. Ever.

So thus cricket statistics are not of a scientific nature and a career average by-and-large tells you virtually nothing important about a player, or about >1 player in comparison. You need to understand as much as possible at what has made those career averages what they are before you can truly gain insight.

And that is an opinion that has been statistically proven incorrect.

 

[L Trumper]

I did think you wrote this in jest, but ater reading some of your other posts I'm starting to think you could actually believe this. I hope it was jest because if not I just want to tell you one thing.

Flintoff 141 matches for 167 wickets.
Lee 186 matches for 324 wickets.

Number of batsmen Lee has dismissed for less than 10 runs 180

Can you see that Lee has dismissed batsmen for less than 10 runs more times than Flintoffs entire career wickets. Thats how large the gap is.

Again flintoff played as a batsman who bowls a bit till 2003. Reason for dismissing batsman less than 10 is lee is an attacking opening bowler. Flintoff is a containing middle over and death over bowler. So its obvious that batsman flintoff get out are scored more runs.

In odis as a new ball bowler lee may be better but as a death bowler flintoff is better. Both their jobs are different.

 

[Richard]

I did think you wrote this in jest, but ater reading some of your other posts I'm starting to think you could actually believe this. I hope it was jest because if not I just want to tell you one thing.

Flintoff 141 matches for 167 wickets.
Lee 186 matches for 324 wickets.

Number of batsmen Lee has dismissed for less than 10 runs 180

Can you see that Lee has dismissed batsmen for less than 10 runs more times than Flintoffs entire career wickets. Thats how large the gap is.

Wickets = entirely secondary consideration in ODIs. Economy-rate is far more important. Thus, Flintoff is a better ODI bowler than Lee by a fair way.

 

[Streetwise]

Flintoff till 2003 played in his team as a batsman not as a bowler. After that he is a stock bowler rather than strike bowler. His main job is to apply the pressure.

If you want stats that much flintoff since 2004 averaged less than 29 in his career.
Brett lee's career average is above 30 if we discard his super human debut season it raises to 31.54.
So by stat picking flintoff can be shown as a better bowler too

I'm looking at their total career statistics, you are the only one doing any stat picking.

I dont think Flintoff is as good as Lee is that so hard to accept my opinion, just because the stats happen to support my opinion is not a bad thing.

 

[Richard]

And that is an opinion that has been statistically proven incorrect.

It hasn't, it's been proven statistically correct - thus it's not an opinion, it's a statement of as close to fact as anything will ever get.

Any decent statistician will tell you that nominal and ordinal data cannot be treated as if it were interval or ratio data.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yes...because a 0.32 difference in their economy provides us with plenty of evidence that Flintoff is a better bowler by a 'fair way'.

 

[Streetwise]

Wickets = entirely secondary consideration in ODIs. Economy-rate is far more important. Thus, Flintoff is a better ODI bowler than Lee by a fair way.

1.6 runs per 5 overs.

Ok it was in jest, I didnt really think you believed it.

 

[Richard]

Yes...because a 0.32 difference in their economy provides us with plenty of evidence that Flintoff is a better bowler by a 'fair way'.

Indeed it does - that's a huge difference.

In any case I'm imagining that difference is merely between their ICC-official-bull**** records, without the records being modified to take account only of ODI-standard sides?

 

[Furball]

Wickets = entirely secondary consideration in ODIs. Economy-rate is far more important. Thus, Flintoff is a better ODI bowler than Lee by a fair way.

Wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that. Lee's been an excellent ODI bowler for the majority of his career.

And Flintoff in Tests is the perfect example of why you cannot rely on stats alone in rating players. As I've said, statistically he is the worst seam bowler to have taken as many wickets as he has. However, he was certainly a far better bowler than Steve Harmison.

 

[L Trumper]

I'm looking at their total career statistics, you are the only one doing any stat picking.

I dont think Flintoff is as good as Lee is that so hard to accept my opinion, just because the stats happen to support my opinion is not a bad thing.

You are looking flintoff entire career as a bowler, which he is not. He started regular bowling since 2004 only. So you should not consider his bowling before that while you are comparing with him a genuine quick. In your opinion lee may be better which he might be. But your argument of using their entire career stats is flawed.
My opinion is that lee is an attacking bowler , flintoff is a stock bowler (he is a regular bowler since 2004 only);
In odis both of them do their job perfectly ;
In tests lee as an attacking bowler supposed to get lot of wickets, but he go for runs most of the time rather than taking wickets; Flintoff never really bowl badly and is the best stock bowler there is, which made less 5wick hauls.

 

[Furball]

Indeed it does - that's a huge difference.

In any case I'm imagining that difference is merely between their ICC-official-bull**** records, without the records being modified to take account only of ODI-standard sides?

Matches between the 8 major nations:

Lee: 164 matches, 290 wickets@23.15, SR 29.2, Econ 4.74
Flintoff: 110 matches, 132 wickets@25.57, SR34.3, Econ 4.47

 

[Streetwise]

In tests lee as an attacking bowler supposed to get lot of wickets, but he go for runs most of the time rather than taking wickets; Flintoff never really bowl badly and is the best stock bowler there is, which made less 5wick hauls.

But Flintoff went for more runs than Lee and Lee took more wickets than Flintoff.

Flintoff never bowled badly but Lee has more wickets for less runs, work that out.

 

[Streetwise]

Matches between the 8 major nations:

Lee: 164 matches, 290 wickets@23.15, SR 29.2, Econ 4.74
Flintoff: 110 matches, 132 wickets@25.57, SR34.3, Econ 4.47

Dam BCCI.

 

[L Trumper]

But Flintoff went for more runs than Lee and Lee took more wickets than Flintoff.

Flintoff never bowled badly but Lee has more wickets for less runs, work that out.

Like I said before since 2004 ;
Flintoff had better average than whole career aveage of lee.

Flintoff went more runs for lee?? when and where..
Lee's economy is around 3.5 in tests , flintoff's less than 3. ODI stats are mentioned in some other posts.

 

[Streetwise]

Like I said before since 2004 ;
Flintoff had better average than whole career aveage of lee.

Which means absolutely nothing.

Flintoff went more runs for lee?? when and where..
Lee's economy is around 3.5 in tests , flintoff's less than 3. ODI stats are mentioned in some other posts.

Lees bowling average in tests and ODI's is lower than Flintoffs, what that means is Lee takes wickets at a lower cost than Flintoff. So for every wicket they take Flintoff will have conceded more runs per batsman than Lee. Lee will be scored off quicker but the wickets come quicker also.

Flintoff was more containing but didnt get wickets as fast as Lee and as you said Lees job was to get wickets and he did that.