• 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.

How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Lot of credit for England's resurgence goes to Harmison and Flintoff (as bowlers).

Are Harmison and Flintoff a better pair for England than Gough and Caddick were ?

If so, how far do we go til we find a better pair ?
 

Swervy

International Captain
SJS said:
Lot of credit for England's resurgence goes to Harmison and Flintoff (as bowlers).

Are Harmison and Flintoff a better pair for England than Gough and Caddick were ?

If so, how far do we go til we find a better pair ?
Well I wouldnt class Flintoff and harmison as a 'pair' really, in that they dont share the new ball together.

I think the strength of this England bowling line up is its depth.One of the bowlers is almost always these days going to turn up and perform.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
I would say that they are far, far more valuable to the side than Caddick and Gough for obvious reasons (Freddie being an all-rounder and a fantastic slipper to boot).

As a bowling pair, that's quite difficult to say at the moment. Although it's likely that England would like to use Flintoff as an opening bowler on occasion, they would be crazy to do so.

There's also the duration of tenure - Caddick and Gough formed the bowling spearhead for a number of years, whereas Harmison has had just a year as a regular.

Ask me in 2006
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
a massive zebra said:
Even if one of them gets shot dead by gangsters in the meantime?
Yes.

It's a 'too early to make a meaningful judgement' thing.

For instance, when did you make up your mind that Marshall was the greatest-ever fast bowler? For me, I didn't consider him an all-time great until toward the end of his career. That's how it is with us old uns.
 
Last edited:

Swervy

International Captain
luckyeddie said:
Yes.

It's a 'too early to make a meaningful judgement' thing.

For instance, when did you make up your mind that Marshall was the greatest-ever fast bowler? For me, I didn't consider him an all-time great until toward the end of his career. That's how it is with us old uns.
I think that is true...Marshall wasnt considered one of the best bowlers until quite late in his career.

I think its only really when a bowler is at the end of a career or even after retirement that things can be put into the correct context and a career evaluated properly

Thats why I think its a bit hasty to write off the current era for the lack great bowlers..it will be in 5 years or so when we can look back at now and make that judgement
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
luckyeddie said:
Yes.

It's a 'too early to make a meaningful judgement' thing.

For instance, when did you make up your mind that Marshall was the greatest-ever fast bowler? For me, I didn't consider him an all-time great until toward the end of his career. That's how it is with us old uns.
Not old enough to remember his career. Just made that judgement from what I have heard, read, the footage I have seen and his stats.
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Swervy said:
I think that is true...Marshall wasnt considered one of the best bowlers until quite late in his career.

I think its only really when a bowler is at the end of a career or even after retirement that things can be put into the correct context and a career evaluated properly.

Thats why I think its a bit hasty to write off the current era for the lack great bowlers..it will be in 5 years or so when we can look back at now and make that judgement
Thats true.

But there are exceptions - Lara and Warne were thought of as great after only a couple of years at the highest level.

But I think the standard in general has fallen. Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan have all taken their wickets more cheaply this century. Furthermore, there is no way someone like Trescothick, with such obvious technical flaws, would average over 40 had he played a decade earlier. Ten years ago you had to be great to average 50, now Sehwag can do it.
 

Majin

International Debutant
It's not the bowlers fault batsmen throw ****fits every time they get a pitch they don't fancy.
 

lord_of_darkness

Cricket Web XI Moderator
Muttiah Muralitharan have all taken their wickets more cheaply this century.
lol now how wrong is that statement.. saying murali has taken over 500 wickets cheaply is wrong.. give some credit to his talent as one of the best bowlers ..
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
SJS said:
Lot of credit for England's resurgence goes to Harmison and Flintoff (as bowlers).

Are Harmison and Flintoff a better pair for England than Gough and Caddick were ?

If so, how far do we go til we find a better pair ?
I think we'll find out how good they are over the next few years. You need more than one or two good seasons under your belt.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Son Of Coco said:
I think we'll find out how good they are over the next few years. You need more than one or two good seasons under your belt.
There's no doubt that the nationality of the two players concerned had more than a little to do with that statement

/runs for cover
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
luckyeddie said:
There's no doubt that the nationality of the two players concerned had more than a little to do with that statement

/runs for cover
haha, of course it did - now reading your posts on here LE I'm sure I'll learn in time not to reply taking a players nationality into account! :p

You're reply to my reply wasn't a result of me being from Oz was it? Considering I said the same thing you did!? :-O
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Son Of Coco said:
haha, of course it did - now reading your posts on here LE I'm sure I'll learn in time not to reply taking a players nationality into account! :p

You're reply to my reply wasn't a result of me being from Oz was it? Considering I said the same thing you did!? :-O
Me? Nooooooooo
 

lord_of_darkness

Cricket Web XI Moderator
lmao i wouldnt call Harmison and Flintoff a pair ... not yet anyway.. agreeing with the majority of this topic..

maybe Harmison and Gough could be considered a pair..
 

biased indian

International Coach
even if we consider them as pair ,i think their real test will come in the next ashes series because that is the real pressure game comes . to do well in an ashes series is the ultimate for an english player
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
biased indian said:
even if we consider them as pair ,i think their real test will come in the next ashes series because that is the real pressure game comes . to do well in an ashes series is the ultimate for an english player
Incidentally, is the converse true?
If one or the other FAIL against Australia, would that make them bad players?
 

biased indian

International Coach
luckyeddie said:
Incidentally, is the converse true?
If one or the other FAIL against Australia, would that make them bad players?
might not make then bad players ,but wont make then great players
 

Top