How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

[sledger]

sucess and failure may be the difference between them being renowned as good players and potentially great players.

but i dont thinks its fair to say that if they fail they vcan have the reputation of a bad player.

i mean trescothick had a poor tour of the caribbean in the winter but by no means does that mean hes a bad player.

similarly alex wharf has had a good start to his ODI career in the natwest challenge againts india but by no means does this make him a fantastic bowler.

 

[Craig]

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..

Again you won't have much of a debate as if I remember correctly, they only played two Tests together (Gough and Harmison).

 

[Craig]

Incidentally, is the converse true?
If one or the other FAIL against Australia, would that make them bad players?

They might be good players, but against the big boys they run away.

Just like Thierry Henry with France.

 

[luckyeddie]

They might be good players, but against the big boys they run away.

Just like Thierry Henry with France.

And you know this for a fact, do you?

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Again you won't have much of a debate as if I remember correctly, they only played two Tests together (Gough and Harmison).

ahhh stupid memory..

 

[Richard]

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

And if they get smashed out of the park in South Africa, help win The Ashes next summer, then get smashed out of the park again in India.
What THEN?

 

[Richard]

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.

That's how it is with us "any sense" 'uns.
Anyone willing to attempt to make a meaningful judgement on 7 months (in Harmison's) and 10 months (in Flintoff's) is being typical too-hasty Englishmen.

 

[a massive zebra]

And if they get smashed out of the park in South Africa, help win The Ashes next summer, then get smashed out of the park again in India.
What THEN?

Simple, they will be labelled as inconsistent and unreliable matchwinners.

 

[Richard]

The sort of label I hate with a passion.
Helping to win matches sometimes and helping lose them at others.

 

[Barney Rubble]

The sort of label I hate with a passion.
Helping to win matches sometimes and helping lose them at others.

It's very hard in sport to eradicate the possibility of losing without eradicating the possibility of winning at the same time. Not having players like that in your team is like playing seven defenders in a football match - you won't lose, but you haven't got a hope in Hell of scoring.

England have players like Giles and Hoggard to help them draw games, if that is ever necessary - Harmison and Flintoff are there to win games for the team, and to entertain people in process, and they are good enough not to be the cause of many defeats for England - if a player is not capable of delivering a match-winning performance, even with the risk of losing, then he should not be in the team, in my view.

 

[Richard]

"Match-winning performance" is a theoretical term - it would imply taking every wicket, bowled or caught-and-bowled, facing every ball and allowing no piece of fielding to be done by anyone else.
What you are looking for in a player is to make a contribution to swinging the match in your favour - all good players are capable of doing that.
Inconsistent players make large contributions to losing as many matches as they make to winning and frankly there's no difference between 2-2 and 0-0 - the series result is the same.

 

[Craig]

And you know this for a fact, do you?

Tell me the last time Henry had a big game for France against quality opposition?

 

[marc71178]

Tell me last time France actually played quality opposition.

 

[a massive zebra]

vs Brazil, World Cup Final 1998

???

 

[Son Of Coco]

"Match-winning performance" is a theoretical term - it would imply taking every wicket, bowled or caught-and-bowled, facing every ball and allowing no piece of fielding to be done by anyone else.
What you are looking for in a player is to make a contribution to swinging the match in your favour - all good players are capable of doing that.
Inconsistent players make large contributions to losing as many matches as they make to winning and frankly there's no difference between 2-2 and 0-0 - the series result is the same.

Wouldn't it indicate that a players contribution to the match was large enough to swing the match in their teams favour? Not necessarily that they took every wicket and scored every run?

 

[Swervy]

Wouldn't it indicate that a players contribution to the match was large enough to swing the match in their teams favour? Not necessarily that they took every wicket and scored every run?

its another example of Richards Black and white view of the game

 

[luckyeddie]

its another example of Richards Black and white view of the game

I suggest he actually tries playing the game 'Black and White'.

 

[luckyeddie]

"Match-winning performance" is a theoretical term - it would imply taking every wicket, bowled or caught-and-bowled, facing every ball and allowing no piece of fielding to be done by anyone else.
What you are looking for in a player is to make a contribution to swinging the match in your favour - all good players are capable of doing that.
Inconsistent players make large contributions to losing as many matches as they make to winning and frankly there's no difference between 2-2 and 0-0 - the series result is the same.

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.

 

[Barney Rubble]

frankly there's no difference between 2-2 and 0-0 - the series result is the same.

Yes, but a 2-2 series a) is significantly more fun to watch, b) at least signifies you have been willing to take a risk to win a game, c) at least proves you are capable of winning a game.

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.

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.

 

[Arjun]

How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

Better than Agarkar and Balaji...an efficient Indian lawyer should get them into the Indian team....