Mickey Arthur?

[tooextracool]

First test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135956.html

At the end of day 3 cricinfo reported honours are even between the two sides.

Second test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/136213.html

First two days South Africa, last two England. In the end rain wins it. The test match was fight closely although South Africa would ahve lost it. Very exciting match.

Third test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/144954.html

Good win for South Africa with them donning the headline all through

A close fought series till now definitely

Fourth test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145237.html

England good on day 1.
Close fought day 2 with England turning it on in the last session
Day 3 - Gibbs plays well for South Africa and they don the headline
Day 4 - Fluctuating day as reported by cricinfo
Day 5- Hoggard wins it for England

Fifth test - http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145429.html
Day 1 - washed out
Day 2- Competitive day with England taking advantage on the day
Rain proves the winner in what cricinfo describes as a roller coaster finish with South Africa declaring and England at 73/4

So a well fought out series with England rightful winners.

and if you did that with the NZ-eng series, you'd come out with the same result. and please tell me how NZ didnt deserve to lose 3-0?

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, he's no more accurate, and he's absolutely certainly no faster - his average speed is actually down from Sri Lanka 2003\04 onwards compared to the 2001\02-2003.

except that if you had been watching cricket, you'd have realised that flintoff wasnt very accurate pre 03, certainly nowhere near as accurate as he is now. not to mention of course that in 00-01 he was so inaccurate that he bowled seam up just to get some control. thats not all, hes also managed to get the ball to cut off the wicket occasionally and hes bowled far more intelligently than he ever did in the past.

 

[Richard]

Actually the reason is probably more because Cricket is played on grass not paper.

No, that has nothing to do with anything.

You can go on hyping the South African's and putting down the English as much as you like, but it won't change the fact that almost no Englishman performed to his potential but they were still too good for South Africa.

No, it won't change the fact that that's what you and some others think. There is no fact about the matter.

 

[Richard]

In spite of what experts (and the man himself) say, you still know better (or think you do anyway)

Yes, I do, because supposed experts are not anywhere near so filled with expertise as you think.

 

[Richard]

What?

How can it be possible to bat one way against him between 1998 - 2003 and then suddenly change afterwards?

Well - making improvements.
Something players do quite a bit of, if they've got any sense that is.
And Flintoff clearly has.
As you and me both know, Flintoff before 2003 was an utterly rubbish Test-match batsman, and since 2003 he's been a rather good one.
So, fairly clearly, something's changed.

 

[Richard]

i think its certain now, you dont watch cricket.

And I know it's certain that I do.

 

[Richard]

except that if you had been watching cricket, you'd have realised that flintoff wasnt very accurate pre 03, certainly nowhere near as accurate as he is now. not to mention of course that in 00-01 he was so inaccurate that he bowled seam up just to get some control. thats not all, hes also managed to get the ball to cut off the wicket occasionally and hes bowled far more intelligently than he ever did in the past.

Flintoff, as you can see very clearly by watching these Test-matches, all of which I watched most if not all of, was very accurate, far, far more accurate than he had been before he did a load of fitness training at the Academy. His accuracy hasn't increased any more since, all that's happened is the poor strokes which people insisted had to start coming throughout this time have indeed started coming.

 

[social]

There's been no difference between Flintoff's bowling in the 1998-2003 period to the 2003\04-current, the difference has been in the batting against him.
Of course there's been a difference in his batting between 1998 and 2002 and between 2003 and the current time, everyone can tell that.

There's a substantial difference - the length he bowls.

He's always bowled a reasonably good line but too short and, as such, good players have time to adjust to any movement.

Nowadays, he's fuller and getting more nicks, etc as a result.

 

[Richard]

No, he's not getting any more nicks, he's just getting more cuts to cover, drives to square-leg, top-edged pulls, etc.

 

[marc71178]

No, that has nothing to do with anything.

No, that is the whole problem.

You cling to this idea that SA are a better side in spite of England massively underperforming and comfortably winning the series.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, I do, because supposed experts are not anywhere near so filled with expertise as you think.

Right, so now, not only do you say Flintoff knows less about himself than you do, you also reckon that Troy Cooley has no expertise and the England physio team don't know what they're talking about either!

 

[marc71178]

Well - making improvements.
Something players do quite a bit of, if they've got any sense that is.
And Flintoff clearly has.
As you and me both know, Flintoff before 2003 was an utterly rubbish Test-match batsman, and since 2003 he's been a rather good one.
So, fairly clearly, something's changed.

Relevance to Craig's point about Flintoff's bowling?

 

[marc71178]

No, he's not getting any more nicks, he's just getting more cuts to cover, drives to square-leg, top-edged pulls, etc.

An interesting claim that is unfortunately a load of codswallop.

Flintoff in the last 3 series has taken 46 wickets (13 Tests)

The breakdown of those are as follows:

Caught wicketkeeper - 11
Caught slip - 10

So that'll be 21 nicks then - almost half his wickets, but that does leave another 25 dismissals, perhaps they're all from cuts to cover, drives to square leg or top-edged pulls?

Bowled - 12
LBW - 5

That's another 17 off the mark, suddenly we're down at 8.

Those 8 are:

Cairns - topedged (this being the innings he was about 80odd off 40 balls - took on a short ball and didn't hit it cleanly.
Smith - driven to point.
Smith - mistimed hook.
Mohammed - mistimed hook.
Joseph - pitched up, driven to short cover.
Ntini - caught at 3rd man.
Dippenaar - ball held back a little, hit to midwicket.
Ntini - topedged swipe.

So even there we see 3 more catches from decent bowling, and a few mistimed hooks (mainly from tailenders who he's challenged to take him on and they're unable to resist.


So, care to retract that statement then?

 

[Pratters]

and if you did that with the NZ-eng series, you'd come out with the same result. and please tell me how NZ didnt deserve to lose 3-0?

Both arent the same and I never said South Africa didnt deserve to lose as they did.

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff, as you can see very clearly by watching these Test-matches, all of which I watched most if not all of, was very accurate, far, far more accurate than he had been before he did a load of fitness training at the Academy. His accuracy hasn't increased any more since, all that's happened is the poor strokes which people insisted had to start coming throughout this time have indeed started coming.

you havent been watching closely enough. id recommend that you watch his seam position during all those series, and its glaringly obvious that his seam position was all over the place then, while its far far better now. and as i said earlier, while he was fairly accurate from 01 onwards, he got a lot better after wc 03, and that is reflected in his ODI record too.

 

[tooextracool]

Both arent the same and I never said South Africa didnt deserve to lose as they did.

the point of it is that using things like, 'they were even until the last day' or they each had 2 even days, is completely useless, because what really matters is what the picture looks like at the end of the game. england won 2, and had it not been for bad light, would almost certainly have had 3.

 

[C_C]

Yes, I do, because supposed experts are not anywhere near so filled with expertise as you think.

Perhaps true, but they sure as hell know a lot more about cricket than you do. Infact most here for that matter do.
Anybody who talks rubbish about 'first chance average' and 'McGrath is a lucky bowler with little skill and doesnt earn his wicket' is less nuanced about cricket than my 2 year old cousin sis.

 

[badgerhair]

John Buchanan's most recent credentials when taking the Australian job were to fail as Middlesex coach.
Sometimes a good coach can appear, to the unwary eye, out of nowhere.

Actually, his most recent credentials were coaching Queensland to winning the Shield.

And his so-called failure with Middlesex was more to do with Middlesex's squad than with Buchanan. What the young and inexperienced Middlesex players needed was a coach who could explain what the three poles at the ends of the pitch were and why it was important to hurl the ball in their general direction (which is what Dav Whatmore did for the Sri Lankans and is now doing for Bangladesh) rather than a Professor of Applied Cricketology giving masterclasses to doctoral candidates

The point I'm getting at here is that coaches have different strengths, just as players do, and some will be better for some teams than they will for others, because one team will be mostly aware of what a given coach has to offer where another finds the guy to be a revelatory and life-changing miracle-worker.

Dav Whatmore had almost no positive effect on Sri Lanka in his second stint, I think because he'd taught them all he knew the first time round.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

the point of it is that using things like, 'they were even until the last day' or they each had 2 even days, is completely useless, because what really matters is what the picture looks like at the end of the game. .

Well, yes and no. It's not completely useless, because it gives you some idea of whether the team which loses is good but not quite as good as the winners or whether they are basically rubbish.

Naturally I'm biased, but a South African whose opinion I've long respected told me that he thought that South Africa had been working really hard to keep up with England, who he thought looked off-colour, and that he was reasonably encouraged by the SA performance against an obviously superior team. (It is perhaps not surprising that I've long respected his opinion as it so frequently coincides with my own.)

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Pratters]

the point of it is that using things like, 'they were even until the last day' or they each had 2 even days, is completely useless, because what really matters is what the picture looks like at the end of the game. england won 2, and had it not been for bad light, would almost certainly have had 3.

If we are discussing a closely fought series, we have to see the days compromising the test match and not just the end results