*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Craig]

Hang on, are you saying I said Anderson was one of the best English batsmen because he has a average of over 40?

Because I dont think I did.

 

[Eclipse]

Hang on, are you saying I said Anderson was one of the best English batsmen because he has a average of over 40?

Because I dont think I did.

I think you know what he is saying Craig.

 

[Rik]

What, that he's been our best bowler?

It was a series in which I don't think we had a best bowler, except for Kirtley who came in and did all he was asked to and more, they were all lacking in penetration or general control and if they were race-horses they would have been shot.

 

[Richard]

Quite a bit of discussion of Flintoff:
I quite agree with Craig that it is no coincidence that Flintoff averages nearly 50 in Test-cricket - indeed, maybe I helped him see what others fail to.
There is simply no logic in the "he's unlucky" argument - yes, he had a few catches dropped in the South Africa series, but how many were off good balls? Kirsten at Lord's, that's about it.
Flintoff simply does not bowl wicket-taking deliveries. Yes, he gets batsmen to play-and-miss a bit - and he always has - but all bowlers do. The good bowlers will eventually hit the edge, and hit it a few times during the day.
The fact that has recently changed is that Flintoff has averaged over 50 with the bat in his last Test-series, compared to less than 20 before that (and it would be less than 14 but for one series in New Zealand against a third-string attack).
So, on the evidence of the most recent series, Flintoff has earned a place in the side as a batsman. I am glad he is not playing in Bangladesh, as it is just a chance of easy runs. When he gets to Sri Lanka we will see a true test of whether he really has improved as a batsman or whether the South Africa series was an anomaly.
There is no need to argue over his bowling - if he starts taking wickets with good balls, we will know he has become a better bowler than he has previously been. One thing beyond a question is that last series he was a better batsman than he has ever been.
However, it is silly to simply say "he keeps being unlucky". And it has been said for a long time, now. No bowler deserves repeated good luck, the same way no batsman does. If someone is lucky it does not make them a good player.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There's also the theory that some balls are so good that they don't get the edge. Thus they are placed in the category of unplayable deliveries (ie they couldn't be hit if the bowler tipped off the batsman). For reference, see Ambrose and Walsh.

 

[marc71178]

The fact that has recently changed is that Flintoff has averaged over 50 with the bat in his last Test-series, compared to less than 20 before that (and it would be less than 14 but for one series in New Zealand against a third-string attack).

Hmm, Cairns, Butler, Vettori and Tuffey all played in that series - if that's they're 3rd string, then maybe the NZ first choice attack isn't that bad after all?

 

[Richard]

Hmm, Cairns, Butler, Vettori and Tuffey all played in that series - if that's they're 3rd string, then maybe the NZ first choice attack isn't that bad after all?

Cairns bowled a double-wicket maiden first-up that series, then bowled 6 rubbish overs, then got injured and bowled just 11 more overs in the match and series. Vettori, too, had an injury and though he bowled through it he was little use. Tuffey played the Third Test and got 9 wickets, though even he could have bowled better.
The rest of the bowling was made-up of Martin, Butler, Astle, McMillan and Drum. All third-string, despite Drum's excellent domestic record.
New Zealand's first-string attack of the time was pretty good, yes - O'Connor (Allott had just retired), Nash, Cairns and Vettori (both when fully fit). That's a good attack, but one including Butler and Martin cannot be described as even second-string.

 

[Richard]

There's also the theory that some balls are so good that they don't get the edge. Thus they are placed in the category of unplayable deliveries (ie they couldn't be hit if the bowler tipped off the batsman). For reference, see Ambrose and Walsh.

For me, a delivery that is so good there isn't a realistic chance of an edge is a Jaffa. Ambrose probably bowled more of these than anyone, but he usually hit the edge eventually.
A good batsman simply sees a Jaffa, thinks sensibly "right, didn't have a chance of hitting that, no danger there" - concentrate on the next ball.
Same way if you get a delivery that hits the edge and was never going to do anything but, you just shrug your shoulders and say "well, couldn't do much about that, just wait for next innings". What I call an RUD - realistically unplayable delivery.

 

[Craig]

Richard - me and Marc are always arguing about Flintoff. He rates him highly - I dont (as you know). A lot of people here seem to say the same about Flintoff.

Also about the same with Ashley Giles. You should if you get the time and have a look through the threads and see some classic Craig v Marc arguements.

 

[Richard]

Ah, Craig, what fun. I shall doubtless have endless hours of it. Seem to have worked-out these forums and threads now, it's certainly considerably more populated than the old English Cricket Forum, ain't it?

 

[Craig]

Well a whole lot better and quicker.

I suggest you go and read my "Over-rated XI" thread.

 

[Richard]

I shall read all I can, Craig. Difficult to find a starting-point, but I'll cover it all in the end, I dare say.

 

[iamdavid]

I see you have migrated over here as well Richard.
Are you two still going to be on the Cricinfo forum aswell or just here?

 

[Craig]

Depends.

 

[marc71178]

Richard - me and Marc are always arguing about Flintoff. He rates him highly - I dont (as you know). A lot of people here seem to say the same about Flintoff.

Also about the same with Ashley Giles. You should if you get the time and have a look through the threads and see some classic Craig v Marc arguements.

Craig, you don't even come close to arguing and discussing with me as much as others on here - for classics you should see "Laxman is over-rated" and "Fulton for England" - you're nowhere near those yet!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Craig, you don't even come close to arguing and discussing with me as much as others on here - for classics you should see "Laxman is over-rated" and "Fulton for England" - you're nowhere near those yet!

At least some of us have realised the error of our ways now :P

 

[PY]

"Vaughan has struggled in these last two series. Drop him and try Fulton vs the Sri Lankans or Indians this summer"

-Neil Pickup 3rd April 2002
(One of many quality comments)


That is genius.......any more pearlers for the tour this winter?

 

[Richard]

I see you have migrated over here as well Richard.
Are you two still going to be on the Cricinfo forum aswell or just here?

I trust this is you, Mr. hoitnik?
Yes, of course I will keep my presence on the ECF - without me that place simply wouldn't be the same, even if I say so myself.

 

[Richard]

"Vaughan has struggled in these last two series. Drop him and try Fulton vs the Sri Lankans or Indians this summer"

-Neil Pickup 3rd April 2002
(One of many quality comments)


That is genius.......any more pearlers for the tour this winter?

Interesting time - 3rd April - that's before the 2002 season started. For all we knew then, Fulton's 2001 could have been a one-off, after all his 2000 wasn't exactly great.
Once the season started, and Vaughan started getting lucky, that went out of the window, I assume? A shame, as Fulton has averaged over 35 in each of the last 2 seasons and would, if you ask me, probably make a good Test opener, far better than his partner or his number-three.

 

[marc71178]

A shame, as Fulton has averaged over 35 in each of the last 2 seasons and would, if you ask me, probably make a good Test opener, far better than his partner or his number-three.

A whole 2 seasons averaging over 35?

That's not that good in County Cricket!