• 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.

Protection for Flintoff and Obituaries for Udal !!

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
This article by David Hopps in today's Guardian suggests that Flintoff needed protection and it should have been obvious to the English skipper during the futile (for England) day in the field as Pakistani batsmen were piling on the agony.

He also suggests in the same argument that Udal "should have bowled most of the morning merely to spare Flintoff and, if he had kept disappearing into the crowd, he should have been told to bowl some more. "....

and that........ "for England's sole spinner to manage 18 overs out of 156.2 on such a benign surface should have automatically ruled him out of next year's tour to India"

Is this really true ?......not just in the context of this game/series but in the overall context of Flintoff's career and of other star performers like him in various international teams.?

AND does Udal's handling suggest a lack of confidence in that bowler to the extent to preclude any future England duties ?
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Personally I'm more bothered about whether Giles will be back in India with a second installment of his negative line of bowling... wouldnt want test cricket to die out here ..
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Deja moo said:
Personally I'm more bothered about whether Giles will be back in India with a second installment of his negative line of bowling... wouldnt want test cricket to die out here ..
I doubt if he will bowl negative this time around His handling by Vaughan has been examplary and Giles' response has shown what great dis-service Nasser hussain did to this fine bowler when he used him in that role.

But I am wondering if champion cricketers like Flintoff are that fragile as to need protection. Sure, Udal could have bowled more but I am not convinced that Freddie should have been 'hidden' when the batsmen were on a rampage. If all sides/captains started doing that (unless a player is injured or indisposed) we would deprive the game of some of its greatest moments viz. the spaectacular performances that 'champion' cricketers will squeeze out of themselves in the most demanding circumstances. It is this that entitles them to that title in the first place.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Sure, we will now just protect Lara by making him bat only when the twirlers and the trundlers are bowling. Same with Sachin. And we will protect Shoaib by getting him to bowl only at tailenders. Same with Warney, McGrath and Murali. :D
 

greg

State Captain
honestbharani said:
Sure, we will now just protect Lara by making him bat only when the twirlers and the trundlers are bowling. Same with Sachin. And we will protect Shoaib by getting him to bowl only at tailenders. Same with Warney, McGrath and Murali. :D
I'm not sure that was the point - the article was not referring to protecting his confidence, it was about protecting his body.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
By all means rest Freddie from another meaningless one-day series, but to suggest that he should be "protected" (or whatever term was used in this article) in the middle of a test match is nonsense. That's a loser's attitude if ever there was one.

Imagine Warne or McGrath's response if Ponting was ever stupid enough to suggest that they take a spell because he wanted to rest them up for a series starting in 4 months.
 

greg

State Captain
social said:
By all means rest Freddie from another meaningless one-day series, but to suggest that he should be "protected" (or whatever term was used in this article) in the middle of a test match is nonsense. That's a loser's attitude if ever there was one.

Imagine Warne or McGrath's response if Ponting was ever stupid enough to suggest that they take a spell because he wanted to rest them up for a series starting in 4 months.
The point was not to rest him but not to flog him into the ground, because of other bowlers inadequacies. The article was specifically referring to a situation where (in its opinion) bowling was to all extents meaningless. England were just waiting for a declaration, with the series lost. There is also an argument that overbowling him could impact negatively on his batting. He got a golden duck. And whether you think he should be rested from the one-day series or not, the fact is that he is playing in it. So we might as well have him in the best possible condition for it - after all it would be a bit stupid if he picked up an injury in the one-dayers as a knock on consequence of being overbowled in the tests. The quid pro quo of overbowling Flintoff when we need him (a la fourth morning at the Oval) is that others should pick up the slack when we don't.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Eveyone needs a little protection once in a while, but England were so woefully out of options, that thay needed Flintoff to bowl a lot more than he could.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
Hell if you think that's bad sky sports showed how beefy bowled as much as flintoff in a test match, and then had to turn out to county matches for somerset and still bowl his lion's share.

Udal unfortunley has showed just how useless most finger-spin is nowadays away from huge-turning Pitches, and that you can't bowl teams out anymore with just off-breaks and the arm ball (which is useless if the ball isn't turning).

Still think loudon should have had a go and seen if any of his variations troubled the batsmen.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Autobahn said:
Udal unfortunley has showed just how useless most finger-spin is nowadays away from huge-turning Pitches
No, he's showed how useless he is.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
greg said:
I'm not sure that was the point - the article was not referring to protecting his confidence, it was about protecting his body.
Then you should use him ONLY when the going gets tough, not when the going is easy, when someone else can do the job and Freddie can take a bit of a rest at fine leg or somewhere.
 

greg

State Captain
honestbharani said:
Then you should use him ONLY when the going gets tough, not when the going is easy, when someone else can do the job and Freddie can take a bit of a rest at fine leg or somewhere.
I don't really understand you're point. We're talking about the situation where Pakistan were on 500+ and England were just waiting for a declaration.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Autobahn said:
Name another fingerspinner who has in the last 5 years troubled good batsmen away from big-turning pitches in tests.
Over the span of 5 years, not many. But once in a few tests, Malik and Arshad Khan.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Autobahn said:
Name another fingerspinner who has in the last 5 years troubled good batsmen away from big-turning pitches in tests.
Dont know about last five year stuff but considering the gradual demise of the specialist spinner (yes yes one has heard of Warne and Murali), I think one can think of many occasions when Harbhajan, Saqlain (of course Muralitharan) and even Giles and Vettori have troubled batsmen on wickets that cant be termed as "big-turners".

On dead wickets, finger spinners are not the only one's that look less effective all types of bowlers can.

I think Udal, even in these times of dwindling spinning resources around the world, doesnt impress as being anywhere except at the lower rungs of that line.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
greg said:
I don't really understand you're point. We're talking about the situation where Pakistan were on 500+ and England were just waiting for a declaration.
sorry. I thought that the author wanted to have Flintoff protected every time the opposition was doing well. I guess I was wrong. Apologies. :)
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
yes and yes.

Flintoff's batting defintely gets worse abroad and when he bowls too much and Udal is useless.
 

Top