Stephen Fleming is the worst ever

[tooextracool]

and the point of comparing only 6 players from either side is?
you havent taken into account the batting depth of either side, you havent taken into account the bowling averages of batsmen who can bowl, you've left out the fact that oram is an all rounder while australia doesnt even have an all rounder and you certainly havent taken into account fielding ability. and why should grafter be compared with grafter?what if 1 grafter is far better than everyone else from either side?
give yourself a pat on the back for coming up with another useless way of comparing 2 sides

 

[marc71178]

And you give yourself one for being so patronising and not offering your own solutions.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

and the point of comparing only 6 players from either side is?
you havent taken into account the batting depth of either side, you havent taken into account the bowling averages of batsmen who can bowl, you've left out the fact that oram is an all rounder while australia doesnt even have an all rounder and you certainly havent taken into account fielding ability. and why should grafter be compared with grafter?what if 1 grafter is far better than everyone else from either side?
give yourself a pat on the back for coming up with another useless way of comparing 2 sides

Fine fine fine. If only to please certain members of the forum, I withdraw my point and opinion.

Stephen Fleming is a poor captain and Ricky Ponting is much better. New Zealand is clearly a better team than Australia hence Ponting has less to work with than Fleming, adding to his greatness.

Are we all happy now? Toys back in the crib?

 

[Macka]

Fleming is quite easily the best captain in cricket today. Ponting hasn't even been captain for very long, especially in the test arena. Considering what he has done for NZ cricket, taking the lead in the team, whether is be opening the batting for NZ or the usual captaincy duties he faces, easily better than Ponting.

Ganguly doesn't rate, his attitute was poor when India toured here. Yeah yeah the pitches were poor, but so was Ganguly's captaincy. I loved seeing Ganguly getting knocked over time after time in the same fashion just quietly. He complained and complained and every interview he gave after losing a match was exactly the same.

Smith is a good captain and will only get better. Although Fleming's confrontation with Smith during the ODI series here in NZ was a master stroke.

Like Mingster I never get sick of saying it. Fleming is the best.

 

[Richard]

That was a supehuman effort.. It seemed strangely inevitable though, SA are cursed when it comes to WC mode...

All it would have taken would be Boucher holding that edge.
Then Fleming would not have got more than 48 and South Africa would have had a much better chance of winning the match.

 

[Dick Rockett]

A better chance, but still don't think they would have won it. They only actually took one wicket...

 

[_Ed_]

All it would have taken would be Boucher holding that edge.
Then Fleming would not have got more than 48 and South Africa would have had a much better chance of winning the match.

All it would have taken in 1999 would be Gibbs holding that catch. Then Steve Waugh would not have got more than 56, and South Africa would have had a much better chance of winning the match.

Instead, he got 120, considered by most to be a great ODI innings despite a simple chance being dropped, and Australia went on to win the World Cup. I think it is unfair to not consider Fleming's knock a very good, if not great one, even if he did get a large slice of luck along the way.

 

[Loony BoB]

All it would have taken for NZ to win every world cup is to hold every catch, bowl the right ball every time and to bat better than Australia and India do right now. What's done is done, man, just take it for what it is. While you can say that a player is lucky to be in when they're dropped, a more accurate statement is that the fielder wasn't good enough. Even if they catch 99% of their catches, they weren't good enough to catch that one, and that's that. Hypothesising over what might have been "if" is fine and all, but saying that a team should/shouldn't have won because of a dropped catch is lame. The only time I'd say a team should/shouldn't have won is if a bad umpire decision is involved and the game was close enough for it to count. Even then, that's cricket. Can't win them all!

 

[Richard]

All it would have taken in 1999 would be Gibbs holding that catch. Then Steve Waugh would not have got more than 56, and South Africa would have had a much better chance of winning the match.

Instead, he got 120, considered by most to be a great ODI innings despite a simple chance being dropped, and Australia went on to win the World Cup. I think it is unfair to not consider Fleming's knock a very good, if not great one, even if he did get a large slice of luck along the way.

Considered by most - incorrectly.
But for Gibbs celebrating prematurely, it wouldn't have won the game as two-handedly as it did.

 

[Richard]

All it would have taken for NZ to win every world cup is to hold every catch, bowl the right ball every time and to bat better than Australia and India do right now. What's done is done, man, just take it for what it is. While you can say that a player is lucky to be in when they're dropped, a more accurate statement is that the fielder wasn't good enough. Even if they catch 99% of their catches, they weren't good enough to catch that one, and that's that. Hypothesising over what might have been "if" is fine and all, but saying that a team should/shouldn't have won because of a dropped catch is lame. The only time I'd say a team should/shouldn't have won is if a bad umpire decision is involved and the game was close enough for it to count. Even then, that's cricket. Can't win them all!

I didn't say anything about the "shoulds" of game results WRT dropped catches. I said they'd have had a much better chance of winning.
Results can only ever be "hypothesising over what-ifs". There will probably be one just about every ball.
The only thing for which dropped catches can be certain is individual innings.

 

[marc71178]

Considered by most - incorrectly.

Because yet again, you know more than the rest of us!

 

[tooextracool]

Fine fine fine. If only to please certain members of the forum, I withdraw my point and opinion.

Stephen Fleming is a poor captain and Ricky Ponting is much better. New Zealand is clearly a better team than Australia hence Ponting has less to work with than Fleming, adding to his greatness.

Are we all happy now? Toys back in the crib?

the point was right just the method was wrong

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

the point was right just the method was wrong

Explain. My method was to compare like-for-like players. I couldn't bring Cairns into the equation because the Aussies don't have a true allrounder at the moment.

 

[Richard]

Because yet again, you know more than the rest of us!

Yep, that's right.
Otherwise I'd be saying "I think such-and-such, and it's probably wrong so I'm still going to think it".
Which would be ludicrous.

 

[marc71178]

In fact why do they play any Cricket, since you know more than every other peson in the World, why don't you just dictate results without the games taking place?

 

[Richard]

Because if everything was as expected most people would get bored.
Without the entertainment factor cricket would die, and IMO without cricket entertainment would die.
Anyway, the whole point of being a good cricketer is that you play well - if you're not playing, you can't prove yourself a good cricketer to me!

 

[Will Scarlet]

Fleming is better than his average

I think that most people would have to agree that Flemming is much better than his average implies. He has improved significantly in recent years.

You need to wonder what Tendulkar's average would be if he played in NZ conditions, and Flemming's in Indian conditions. Not that I am saying Flemming is as good as Tendulkar. The entire Indian top order averages far higher than that of NZ but they were made to look ridiculous on their last tour of NZ.

It is also much more difficult to score runs when the batting around you is as fragile as NZ's for most of the last decade. When Flemming fails generally NZ fail. For this reason I believe Lara is the best batsmen in the world; not wanting to take anything away from Hayden or Ponting.

 

[Deja moo]

You need to wonder what Tendulkar's average would be if he played in NZ conditions, and Flemming's in India conditions. .

They probably would have adapted to the conditions if they were to play half their cricket in those conditions , and come out just as good .

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't bet on it - the conditions mean averaging over 50 over a long career is extremely unlikely.

 

[Mingster]

Just look at the domestic stats for players in NZ.

There are only a handful of current players that he boast an average of 30 in domestic One-Dayers.