The Sky Commentary Team pick their team of the "Noughties"

[Flem274*]

Between 2000 - 2004 Cairns averaged 45 with the bat and 29 with the ball.

Under Stephen Fleming (1997 - 2004) he averaged 37 with the bat and 26 with the ball.

Cairns > Flintoff

Neither > Kallis

 

[King Pietersen]

I'm not doubting the fact that Kallis was also a tremendous cricketer, but for me, from watching them play, Flintoff offers my team more. As far as I'm concerned my team doesn't need Kallis' runs, and Flintoff as a bowler could be a match-winner. The amount of times he turned a game with a magnificent spell, or over gives him more worth to me than Kallis. The over he bowled in 2005 where he dismissed Langer, then worked Ponting over was majestic. Also, playing as a 3rd seamer, and not being relied on to spearhead an attack means Flintoff could be used as an impact bowler, where he can steam in, bowl quickly, and bowl aggressively. His bowling stats might not look much better than Kallis', they might even look worse, but there is no doubting in my mind who the better bowler in, from watching them play. Kallis is a handy bowler, and takes wickets, but when Fred's at his best, his bowling wins Test matches.

For me, it's not a question of who the better cricketer is, as that's quite clearly Kallis, it's the balance of your side. In my side, Flintoff can play as a genuine third seamer, a match-winner in his own right with the ball, and the fact he can bat at 7, or even 6 and do a good job helps with my balance.

 

[Flem274*]

Except that even if no Kallis in favour of someone who can bowl better were a good call, Flintoff isn't the best choice anyway.

 

[Maximas]

I think picking 'best of' teams you have to recognize better players over the team needs, but that is just my approach.

 

[Days of Grace]

No one should be choosing Kallis as the third seamer. He just isn't good enough. Ideal 4th seamer, though. He has to be in the side.

Sehwag
Hayden
Ponting (Dravid very unlucky to miss out)
Lara
Kallis
Flintoff
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Shoaib Akhtar
Muralitharan
McGrath

I like this side. I have good aggressive batsmen with Kallis to provide balance in case things go pear-shaped. A mixture of left and right-handers in the top 7. Flintoff and Kallis as 3rd and 4th seamers allow me to play two spinners and also allow me to play the Akhtar, who could break down halfway though the match.

Perhaps posters are only looking at Flintoff's overall career record when they judge him unworthy of this side. At the beginning of the 2004 home season he had a dire 52 wickets from 29 matches at an average of 45.55. From that point onwards, he 174 wickets from 50 matches at an average of 28.97. Pretty good.

For the record, I consider Steyn a bowler of the 2010s, and Tendulkar a batsmen of the 1990s.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Kallis - vastly better batsman than Flintoff and his equal as a bowler.

Cairns - slightly better at both disciplines than Flintoff.

Pollock - vastly better bowler than Flintoff and arguably better batsman

Flintoff's batting is not good enough for a decade-based side. I wouldn't even put him in a Noughties 2nd eleven. when compared to the following all rounders: Kallis, Symonds, Cairns, SHANE WATSON!, Vettori, Oram Shakib and Pollock, Flintoff was arguably the worst batsman of the 9.

The arguments for Kallis being the 2nd greatest cricketer of all time are stronger than those having Flintoff in this side.

 

[Flem274*]

Flintoff was one of the better allrounders at batting tbh. Wouldn't be putting many of those names in front of him. Watson and Vettori are annoying to judge because they filled very different roles for their sides compared to Flintoff. Apples and oranges.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Would like to add I rated Flintoff as an ODI batsman but not not as a test one (Vettori and Oram were the opposite). Of all those players only Shakib's average in the Noughties (29) was much below Freddy's, but he was only a kid then and Bang was worse than now. Shakib now averages 36. Pollock's batting ave was 0.1 below Flintoff's but his overall batting ave was slightly better. The rest of them had better batting averages that decade (although Vettori's career ave is worse after starting as an 18 year-old bunny).

 

[watson]

Is a top notch third seamer really necessary? Just because it's a convention doesn't make it right.

During the early 90s Australia used 2 quicks, 2 spinners, and 2 medium pacers to good effect;

McDermott
Hughes et al.
Warne
May
S. Waugh
M. Waugh

2nd Test: South Africa v Australia at Cape Town, Mar 17-21, 1994 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Therefore,

01. Graeme Smith
02. Matthew Hayden
03. Ricky Ponting
04. Brian Lara
05. Sachin Tendulkar
06. Jacques Kallis
07. Adam Gilchrist
08. Shane Warne
09. Dale Steyn
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath

 

[Mike5181]

1. ML Hayden
2. R Dravid
3. RT Ponting
4. SR Tendulkar
5. BC Lara
6. JH Kallis
7. AC Gilchrist+
8. SM Pollock
9. SK Warne
10. DW Steyn
11. GD McGrath

Walsh, Bond and Asif decent options as well
Murali would obviously play for one of Pollock/Steyn if the conditions are right

 

[Goughy]

There is am interesting dilemma. You need to pick both spinners, Flintoff isnt good emough to bat 6 and his bowling record can be debated and Kallis isnt a 3rd seamer. Hard to pick the right team whatever you choose.

 

[Bahnz]

Between 2000 - 2004 Cairns averaged 45 with the bat and 29 with the ball.

Under Stephen Fleming (1997 - 2004) he averaged 37 with the bat and 26 with the ball.

Cairns > Flintoff

Neither > Kallis

Cairns' 00's bowling record is heavily influenced by a bunch of cheap wickets he picked up against Bangladesh. Drop them out, and his bowling average pops out to 34. It's still not really any worse than Flintoff's (once adjusted for Zimbang). However, despite his magnificent effort in his fairwell test, Cairns was really past it as a bowler after his second knee injury in 2002. Furthermore, Flintoff had a much better record v Australia (even with the towelling he received in 2007). If I was looking for a bowling allrounder to round out the side, I'd definitely opt for Flintoff.

 

[Bahnz]

No one should be choosing Kallis as the third seamer. He just isn't good enough. Ideal 4th seamer, though. He has to be in the side.

Sehwag
Hayden
Ponting (Dravid very unlucky to miss out)
Lara
Kallis
Flintoff
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Shoaib Akhtar
Muralitharan
McGrath

I like this side. I have good aggressive batsmen with Kallis to provide balance in case things go pear-shaped. A mixture of left and right-handers in the top 7. Flintoff and Kallis as 3rd and 4th seamers allow me to play two spinners and also allow me to play the Akhtar, who could break down halfway though the match.

Perhaps posters are only looking at Flintoff's overall career record when they judge him unworthy of this side. At the beginning of the 2004 home season he had a dire 52 wickets from 29 matches at an average of 45.55. From that point onwards, he 174 wickets from 50 matches at an average of 28.97. Pretty good.

For the record, I consider Steyn a bowler of the 2010s, and Tendulkar a batsmen of the 1990s.

Steyn picked up 170 wickets at 24 in the 00's. Besides McGrath, he's the only quick to have taken more than 150 wickets at an average of less than 25.

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Tendulkar, Kallis, Sangakkara, Gilchrist, Warne, Steyn, Akhtar, McGrath

All three quicks have splendid records in Asia, so I don't see the need for a second spinner.

 

[91Jmay]

If you are arguing Kallis was a better bowler than Flintoff you need to stop talking cricket, but he was clearly the better all rounder. Can't see how that is even a debate.

 

[Cabinet96]

I'm not doubting the fact that Kallis was also a tremendous cricketer, but for me, from watching them play, Flintoff offers my team more. As far as I'm concerned my team doesn't need Kallis' runs, and Flintoff as a bowler could be a match-winner. The amount of times he turned a game with a magnificent spell, or over gives him more worth to me than Kallis. The over he bowled in 2005 where he dismissed Langer, then worked Ponting over was majestic. Also, playing as a 3rd seamer, and not being relied on to spearhead an attack means Flintoff could be used as an impact bowler, where he can steam in, bowl quickly, and bowl aggressively. His bowling stats might not look much better than Kallis', they might even look worse, but there is no doubting in my mind who the better bowler in, from watching them play. Kallis is a handy bowler, and takes wickets, but when Fred's at his best, his bowling wins Test matches.

For me, it's not a question of who the better cricketer is, as that's quite clearly Kallis, it's the balance of your side. In my side, Flintoff can play as a genuine third seamer, a match-winner in his own right with the ball, and the fact he can bat at 7, or even 6 and do a good job helps with my balance.

Why don't you need runs at 6/7? It's amazing how much it helped England after the 09 Ashes when Bell came in at 6 and started averaging 60-70 in the next two years. We may have lost a good bowler, but it seriously improved our batting when we had more than a handy hitter batting there.

Now you're probably going to talk about how you don't need runs there because the other 6 in the top 7 will score so many runs, but we're not talking about this side playing Bangladesh. We're talking about them playing a side of similar stature, where having a guy who could get runs at 6/7 could be the difference between winning and losing. Besides, if you think the top five are so good that runs are surplus after that then you hardly need a fifth bowler, as you've named four incredible bowlers there who used to tear through run of the mill test sides every day of the week.

This side will be the sort who plays a side of the 80's, and having a batter as poor as Flintoff in the top 7 in those circumstances is a massive compromise to make for a bowler who was inconsistent, and hardly made big hauls on his day anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

For me, it's not a question of who the better cricketer is, as that's quite clearly Kallis, it's the balance of your side. In my side, Flintoff can play as a genuine third seamer, a match-winner in his own right with the ball, and the fact he can bat at 7, or even 6 and do a good job helps with my balance.

Can he really bat at 6, though? When you're picking the England side then maybe, because the only alternative will be someone like Bairstow who probably won't score many more runs anyway. But here you're leaving out someone like Tendulkar or Sangakkara. It's a lot of runs to throw away for a sixth bowler.

 

[GIMH]

Sorry did someone say Watson was better than Flintoff

 

[marc71178]

And Vettori with the bat!

 

[Furball]

Still did better against said sides than Flintoff. The only sides Flintoff averaged under 30 with the ball against where West Indies and New Zealand, with the bat he only averaged more than 40 against the West Indies and New Zealand.

Also interesting that one of your main deterrents on Kallis is a subjective matter, which has no relevance in a results business. I love watching Kallis bat.

Beauty matters at the top end of sport. In football it's why we revere Pep's Barcelona, Saachi's Milan or the Ajax/Dutch team of the 70s.

Cricket wise, it's why I can't take Kallis seriously as a genuine great of the game because I find him utterly mechanical and joyless to watch. IMO there's no contest when you compare him to Lara or Ponting.

Plus he's a minnow basher. Tendulkar and Lara, for me are miles clear of Kallis because of their record against Warne and McGrath's Australia.

 

[Furball]

Btw anyone picking Tendulkar and not Dravid is having a laugh. Dravid was easily India's best batsman of the 00s, look at all their overseas success over the decade and Dravid was integral to virtually all of them.

Plus he doesn't sound like a prepubescent girl, just in case the above doesn't convince you.