Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[Richard]

Even though you've ignored it in the past?

I've said I don't believe it's significant, because I don't see that there's been a change that could be caused by it.
If I see a change, I'll consider it as a possibility.
But neither Flintoff in 2001\02 (funny that a change took 2 whole years - more if you believe some misguided people) nor Harmison in 2004 has actually improved as a bowler, they've just started getting more poor strokes.
So therefore I don't see that it's significant.

 

[a massive zebra]

But neither Flintoff in 2001\02 (funny that a change took 2 whole years - more if you believe some misguided people) nor Harmison in 2004 has actually improved as a bowler, they've just started getting more poor strokes.
So therefore I don't see that it's significant.

Harmison was definitely bowling better when on his way to number 1 in the PWC world rankings. He may have lacked variety and bowled very short but it was faster and straighter. Now its just totally ****e short and wide help yourself bowling.

 

[Richard]

^^^
Interesting comment!

EDIT: well it was, intially!!!

 

[Richard]

Harmison was definitely bowling better when he was on his way to number 1. He may have lacked variety and bowled very short but it was faster and straighter. Now its just totally ****e short and wide help yourself bowling.

Hmm... his wicket-taking balls were directly comparable.
To those, that is, that have now been handled with no difficulty.
It's certainly not like he's bowling any slower - his average speed in West Indies was 87.1mph; in the New Zealand series it was 85.9; against West Indies at home (the start of the decline) 88.1 (bowled less overs, remember); and I've not seen it in South Africa. Certainly spotted plenty of 90mph+ deliveries, though.
Fair enough about the direction, though - 7 Tests in the first part of 2004, over 3-an-over just once; since the start of the West Indies series every game has been over 3-an-over.

 

[marc71178]

But neither Flintoff in 2001\02 (funny that a change took 2 whole years - more if you believe some misguided people)

2 years?

When did he speak to Cooley - about what 18 months ago?

Since then his figures are clear.

 

[Richard]

And it's equally clear that the change in figures started before that.
As it's clear that the change in figures - whenever it started - is not due to a change in bowling.

 

[Anil]

Not ridiculous at all - just not conforming to modest self-affacing normality.

someday, hopefully you will learn that not being modest and humble doesn't necessarily equate to pompous and arrogant...

 

[Richard]

And if you think I'm pompous or arrogant you've simply got the proverbial wrong end of the stick.
I am simply confident that I know what I'm talking about - tone of writing is sometimes very hard to identify with and you can be forgiven for misinterpreting.

 

[marc71178]

And it's equally clear that the change in figures started before that.

You what?

How many times have you said the change happened afterwards?

Not it's before?

 

[Anil]

And if you think I'm pompous or arrogant you've simply got the proverbial wrong end of the stick.
I am simply confident that I know what I'm talking about - tone of writing is sometimes very hard to identify with and you can be forgiven for misinterpreting.

ok ok...this can go on forever and will really achieve nothing..so i am ending it from my side...btw thanks for forgiving me...i really appreciate it...

 

[Richard]

You what?

How many times have you said the change happened afterwards?

Not it's before?

Er - it's claimed the change happened at Bridgetown (April 2004).
I've said time and again that it was Galle (December 2003), and the figures show that palpably.
Equally I've also said the only actual change in Flintoff's bowling was in October 2001, when he went from unfit to very fit and able to bowl 4 overs on the trot without damaging his back. It didn't make him any more penetrative and the only thing that has done since is poor strokes, a run of which began at Galle and not at Bridgetown.

 

[Richard]

ok ok...this can go on forever and will really achieve nothing..so i am ending it from my side...btw thanks for forgiving me...i really appreciate it...

Might be satisfactory for you but I don't find it satisfactory that you'd "run away" as it were with a false idea of me.

 

[marc71178]

Er - it's claimed the change happened at Bridgetown (April 2004).

No, that was when it was talked about.

Equally I've also said the only actual change in Flintoff's bowling was in October 2001

So ignore what the man himself says about it then.

 

[Richard]

No, that was when it was talked about.

That is when it's commonly said a change happened - and the change in figures in fact started before then.

So ignore what the man himself says about it then.

Yep - and take notice of the actual evidence of what is coming out of the hand.

 

[Smudge]

Er - the bowler has bowled the ball.
If you know about the delivery and many others then you know about the bowler.
Simple as.
Otherwise no-one would ever be allowed to comment on a bowler.

People would be allowed to comment on the bowler - they just couldn't claim they know more about the bowler than the bowler himself.

Which makes sense to me.

 

[Richard]

In short, they're not allowed to contradict the bowler.
Which, frankly, is ridiculous - what the bowler says goes. Yeah, right.

 

[Smudge]

In short, they're not allowed to contradict the bowler.
Which, frankly, is ridiculous - what the bowler says goes. Yeah, right.

You seem to be twisting my words.

There's nothing wrong with contradicting the bowler - it's just that it's ridiculous for the commentator/writer/boorish knob on a cricket forum to suggest he knows more than the bowler whilst contradicting him.

 

[Richard]

No - by contradicting the bowler someone is saying they know better than him.
There's no twisting in that - you're just trying to say that you're not saying something you are.
Maybe you don't realise you're saying it, even.

 

[Camel56]

Why do you think you know it all Richo? You clearly dont so give it up you plodder.

 

[Anil]

Might be satisfactory for you but I don't find it satisfactory that you'd "run away" as it were with a false idea of me.

not a question of satisfaction young man and don't try to flame me by suggesting i am running away, i don't find anything remotely satisfying in banging my head against a brick wall...a discussion is a give-and-take of ideas....you consistently do only the giving part and consider even thinking about another's opinion as beneath yourself or something(at least that's the impression you give on this forum)...that is a highly egotistical attitude...refusing to accept that you are imperfect doesn't make you perfect, y'know....