BBC's flops of the tournament 11...do you agree?

[Perm]

He finished the game off against Zimbabwe, was the only one (other than Ramdin) who stood up against Australia, had a similar effort against New Zealand and closed off the innings nicely against Bangladesh. Now you can argue that he wasn't a big influence in the tournament which would be fair, but he can't score runs for the other batsmen in the West Indies team. On the couple of occasions where the West Indies have been going well (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) he was able to close the innings and when they were getting blasted away (Australia and New Zealand) then he showed some spine and fought back.

 

[Gloucefan]

He finished the game off against Zimbabwe, was the only one (other than Ramdin) who stood up against Australia, had a similar effort against New Zealand and closed off the innings nicely against Bangladesh. Now you can argue that he wasn't a big influence in the tournament which would be fair, but he can't score runs for the other batsmen in the West Indies team. On the couple of occasions where the West Indies have been going well (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) he was able to close the innings and when they were getting blasted away (Australia and New Zealand) then he showed some spine and fought back.

Fair enough, I was going on my general impression. He has been better then I thought.

 

[grecian]

Well people are mentioning Panesar, if you take out his performances against the minnows.

Well on that criteria, Collingwood must be in with a shout for most disappointing player.

83@16.60 and 3/166.

Yet it's fairly silly to discount the minnow matches IMHO, mahmood, colly and Monty helped us avoid an humiliating exit, a la Pakistan and India, so shouldn't be forgotten.

 

[Perm]

Well people are mentioning Panesar, if you take out his performances against the minnows.

Well on that criteria, Collingwood must be in with a shout for most disappointing player.

83@16.60 and 3/166.

Yet it's fairly silly to discount the minnow matches IMHO, mahmood, colly and Monty helped us avoid an humiliating exit, a la Pakistan and India, so shouldn't be forgotten.

Well if you take away the performances against minnows, then it ives you a better idea of how good they actually are.

 

[grecian]

Well if you take away the performances against minnows, then it ives you a better idea of how good they actually are.

I'm just saying this thread is about "disappointing players in the tournament", the minnows constitute part of the tournament, imo.

 

[Perm]

I'm just saying this thread is about "disappointing players in the tournament", the minnows constitute part of the tournament, imo.

That's true, but the "real" tournament is between the big teams, as cynical as it sounds. I'll use Panesar as an example, he has performed well against the minnows but has only taken 1 wicket against a Test playing nation, whom the real challenge is against. Now somebody like Michael Vaughan has been disappointing against both minnows and Test playing nations alike, meaning that his stats aren't cushioned by his acheivements against the minnows like Panesar's are.

Not sure if that made sense at all but I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

[LA ICE-E]

That's true, but the "real" tournament is between the big teams, as cynical as it sounds. I'll use Panesar as an example, he has performed well against the minnows but has only taken 1 wicket against a Test playing nation, whom the real challenge is against. Now somebody like Michael Vaughan has been disappointing against both minnows and Test playing nations alike, meaning that his stats aren't cushioned by his acheivements against the minnows like Panesar's are.

Not sure if that made sense at all but I'm sure you know what I mean.

some people do well against the minnows some doesn't it's to their credit who can make the most out of the opportunity...it's not like it's only them who played against the minnows...

 

[Perm]

some people do well against the minnows some doesn't it's to their credit who can make the most out of the opportunity...it's not like it's only them who played against the minnows...

No but some people get more opportunities to play against them and boost their stats, whether they be a batsman or bowler. Performing against the best ois what matters and by taking away games against minnows it gives a more accurate reading of how good a player is, IMO.

 

[age_master]

Its interesting the number of big name players that have flopped in the WC.

 

[Perm]

Its interesting the number of big name players that have flopped in the WC.

Like?

 

[pup11]

I think he was talking about the likes of :-

1.Flintoff
2.Gayle
3.Tendulkar
4.Pollock
5.Ntini


But there aren't too many big names who haven't performed in this WC.

 

[Richard]

Danish Kaneria, Michael Vaughan and Younis Khan are crap ODI players anyway, so they hardly "flopped".

This is the BBC, remember - you can hardly expect them to differentiate between Tests and ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Well people are mentioning Panesar, if you take out his performances against the minnows.

Well on that criteria, Collingwood must be in with a shout for most disappointing player.

83@16.60 and 3/166.

Yet it's fairly silly to discount the minnow matches IMHO, mahmood, colly and Monty helped us avoid an humiliating exit, a la Pakistan and India, so shouldn't be forgotten.

Well if you take away the performances against minnows, then it ives you a better idea of how good they actually are.

I'm just saying this thread is about "disappointing players in the tournament", the minnows constitute part of the tournament, imo.

That's true, but the "real" tournament is between the big teams, as cynical as it sounds. I'll use Panesar as an example, he has performed well against the minnows but has only taken 1 wicket against a Test playing nation, whom the real challenge is against. Now somebody like Michael Vaughan has been disappointing against both minnows and Test playing nations alike, meaning that his stats aren't cushioned by his acheivements against the minnows like Panesar's are.

Not sure if that made sense at all but I'm sure you know what I mean.

some people do well against the minnows some doesn't it's to their credit who can make the most out of the opportunity...it's not like it's only them who played against the minnows...

No but some people get more opportunities to play against them and boost their stats, whether they be a batsman or bowler. Performing against the best ois what matters and by taking away games against minnows it gives a more accurate reading of how good a player is, IMO.

Totally agree with Perm here, don't see how on Earth anyone can seriously claim games against substandard sides, part of the tournament though they may be, mean anything compared to games against the ODI-class sides.

Collingwood did indeed have a very poor tournament - and it's not the first time some substandard sides have massaged his stats, either.

 

[Athlai]

Totally agree with Perm here, don't see how on Earth anyone can seriously claim games against substandard sides, part of the tournament though they may be, mean anything compared to games against the ODI-class sides.

Collingwood did indeed have a very poor tournament - and it's not the first time some substandard sides have massaged his stats, either.

Is this including Ireland and Bangledesh?

Because if Bangers beat SA then would it be saying that since they aren't one of the top eight sides they shouldn't be counted?

Kenya and Canada are hardly the worst teams in the world, and if anyone is taking stats all that seriously in the first place, substandard teams would definitely come into that account. Not only that but you should consider the side they are in too. A team like Australia would place far less pressure on a bowler or a batsmen than the English side maybe giving them a better chance to perform.

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff bowled really well. He flopped as a batsman, which has overshadowed his good work with the ball, so putting him in a flops XI is, IMO, harsh

 

[Prince EWS]

Flintoff bowled really well. He flopped as a batsman, which has overshadowed his good work with the ball, so putting him in a flops XI is, IMO, harsh

Well, a flop is someone who doesn't perform to hopes and expectations, IMO. And, as well as Flintoff bowled, he didn't perform as well as many had hoped or expected with the bat. That's more to do with the fact that he's over-rated with the bat than his poor form in that discipline, however they both played their part and it's still justifiable to clas**** him as a flop based on his batting, IMO.

EDIT: "sify" being censored really is silly, given its presence within other words and all...

 

[NUFAN]

Nafees would make my team. What a disgusting tournament by him. He had NFI really, and this was coming from a man who was ranked in the top 20 batsmen in the world.

He also lost me a bit of money too the tool.

 

[pup11]

Yeah Nafees had a horrible tournament so he should have been on that list but then he is not a big name so i think BBC didn't bother to mention his name.

But i completly agree with Princey that Flintoff failed to live up to the expectations, but having said that those expectations were overambitious and unrealistic.



One can't expect Freddie and KP to do everything for the English side.

 

[marc71178]

Yet you didn't put Hussey into any of your teams or lists of big names that flopped pup...

 

[Prince EWS]

Yet you didn't put Hussey into any of your teams or lists of big names that flopped pup...

There's still time for Hussey though. Flintoff's on the plane home.