Ponting Clean Sweep on Awards night

[Aussie-Yank]

Ponting picks up the Australian Test Player of the year, ODI of the Year and the Border Medal - First player ever to clean sweep the awards.

Cric info reported that Phil Tufnell upset Ponting with his "Dropping the Ashes" remarks in 2005. I quite liked hi 2007 comments at the awards;

But this year, Tufnell's return effort went down slightly better. "I suppose you want me to eat humble pie but I prefer doughnuts because that's what we bloody served up to you all summer," Tufnell said. "I've got a little tip for you - don't upset Ricky Ponting. He turns into a run-machine and every time he smashed us for four he saw my face on that ball. During the Test series you had four players retire. We had four players retire as well - they just don't know it yet."

I wonder the 4 he is talking about;

1. Trescothick
2. Giles
3. Jones
4. Vaughan / Harmisson

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Ponting picks up the Australian Test Player of the year, ODI of the Year and the Border Medal - First player ever to clean sweep the awards.[...] During the Test series you had four players retire. We had four players retire as well - they just don't know it yet.

First a word about Ponting - he deserves all the awards he gets, he is probably the best cricket player this planet has ever seen and that counts Don Bradman also, who made his runs in more genteel, and easier times (Bodyline Excluded).

Four English players retired, well I would have thought he would mean.

Harmison
Vaughan
Giles - although I don't think he is finished.
Bell - no third chance to play with the big boys .

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Bell - no third chance to play with the big boys

More likely Flintoff... who may stagger on as a deadweight on the side but whose days of being able to shoulder the workload of a bowler are probably gone and whose leaden footed, 2nd XI batting never has (and never will) warrant a place as a batsman.

England would have been better off without him this winter and whilst I suspect he'll linger... and occasionally do enough to be kept on... he'll go down in cricketing history as an absurdly over-capped, hard working but essentially limited bits-n-pieces player who benefitted ludicrously from faddish selectorial obsessions with batsmen who take the initiative, bowlers who have pace and (above all) players who appear "multi-dimensional".

To date in his career he's barely finished repaying the excessive faith placed in him for his first 5-6 years... and even in these more recent times he's all too often weighed the side down (by imbalancing the side) and stood in the way of better players.

Even in his defining Ashes series, in 2005, he took a place that could have gone to Thorpe: the bowling could have managed without him.. and the batting could SERIOUSLY have benefitted from the best middle order player since Gower - so even in his defining series the side might have been better off without him.

Over-rated, over-venerated and (now) over the hill: if Tuffers meant Flintoff... I could see why.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

England would have been better off without him this winter and whilst I suspect he'll linger

No Rachael he would have been better not playing this winter but recovering from his operation instead.

Rachael Michael Vaughan overworked Flintoff since 2004, he was expected to play with an injured ankle, and bowled far to many overs.

Rachael a lot don't agree with my views - but most would agree that England would not have won the Ashes back in 2005 without Flintoff, also this bits and pieces player averaged over 50 in India 2006, over 60 in 2004, 40 in 2005 (and he is not a specialist batsman), was second only to Hoggard in wickets taken in Australia 2006, was fourth in the batting with Strauss and Cook below him, and Bell was third by a couple of points.

When not scoring many runs in South Africa, he again took wickets, second only again to Hoggard.

Even not fit - even out of form - he has eclipsed most of the England team, counting his wickets he would come second in worth behind only Pietersen.

I invite you to prove me wrong - or take back your astonishing post.

PS:

Originally Posted by Rachael

More likely Flintoff

More likely than who?

[Quagmire]

More likely than Bell

Also Hilfenhaus won the Bradman young cricketer of the year award, and Chris Rogers won the State player of the year award & looks to be the man to replace Langer at the top of the order for Australia. Just looking there domestic stats for the year it was very obvious who was going to win the awards.

2006/07 Pura Cup
Rogers 964 runs at 87.64, 5 fifties, 3 hundreds, hs 279
Hilfenhaus 36 wickets at 28.92, sr 52.6, 3 five wicket hauls, bb 7/79

[al_vb]

Ponting is a great batsmen and one of the best Australia has ever had.

Originally Posted by Ernest

First a word about Ponting - he deserves all the awards he gets, he is probably the best cricket player this planet has ever seen and that counts Don Bradman also, who made his runs in more genteel, and easier times (Bodyline Excluded).

Better than Bradman? I think you're overdoing it! In Bradman's time the bowlers were better, the pitches uncovered, and the technology of the bats weren't nearly as good. Ponting is great yes. But not even half as good as Bradman!

[Ernest]

Fair comment - but i don't think the bowlers were as fit at the time of Bradman, Larwood was an exception being trained for the job of keeping Bradman quiet by Jardine.

Ponting on the other hand has not played on uncovered pitches, but he has faced super fit bowling, and fieling is more keen in his era compared to Bradman - a close call I think al_vd.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

More likely than Bell

Well yes judging by England team selected to play New Zealand this morning GMT - Bell BTW got 12 before being: caught S B Styris bowled S E Bond, after 28 deliveries.

[first change]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even in his defining Ashes series, in 2005, he took a place that could have gone to Thorpe: the bowling could have managed without him.. and the batting could SERIOUSLY have benefitted from the best middle order player since Gower - so even in his defining series the side might have been better off without him.

Without a doubt, this is the most absurd post that I have ever read. I think you probably know it too.

You're quite right: Thorpe should have played in the Ashes, and he should have taken Bell's place. Flintoff in the Ashes was utterly superb. His batting was good throughout - spectacular at Edgbaston. His dominance over Gilchrist with the ball probably defined the series more than anything. I would venture that his over at Edgbaston (you know which one I mean) was one of the greatest of all time.

But if you'd rather drop all that in favour of an ill-though-out and incorrect critique, which treats the facts as an inconvenience, then fair enough

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by first change

Flintoff in the Ashes was utterly superb. His batting was good throughout - spectacular at Edgbaston. His dominance over Gilchrist with the ball probably defined the series more than anything. I would venture that his over at Edgbaston (you know which one I mean) was one of the greatest of all time.

Flintoff had a successful series... but principally with the ball... and should not have taken a place that could have gone to Thorpe: the England selectors should have had the gumption to work out which of the four specialist bowlers was redundant and given THAT place to Flintoff.

With Thorpe in the middle order the Lords debacle ought to have been avoided... the first innings at Edgbaston might not have seen England collapse in an undignified heap before the close of the first day and the straightforward run-chase at Trent Bridge would almost certainly have been just that, rather than turning into a twitchy shambles that nearly culminated in defeat.

England took a horribly imbalanced side through that series... and won despite, not because of, the ludicrous decision to play Flintoff as a batsman rather than as a bowler: England got away with it... but more by luck than judgement... and only the smallest of margins seperated that series win against an Aussie 2nd Xi from the series loss that has just been witnessed down under.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

England took a horribly imbalanced side through that series... and won despite, not because of, the ludicrous decision to play Flintoff as a batsman rather than as a bowler: England got away with it... but more by luck than judgement... and only the smallest of margins seperated that series win against an Aussie 2nd Xi from the series loss that has just been witnessed down under.

Pure fiction - are you sure you are talking about the Ashes in 2005, and not the Ashes to come in 3005, that's how stange your posts are.

Remember how many arguments we had when you insisted that Flintoff was a BATTING ALL ROUNDER.

Oh and to have included Thorpe - Pietersen would have had to go, he replaced Thorpe.