Who Is Worth THE Most?.>

[Ernest]

Freddie Flintoff Vs Glen McGrath.

We have heard a lot of singing the praises of both these players, now I would say a player shows his worth more, with his total contribution to his team.

These two players get to bowl at each other just once, one point for the player for every run he scores, and 10 points for the wicket taken.

And a point for every catch taken.

Who would come out on top, would it be Freddie, or would it be McGrath, not just trivia in a way, because both are key players for the respective teams, and will be facing each other next summer.

So is Flintoff worth more to England, or McGrath for Australia.

If you think I have been to strict with the one wicket innings, change it as you wish

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Freddie, by a mile.If mcgrath doesnt turn up, gillespie, warn (in the slips as well) can do the job with the ball.

[Ernest]

Yes you can see it now.

Flintoff b McGrath 65 points = 75

McGrath b Flintoff 11 Points = 21

Even allowing Flintoff to be out for 25, that would still give him 35 points, Flintoff must be more of a key for England!

Unless anyone can prove different.

[Zainub]

There is no question about it Erne, Flintoff is more important to England than Pigeon is to Australia, that is not to say McGrath is finished but as RBLC says they have 3 other guys who're just as likely to make an impact as him with the ball alone, which means that even McGrath has an off test Aus can win with just as much ease more or less, but the chances of Eng winning say if Freddie gets 0-100 of 35 overs and a golden duck are reduced to a very larger extent

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

These two players get to bowl at each other just once, one point for the player for every run he scores, and 10 points for the wicket taken. And a point for every catch taken.

It's a mark of strength on both sides that either could manage without these key players: Lee would presumably come in for McGrath and if the recent reports are to be believed he'd make a pretty decent job of bowling alongside Gillespie and Kaspa; Key or Collingwood would presumably come in for Flintoff.. and whilst that would put an additional responsibility on Jones / Anderson (whoever was playing)... movig them from a half-workload to a full workload... I'm not sure the side would look that much weaker.

The biggest impact on England might be psychological: the talisman thing.

IN terms of comparative impact... if both were managing their current form... I suspect there wouldn't be much in it: McGrath will presumably take 20+ wickets over 5 Tests.... mostly top order batsmen and probably at 20ish a piece... and stick around briefly at the end of innings... where Flintoff might be expected to make maybe 300-400 runs at 30-40 and provide a welcome 5th bowling option to spell the 4 specialist bowlers.

In terms of quantifiable impact I don't doubt for one moment that McGrath will have a bigger negative impact on English scores than Flintoff can counter by posting runs... but that would be true of any batsman: not even Tendulkar or Dravid could single handedly counter the damage done by a premier strike bowler. Thing is... Flintoff will quite probably also help his bowling coleagues perform to a higher level than they otherwise might... bowling.. catching.. and just through being there... and I think that would help even things out.

That said.. I think England would gladly take McGrath over Flintoff if they could pick either... and would probably sacrifice Flintoff if that meant they didn't have to face McGrath... but I don't think the reverse would be true.

[Ernest]

Rachael I dont agree on more than one point, I think Australia may well do without McGrath, better than England would do without Flintoff.

Can you imagine an England bowling line up that did not have Flintoff in it?, well I for one could not.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The biggest impact on England might be psychological: the talisman thing.

Well only 5 out of 10 here Rachael, while the talisman thing may be of importance, that is a virtual thing, don't forget his contributions on the pitch, with bat -ball-and as the best slip fielder.

To go back on topic, on a one to one gladitorial thing, Flintoff Vs McGrath, Flintoff would be bound to win that one, he can bat, he is a recognised bat, and with Flintoffs bowling at McGrath who is a tail ender really, how would he face Flintoff and equal Flintoffs score.

As a player on a one against one match, Flintoff has to come out on top.

Rachael with the age McGrath is, and the age Flintoff is, are you sure they would not swap McGrath for Flintoff?.[Australia I mean.]

[Beny]

I think many people underestimate how important McGrath really is to Australia. He is the pin which holds together the Aus bowling attack. He exerts preassure on the opposition and takes wickets at the same time. His mere pressence on the feild generates a feeling of security in both the Aussie team and supporters.

At the same time Flintoff is probebly the best All-rounder in the world today (although still has some trials to face). I doubt that England would be a force if it wer'nt for Flintoff.

So my answer is Flintoff.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

I think many people underestimate how important McGrath really is to Australia. He is the pin which holds together the Aus bowling attack.

I agree but what happens when McGrath is no longer available, players like him can't be picked of trees.

Originally Posted by Beny

At the same time Flintoff is probebly the best All-rounder in the world today (although still has some trials to face). I doubt that England would be a force if it wer'nt for Flintoff.

So my answer is Flintoff.

I agree not just because he is an all-rounder, but the type of all-rounder he is.

No they would not be the same force without him, but the same applies to Harmison.

[haseebbutt007]

we cannot actually compare these two players . both r world class players . but i think flintoff is more important for england than mcgrath for australia . because flintoff is an allrounder but mcgrath is a strike bowler . and also australians have replacement for mcgrath but england does not have ny replacement for flintoff

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by haseebbutt007

i think flintoff is more important for england [...] because flintoff is an allrounder [...] and [...] england does not have ny replacement for flintoff

If England were as strong as many are suggesting then the team would not NEED an all-rounder: like any other very good side, they would just play specialists - a scenario that isn't that far fetched any more.

My guess is that if a long term injury DID account for Flintoff.. England wouldn't bother replacing him with an all-rounder.. but would just play a specialist like Bell at 6, ask Anderson / Jones to shoulder a full workload and rely on all the bowlers to pull their weight... a not unreasonable expectation but one England have been reluctant to make in a very long time.