Key England Ashes players

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Giles may or may not be a token spinner, but he is not a proper Test-class spin bowler in the way Kaneria, Harbhajan or MacGill are, let alone Kumble, Murali or Warne. He plays because he is the best England have, and does a decent enough job within his limitations.

So Giles is a respectable utility cricketer, who might have the odd good day, but nowhere close to being a consistent match-winner or even a consistent wicket taker. As for the argument that >100 wickets makes someone more than a token spinner; even a part-timer like Carl Hooper had 114 Test wickets, but no one would say he was a quality Test-class finger-spinner.

Giles is very much a test class spinner - just because he isn't the same league as Murali or Warne does not mean otherwise. I am not claiming he is a top, top class spinner, but certainly not bad at all. I agree he is not a consistant match-winner, but he has changed the forunes of a number of games for England. He may not take a huge number of wickets in many games, but I think you'll find he often takes wickets when England despretly need one, which is a good quality to have. He is a better, smarter bowler than many people give him credit for.

I'd also say I'd rate Hooper more than a token spinner - he's not bad at all - but his 114 wickets have come in many, many more games than Gilo's, I think you'll find, but nice try!!

[John]

The point about Australia batting lineup as compared India (which also excellent) is that the Aussies have a decent bowling lineup which strenthens the batting. Because they know they have the bowlers to fight back.
Can anyone answer me this can you remember a Test match in which the Aussies were well beaten in the last five years? Because I can't maybe I am wrong. In all their losing Test matches in the last five years where they have been beaten they have pushed the other side to the limit. Its not by that much that the opposition tends to win.

[Notts Exile]

The Aussies say that no batsman can be considered to be any good until he's done it against their bowling attack and no bowler until they've bowled at the Aussies. By those criteria the Aussie batsmen are no good 'cos they've never faced the Aussie Test bowling and the bowlers aren't any good either.

The comments about Flintoff having only bowled against average batsmen - so Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, Smith, Gibbs, Kallis etc are average? And he's bowled against pretty much everyone apart from the Aussies, so does that mean only Tests against the Aussies count ?

[Chuck Palumbo]

Yes, Flintoff has proved himself as a bowler against virtually everyone apart from the Aussies who he hasn't faced yet.

I remember him bowling admirably out in India during the 2001/02 tour there and you could say a tour to India is as bigger test for a fast bowler as bowling to the Aussies. In the last year, he has took wickets against NZ,WI and SA...them three teams have very strong batting line ups.

Don't be fooled by his current test bowling average, it is quite high because in his early years, he wasn't the best of bowlers. A better indication of his bowling is to look at his records in the last 18 months where his bowling average is somewhere in the 20s.

He is arguably our best bowler at the moment and I'm more confident of him performing with the ball against the Aussies then any other of our bowlers.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

I remember him bowling admirably out in India during the 2001/02 tour there and you could say a tour to India is as bigger test for a fast bowler as bowling to the Aussies.

Starting from that Indian tour and carrying on to current day, Flintoff has played 36 Tests and taken 103 wickets at 33 runs per wicket. In this period he has played against all countries except Australia and Pakistan. The charitable description for his performances over this period would be 'patchy'.

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

A better indication of his bowling is to look at his records in the last 18 months where his bowling average is somewhere in the 20s.

Yes, this does paint Flintoff in a better light. In the last 18 months, starting from the away series to SL, Flintoff has played 19 Tests and taken 67 wickets at an average of 25. England's best bowler? Certainly the meanest, but not the most effective statistically. Over the same period, Hoggard has also played 19 Tests, and taken 74 wickets at an avg of 29. By comparison, Harmison played 17 Tests, and took 79 wickets at 26. Flintoff the best now? Arguable.

However the interesting comparison is with McGrath and Gillespie. Over the same 18 month period, McGrath has played 11 Tests and taken 51 wickets at the scarily impressive 19 - this despite the fact that he was returning from injury in the earlier part of this period and thus not at his best. Gillespie's record is more comparable to the English pacers; in 18 Tests, he took 67 wickets at 26.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Maranello

However the interesting comparison is with McGrath and Gillespie. Over the same 18 month period, McGrath has played 11 Tests and taken 51 wickets at the scarily impressive 19 - this despite the fact that he was returning from injury in the earlier part of this period and thus not at his best. Gillespie's record is more comparable to the English pacers; in 18 Tests, he took 67 wickets at 26.

I think Flintoff has had more than his fair share of injuries, he has played with more than one ankle injury.

Another thing about Flintoff, he hardly ever gets the rub of the green,
Everyone from Vaughan to Tresco to the arch villain himself Butcher have dropped as many catches of Flintoff, than have caught, and he has had more than his fair share of bad decissions from umpires.

So all in all, he compares with the best.as does his tales of woe.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Another thing about Flintoff, he hardly ever gets the rub of the green.

I am a bit wary of bowlers using dropped catches as an excuse Ern. It might well be a factor in the odd innings or two, but over a period of years and careers, what matters are results, not excuses. When measuring a bowler's effectiveness over a longer period of time, wickets and runs conceded are the main criteria. Similarly, a batsman loosing out due to poor umpiring decisions cannot hold that as an excuse over a period of time, since its results that matter. A player who delivers is more effective than one who does very well but never delivers due to 'bad luck'.

Pakistanis like to say that M. Sami is a much better bowler than his poor results show, as he is always unlucky; well, since success for the team requires an element of chance anyway, I don't think any team needs an unlucky bowler! Over their careers, Wasim and Waqar had dozens of easy chances dropped by the notoriously butter-fingered Pakistani slip catchers, but they took the rough with the smooth and found other, more effective ways of getting wickets (namely inswinging toe-crushing yorkers).

Originally Posted by Ernest

So all in all, he compares with the best.as does his tales of woe.

His tales of woe I am sure do compare well with 'the best'; in terms of potential as a fast bowler, he compares well with many of the good bowlers around today, eg Gillespie, Vaas, Zaheer Khan. However, its unfair to compare him with the best. He is nowhere near where the likes of Ambrose, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar or even Donald were at a similar stage in their careers.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

England's best bowler? Certainly the meanest, but not the most effective statistically.

There have certainly been sessions in the last year when Flintoff has been the best of the bowlers on show.. but it is the conditions/ situations in which that has been true (i.e. how / when Vaughan has most valued him) that matters - and that's been when the game has been going away from him and he needs some control.

If the Aussies start piling up big partnerships and threatening to bat England out of the game (as Kallis did a few times this last series) then Flintoff will be in his element.

Thing is... batsmen might get themselves out to him when they try breaking the shackles.. but he isn't going to get out too many well set batsman.

Harmison, Hoggard and Jones may be less adept at grinding out those thankless overs.. but the one thing they CAN do is step up a level when the conditions DO suit: give them just one session in a game where everthing is in their favour and they can become quite fearsome prospects.

Of course.. that's there job, not his... and one shouldn't expect Flintoff (who has none of their pedigree as a strike bowler) to do their job for them. He can play an important enough part just slowing down the likes of Clarke and Gilchrist!

Originally Posted by Maranello

However the interesting comparison is with McGrath and Gillespie.

Which would you back to be the greater threat in the summer? McGrath is pretty much guaranteed to be effective... but is as prone as anyone to dropping a little too short and just being "difficult" - Gillespie might go for more runs... but he's perhaps more likely to get the ball up there and take a hatful.

Nice double act, really.. especially with Kasprowicz at first change :-)

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Which would you back to be the greater threat in the summer? McGrath is pretty much guaranteed to be effective... but is as prone as anyone to dropping a little too short and just being "difficult" - Gillespie might go for more runs... but he's perhaps more likely to get the ball up there and take a hatful.

Nice double act, really.. especially with Kasprowicz at first change :-)

Maybe I have a short memory, but I do not recall a fit McGrath ever being less effective as a wicket-taker or a match-winner than a fit Gillespie over an entire series. Yes, McGrath's stock weapon is to be "difficult"; but the degree of difficulty he poses is such that only the best batsmen can hope to get away. Most of them do give away their wicket before long, or McGrath is able to prize it by intelligent wicket-taking deliveries. Guys like Atheron and Tendulkar are not extravagant sloggers who throw away their wickets, but McGrath did end up getting theirs more often than not. Compared to them, many of the current England batsmen may well end up being a 'cakewalk', to borrow Mr. Rumsfeld's phrase. Not what I am hoping for, but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Maybe I have a short memory, but I do not recall a fit McGrath ever being less effective as a wicket-taker or a match-winner than a fit Gillespie over an entire series.

LOL - I'm not expecting McGrath to have a bad series.. far from it.. but he's the man to do well in spite of the conditions. What may be concerning Fletcher, however, is that Gillespie's increasingly looking like the man for those sessions where conditions suit: I'd be surprised if he doesn't bag a couple of impressive 5-for sessions in the series.. and if they happen to be early on in the first innings (rather than after England have posted a decent total) he'll be winning a few MoM awards.

I just think the English conditions are going to suit him quite nicely.