Flintoff 3 Months Ahead Of Schedule..>

[Ernest]

Read it here Flintoff is 3 months in front of his recovery scheduale.

Originally Posted by BBC

He could play purely as a batsman in Lancashire's first game of the season.

Good stuff, just hope they don't rush him like they dis with Simon Jones.


[quote=Peter Gregory]England chief medical officer Dr Peter Gregory told The Mirror: "We are in touch with Freddie two or three times a week and his recovery is going well.

Originally Posted by Peter Gregory

"The operation was a success and, as was planned, we are looking for him to play before he faces Australia."

Lets hope this is the last we here of that ankle.

Originally Posted by BBC

Flintoff began outdoor training in Bolton last week and

If Troy C manages to get Harmison into shape before July, they the game is on.

Thing is with a fit Flinfoff and harmison back to his best , should Australia still be hot favourites?.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Thing is with a fit Flinfoff and harmison back to his best , should Australia still be hot favourites?.

Definitely! Only someone who's escaped from an asylum would say otherwise

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Thing is with a fit Flinfoff and harmison back to his best , should Australia still be hot favourites?.

The odds are up for discussion here: http://www.world-a-team.com/showthread.php?t=2651

My impression is that very few Ashes recent series have been contested between consistent sides: both England and Australia have had to face up to loss of players due to form / fitness.. with mostly predictable consequences (drop in standard) but some exceptions.

My impression is that the odds currently on offer are based on the assumption that both Flintoff and Harmison will be available, will play, and will contribute on a par with what might realistically be expected of them rather than on a par with the very best spells / innings they have each ever produced.

Harmison: something like 25 wickets at around 30 a piece (strike rate 60+, econ. >3.0) and a few runs with the bat... a tidy contribution.

Flintoff: something like 250-300 runs at 25-30 and maybe 15 wickets at 30 a piece (strike rate 70+, econ. <3.0).

Of course... the odds would swing slightly England's way if those two could manage, say, 15-20% better than might reasonably be hoped for.. but that's assuming that everyone else also at least matched reasonable expectations... and the law of averages says that if two players (say Flintoff and Harmison) have very good series.. then two others (perhaps Tresco and Simon Jones, or Thorpe and Geraint Jones) will have at best pretty ordinary series.

Same goes for the Aussies: no one expects all of the top 7 to average 50+... but we do expect at least two to average 65+ and at least 3 others to manage 40+. No one expects McGrath, Warne and Gillespie to all just waltz in and each take 30+ wickets at < 22 a piece - but no-one's going to be that surprised if one of them does.

I'm not sure the odds should shift that substantially if either are out: it's far too easy to mark players out as head a shoulders above their potential replacements when in fact (on typical form, rather than when in a purple patch) they are just first amongst equals.

Sure... Harmison and Flintoff putting in the best few performances of their lives is something the rest would struggle to match... but it's a team game played over 5 long Tests and no-one should be banking on either's contribution, over that period, standing out THAT massively.

Hoping for miracles is fine: expecting them is daft.

[Ernest]

Should think that Flintoff will have a better 'strike rate that 70', and certainly a better 'econ rate' than '3.00'.

Flintoff and Harmison being fit is just the cream, we have other players.

Vaughan seems to play well against the Aussies.

Strauss wont be daunted by the Aussie.

Trescothick, if he clicks as well, the series is well up in the air.

Domanic cork and Phil Tufnell on Thorpe.

He's gritty - perhaps not the most stylish - but he's the type of person you need against the Aussies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/4269369.stm
Good link worth a peep.

It would only take Giles and Hoggard to play out of their skins, and with the rest of the England talent, could be a bad series for the Aussies.
Think of Englands best players, then Australias players, with an out of form opener, and 2 veteren bowler, then say Englan have no chance.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Should think that Flintoff will have a better 'strike rate that 70', and certainly a better 'econ rate' than '3.00'.

Hmmm. Flintoff's strike rate against New Zealand last summer was 62.9... and these Aussies are rather better. Add in that most bowlers are more expensive against Hayden, Gilchrist and co than against everyone else.. and I suspect the England management would quite happily take 15 wickets at 30 a piece with a strike rate of 70 and an econ of 3: that would be a solid, if not spectacular, performance.

Might do better.. but it's entirely feasible that he'll do a lot worse - that strikes me as "par" for him in this context... a sensible target.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Flintoff and Harmison being fit is just the cream, we have other players.

Isn't that what I said? Leave out those two and you're leaving out players whose best is special.. but whose par performance is not that different from what any other England player / prospect would be aiming to achieve - drop Flintoff for Bell and Harmison for Caddick and you might not suffer on either front.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Might do better.. but it's entirely feasible that he'll do a lot worse - that strikes me as "par" for him in this context... a sensible target.

OK I think he did a lot better than that against the Windies, and Rachael he was second only to Hoggard in South Africa, in a way you are agreeing with me, a lot dependes on Flintoff having a better than par series( in your words),

Originally Posted by Rachael

Leave out those two and you're leaving out players whose best is special.. but whose par performance is not that different from what any other England player

That is if they only produce what you call par, instead of just New Zealand, take the year as a whole.

Originally Posted by Rachael

drop Flintoff for Bell and Harmison for Caddick and you might not suffer on either front.

Wrong in MHO, you seem to have forgot that Flintoff is an effective all rounder, so if you drop Flintoff and Harmison, and insert Bell and caddick, we are still a bowler short.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

you seem to have forgot that Flintoff is an effective all rounder, so if you drop Flintoff and Harmison, and insert Bell and caddick, we are still a bowler short.

Um... since when did any half decent side need a 5th bowler?

If you reckon Harmison is a match for McGrath... Hoggard is a match for Gillespie... Jones is a match for Kasprowicz.. and Giles is a match for Warne... why do you think England need an All-rounder?

5th bowlers are only critical when the first 4 suck.

If England are ready to beat the Aussies then they shouldn't NEED an all-rounder: a no. 6 who can bat and a few occasional bowlers (like Bell, Vaughan and Pietersen) should suffice.

[Ernest]

You forget Rachael that Flintoff was the best England bowler last summer, if my memory serves me right, and the second best against South Africa injured and all.
He is a bowling all-rounder who can bat a lot, remember his match winning stands with Thorpe, GO Jones, Strauss, Thorpe again, GO Jones again.
He is a proven batsman at Test level, Bell though promising is not.
If Harmison is not on Form, then Flintoff is the best bowler we have.
To rely on bits and pieces bowlers is steppping back in time.

The fact is, without Flintoff England cannot win the Ashes, for another reason, he can tie an end up, just as good as he can attack, he can hurt people as well, that will ruffle any team.

Now if Australia were to leave out McGrath and Warne, and their keeper, then we may well be able to drop Flintoff.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Now if Australia were to leave out McGrath and Warne, and their keeper

Ernest why not just handicap Australia
100 Runs
10 wickets
&
3 catches

Per test
rather than expect us to feild with 8 men ?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

You forget Rachael that Flintoff was the best England bowler last summer.... He is a proven batsman at Test level, Bell though promising is not.... If Harmison is not on Form, then Flintoff is the best bowler we have.
To rely on bits and pieces bowlers is steppping back in time.

The fact is, without Flintoff England cannot win the Ashes, for another reason, he can tie an end up, just as good as he can attack, he can hurt people as well, that will ruffle ant team.

Now what's any of that got to do with anything?

1. If England really are as good as you say and "have other players" then you'd better be thinking that Harmison, Hoggard, GIles and Jones are a damn good bowling unit.. and to be honest.. if we really HAVE got 4 good bowlers there than we shouldn't actually NEED a 5th bowler (however nice the option might be) - the odd few overs from batsmen should suffice.

2. If the specialist attack ain't that good then adding Flintoff to the mix is just going to help hide inadequacy: if the 4 main bowlers ain't going to be up to it you should join the rest of us in reckoning that the bowling attack with Flintoff added isn't going to be up to it. Adding him adds quantity without adding quality... it's not like he's an Ambrose or a Marshall!

3. In all of this you're anticipating your favourite players coming out with the best performances of their lives... but whilst any player CAN have a flukey run that sees them massively over-achieving.... you really ought not to be EXPECTING that level of performance.

4. It might be a bit much to expect Bell and Caddick (for example) to replace a rampant Flintoff playing out of his skin as if he really were a match for the best Botham ever offered... and a resurgent Harmison bowling as well as Ambrose did in his best ever spells.. but is it not reasonable to think that Flintoff and Harmison are more likely to have a "typical" summer and that the team might reasonably hope to cover that?

5. If you were England management and faced with no Flintoff or Harmison... would you not be telling the team that (a) Flintoff was only ever likely to average 30ish with the bat (even if an average of 50 or more was hoped for)... and that Bell should be backed to match that... {b} Harmison was only ever likely to get a modest wicket haul at 30 a piece (not the 40 wickets at 22 that might have been hoped for)... and caddick should be backed to match that.. and {c} Caddick, Hoggard, Jones and Giles could actually do well enough to manage without cover from a 5th genuine bowler?

The odds without those two might drift slightly... but only from probable England defeat to slightly more probable Engand defeat... and the Aussies deserve better than for England "fans" to say "it would have been different if Flintoff and Harmison had been fit".

Bottom line: you should either back England teeam to win on par performances from everyone.. or you should get with the rest of us and say that par performances are not enough to secure and England series win and nothing but a really flukey summer in which bizarre things take place is going to see the bookies proved wrong.

Expecting miracles is not on: that's piling unreasonable pressure on players to perform at a level they may never again reach in their careers. Dream, fine.. but get real about expectations.