Flintoff returns for Lanashire against Surrey:16-19 April.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

does not matter where he bats when he bowls like that, don't you agree .....

I'd agree with that. Flintoffs bowling has been very impressive so far this season. He has bowled with very good pace and accuracy. As Justin Langer said "Flintoffs currently the best fast bowler in the world".

Flintoff if he stays fit is by far and away the best bowler we have, so for me he's an automatic pick regardless of where he bats.

[Collyisamackem]

However, and this is with respect to New Zealand who are still a good side, we beat them well after jettisoning Steve Harmison (not as a dig, he needed it but he will come back and stick one to the opportunistic naysayers) in NZ and we can beat them without Flintoff, I believe, with the four man attack of Sidebottom, Hoggard, Broad/Anderson and Panesar plus Collingwood. Do we really need him for New Zealand? Why not let him build up form, fitness and confidence in his whole, all-round game rather than rushing him back to play in a position he doesn't belong in.

Beefy wouldn't have played at 11, Sobers wouldn't have, Khan wouldn't have. Flintoff anywhere below 6 or 7 to me is just plain daft, save him for SA where he can do real damage and show Steyn, Morkel and Ntini who is boss.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Flintoff anywhere below 6 or 7 to me is just plain daft, save him for SA where he can do real damage and show Steyn, Morkel and Ntini who is boss.

With all due respect, South Africa are going to kick your butts.

Not that I have anything against England, but the Saffers are going to prove considerably more of a handful than the Kiwis, especially in the pace bowling department. Steyn, Ntini, Morkel and Kallis against Martin, Mills, Southee and Oram? I suspect there'd only be one winner in that battle.

[Collyisamackem]

Hmm, we'll see about that, you haven't beaten us for a long time and we're at home. Think about:

Sidebottom, Hoggard, Broad/Anderson/Harmison, Flintoff, Panesar vs Smith, McKenzie/Gibbs, Amla, Kallis, Prince, De Villiers, Boucher. I know who I'd back in that one.

Steyn, Ntini, Morkel, Harris, Kallis vs Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Ambrose. A bigger fight, but in no way, shape or form (especially as Steyn is still to prove himself in England, though I'm sure he will even if SA lose) a 'butt-kicking' to borrow your turn of phrase.

Just like every England-SA series, a good fight with no clear favourite except the form's on our side (that is, between us and SA). With a fit, in-form Flintoff on our side we'd definitely have the edge, but I think we do anyway.

Ooooooh, Hoggy versus Smith!

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Just like every England-SA series, a good fight with no clear favourite except the form's on our side (that is, between us and SA). With a fit, in-form Flintoff on our side we'd definitely have the edge, but I think we do anyway.

It should be a good series, and I'm looking forward to it immensly. Here's a player-by-player match-up:

Smith vs. Cook- Eng.
Vaughan vs. McKenzie- at this stage, RSA (will depend on Vaughan's series)
Prince vs. Bell- Eng.
Kallis vs. Pietersen- RSA
Amla vs. Collingwood- Eng.
De Villiers vs. Flintoff- Eng. overall, but RSA should win the batting contest
Boucher vs. Ambrose- RSA
Morkel vs. Broad- RSA
Ntini vs. Sidebottom- Eng.
Steyn vs. Hoggard- RSA (contoversial, but based on current form Steyn's the best in the world)
Harris vs. Panesar- Eng.

So it looks like an even matchup on paper. However, I think that generally South Africa is a much more consistent and reliable unit, whereas England recently seem to have trouble getting all of their team to fire. The recent series against New Zealand was a classic example- only a couple of bowlers did well in each innings, and few of the batsmen had a consistent series. In fact, you could argue that England was pretty much carried by only three or four players. So I'd say that the odds are firmly in the South Africans' favour at the moment.

By the way, love the photo. Smith really is nothing but a giant blowhard, and the prospect of Hoggy having him for breakfast is something I look forward to a great deal.

[Collyisamackem]

What about Steyn then? Against NZ Strauss, Bell, Pietersen and Ambrose all performed at crucial points and hit hundreds, and in the bowling of the attack that finished Sidebottom was electric, Anderson up and down, Broad and Panesar did well and Collingwood contributed. So it's a bit dubious to say only 3/4 players performed, only Vaughan, Cook and Harmison really disappointed and that's probably harsh on Cook. Bangladesh can hardly be called a test, and who else have they played? Let's see:

Last few SA results:

Beat Pakistan at home 1-0 (3 tests)
Beat NZ away 2-0 (2 tests)
Beat WI at home 2-1 (3 tests)
Beat Bangladesh 2-0 away (2 tests)
Drew 1-1 with India away (2 tests)

England's results since 2007 are beat WI 3-0 (4 tests) at home, lost 1-0 to India at home and SL away (3 tests each) and beat NZ 2-1 (3 tests) away. Take out Bangladesh who we haven't played in a while and SL who SA haven't, and we didn't lose to WI and lost 1 game in a longer series vs NZ, whilst losing to India. Seems pretty even to me, and even on your own contest (subjective pitting of bowler vs bowler etc, whereas the real contest is bat vs ball, plus Broad beats Morkel on batting) England wins 6-5 .

Firmly in SAs favour? I wouldn't say they're firmly in ours either, to me they're just plain even but I am partisan and we're at home so I'd expect us to edge it purely on that basis .

In related news, Morne Morkel has another injury - a hamstring this time.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Not that I have anything against England, but the Saffers are going to prove considerably more of a handful than the Kiwis, especially in the pace bowling department. Steyn, Ntini, Morkel and Kallis against Martin, Mills, Southee and Oram? I suspect there'd only be one winner in that battle.

Aurelius: Since when has Kallis been a serious pace bowler? - England may struggle against the real pace attack of Australia, but not South Africa IMO.

IF: Flintoff is fit, and Harmison is on form, then with either Sidebottom, Anderson or Hoggard, England have the stronger attack. And that's not counting Panesar.

Ntini is class - but so are the TOP England bowlers.

The outcome of the SA series will be decided by the batting to a large degree methinks, even an on form Bell is more than a match for Kallis IMMHO.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

So it's a bit dubious to say only 3/4 players performed, only Vaughan, Cook and Harmison really disappointed and that's probably harsh on Cook.

The stats look decent on paper: Bell, Strauss, Pietersen and Collingwood all averaged over 40 with the bat, however both Strauss and Pietersen boosted their average with a hundred in the final match. Only Bell and Collingwood IMO enjoyed a consistently good series with the bat. With the ball, the best two apart from Sidebottom were Panesar and Broad, both of whom averaged 30. This is a decent effort, but it isn't outstanding, and again neither sustained top form throughout the series.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Aurelius: Since when has Kallis been a serious pace bowler?

Since always! He consistently bowls at the 140km mark (about 87 miles an hour), he always makes breakthroughs, and if he bowled more he'd have taken well over 300 Test wickets by now. As it happens, his excellent and reliable pace bowling has always been overshadowed by his batting. Really, it's like asking since when has Adam Gilchrist been a serious wicketkeeper?

The outcome of the SA series will be decided by the batting to a large degree methinks, even an on form Bell is more than a match for Kallis IMMHO.

How so? Bell may be a very good batsman, but Kallis is a great one, who averages over 55, and I believe has scored 30 centuries already. He's proven that he can blunt any attack in the world, and has a more-than-decent record against England.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

The stats look decent on paper: Bell, Strauss, Pietersen and Collingwood all averaged over 40 with the bat, however both Strauss and Pietersen boosted their average with a hundred in the final match. Only Bell and Collingwood IMO enjoyed a consistently good series with the bat. With the ball, the best two apart from Sidebottom were Panesar and Broad, both of whom averaged 30. This is a decent effort, but it isn't outstanding, and again neither sustained top form throughout the series.

Again, too dubious for me. I refuse to cherry pick and a series average of 40+ means you've contributed for me, and besides those performances all came when it mattered. Very few players perform every single innings, and may even most innings in a series, but are still judged as series successes - those performances happened and cannot be taken out of the reckoning, especially when the series was alive at all points. Panesar kept his head when Southee was blasting off, as did Broad and the others, and as follows that all seems to question how 'only' Bell, Collingwod and Sidebottom helped us beat NZ. They didn't do it all at the same time, but they all helped. 30 is a good average for a bowler nowadays, the best often do 25-30, and only the geniuses (McGrath, Warne, Murali) often get below 25, with flat pitches and covered wickets, especially for a finger spinner on seamer-friendly NZ wickets in Panesar (what were Vettori and Patel's averages, and what is that of Harris?). Kumble averages 30. So for my money, and I'd argue that of any reasonable judge (no insult intended, this is purely my opinion), Panesar and Broad cannot be judged not to have contributed well and 'decent' is pretty harsh on that score.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Since always! He consistently bowls at the 140km mark (about 87 miles an hour), he always makes breakthroughs, and if he bowled more he'd have taken well over 300 Test wickets by now.

I don't agree he is a constant 87 MPH bowler, and if he is that good - why has he not bowled more overs?.

Originally Posted by Aurelius

As it happens, his excellent and reliable pace bowling has always been overshadowed by his batting.

So you mean unlike Flintoff who is a bowling all rounder, Kallis is a batting all rounder?, you won't get any argument from me on that point.

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Really, it's like asking since when has Adam Gilchrist been a serious wicketkeeper?

LOL are you being serious?, and suggesting Kallis is as good a bowler as Adam Gilchrist is a wicket keeper?.
Interesting analogy - I will give you that.

Originally Posted by [B

Aurelius][/b]How so? Bell may be a very good batsman, but Kallis is a great one, who averages over 55, and I believe has scored 30 centuries already.[...] He's proven that he can blunt any attack in the world,

Well I am told nearly every day just how good Bell is, Rachael posted as much that Bell would be a great - so I am open on that one.

Pietersen - Flintoff - Smith - Lara et al, these players have also proven on form they can blunt any attack in the world, don't believe me ask Ricky Ponting what happened in 2005.
Kallis is a great batting all rounder, but England are not without some good players also, so I doubt the series depends on just how well Kallis plays - JIMHO.