Would England Have Won This Match Without Flintoff.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Cricket Girl

Here is the normally super-critical Geoff Boycott on Flintoff's bowling. I have italicised certain parts.

Boycott's been infatuated with Flintoff's bowling forever... but it's more for aggression, attitude and discipline than for anything worth savouring: if that's your idea of great cricket then he's your man.. but if you want to see a bowling coming in off a relaxed run and releasing the ball with a great wrist position and swinging the ball either way off a near-identical action (which to me is the essense of seam bowling) you're looking in the wrong place.

Boycott's also pretty taken with Flintoff the batsman... but again: if you reckon batting is about touch and placement on the back of good footwork, great balance and excellent judgement... as I do... you're again looking in the wrong place.

[Dans]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I must admit I as a rule don't go by stats, but a lot do, and McGrath according to his stats was better of not playing on this Edgbaston ground, becuase he has taken very few wickets for a lot, about 8 @ 47

Here is one to ponder, had McGrath been in and batting in place of Lee or Kaspa, would Aussie got as close to Englands score?.

Would they have needed him as a batsman though?!

[Zainub]

Intriguing question that, one that critics I'm sure will argue on in the build up to the next test.

[Ernest]

I don't think the inclusion of McGrath would have made a difference at all.

If you are going by Lords, which Aussie was always favorite to win in MHO, then Harmison also got a 5 wicket innings, but did not do so again, and no guarentee McGrath would have either.

England batting was pathetic at Lords, and they came out on day one at Edgbaston with only attack on their mind, and I think McGrath would have got the same treatment, nothing on that pitch for him.

Australia were outplayed, fought well, but so did England having seen the target go down to 3, never gave up.

The Aussie innings should have ended earlier, had Simon jones held onto that catch, I think at 3rd man.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

...if you want to see a bowling coming in off a relaxed run and releasing the ball with a great wrist position and swinging the ball either way off a near-identical action (which to me is the essense of seam bowling) you're looking in the wrong place...

Both Flintoff and Simon Jones were reverse swinging the ball each way yesterday. Flintoff was swinging it less than Jones, but still was doing it. To add to the either-way you ask for in a bowler, Flintoff bowled with accuracy and his usual heaviness and bounce. Jones' ability to swing the ball either way, off quite a relaxed run-up (I'm sure you'll agree), done for Hayden nicely. In fact Jones perfectly describes what you want to see in a bowler.

Originally Posted by Rachael

... Boycott's also pretty taken with Flintoff the batsman... but again: if you reckon batting is about touch and placement on the back of good footwork, great balance and excellent judgement... as I do... you're again looking in the wrong place.

But you're watching the wrong sport! As I'm sure you well know, to win a test cricket match you need to score more runs than your opposition as well as take 20 of their wickets. Unfortunately you don't get brownie points (brownie runs) for looking good at the crease or a wicket for each bowler's amount of swing (however you would judge that). The cold reality - which you may find difficult to accept - is that it's about scoring runs and getting wickets. The attributes you described are vital for a lot of players to suceed at the top level, but they are only a foundation and don't make runs on their own. There are quite a lot of players who have their own way of getting runs and wickets. Whatever you say about Freddie Flintoff, he took seven wickets and scored 141 vital runs, I don't care what he looked like doing them.

Rachael, cricket can look good at times, it's lovely to see a massively swinging ball or a brilliant batsman playing textbook aesthetic shots. But that's not what the games about, it's about scoring runs and getting wickets. A perfect cover drive for four is only worth the same amount as an edge through third man reaching the boundary. Gaining a batsman's wicket when he has been timed out is worth the same as a perfectly pitched out-swinger taking his edge. I suggest you start watching gymnastics or some sort of dancing, where looking good is actually worth something. In cricket it's all about getting more runs than the opposition, if you don't like the way it's done now-a-days then it's time you changed your sport interests. I'm so sorry!

[Cricket Girl]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Boycott's been infatuated with Flintoff's bowling forever... but it's more for aggression, attitude and discipline than for anything worth savouring: if that's your idea of great cricket then he's your man.. but if you want to see a bowling coming in off a relaxed run and releasing the ball with a great wrist position and swinging the ball either way off a near-identical action (which to me is the essense of seam bowling) you're looking in the wrong place.

Boycott's also pretty taken with Flintoff the batsman... but again: if you reckon batting is about touch and placement on the back of good footwork, great balance and excellent judgement... as I do... you're again looking in the wrong place.

As Lemming pointed out, Simon Jones can swing the ball both ways off a near-identical action but as you don't think any of the England players played 'quality' cricket in the last Test, I guess he's not your man either.

And Flintoff does swing the ball. Why do you think he runs up to the crease with one hand hiding the ball from the batsmen? It's so they won't be able to see which side the shiny side is on and which way it will swing. True, Flintoff doesn't swing the ball much, but as I think you have pointed out, you don't have to swing the ball round corners to be effective. Often less prodigious swing is more effective.

I picked Boycott's comments because he is normally super-critical of bad bowling. Unlike other commentators, he won't pretend large scores are down to a batsman's brilliance if the bowlers are bowling rubbish. That's why I think his comments on Flintoff's bowling are relevant. And if you think they are entirely down to a pro-Flintoff bias, then perhaps you can consider that he thought Simon Jones bowled exceptionally well as well.

[greg]

You could twist this and say Would Australia have won the 1st Test without Glenn McGrath.Every game has a matchwinning performance and asking if the game would have been won without them is all a little pointless.

[Paoli]

As one of the English tabloids said, "Thanks be to God and Freddie Flintoff"; these two are the same people. After the first test I had doubts, but am now 100% sure that Flintoff means a much more rejuvanated showing. A big chance to go 2-1 up at Old Trafford the English are. Would love to see it go to five.