-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Second Test at Lords
- Thread starter superkingdave
- Start date
Burgey
Well-known member
Please. As if.
Burgey
Well-known member
Going to reassess a few things mate?
Last edited:
zaremba
Well-known member
Beat me to it.
16 tins of Spam
Well-known member
Yeah but all-rounders have to be able to bat and bowl to be considered as such
Last edited:
stephen
Well-known member
Ha, I find that amusing given that Johnson has taken more wickets this series than Freddie or Anderson.Yeah but all-rounders have to be able to bat and bowl to be considered as such
jondavluc
Well-known member
yeah but all-rounders have to be able to bat and bowl to be considered as such
Zinzan
Well-known member
Unbelievably fickle reaction that. The guy has been playing test cricket for near a decade now. His bowling average is over 32 (which for a pace bowler is terribly average) and he has just 3 five wicket hauls in 77 test matches. Despite this fine spell on the 5th day (and it was a very fine spell), suddenly he's the best Bowler in the world??
Even as good as his spell was, after getting Haddin they were essentially tail order batsmen he dismissed.
Its like suddenly calling Johnson the best bowler in the World for that one spell against SA last summer.
Must we be so reactionary ?
For mine Dale Steyn is currently the Premier Pace bowler in the world - and not just due to one spell, but because he's consistently been the best Pace bowler for the last 2-3 years. For the record, Steyn already has 11 fivers in just 33 test.
Daryl Harper
Well-known member
Ah yes, but that's only because the tail enders aren't good enough to nick Flintoff's bowling.
Well, according to Warne anyway. What a muppet.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Dead set post of the year.
PhoenixFire
Well-known member
Yeah, I mean I wouldnćt call him the best bowler in the world, but as far as making batsmen feel uncomfortable and not allowing them to get in by bowling hostile and tight lines, he is up there with the best. Obviously us English people are going to overate any good player that we have, thatćs always going to happen, but I donćt think that it is such a ridiculous idea to say he is the best in the world. Like I said, I donćt think he is, but it is arguable, there is no clear candidate.
Sorry about the weird letters here, Ićm in a Croatian internet cafe in Korčula and the keyboard is a bit weird.
Sorry about the weird letters here, Ićm in a Croatian internet cafe in Korčula and the keyboard is a bit weird.
Top_Cat
Well-known member
Second.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
PhoenixFire
Well-known member
Probably mis-phrased that. I also think Steyn is the best fast bowler in the world, but there is enough doubt in that to suggest that he isnćt the only person to be considered.
Pigeon
Banned
Nope. Steyn is by miles the best fast bowler in the world currently.
The Sean
Well-known member
I'm not going to read through the 180 pages I've missed in the past three days, so apologies if I'm repeating stuff that's already been said.
First and foremost, congratulations England - you won it on day two when your last pair put on 50-odd and then you skittled us on what was essentially a very good batting deck. From then on it was a matter of pushing home the advantage and England did exactly that very well - safe to say the only session Australia won from that point on was the final session on Sunday when Clarke and Haddin made us dare to dream. Clarke's knock was wonderful, soured only by a) its ultimate irrelevance and b) his manner of dismissal.
Flintoff's bowling in the Australian second innings was magnificent - fast, accurate, and not for a moment did any of our batsmen look comfortable against him. Being at the ground, the hero worship for the man was almost gladiatorial, and watching his pace and lift from side-on was breathtaking. I know it gets asked all the time, but how does someone capable of bowling like that not have 300+ wickets at 25, rather than 220-odd at 32 with only three Michelles? Doesn't make much sense, and I'm not sure there's any other bowler of my lifetime whose career figures seem so out of whack with his capabilities.
The one sour note with Flintoff's performance was his blatantly deliberate "front page of tomorrow's paper" poses that he struck after every wicket. Seemed a lot more interested in playing to the cameras than celebrating with his team mates.
On another note, has there ever been a series where so many batsman have been bowled not offering a shot?
Still struggling to deal with being 1-0 down as I don't actually think this is a particularly good England team. Will be struggling even more if we don't come back hard and strong at Edgbaston. If 2005 taught us nothing nothing else apart from the usefulness of Murray Mints, it's that you can lose at Lord's and still win the Ashes.
First and foremost, congratulations England - you won it on day two when your last pair put on 50-odd and then you skittled us on what was essentially a very good batting deck. From then on it was a matter of pushing home the advantage and England did exactly that very well - safe to say the only session Australia won from that point on was the final session on Sunday when Clarke and Haddin made us dare to dream. Clarke's knock was wonderful, soured only by a) its ultimate irrelevance and b) his manner of dismissal.
Flintoff's bowling in the Australian second innings was magnificent - fast, accurate, and not for a moment did any of our batsmen look comfortable against him. Being at the ground, the hero worship for the man was almost gladiatorial, and watching his pace and lift from side-on was breathtaking. I know it gets asked all the time, but how does someone capable of bowling like that not have 300+ wickets at 25, rather than 220-odd at 32 with only three Michelles? Doesn't make much sense, and I'm not sure there's any other bowler of my lifetime whose career figures seem so out of whack with his capabilities.
The one sour note with Flintoff's performance was his blatantly deliberate "front page of tomorrow's paper" poses that he struck after every wicket. Seemed a lot more interested in playing to the cameras than celebrating with his team mates.
On another note, has there ever been a series where so many batsman have been bowled not offering a shot?
Still struggling to deal with being 1-0 down as I don't actually think this is a particularly good England team. Will be struggling even more if we don't come back hard and strong at Edgbaston. If 2005 taught us nothing nothing else apart from the usefulness of Murray Mints, it's that you can lose at Lord's and still win the Ashes.
Top_Cat
Well-known member
Think it's because he has to be bowling absolutely balls out to take wickets. If he's not regularly going past 145Km/h with confidence like a cock in a henhouse, he sits back of a length and doesn't look like taking a wicket. No-one can bowl full out all the time but the best find a way to be effective even when not at top pace or in top form. Don't think Flintoff ever did and he's literally half the bowler at 5-10Km/h slower.
Goes some way to explaining his lack of 5-fers too; he'll bowl the house down for 6 overs, take 2 or 3 and then bowl accurately without penetration for most of his other spells. I think it's why when he's bowling well, Strauss and other captains just let him bowl no matter how many overs he bowled. Like yesterday.