England Vs. SriLanka

[tooextracool]

I would say it was a success, especially in the context. And the fact that he looked like he was in control of the bowlers was good

nope anything under 50 cant be a success, it was a decent innings, just doesnt go on to show me that he can score big runs.

 

[Scaly piscine]

There usually isn't time for him to score 'big runs' at number 6. However he has made 79* and 80* in his last 4 ODIs and has made a hundred.

 

[luckyeddie]

nope anything under 50 cant be a success, it was a decent innings, just doesnt go on to show me that he can score big runs.

That's so clearly nonsense that it doesn't deserve a reply.

Oh, wait....

 

[luckyeddie]

yep how much off a one man team are we?

Right, because Trescothick and Harmison brought nothing to the party, did they? And as for Collingwood....

 

[superkingdave]

Harmisons average has now dropped under 30 in ODI's

 

[tooextracool]

Right, because Trescothick and Harmison brought nothing to the party, did they? And as for Collingwood....

err yes, of course there has to be someone else who does something, otherwise flintoff would just go out there on his own and beat them all.
the point im making is that, if flintoff wasnt playing in this game, or in some of those games in the natwest challenge, would we have won? its just amazing how both the games we won in the natwest challenge featured flintoff, and the one we lost didnt.

 

[tooextracool]

There usually isn't time for him to score 'big runs' at number 6. However he has made 79* and 80* in his last 4 ODIs and has made a hundred.

and one of them was against a sub standard zimbabwe side which doesnt prove anything.....

 

[steds]

its just amazing how both the games we won in the natwest challenge featured flintoff, and the one we lost didnt.

So it's got absoloutely nothing to do with the India played? Just the fact that Flintoff didn't?

 

[luckyeddie]

err yes, of course there has to be someone else who does something, otherwise flintoff would just go out there on his own and beat them all.
the point im making is that, if flintoff wasnt playing in this game, or in some of those games in the natwest challenge, would we have won? its just amazing how both the games we won in the natwest challenge featured flintoff, and the one we lost didnt.

Maybe Collingwood would have scored the decisive match-winning century. After all, he's good enough.

Seriously, you can say that about any key performance by anyone - without X, who would step into the breach?

It's a team game, and at the moment there's a very happy knack of England players finding form at the right time (ok, not often in ODI's, and especially not from the skipper).

 

[tooextracool]

So it's got absoloutely nothing to do with the India played? Just the fact that Flintoff didn't?

nope because IMO india didnt play significantly better, england played worse though.

 

[biased indian]

err yes, of course there has to be someone else who does something, otherwise flintoff would just go out there on his own and beat them all.
the point im making is that, if flintoff wasnt playing in this game, or in some of those games in the natwest challenge, would we have won? its just amazing how both the games we won in the natwest challenge featured flintoff, and the one we lost didnt.

so since flintoff is almost certain to play in the coming games .we can be sure that the england will win both of them.so y wait till then ,give the champions trpohy to england now itself .

 

[biased indian]

nope because IMO india didnt play significantly better, england played worse though.

no its the reverse india played badly in the first 2 games and they lost then they plaued well in the third to win it.

no today SL played really bad .i dont know y they gifted flintoff with such easy deliveries.

and in the next game dont except AUS to play bad because they dont like to do that too often like india and SL

 

[Scaly piscine]

Too many English batsmen got themselves out in that game and unfortunately the one specialist batsman who got in was scoring too slowly (hit the fielders with most of his shots - usually they're hit in the air to the fielders by Vaughan in ODIs). Still you are gonna miss any player if their replacement is Anthony McGrath

 

[steds]

Still you are gonna miss any player if their replacement is Anthony McGrath

That's a fact that I've not thought about

Does it matter whether he is playing or not if his replacement is quality?(unlike Yorkshireman mentioned above)

 

[biased indian]

Still you are gonna miss any player if their replacement is Anthony McGrath

thats a valid point

 

[tooextracool]

Maybe Collingwood would have scored the decisive match-winning century. After all, he's good enough.

never said he isnt though, i hope he does. his nurdling here and there could prove valuable in the middle overs, yet he seems to be more comfortable batting in the end of the innings.

Seriously, you can say that about any key performance by anyone - without X, who would step into the breach?

but look at recent performances, everytime england have got even a half decent score in the last 2 series its been because of flintoff. in the natwest series, both games in which flintoff didnt play in we were brutally hammered and failed to get past 150. ok so we didnt win most of the other games but i think the difference in the competitiveness after flintoff made it into the side, at least with the bat, was fairly evident(of course the fact that he didnt bowl in that series might have something to do with that)

It's a team game, and at the moment there's a very happy knack of England players finding form at the right time (ok, not often in ODI's, and especially not from the skipper).

really?lets look at how many in form batsmen we have ATM then.....
tresco-no
solanki - yes
vaughan- hell no
strauss - no
flintoff - lets leave him out of it
collingwood - maybe
jones - no

 

[tooextracool]

so since flintoff is almost certain to play in the coming games .we can be sure that the england will win both of them.so y wait till then ,give the champions trpohy to england now itself .

nope that isnt the point though, i just feel that when flintoff doesnt play, our team goes from being a 'good' one to being a 'poor' one.

 

[biased indian]

really?lets look at how many in form batsmen we have ATM then.....
tresco-no
solanki - yes
vaughan- hell no
strauss - no
flintoff - lets leave him out of it
collingwood - maybe
jones - no

so u see no chance of an english win over aus.
only 2 of u r top order is in any kind of form

 

[tooextracool]

no its the reverse india played badly in the first 2 games and they lost then they plaued well in the third to win it.

no today SL played really bad .i dont know y they gifted flintoff with such easy deliveries.

and in the next game dont except AUS to play bad because they dont like to do that too often like india and SL

nope india didnt bowl any much better, and they didnt bat too much better either, most of the english batsmen played poor shots to get themselves out.

 

[tooextracool]

so u see no chance of an english win over aus

not if flintoff has something to do with it.