Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle_chopchop
Flintoff pretty much won the 2005 ashes himself against the best side ever, and he backed it up in the next English ashes by winning that one for them too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanthething
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Now, if Oz had won, you could just about claim that Warne would have won the series single handedly, Flintoff had a good series with the bat and was an important cog in a brilliant bowling attack but to say he pretty much won it on his own is just a lie.
Yeah, can't agree that Flintoff won the 2005 Ashes single handedly - he got a bit of help from Strauss, Trescothick, Vaughan, Pietersen, G Jones, Giles, Hoggard, Harmison and S Jones during the series but his consistent performances were certainly the rock on which England's success was built. Had it not been for him it would have been another 3-0 or 4-0 drubbing.
The 2009 Ashes victory was very much more of a squad effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanthething
I think its quite a stretch to say a hundred in the first innings of 477 won them the match but yeah its a good innings, if we are counting innings like that then Kallis probably has about 20. The 70 was a good innings but a perfect spot for Flintoff, he was well within his rights play his normal game because of the way the rest of the innings had played out and it worked. Theres no doubt Flintoff was incredible in that Series with bat and Ball but that was the best series of his life probably and he still only averaged 40 and 27 with bat and ball.
Anyway, he was no doubt quality for at least half his career (shame about young fat flintoff who didn't deserve his place in the team), but hes no Kallis, statistics might lie a bit, but they dont lie quite that much. Having said this I doubt Kallis would perform quite so well in the Morrisons adverts so maybe flintoff is a better 'all rounder' after all.
Well at Trent Bridge England were 213-4 when he came in and 241-5 when Geriant Jones joined him, batting on a good pitch. As throughout the series it was as much the way that he (and Jones) played (in this case batted) as the runs that he got, which put so much pressure on Australia. He was the main contributor in the 477; which led to the Aussie following on for the first time in 300 years; which led to the England winning the match. You could say that the Giles/Hoggard partnership or England's bowling won England the match but without Flintoff's century it would have been pretty much impossible for England to win that test.
As for the 73 at Edgbaston, England won by 2 runs and he put on 50+ with Simon Jones (who barely knew how to hold a bat) on a pitch on which Warne was (as usual v England) turning it square. Had he been playing instead of Flintoff, Kallis would not have won that game for his side!
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanthething
Kallis has had extended periods of injury too, its why he doesn't bowl much. If Kallis had been in the shape he is now and peak physical fitness for most of his career I dont think its too much of a stretch to say that we would be looking at a guy averaging 60 with the bat and 26/27 with the ball which would truly be not far off GOAT.
Some of the reasoning in this thread is ******ed tbh, and no offense intended but to say 'I saw flintoff smack 70 which set up a win and I saw Kallis bat for his average before a declaration' is just lol variance. This is why they use statistics in sport, sure it doesn't tell the full story, but it gives a better picture than just romantically picking the best and worst moments of peoples careers and using them to prove a point.
But you did say that you couldn't recall one Flintoff innings that won England a test match. You didn't say that you couldn't recall a long Flintoff 150+ that won England a test match.....
So I guess the concensus is that if you want one of them to bat for a long period of time it would be Kallis and if you want someone to smash a quick fifty and grab some quick wickets it would be Flintoff?!
As good as Kallis is, most batsmen of the 2000s would rather have faced him than Flintoff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanthething
Back to the important Kallis hair point, does anyone know why they do it? Surely they must realise they are going to get so much stick for at least a year and when they make it that obvious, who can blame people for pointing it out. Not sure its quite as strange looking as rooneys was when he first had it but still quite obvious.
I guess it's as simple as they (i.e. Kallis and Rooney) prefer to have a full head of hair rather than the natural receding look. As well paid sports stars they have the spare cash to pay for such treatments.