Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2023

Idaho said:
I think his career was badly botched by England management. I think he could have been one of our great all rounders - if he'd been given the leeway of a Bell, Pope or Crawley
Click to expand...

Well he arguably is isn't he - behind Botham and Stokes he's definitely up there. I don't really get the leeway thing though given the number of tests he's played. OK he was shunted round the order a bit but I don't think that's the difference between a player averaging 27 and one averaging 10+ higher. I'd argue he was given too much leeway if anything (probably repeating myself here) in that it always seemed to be fine when he got out for a quick 20 or so due to his bowling role, I think he could have done with a bit of pushing to value his wicket more and play more extended innings.
 
He's also had a curious career in that he's had patches when his batting's come off but not his bowling and patches when the bowling's come off but the batting's slumped. I don't think we ever quite decided if he was a batter who bowls like Stokes or a bowler who bats like Botham. At different times, he's been both. His numbers kind of reflect that.

(The only true batting and bowling allrounder in the history of test cricket is Shakib Al Hasan. Everyone else is X who also does Y.)
 
littlebabyjesus said:
He's also had a curious career in that he's had patches when his batting's come off but not his bowling and patches when the bowling's come off but the batting's slumped. I don't think we ever quite decided if he was a batter who bowls like Stokes or a bowler who bats like Botham. At different times, he's been both. His numbers kind of reflect that.

(The only true batting and bowling allrounder in the history of test cricket is Shakib Al Hasan. Everyone else is X who also does Y.)
Click to expand...

Ah just quoted and seen the add - Garfield Sobers maybe? But yeah there certainly aren't many, not surprising given how different the skills are.

As for Moeen if I'm honest I think he falls into the category of not being quite good enough to be a test match specialist batsman or bowler. That's not to slag him off because he's made a lot of really valuable contributions over the years (and a lot of test all-rounders fall into that category I'd say) but I do think he's a 7/8 rather than a top 6 batsman and probably his batting kept in the team at times when his bowling wasn't quite coming off.
 
Reasoning as follows:

No player in history has ever managed an average of over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball. Shakib has come as close as anyone with 39 and 31 respectively.

But the clincher is the number of runs and number of wickets. You'd want a frontline batter to score 60 runs or more per match. You'd want a frontline bowler to take 3 wickets or more per match. Shakib is the only player who qualifies on both these counts. (Sobers took about 2.5 wickets per match.) But if you're thinking that I've cherry-picked those numbers to exclude everyone else, I haven't. He smashes both of those minimum requirements. If you were to raise the numbers to 65 runs and 3.5 wickets, he'd still qualify.

So Sobers was a batter who bowled, as was Kallis, as is Stokes (more than 60 runs per match but only just over 2 wickets). Most of the other allrounders that usually come up – Botham, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Flintoff, etc – are bowlers who batted with well under 60 runs per match. Keith Miller comes closest, but he's at about 57 runs iirc (did this calculation a while back).

For those players who played in the one-day era, it's also often instructive to look at their one-day records, where one or other discipline often falls away. Botham was not a good one-day batter, perhaps surprisingly. And again here, Shakib's numbers hold up. He's an outstanding one-day bowler, but he's a totally adequate one-day batter as well.
 
Petcha said:
Stokes is the greatest all round cricketer I've ever seen (and I'm including fielding and captaincy in that). His numbers will probably baffle future generations as to why he is held such high esteem. He shows up when needed.
Click to expand...
Yep. His numbers suggest that he was useful in a Shane Watson kind of way. Flintoff's numbers make him look pretty ordinary as well. Context is all.

But Stokes is very definitely a batter who bowls.
 
Flintoff is a good example of how averages can obscure the ups and downs of a player's career isn't he. His career averages weren't great, and for a lot of his career at the beginning and end he wasn't really that good to be honest. For the few years when he was right at his peak though he was right up there, say 2003/4-2006/7? Something like that. I don't know if he met lbj's genuine all-rounder criteria then but I'd guess he wasn't far off.
 
A bowler like Flintoff (and perhaps Wood at the moment) also helps his teammates because the batsmen are under pressure to score when the big lad isn't bowling. You'd need to do some nifty statistical analysis to show how other bowlers' averages changed when bowling with him.
 
And Flintoff should never have been made Captain, let's face it. I can't remember who the other candidates were at the time though.

Anecdotally, I was actually at that bar in St Lucia in 07. I got rebuffed by Botham when I tried to buy him a drink, meanwhile Freddie was launching himself out into the water on a pedalo to much hilarity with from memory, bizarrely, Ross Taylor's wife egging him on. At least Stokes' drunken moment was a little more noble than that.

Flintoff - a lovely, genuine man, but not captaincy material.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Flintoff is a good example of how averages can obscure the ups and downs of a player's career isn't he. His career averages weren't great, and for a lot of his career at the beginning and end he wasn't really that good to be honest. For the few years when he was right at his peak though he was right up there, say 2003/4-2006/7? Something like that. I don't know if he met lbj's genuine all-rounder criteria then but I'd guess he wasn't far off.
Click to expand...
He actually just fails the 3 wickets per match! But only just. Way under for batting. But Flintoff was very certainly a bowler who batted. You're right though that he had a horror start to his career when he did both badly (actually pretty unlucky with the ball from what I remember - bowled well without taking wickets). In the 2005 Ashes, his averages were 27 ball and 40 bat. And he was England's fastest bowler.

There have been loads of genuine allrounders tbf, including Flintoff. My point about Shakib isn't that he's the greatest, merely that he's uniquely complete as both a frontline batter and a frontline bowler.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
He actually just fails the 3 wickets per match! But only just. Way under for batting. But Flintoff was very certainly a bowler who batted. You're right though that he had a horror start to his career when he did both badly (actually pretty unlucky with the ball from what I remember - bowled well without taking wickets). In the 2005 Ashes, his averages were 27 ball and 40 bat. And he was England's fastest bowler.

There have been loads of genuine allrounders tbf, including Flintoff. My point about Shakib isn't that he's the greatest, merely that he's uniquely complete.
Click to expand...

Just looking at Flintoff's stats (because I don't have anything better to do apparently) and between 2003 and 2005 he got 3.7 wickets and 62 runs per match. So a bit contrived maybe but over that three year period you could argue that he met that genuine all rounder bar.

At other times in his career his averages are waaaay lower.
 
Well if we're talking stats. Doesn't player of the match, being able to perform best when it matters, count for anything? Because if it does, out of those mentioned (for England, haven't checked elsewhere), only Botham and Stokes count for more than Moeen, pro-rata.

And don't forget, Moeen has more 4th wickets innings for England than anyone (again, pro-rata) - only Anderson and Broad have more and they've played around 2.5 times more than Moeen (supporting the fact he was poorly treated).

4th innings wickets:

Anderson 63 matches, 91 w - 1.44 per innings
Broad 57 matches, 88 w - 1.54 per innings
Moeen 25 matches, 60 w - 2.4 per innings

Player of the match

Botham 102 m, 12 pom - 1 every 8.5 tests
Stokes 95 m, 10 pom - 1 every 9.5 tests
Moeen 66 m, 6 pom - 1 every 11 tests
Flintoff 79 m, 6 pom - 1 every 13.16 tests

It's not even arguable Moeen was messed around for such a match winning player.
 
Last edited:
planetgeli said:
Well if we're talking stats. Doesn't player of the match, being able to perform best when it matters, count for anything? Because if it does, out of those mentioned (for England, haven't checked elsewhere), only Botham and Stokes count for more than Moeen, pro-rata.

And don't forget, Moeen has more 4th wickets innings for England than anyone (again, pro-rata - only Anderson and Broad have more and they've played around 2.5 times more than Moeen (supporting the fact he was poorly treated).

4th innings wickets:

Anderson 63 matches, 91 w - 1.44 per innings
Broad 57 matches, 88 w - 1.54 per innings
Moeen 25 matches, 60 w - 2.4 per innings

Player of the match

Botham 102 m, 12 pom - 1 every 8.5 tests
Stokes 95 m, 10 pom - 1 every 9.5 tests
Moeen 66 m, 11 pom - 1 every 11 tests
Flintoff 79 m, 6 pom - 1 every 13.16 tests

It's not even arguable Moeen was messed around for such a match winning player.
Click to expand...

Well hey, he's put himself back in the fold now with relish and clearly has the backing of the people who matter so let's see what happens. It's not gonna be boring at least.
 
Moeen is like Flintoff in that he's had amazing glory moments and some horror periods. His stats reflect that. He has a lot of centuries for a batter only averaging 27.

I'm not knocking his selection. I was pleased when he came back in. But I'm realistic about the chances of recapturing the glory moments. Will be amazing if it happens.
 
Glory moments like getting Smith and Labuschagne out?

I’m quietly optimistic about Mo for the rest of the series. Looking forward to it.
 
This is a pretty good stat from the Graun: “As well as advancing years, a combined 1,974 wickets among the England XI”

If the team stays the same for the Oval that may clock 2,000 wickets.
 
Last edited:
This from the Torygraph is the source of my optimism:

“The noteworthy thing about this selection is not that No 3 is new to Moeen. In fact, it is where he would have most fancied batting as he came through as a youngster. When he comes out to bat at Old Trafford, it will be his 100th first-class innings in the position. Including a handful of Test innings there, he averages 48.9, including nine centuries. He has done the job before.”

12ft |

12ft.io 12ft.io
 
planetgeli said:
Well if we're talking stats. Doesn't player of the match, being able to perform best when it matters, count for anything? Because if it does, out of those mentioned (for England, haven't checked elsewhere), only Botham and Stokes count for more than Moeen, pro-rata.

And don't forget, Moeen has more 4th wickets innings for England than anyone (again, pro-rata) - only Anderson and Broad have more and they've played around 2.5 times more than Moeen (supporting the fact he was poorly treated).

4th innings wickets:

Anderson 63 matches, 91 w - 1.44 per innings
Broad 57 matches, 88 w - 1.54 per innings
Moeen 25 matches, 60 w - 2.4 per innings

Player of the match

Botham 102 m, 12 pom - 1 every 8.5 tests
Stokes 95 m, 10 pom - 1 every 9.5 tests
Moeen 66 m, 6 pom - 1 every 11 tests
Flintoff 79 m, 6 pom - 1 every 13.16 tests

It's not even arguable Moeen was messed around for such a match winning player.
Click to expand...

Moeen also has a player of the series gong IIRC.
 
Spymaster said:
Nice win for the ladies.

4-2 in the series.

We'll take that 💥
Click to expand...
4-3 (if you include the test)? Anyway, once they went with that format - combining Test, T20 and ODIs into a single series - I think it was reasonable to give the test a x2 rating. But still, a drawn series and 4-3 in matches is pretty much a 'win' to me. Wouldn't have been unreasonable to have an 'if points are equal, the team winning the most games takes the series' clause.
 
Last edited:
Yeah great stuff. Fantastic, close series. I think the format's points are fair enough, but that's the first time Aus have lost an ODI series in ten years!

Amy Jones is a very good keeper. But if you want to see top quality keeping, Sarah Taylor is where it was at. Adam Gilchrist rated her the best keeper in the world, man or woman.

These were all in just one series.

 
A bit critical I know. But Bairstow got lucky on that catch. He was moving down the leg side again, should have been much simpler than he made it.

It is though, very nice to see the team spirit these lads clearly have. Much more so than the Aussies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Throbbing Angel
Snooker 2023 - 24
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
280
Views
5K
stavros
S
QueenOfGoths
Cricket World Cup 2023
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
16K
Petcha
P
Numbers
Wimbledon 2023
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
4K
T & P
T & P
DJWrongspeed
Tour de France 2023
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
355
Views
9K
stavros
S
E
Rugby World Cup 2023
63 64 65 66 67
Replies
2K
Views
33K
Smangus
Smangus
Back
Top Bottom