Fintoff on Stokes and more

Is this is an old sport is rubbish thread again? I feel quite privileged to watched football before 1992 and been able to see the West Indies and the Australians at their best at cricket .....

 

FFS yourself. I'm currently in the middle of a very busy shift at work so will decide whether it's worth responding when it's over.

As a fun little precis, I disagree with a lot of people on here but you're the only poster who's ever come close to ruining this board for me. And if anybody thinks that's an unfair comment, I think my post history makes it clear that I'm generally a pretty OK guy who doesn't make a habit of falling out with people, even on the Internet.

 

I loved Flintoff as a player, and feel a sort of kinship with him as he has suffered from mental illness, as have I.

Being an open minded individual who can both form my own opinion and take a balanced view of things, I agree with somethings he has said, and disagree with others.

On Ben Stokes, I think as a batsmen, he's a much better player than Freddy but lacks the impact Flintoff had with the ball. Botham? Honestly don't think he's anywhere near him personally as an all round player, but if he keeps on working hard on his game, who knows?

As for the game being better? Not sure. Limited over wise, the batting ability is probably better than it has ever been, but bowling wise it leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, this limited over batting has had a huge effect on the Test game, as proven by the amount of games that don't even get to a fith(or even fourth) day. I don't know how anyone who knows anything about the game can say that the bowlers of today are a match for the bowlers of the past...

 

Sestren, you are posting nothing but lies and I called YOU out on that.

 

. Double post...

 

Fair comment if you think that.

Flintoff did a master class type thing on bowling and how it's improved with Rob Key. I think it's on the ssn website. He talked about how he would get dealt with. The ramp was the main one he mentioned.

 

Thing is, a top player is able to play the ramp on a flat pitch against todays fast bowlers, due to their pace. Even the quickest only just kiss the high 80mph, don't they?

The famous West Indies attack, for example would consistently bowl 90+mph, and and were mega accurate with it. And it wasnt just the opening bowlers, all five were deadly. To make things even harder, the batsmen would often only wear pads, a box and gloves for protection, so if they got it wrong, they were getting hurt. The lads of today go out looking like fecking Robocop.

But like I say, the limited over batting of today is excellent. I just wish more of them knew how to dig in and play a proper Test innings. Barring Cook, and Root if he is in the mood, we don't have any.

 

I think the likes of Root and butler would ramp a 90 plus bowler.
Pace isn't everything. You watch this series. SA slowest Philander bowlers taking the most wickets maybe for SA. He's certainly the danger.
I hate protection argument. Stuart Broad broke his nose badly not long since and Philip Hughes was killed.

 

You've got absolutely no right to bang on about stuff like that when your standard trick is to disappear as soon as anybody proves you wrong on anything.

But yes, if Vaughan has appeared on Sky then I admit I'm wrong (see? It's not hard). But I thought it was crystal clear, given my previous posts (and yours), that I suspect you don't like him because in general he works for the BBC rather than Sky. Hence my comment.

 

Pace isn't everything no. But imagine facing someone with the accuracy and consistency of Philander, but bowling at 95 mph. Would YOU like to face it?

Now imagine facing it with hardly any protection...

 

You have no chance of winning this argument. You may as well call it a day. Modern batsmen would piss themselves laughing at the West Indies bowling attack that you're referring to.

 

Not at all. I remember him and his comments about this England team weren't right. Root said it. We didn't play well but he went further than that. He questioned the fight and how much they wanted it.
He sits next too, Botcott and Swann. I loved watching G Swann but he ditched England in Australia. Could have hung around at supported but no. Boycott. think it's clear what I think of him. He also ditch the ECB am I right to play in a competitor series and Mr M Vaughan. He also jumped ship, funnily enough against SA in England when the tough got tough. Mid way through a series.

I don't particularly like some of the sky commentators. Warne and Willis. So stop with the I wouldn't say it if he's a sky commentator. Yes I would

 

A England team faced a 100mph bowler not so long ago. Shaun Tait and Mitch Starc have bowled at 160 plus kph. I'd imagine Johnson wasn't far off that at times. England have got the better of them more often that one.

 

You've excluded the 'without protection' element from your argument. Trust me it makes a massive difference.

 

See out a bouncer now and that's it - three or four in an over was completely different. Throw in an unprotected wicket and It's a completely different ball game

 

I have heard Flintoff say plenty of times that cricket is boring, that he did it for the money, that he didn't enjoy it, that it was just a job etc.

 

Think Mitchell Johnson was quickest bowler and destroyed England in Australia but never got his length or line right in England. Shaun Tait is quick but lacks the fitness for Test cricket. For sustained quality and hostility the West Indies quicks take some beating and are a level up from anything except perhaps Lillie and Thompson in my lifetime They had control as well as pace interesting to see how todays power hitters would cope against Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding Curtley Ambrose and the like.
As for Freddie his stats do not match Botham or Stokes but his efforts motivated others and without him and his contribution we would not have become number 1 test team. He is self depricating but with a big personality .

 

Every team had some world class bowlers - bowling looks really average at times noe. I do like Anderson and Broad but they don't compare to some of the fast bowlers I grew up watching.

 

And if you think of Joel Garner, and the height he was delivering his "normal length" delivery from, it was virtually a full over of bouncers. That West Indies pace attack the best I've seen, although Lillee and Thompson, and arguably Donald and Pollock were in the same class.

 

Thing with west Indies was you thought you'd got rid of the best two when the opening bowlers went off only to realise Malcolm Marshall replaced them :-/