Re: Andy Flower thread

by horace Thu 03 Apr 2008, 01:34

i think the comparisons being made are a little Bas...errr odd...

both were fine players and flower and aside from gilly is just shaded by boucher as the gerat keeper/bat of his era (sanga may overtake them all)

by tac Thu 03 Apr 2008, 05:48

horace wrote:i think the comparisons being made are a little Bas...errr odd...

both were fine players and flower and aside from gilly is just shaded by boucher as the gerat keeper/bat of his era (sanga may overtake them all)

Only if he starts keeping again, which is unlikely . . .

by horace Thu 03 Apr 2008, 06:05

he's a better keeper than happy

by tac Thu 03 Apr 2008, 06:07

horace wrote:he's a better keeper than happy

But I doubt the Lankans will risk hurting his batting by making him take up the gloves again . . .

by doremi Thu 03 Apr 2008, 06:22

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:All of them are better than Flower. Flower averages 48 if you exclude Bangladesh. That's 48 without having played the best and with a massive amount of not outs and with very poor records in England, SA and SL.

Thorpe averages 81 against the Bangers, hasn't done well against India or SA, and has played only 1 match in India out of his 100, arguably the toughest conditions for an Englishman. And still averages less than 45 over his whole career.

So, saying Thorpe's clearly better than Flower because Flower hasn't had the opportunities to play Aus and WI, is ridiculous IMO.

by horace Thu 03 Apr 2008, 06:24

well argued ...suspect LLL was being frivolous

by holcs Thu 03 Apr 2008, 09:04

JKLever wrote:
tac wrote:
JKLever wrote:The stats don't lie do they?

They're comparing a guy who has faced the best bowling attacks in 4% of his test career (Flower) to a guy in Thorpe who faced it for almost half his career!!!

That's why all current Aussie bats are worse than the English line up as well, eh?

always thought his average was somewhat padded.

cough cough.. Ian Bell

by Merlin Thu 03 Apr 2008, 09:14

Bad cough there Chas ol' son!

by tac Thu 03 Apr 2008, 09:30

horace wrote:well argued ...suspect LLL was being frivolous

He doesn't mind the odd manipulation of numeric facts . . .

by JKLever Thu 03 Apr 2008, 09:56

Aussie forummers suddenly having collective memory failure about their 'haven't done it against the best so he can't be any good' formula Laughing

Anyway it's all about opinion. Like arseholes, as they say....

by eowyn Thu 03 Apr 2008, 09:58

What are like arseholes? I've not heard anyone say......

by lardbucket Thu 03 Apr 2008, 09:59

JKL: well of course we can never use that formula nowadays. There hasn't been an opportunity since the last Australia A series.

by JKLever Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:02

Paul Keating wrote:

The majority of his runs came in dead rubbers.

Would you like to show me some stats for that 'Pete'? I'll guarantee you Flower played in more dead rubbers...

by JKLever Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:07

doremi wrote:
and has played only 1 match in India out of his 100, arguably the toughest conditions for an Englishman. And still averages less than 45 over his whole career.

So, saying Thorpe's clearly better than Flower because Flower hasn't had the opportunities to play Aus and WI, is ridiculous IMO.

In no stretch of the imagination was facing India harder than playing Ambrose/Walsh or McGrath/Gillespie/Warne for close to half your test career...

by Brass Monkey Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:11

Graham Thorpe had pretty much an even record IIRC. Mid 40's home, mid 40's away. Mid 40's on the SubC, mid 40's in Aus. His stats can't really be split by a 'yeah, but'.

The only teams he didn't fair well against was SA and India... averaged 35 against them, which aren't bad as your 'failures'. He faced all the best bowlers of his era. All of them, bar Gough and Caddick.

by holcs Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:30

JKLever wrote:
doremi wrote:
and has played only 1 match in India out of his 100, arguably the toughest conditions for an Englishman. And still averages less than 45 over his whole career.

So, saying Thorpe's clearly better than Flower because Flower hasn't had the opportunities to play Aus and WI, is ridiculous IMO.

In no stretch of the imagination was facing India harder than playing Ambrose/Walsh or McGrath/Gillespie/Warne for close to half your test career...

So what your saying is Flowers stats are padded out, and his average in excess of 50 as a keeper batsman in a shocking side means he's not as good as Thorpe?

On the basis that he didn't get a chance to face the rest as much as GT?

Now I think GT is a legend, but I'd view Flower on a par with him at least.

Perhaps facing the rest as in The Paksters (Wasim/Waqar), SA (Donald/Pollock) weren't the worst either, and i think he averaged very highly against them, well 70 against SA!

Amazing how opinions are so different using the same sets of stats huh JK? shrug

by THICKEDGE Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:41

Andy Flower was a great player no question. Not sure he is such a great batting coach though. Who in the England team has improved their batting over the past year?

by JKLever Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:42

You're a feisty one today! boxer

Andy may well have been 'as good' if he'd faced Aus/WI for half his career - this is true...

But i'm disputing TO original statement on the Zim election thread - not that he wasn't a fine player.

He only played 5 tests against SA - but in 14 against Pak he averaged 44 - this IMO is more of an indicator of his ability...

by Merlin Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:45

THICKEDGE wrote:Andy Flower was a great player no question. Not sure he is such a great batting coach though. Who in the England team has improved their batting over the past year?

Which is where this whole discussion about Flower started (when I made the observation about his prowess as a batting coach) with regard to his association with Englands top six batsmen and their recent exalted performances!!
Then TO chipped in with "andy was a better batsman than all england post war batsmen" .... and the rest is history!!

We've come full circle I'd say!

by JKLever Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:48

Coaching is overated - especially at the top level

If you haven't got a good enough technique by the time you get there no coach is going to make you into a superman

by Merlin Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:50

JKLever wrote:Coaching is overated - especially at the top level

If you haven't got a good enough technique by the time you get there no coach is going to make you into a superman

Not what ALL of us on here said about Troy Cooley during Ashes 2005 mate!

How short are our memories!! Wink

.

by JKLever Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:55

Aye, IMO as I said.

by holcs Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:58

JKLever wrote:You're a feisty one today!

Andy may well have been 'as good' if he'd faced Aus/WI for half his career - this is true...

But i'm disputing TO original statement on the Zim election thread - not that he wasn't a fine player.

He only played 5 tests against SA - but in 14 against Pak he averaged 44 - this IMO is more of an indicator of his ability...

Aye. Maybe a little!!

I think TO went over the top I'd agree, however as far as the more recent batters we have produced, only GT and possibly KP would be with AF IMO.

Perhaps, but in that instant can we at some point re-visit Mr. Bell's stats?? Very Happy

by Brass Monkey Thu 03 Apr 2008, 10:59

Nah, Gooch was well up there. Imperious against the top whack late on.

by holcs Thu 03 Apr 2008, 11:00

Merlin wrote:
JKLever wrote:Coaching is overated - especially at the top level

If you haven't got a good enough technique by the time you get there no coach is going to make you into a superman

Not what ALL of us on here said about Troy Cooley during Ashes 2005 mate!

How short are our memories!! .

Dunno if I agree with this either.

The basic technique maybe there, but tinkering and more in depth coaching at test level is very important. More importantly is the coaching of approaching, building innings etc... Which we all know is an issue in our top 6 anyway.

by Sponsored content