Stats never lie ....

Oh yes they do.

Ashes: individual Aussie averages, centuries, etc, streets ahead of the Poms'.

Series result ......?

Similarly, Flintoff was never on a par with Jesus.

But his modest overall "stats" are belied by his repeated impact in two Ashes series in particular. By presence and knock-on effect on the team, as well as key interventions.

All the churned-out number-crunched ratings of who's best, top ten players, etc. are quintessentially fantasy jingles for those left twiddling their thumbs between matches.

Aye. The ability to take one crucial wicket in a game, or score a nuggety 50 in a tight second innings run chase, can have far more impact than mopping up the tail or a big hundred in a high scoring first innings.

Aye - would you rather a guy who scores 100,100,100 or a guy who scores 300, 0 , 0?

Fair point. We lost it in a couple of key sessions despite looking like caning them on paper. I blame Ricky and the NSP.

JGK wrote:Aye - would you rather a guy who scores 100,100,100 or a guy who scores 300, 0 , 0?

Unless his name is Ramprakash apparently.