Is Andrew Flintoff a one series wonder?

Still only 3 batsmen in the history of the game have a better conversion rate than Vaughan, and his captaincy is good as he figured out many batsmen. Look how he worked out Hayden and Gilly.
 
Sureshot said:
Still only 3 batsmen in the history of the game have a better conversion rate than Vaughan, and his captaincy is good as he figured out many batsmen. Look how he worked out Hayden and Gilly.
The plans for the batsmen would be a result of meetings by team management, and having a great conversion rate makes an average of 34.57 over 30 Tests even more pathetic, essentially he fails 10 times and then makes his hundred to save himself from the chop?
 
langerrox said:
England, They fail to teach common hygiene!

Also when to use capital letters too it would seem...

Anyway on topic - did anyone else see the article by Vaughan saying that Flintoff wouldn't be a good captain at the moment and that it would affect his game if he became captain.

Worth a read
 
brad352 said:
The plans for the batsmen would be a result of meetings by team management, and having a great conversion rate makes an average of 34.57 over 30 Tests even more pathetic, essentially he fails 10 times and then makes his hundred to save himself from the chop?


What's the point in making a stat if you leave out his golden eras. He is fantastic vs Australia, if you can do that you're special.
 
I don't understand the concept of being under increased pressure as captain. If you can't handle the job and keep the rest of your game together, you aren't a good captain, no matter how tactically minded you can be.

They should give the captaincy to Pietersen for a laugh.
 
angryangy said:
I don't understand the concept of being under increased pressure as captain. If you can't handle the job and keep the rest of your game together, you aren't a good captain, no matter how tactically minded you can be.

They should give the captaincy to Pietersen for a laugh.
Well thats easy to say, but the truth is that captaining a side really asks so much more. The whole team's performance is your responsibility. You have to think harder and longer. It invariably does affect your own performances.
 
There was a piece in the Daily Mail the other day on Vaughan, explaining why things are alot tougher than when he was playing just as a batsman. Did anyone else read it?
 
m_vaughan said:
Well thats easy to say, but the truth is that captaining a side really asks so much more. The whole team's performance is your responsibility. You have to think harder and longer. It invariably does affect your own performances.
All that does is make it acceptable to fail as a player whilst captaining the side. Sure it can affect you, but the best captains haven't let that destroy their careers. Don Bradman, Imran Khan, Steve Waugh, Richie Benaud, Sunil Gavaskar, all either improved or maintained a standard of excellence while captain. There are many others to add to that list.

Vaughan and Ganguly have both fallen from being regarded as prospective legends of the modern era to being seen as almost tag-alongs among their teams.
 
stevie said:
Only Harmison. If it does effect Flintoff, it doesn't show in his performances.

True. He was one of the better batsman in the ODI World XI series.
 
True. He was one of the better batsman in the ODI World XI series.

Which is saying something when all three times he come to the crease the game was lost and he got out slogging twice trying to rescue an impossible situation.
 
I think Harmison was homesick in RSA as he felt a bit insecure there, look how he did in the WIndies?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top