Can Watson emulate Flintoff's feat in Ashes?

Harsh but funny......and a lot of truth in this

Check some of his averages vs these bowlers in the big matches, there truly awful im talking tail ender average stuff. I wrote about this 6months ago, showed heaps of stats from ESPN. Don't have time to do it all again, but some of his averages we are talking in the 10 runs to 15 per innings average, awful stuff. Hayden made one of the worst test centuries ever at 4th test Adelaide oval 1996, and Ambrose was out injured. Akhter sorted Hayden out in the 1st and 2nd test when the series was on the line. And in 2005 ASHES his career saving century in the 5th test was average and selfish, he should of put the accelerators on.

I wouldn't go as far as you Johnno but I always have my suspicion about Hayden in facing tough conditions and I do believe he cashed in a batting friendly era of world cricket. He was a great player of spin bowling but when facing fast bowler when the ball is moving around, there are fair amount of players I would rate above him in those conditions (such as langer and slater you mention). Still I wouldn't say that Akhtar sorted out Hayden and one of his greatest innings was scored on nearly 50 degree heat here against Akhtar and co where no one else made a 50 in the match http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64002.html

Hayden is rubbish vs quality fast bowling, most of the time. Ambrose,Alan Donald,Dale Steyn,Ntini,Morkel,Flintoff,Simon Jones,Akther, all sorted Haydos out. Slats or Langer anyday over Hayden. And Matt Elliot I rate higher than Hayden he just had injury problems. And Elliot was woeful vs Alan Donald but he still did better than Hayden, he just was not given enough confidence placed in him by the selectors. Vaughan better than Hayden too.

Michael Vaughan had the potential to be an all-time great batsman I think the best stat to show his underachivement as a pure batsman is this Average As a Captain - 36.02 As a Non-Captain - 50.98 Captaincy clearly affected his ability as a batsman but his Captaincy led England to defeat an Australian team at it's near peak of its power in a massive upset. Perhaps one of Englands best ever Captain since Jardine in terms of ability to stop a juggernaut. Perhaps in an alternate universe where Vaughan wasn't the Captain, he would have finish his career with a 50+ average but England lost that 2005 series. His performance down under scoring 3 centuries in a losing cause against Warne and McGrath is etched in my memory.

My point was a team comprised from the whole era of dominance, not just that vintage. And steady on about Vaughan, he stands in some very illustrious and limited company in having destroyed a great Aussie attack over a series in Australia, to say otherwise would be churlish Ronan. Averages are not the be all and end all of cricket, not least because none of the Aussie batsmen had to face Warne or McGrath which was nice for them and seeing as England and Australia play each other more than any other nation and blah blah blah. Hayden may also be omitted just for being a massive nob.

We're talking about a proper composite XI for any conditions not one swayed in England's favour...in which case Vaughan could perhaps wash Hayden's whites. As for playing Vaughan out of his element in the middle order ahead of a guy who averaged 5 runs per innings more than him in Martyn...no. And JimmyB... the 2005 side was well within the Aussie "years of dominance". After that series Australia won 16 consecutive Tests.

Hayden may have been a great Australian opener but if we have a team playing in English conditions I would not select him in a composite team. He failed twice in England. I think he was suspect to the moving ball. Let just say that before the 2005 Ashes I have chatted with a fair amount of Englishman who were pessimistic about their chances for the Ashes but were convinced that Hayden would be found out and fail in England again and they were proven right. I would replace him for Vaughan and made him captain of that composite XI if that composite xi was based on performance in England.

As per above, Martyn - really? I'd go for Vaughan and have him as captain. With regards Flintoff I think they were talking about a composite Aussie side over the years of dominance. I think he was seen as a luxury that would have brought balance to the force...I mean the side. Maybe if he had been born Australian, which isn't really a stretch as he, a bit like Beefy always struck me as an Aussie trapped in an Englishmans body, he would have been told to go and smash some runs and held back for short sharp bursts of hostile bowling rather than being bowled into the ground, and he wasn't really the ideal guy to come in at 20- 4.

Now that you mention it, when you compare those 2005 Ashes sides and create a composite team it becomes clear what a heist it was by England, given they had a fraction of the talent. 1. Hayden 2. Langer 3. Ponting 4. Pietersen 5. Martyn 6. Flintoff 7. Gilchrist 8. Warne 9. Lee 10. Jones 11. McGrath

Absolutely he would have made it into the Aussie team of 2005 at the expense of Clarke because at the time his batting wasn't that far short of Clarke's and he was a phenomenal bowler in 2004/2005. He is a player who gets incredibly varied ratings in retrospect because for those two years he played like an all-time great but over the bulk of his career he was average.

I'm not saying that Flintoff was the greatest cricketer ever, but his bowling was never reflected by his stats. Allegedly (and I'm sure you'll pull me on this) he was considered by former Aussie players as the one English player that would have made it into the great Aussie team. Let the backlash begin!

JimmyB his bowling average in the final 4 years of his career from 2006 onwards was 36. When people rate Flintoff they tend to think of that 2004-05 version completely overlooking the fact that for the bulk of his career he was nothing special. The opposite is true of Watto.

Possibly the most ridiculous article article ever on The Roar !

Watson has never been more than handy with the ball for mine. Freddy on the other hand.....Yikes! With the bat, I thought Watson was going to be our mainstay after his 2yr hot streak...didn't matter what form of the game, he could dominate! What happened??........the answers are hidden in Watsons head! Send him off to spend some time with Steve Waugh and learn a little about mental toughness.....true Aussie grit!

"Ordinary" is a bit much when describing Flintoff, Ronan. His batting pretty much went to shite, however his bowling remained very threatening even if his stats don't back it up.

Flintoff and Watson were both very good for just a two-year period of their careers. In 2004 and 2005... Flintoff was arguably in the top 5 or 6 players in the world alongside the likes of Warne, Hayden, Tendulkar, McGrath, Ponting, Gilchrist, Kallis etc. Over those two years he averaged 40 with the bat and 25 with the ball. But before and after that two year period he was an ordinary player. Watson, meanwhile, peaked in 2009 and 2010 when he was in the top 5 players in the world, averaging 50 with the bat and 28 with the ball. Before and after that period he has been frustratingly inconsistent.

Is this a deliberately stupid article? Can't be bothered to go through all the individual points, however I will say that Flintoff at his best was one of the most threatening bowlers in the world.

The 2 most over rated all rounders of the modern era. Give me Kallis, Cairns, Pollock, Vettori or Shakib any day

Flintoff 3184 runs 5 tons and 228 wickets. Hellooo, Watson has 63 wickets, is he going to take the new ball? What a laugh. Wind up?