Is Flintoff Overrated?

[Richard]

Nonsense, it's patently Alastair Cook.

 

[open365]

I think superstar players like Flintoff will always end up bein over rated purely because of the status and high esteem they are held in by their country's fans.

I think a lot of the time with Flintoff people see the player he could be and the player we wish he was more than the player he acctualy is.

Of late i think his bowling has really deteriorated, he doesn't look as threatening as he used to and he's bowling quite a bit slower than it used to be, how much injuries have played a part in that i'm not sure but i don't think it's debateable.

His batting can be awesome, but again lately he's been stuggling to make a real impact on games with the bat (and the ball for that matter).

He's still going to do a job for his side pretty much whatever state he's in, but i think the ashes effect has made him over rated because people rate him on what he does when he's on form(which is a hell of a lot) and recognise that the ashes series wasn't normaly Freddie in action.

 

[PY]

People mentioning his drinking piss me off mostly. So many people make-out he's a borderline alcoholic or something! FCOL, come down to a shop like mine and see the amount some people drink there! And those are the milder ones!

Seriously, so many people know nothing about alcohol consumption and think they know it all.

What that aimed at me?

If it was, I can rattle off a CV of my experiences of alcohol affecting people and even how it can affect performance at higher-than-grassroots sport. But that would be sad.

And I didn't actually say that he was an alcoholic, I just said that his timing left something to be desired which it did given he was due to play a WC game in less than 48 hours.

 

[Swervy]

well Richard has summed it up quite nicely really

For me, Flintoff is the worlds best allrounder, no matter what anyone says about Kallis.

As a fast bowler, Flintoff is right up there with the best at the moment, it is surprising however that he doesnt take more wickets than he does, 2 five wicket hauls is incredibibly low for a bowler of his calibre who has taken almost 200 test wickets. For me this applies in both ODIs and tests.

Flintoff with the bat, techincally, seems to have regressed slightly. He really does look bad early in the innings (again applying to ODIs and tests), he plays at the ball away from his body and if he does get into the right positions it really looks contrived (as opposed to natural, in the way the top batsmen are), as if he is really really thinking about it all. Flintoff is a player of instinct, and early on, he doesnt rely on instinct...I think he relies on luck quite a lot of the time....he often looks like a tailender

However, if he gets passed say a score of 15, and then it looks completely different. He looks like a genuinely gifted, dominant batsman, a batsman in fact who could be considered amongst the best in the world, but only when he has his eye in and his confidence levels up. I think he has the talent to average mid 40s as an aggressive number 6 or 7.

So, best in the world at the moment, yep
Compared to past times, I would certainly have him up there with Dev. His bowling is better than Bothams for 50% of Bothams career, but technically, I dont think he is as good as Botham...and he ceratinly doesnt have that incredible matchwinning 'thing' that Botham had (who has really ever had that though?)

Deffo potential to be one of the greats I think

 

[Richard]

What that aimed at me?

If it was, I can rattle off a CV of my experiences of alcohol affecting people and even how it can affect performance at higher-than-grassroots sport. But that would be sad.

And I didn't actually say that he was an alcoholic, I just said that his timing left something to be desired which it did given he was due to play a WC game in less than 48 hours.

No, it wasn't aimed at you, though it was following-on from what you said.

I can probably do something fairly similar, BTW.

No-one's possibly disputing that Flintoff was stupid to go on the bender he went on at the time he went on it. But people make mistakes, simple as. Flintoff has received his punishment and IMO that should be the end of the matter.

 

[Richard]

For me, Flintoff is the worlds best allrounder, no matter what anyone says about Kallis.

Yeah, it's pretty silly IMO to call Kallis an all-rounder - he's patently a top-class batsman who also bowls. Hasn't been a real all-rounder for several years now.

As a fast bowler, Flintoff is right up there with the best at the moment, it is surprising however that he doesnt take more wickets than he does, 2 five wicket hauls is incredibibly low for a bowler of his calibre who has taken almost 200 test wickets. For me this applies in both ODIs and tests.

Not sure. It says a few things IMO. First off it says that he was a darn hopeless bowler for his first 5 years in Test-cricket. Then it says that when he was bowling well (IMO from 2005 onwards - the stats would suggest from the Sri Lanka tour of 2003 onwards - tec would suggest from the summer of 2004 onwards - etc.) there were usually a good few bowlers who were competing well with him.

I don't tend to judge a bowler too much by his number of five-fors. As we all know, 4-50 is far better than 5-150. And it usually means your team-mates have done better too.

And IMO there aren't many better ODI bowlers around at the current time, too.

 

[Poker Boy]

Yes his bowling is more reliable than his batting, which has been erattic at best since his fifties in eight consecutive matches in 2004 - mind you they were against a crap WI and a Bondless NZ. Yes he is the best allrounder in the world today but that is more to do with the quality of today's allrounders (if he had played in the 80s he would have been nowhere near the best)

 

[Swervy]

Not sure. It says a few things IMO. First off it says that he was a darn hopeless bowler for his first 5 years in Test-cricket. Then it says that when he was bowling well (IMO from 2005 onwards - the stats would suggest from the Sri Lanka tour of 2003 onwards - tec would suggest from the summer of 2004 onwards - etc.) there were usually a good few bowlers who were competing well with him.

I don't tend to judge a bowler too much by his number of five-fors. As we all know, 4-50 is far better than 5-150. And it usually means your team-mates have done better too.

And IMO there aren't many better ODI bowlers around at the current time, too.

actually it isnt really that bad a thing that he doesnt get large wicket hauls, it probably means he is more consistant than most (which I think he is)

 

[haroon510]

i would diffenitly rate him higher than agerker. he is much much better than agerker. i have always said that polly is a much better alrounder than freddy. that is the topic of debate. but he is much better than pathan, agerker, razzaq.

 

[Perm]

I would rate Flintoff ahead of Pollock, for me Pollock is a bowler who can bat. Not a true all-rounder like Flintoff.

 

[Kweek]

still waiting till Goughy says something about drinking and professional cricket...

 

[open365]

I would rate Flintoff ahead of Pollock, for me Pollock is a bowler who can bat. Not a true all-rounder like Flintoff.

I think Pollock could defintely have been more of an all rounder if he was bracketed as one from the start of his career, his batting record is very impressive for someone who bats as low as he does, he averages as much as Boucher in test cricket i think and if he played for another country he would get the oppurtunity to bat higher.

 

[Richard]

He could have been, I don't doubt, but he hasn't been.

Pollock is and always has been a bowling-all-rounder - a top-class bowler who also happens to be a very, very good lower-order batsman. Same as Kallis was always a batting-all-rounder - now IMO it's very hard even to call him that.

 

[Richard]

i would diffenitly rate him higher than agerker. he is much much better than agerker. i have always said that polly is a much better alrounder than freddy. that is the topic of debate. but he is much better than pathan, agerker, razzaq.

I don't think anyone was seriously comparing him with them. The Agarkar mention was just TIC.

 

[Richard]

actually it isnt really that bad a thing that he doesnt get large wicket hauls, it probably means he is more consistant than most (which I think he is)

Yep, he's been very consistent for quite a while now.

However, before Kev jumps at me again about this issue, the fact that said consistency has resulted in lots of three- and four-fors is to do with the strength of the rest of the attack he's bowling within. Had the rest of the attack been routinely weaker, he'd have got more six- and even seven-fors I think.

 

[silentstriker]

Yep, he's been very consistent for quite a while now.

However, before Kev jumps at me again about this issue, the fact that said consistency has resulted in lots of three- and four-fors is to do with the strength of the rest of the attack he's bowling within. Had the rest of the attack been routinely weaker, he'd have got more six- and even seven-fors I think.

Or, they would have been able to see him off and not lose any wickets and score off the other guys.

 

[adharcric]

I don't think anyone was seriously comparing him with them. The Agarkar mention was just TIC.

Haha, I can't believe people took it seriously.

 

[Richard]

Or, they would have been able to see him off and not lose any wickets and score off the other guys.

Seeing-off bowlers is all well and good in attitude but doesn't tend to work in practice because good bowling will get wickets whether you look to attack or defend.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

People mentioning his drinking piss me off mostly. So many people make-out he's a borderline alcoholic or something! FCOL, come down to a shop like mine and see the amount some people drink there! And those are the milder ones!

Seriously, so many people know nothing about alcohol consumption and think they know it all.

Flintoff's drinking got him into trouble when he was younger. He was supposed to have put that behind him, but now this "little matter" of Flintoff liking a drink has affected his professional career. None of us really know how much of a problem Flintoff's drinking is (including you), but I swear if he were an Australian or New Zealander he would've been made to give one of those "I have a drinking problem" press conferences. What the hell was he doing going out drinking with Plunkett who has a drink-driving charge? A small mistake, I know, drinking and driving.

 

[Burgey]

(With tongue firmly planted in cheek) To C_C:
He's no where near as good as any cricketer from anywhere in the world who played any time before the year 2000 because all the good bowlers and all the good batsman all simultaneously retired on 31.12.99....