Is Flintoff Overrated?

[sideshowtim]

I think the alcohol allegations are a tad ridiculous. They don't have to affect you negatively on the field if you don't let them. I remember Ponting had a big problem with alcohol in the late 90's. Look at him now. Good players learn from incidents such as the one Flintoff has just had and come back stronger. I have no doubt a brilliant all-rounder like Flintoff can do the same.

 

[Gloucefan]

M Runs HS Bat Ave 100 50's W BB Ave 5w Ct

Flintoff 20 1142 102 32.62 1 10 78 5/78 30.02 1 13

Oram 20 1192 133 41.10 3 4 31 3/36 42.61 0 11

Last 20 matches.

Not a huge difference in runs scored between them Freddie has way more 50's, Oram converting two more 100's though. Stats tell little of the story though, just thought it was interesting. Flintoff has much batting ability in my mind, 10 50's and 1 100 in his last 20 tests shows this. His tendency to brainlessly hole out early on is what lets him down.

 

[Richard]

Link

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=compare;playerid=4271;class=testplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1998-07-23;start=1998-07-23;enddefault=2007-01-05;end=2007-01-05;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=20;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;viewtype=com_compare;csearch=Jacob%20Oram;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype]

WTF is wrong with the insert-link tool...????

 

[Richard]

Batting hasn't been up to much at all since the 2005 Ashes, though - even if up to and including that series, he'd been pretty consistently averaging around 40 since SA 2003, with the odd blip.

Conclusion - overrated batsman these days, not an overrated bowler at all.

Not so simple as that IMO.

Flintoff the Test batsman is no different now to 2003 IMO.

He's had good times and bad ever since that SA series of 2003. His last good series with the bat was in India in 2005\06.

I've never thought a hell of a lot of his batting, really - to date he's had just 3 good series against good bowling in his career - that 2003 one (which I've now mentioned 3 times in 1 post), Australia 2005 and said India one. Against good bowling he's also had 6 bad ones in that time (SL 2003\04, WI 2004 away - don't be fooled by that Lara premature celebration, SA 2004\05, Pakistan 2005\06, SL 2006 and Aus 2006\07).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not so simple as that IMO.

Flintoff the Test batsman is no different now to 2003 IMO.

He's had good times and bad ever since that SA series of 2003. His last good series with the bat was in India in 2005\06.

I've never thought a hell of a lot of his batting, really - to date he's had just 3 good series against good bowling in his career - that 2003 one (which I've now mentioned 3 times in 1 post), Australia 2005 and said India one. Against good bowling he's also had 6 bad ones in that time (SL 2003\04, WI 2004 away - don't be fooled by that Lara premature celebration, SA 2004\05, Pakistan 2005\06, SL 2006 and Aus 2006\07).

Fair enough. Why, though, do you rate the WI 2004 away series as against good bowling but do not mention the home series as against good bowling? Also seem to remember his series against NZ in 2004 being a good one with the bat but IIRC they were injury-ravaged tbf.

 

[Richard]

The NZ attack of 2004 was no way anything remotely resembling good.

The reason I rate the WI away series as a good attack and not the home one is because anyone watching the series could tell (as I'm sure you could and did) that while the personnel did not change dramatically, the bowling in WI (due in no small part to the relatively lively surfaces in the first 3 Tests) was far, far more dangerous than it was in England. Edwards bowled well in the First and Third Tests (missing the Second due to injury) in WI but bowled the biggest heap of crap in history in England, Collins was in pretty decent touch in the Second and Third in West Indies but was injured in England in the 1st over, Collymore bowled well enough in the Third Test in WI but by and large poorly in England, and even Best bowled OK of times in WI but bowled crap in his 1 Test in England then got injured. Lawson and Banks played in England but not in WI and bowled rubbish as per usual; about the only thing better about WI in England was Bravo.

 

[wpdavid]

FWIW his batting in the WI didn't impress me much. I felt the hard work had generally been done by Butcher/Hussain/Thorpe & Fred spent the first 3 tests giving his wicket away to Sarwan or some other part-timer. When he did make that 100 in Antigua, he had goodness knows how many let-offs, so his overall healthy aveage was pretty misleading imo.

 

[Richard]

Beat ya to it.

Anyone seriously contending Flintoff had a good series in WI in 2004 is expediting extreme cheek IMO.

 

[wpdavid]

Beat ya to it.

Anyone seriously contending Flintoff had a good series in WI in 2004 is expediting extreme cheek IMO.

So you did - sorry, I didn't read the previous posts properly.

Oh well, it's way past my bedtime so I'll leave it there. Caio for now.

 

[Tom Halsey]

The reason I rate the WI away series as a good attack and not the home one is because anyone watching the series could tell (as I'm sure you could and did) that while the personnel did not change dramatically, the bowling in WI (due in no small part to the relatively lively surfaces in the first 3 Tests) was far, far more dangerous than it was in England. Edwards bowled well in the First and Third Tests (missing the Second due to injury) in WI but bowled the biggest heap of crap in history in England, Collins was in pretty decent touch in the Second and Third in West Indies but was injured in England in the 1st over, Collymore bowled well enough in the Third Test in WI but by and large poorly in England, and even Best bowled OK of times in WI but bowled crap in his 1 Test in England then got injured. Lawson and Banks played in England but not in WI and bowled rubbish as per usual; about the only thing better about WI in England was Bravo.

Hmmm. In terms of quality of the bowling, I reckon they were pretty similar, although you make a fair point about the pitches. Don't really recall Edwards ever bowling with the consistency required at Test level (against England at least), IMO he was poor every time he played. Fair enough WRT Collins (even if as I said IMO the pitches created the illusion of him bowling well), Collymore and Best, though I think you're being a bit harsh on Banks. I distinctly remember him being unlucky and forcing many plays-and-misses and so on, particularly off the left-handers (though actually Flintoff isn't a left-hader).

Right, in the course of writing that paragraph, I've realised I've defeated all my own points and that you're probably right.

 

[Richard]

Re-watch the First and Third Tests of that series. Edwards certainly bowled distinctly tenaciously in both.

Banks has probably never, ever bowled well in his Test career. On 2 extremly spin-friendly pitches, he got clouted all over everywhere by Andrew Strauss and Robert Key, hardly two of the most masterful players of spin you could wish for. One of the worst Test bowlers I've seen in the last few years.

 

[Gloucefan]

WTF is wrong with the insert-link tool...????

I did click the insert-link tool and copy the url in but it just did that.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, exactly. I tried doing it the way I normally do it, and it weren't working.

Let's try again...

EDIT: yeah, fine now. Mysterious ways, this forum works in...

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, Banks is one of my favourite players, but I must admit that he's been pretty awful with the ball for basically his whole test career. He looked a lot better in his debut series against Australia, but he was still pretty poor then. I hope he gets another chance but I can't say he deserves one.

 

[Richard]

Haha, why's that?

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, why's that?

I just like watching him bowl, basically. Off spin from such a great height, with good flight and good revolutions on the ball is very pleasing to watch IMO. He also has an attacking mindset which I like in a test bowler.

Unfortunately, he has the accuracy of a dizzy Ray Charles and considers himself more of a batsman than a bowler so is unlikely to put the required work in to go anywhere near fixing that up properly.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Banks has probably never, ever bowled well in his Test career. On 2 extremly spin-friendly pitches, he got clouted all over everywhere by Andrew Strauss and Robert Key, hardly two of the most masterful players of spin you could wish for. One of the worst Test bowlers I've seen in the last few years.

Key yes, Strauss got through more by luck than judgement, played and missed numerous times, as did Thorpe and Trescothick, when they faced him. Admittedly he was on turning pitches, but he was extremely unlucky.

 

[Richard]

Unlucky to bowl all the bad balls he bowled?

 

[Prince EWS]

Unlucky to bowl all the bad balls he bowled?

Unlucky to beat the outside edge so often and not get any reward, I imagine.

That is precisely Banks's problem though, really. He bowls as many good balls as any other test-standard bowler, but he bowls far too many completely horrible balls which just let the pressure off - and this problem is exaggerated tenfold by the bowling roles the coach and selectors have asked him to play.

 

[Richard]

I saw Curtley Ambrose beat the outside-edge repeatedly and get no real reward on any number of occasions.

And TBF, that's just about precisely the point you made in your 2nd paragraph. Even if Ambrose did such a thing, he usually bowled so few bad deliveries that even if he got just 2 wickets in 25 overs he still often got semi-decent figures.