Andrew Flintoff: Underrated

[Flem274*]

Meow

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Meow

You wouldn't say that if you knew what I've just discovered while researching my Family Tree.

 

[Flem274*]

You wouldn't say that if you knew what I've just discovered while researching my Family Tree.

You're a descendant of dogs?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You're a descendant of dogs?

It's worse than that. I've just discovered that my Father's (who died many years ago when I was five) mother's parents emigrated to Australia in 1899 taking their youngest son - about 13 - with them. He married an Australian girl and produced six children. This means that I have blood relatives who are born and bred Australians.......ARRRGGGHHH. (They all live in Victoria in case anyone is worried.)
If that wasn't bad enough, just after the war one of them returned to the UK and married a Scotsman, they produced two children who emigrated to Sydney. I'm afraid to look any further in case I find relatives in Wales or Cornwall.

 

[Flem274*]

It's worse than that. I've just discovered that my Father's (who died many years ago when I was five) mother's parents emigrated to Australia in 1899 taking their youngest son - about 13 - with them. He married an Australian girl and produced six children. This means that I have blood relatives who are born and bred Australians.......ARRRGGGHHH. (They all live in Victoria in case anyone is worried.)
If that wasn't bad enough, just after the war one of them returned to the UK and married a Scotsman, they produced two children who emigrated to Sydney. I'm afraid to look any further in case I find relatives in Wales or Cornwall.

OH, so you're a convict.

I'd throw that family tree in the fire if I were you.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

OH, so you're a convict.

I'd throw that family tree in the fire if I were you.

They went about 30 years too late to have been convicts, so I like to think they were just on the run.

 

[gettingbetter]

Of course Flintoff is not even close to being of the class of Miller, Imran, Botham, Kapil, Shaun Pollock, etc. Nor to George Hirst, that early and oft-forgotten all-rounder. Monty Noble I'm sure is worth a place alongside him too - he's someone I've been getting a little more familiar with very recently.

As regards the likes of Kallis, Hadlee... well, while Flintoff is obviously an inferior cricketer, and by a fair bit, to those two... I don't really feel any comparisons are fair. Neither of the aforementioned two, nor Flintoff, are what I'd call true all-rounders. Sobers wasn't either, of course, but he was a freak of nature to whom no-one should be compared.

I'm always reluctant to start comparing all-rounders to other all-rounders when there is blatantly a notably stronger suit involved. Kallis is not an all-rounder and only ever was for the first 3 years or so of his career. Hadlee was not an all-rounder, he was a bowling-all-rounder - his bowling was notably stronger than his batting.

Flintoff is incomparable to Kallis and obviously not as good as Pollock. But he is still a very, very fine all-round cricketer. It's like the Hobbs and Sutcliffe thing - people tend to underrate Sutcliffe because there was someone who just happened to be even better at the same time as him, despite the fact Sutcliffe has a decent case for being the second-greatest opening-batsman in Test history, after his partner. Pollock was a phenomenal all-rounder. Don't let his phenomenal-ness detract from Flintoff's excellence. Just because one is not the premier all-rounder of one's time means little.

I understand where you are coming from, but I still have to put forth this point when so many are adamant to rate him alongside these players. Even with Flintoff, his bowling is margianlly better than Kallis' and his batting is inferior to nearly all of those who I've mentioned bar Pollock. The difficulty in comparing all-rounders I believe can be bypassed by just highlighting how each have gone in their individual disciplines, by doing this, Flintoff, although acknowledged by many on here as not being part of the top echelon, would be amongst the 3rd to 4th rung of all-rounders.

Your last sentence is probably the focal point. I simply see Flintoff as a good player who has had an over-hyped purple patch.

 

[Richard]

You were very quick to call the thread between Flintoff and Pollock "absurd". That comparison might also have had a deep hidden meaning behind it.

Given the poster of it, I very much doubt it. However, if it had I'd be willing to hear it. My bet is that the claim won't even be attempted though.

 

[Richard]

I understand where you are coming from, but I still have to put forth this point when so many are adamant to rate him alongside these players.

Like who? There was one absurd contention before the South Africa vs England series in 2004/05 that Flintoff > Kallis (both as bowler and batsman ) but since then I've not heard much of it.

Your last sentence is probably the focal point. I simply see Flintoff as a good player who has had an over-hyped purple patch.

His purple-patch wasn't over-hyped though. Maybe some people thought it was worth more or went on longer or whatever. But there's no disputing that during it he was superlative.

 

[gettingbetter]

I'm good at mayching names to faces but not so at usernames to avatars, so I can't really recall many names, but you even know that there are Flitnoff-fan boys on here.

I guess the thing with his purple patch is that people think that that was his career.

 

[Bahnz]

It also depends on who you say is doing the rating. If its the people on these boards, then yeah I'd have to say he's fairly underrated given what he's achieved in the past. If on the other hand, your asking whether he's overrated by the English media, then absolutely. That goes double if you class it as the media attention that he's received since the 2005 ashes, given that since then he's missed more matches than he's played, and his record has been fairly mediocre by his own standards.

 

[Laurrz]

it would be rather unfortunate if Flintoff cannot overcome these injuries and get back to his best

im sort of hoping and hoping not tbh well he is class and i think cricket needs a player like him .. but he can also single handedly win back the Ashes for England too heh

 

[Migara]

Terribly overrated, as a batsman.

 

[Richard]

I'm good at mayching names to faces but not so at usernames to avatars, so I can't really recall many names, but you even know that there are Flitnoff-fan boys on here.

I guess the thing with his purple patch is that people think that that was his career.

There's Flintoff-fanboys, yes, but I don't really think there are any (of the decent posters) who allow their love of the player to get in the way of the truth about his career. He was very poor for a fair while, much as some of that ('98-'00) shouldn't have happened. But he was also damn good for about as long as he was poor.

 

[whitedazzler]

underrated? dnt u mean overrated the guy is a joke and an embarrasement he'll be known for 05 ashes win and thats it the guys burn out wen hes not getting speeding tickets or boozed up he spends his time getting injured or ducks, move on pple

 

[gettingbetter]

There's Flintoff-fanboys, yes, but I don't really think there are any (of the decent posters) who allow their love of the player to get in the way of the truth about his career. He was very poor for a fair while, much as some of that ('98-'00) shouldn't have happened. But he was also damn good for about as long as he was poor.

I think we have seen a poor Flintoff then we have seen a good Flintoff, I personally believe that he had a good period of about 2.5-3 years. I must admit though, I do feel sorry for the bloke. Pretty much has had the weight of nation on his shoulders since Ashes 05 and has been relied upon too heavily. In saying that, I do not make an exceptions to his batting which I have never really rated.

I guess if we break it down, during the short period he was a top player was the only real part in his career where he was batting real well. Around the fringes, he wasn't as good as a bowler, but decent enough to retain his place in the team. But the same does not apply to his batting. Considering his batting form post India 05, we can make comparisons to something like Harmison's purple patch with the ball.

underrated? dnt u mean overrated the guy is a joke and an embarrasement he'll be known for 05 ashes win and thats it the guys burn out wen hes not getting speeding tickets or boozed up he spends his time getting injured or ducks, move on pple

Bit over-the-top and the latter part is rather pointless. Warne has had his problems too.

 

[Richard]

underrated? dnt u mean overrated the guy is a joke and an embarrasement he'll be known for 05 ashes win and thats it the guys burn out wen hes not getting speeding tickets or boozed up he spends his time getting injured or ducks, move on pple

 

[Richard]

I think we have seen a poor Flintoff then we have seen a good Flintoff, I personally believe that he had a good period of about 2.5-3 years. I must admit though, I do feel sorry for the bloke. Pretty much has had the weight of nation on his shoulders since Ashes 05 and has been relied upon too heavily. In saying that, I do not make an exceptions to his batting which I have never really rated.

I guess if we break it down, during the short period he was a top player was the only real part in his career where he was batting real well. Around the fringes, he wasn't as good as a bowler, but decent enough to retain his place in the team. But the same does not apply to his batting. Considering his batting form post India 05, we can make comparisons to something like Harmison's purple patch with the ball.

Indeed. Lost count of the number of times I've said it, but Flintoff has only ever on 3 occasions scored runs against what I'd call a particularly challenging bowling-attack - those being against South Africa in 2003, Australia in 2005 and India in 2005/06. On so many other occasions (India 2001/02, Sri Lanka and India 2002, Sri Lanka 2003/04, West Indies 2004 [yes, just a single prematurely-celebrated catch made a failure look a success], South Africa 2004/05, Pakistan 2005/06, Sri Lanka 2006, Australia 2006/07) he's failed to meet the challenge of good bowling. He's proven excellent at bashing the crap stuff (New Zealand 2001/02, New Zealand and West Indies 2004) but that has rather distorted his career.

As I've said - I don't really count much by his failures between 1998 and 2000, as he should not have been playing. However, his average (first-chance - those two massively fortune-filled innings' at The ARG and Wankhede make a fair impact) from 2001/02 onwards, excluding the three aforementioned series (New Zealand 2001/02 and both home series in 2004) is 29.13, and almost all of that owes to the series' against SA in 2003, Aus in 2005 and Ind in 2005/06.

In short:
Average in all (proper) Test cricket since 2001/02: 35.20 (33.40 first-chance) (94 innings)
Average in Test cricket since 2001/02 excluding woeful attacks: 29.13 (first-chance) (77 innings)
Average in Test cricket since 2001/02 excluding woeful attacks AND rare occasions he's scored against good ones: 21.76 (54 innings)

So in well over half of the meaningful part of his Test career (54 out of 94), his batting has been woeful. There's been 17 innings where he's faced woeful bowling and averaged 52.87, and another 23 where he's faced good bowling and averaged 45.17 (first-chance).

I've always believed many people think Flintoff capable of more with the bat than he is. Flintoff has never been a particularly good batsman, and it was a very impressive effort for him to manage those 3 series of high-scoring that he did. Whether he'll manage a similar effort again in his career we will find-out in due course.

 

[GIMH]

underrated? dnt u mean overrated the guy is a joke and an embarrasement he'll be known for 05 ashes win and thats it the guys burn out wen hes not getting speeding tickets or boozed up he spends his time getting injured or ducks, move on pple

 

[iamdavid]

Indeed. Lost count of the number of times I've said it, but Flintoff has only ever on 3 occasions scored runs against what I'd call a particularly challenging bowling-attack - those being against South Africa in 2003, Australia in 2005 and India in 2005/06. On so many other occasions (India 2001/02, Sri Lanka and India 2002, Sri Lanka 2003/04, West Indies 2004 [yes, just a single prematurely-celebrated catch made a failure look a success], South Africa 2004/05, Pakistan 2005/06, Sri Lanka 2006, Australia 2006/07) he's failed to meet the challenge of good bowling. He's proven excellent at bashing the crap stuff (New Zealand 2001/02, New Zealand and West Indies 2004) but that has rather distorted his career.

As I've said - I don't really count much by his failures between 1998 and 2000, as he should not have been playing. However, his average (first-chance - those two massively fortune-filled innings' at The ARG and Wankhede make a fair impact) from 2001/02 onwards, excluding the three aforementioned series (New Zealand 2001/02 and both home series in 2004) is 29.13, and almost all of that owes to the series' against SA in 2003, Aus in 2005 and Ind in 2005/06.

In short:
Average in all (proper) Test cricket since 2001/02: 35.20 (33.40 first-chance) (94 innings)
Average in Test cricket since 2001/02 excluding woeful attacks: 29.13 (first-chance) (77 innings)
Average in Test cricket since 2001/02 excluding woeful attacks AND rare occasions he's scored against good ones: 21.76 (54 innings)
So in well over half of the meaningful part of his Test career (54 out of 94), his batting has been woeful. There's been 17 innings where he's faced woeful bowling and averaged 52.87, and another 23 where he's faced good bowling and averaged 45.17 (first-chance).

I've always believed many people think Flintoff capable of more with the bat than he is. Flintoff has never been a particularly good batsman, and it was a very impressive effort for him to manage those 3 series of high-scoring that he did. Whether he'll manage a similar effort again in his career we will find-out in due course.

Fair enough including the first two figures there, however I see no point at all in putting forward that third average (21.76 in 54 innings) .

If you take out both a) matches against substandard attacks and b) good performances, then any player is going to look poor, thats manipulating the stats a little too far lol.
And I think considering how much you try to strangle his stats of credibility, 21 is a reasonable enough figure for a guy who isnt top 6 material imo.

Overall I agree though, Flintoff really dosent have the technique to consistently put together good numbers against good bowling sides. Extremely powerful and at times he's been able to apply himself superbly to the task at hand, but glaring weaknesses in his defensive technique (so often I can recall him bowled, caught on the crease) and he's a poor player of spin (although this is sometimes masked by his power, as in 2005 when very often Warne seemed to have beaten him in the flight or drawn a false shot only for it to fall safe simply coz Flintoff hits the thing so bloody hard).