Andrew Flintoff: Underrated

[sledger]

Terribly overrated, as a batsman.

Tbh I really dont think thats the case, the general consensus is that his batting is pretty average at best, certainly at the moment anyway.

 

[Richard]

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.

The point is less about how poor the poor is but the percentage of overall that poor makes-up. Against good bowling-attacks, the poor far outnumbers the good in Flintoff's batting.

 

[Athlai]

I rate Flintoff as bowling better spells than anyone else in the world TBH. I think he could potentially look far more threatening than Brett Lee, and when I watched him play I always felt a striking resemblance in his ability to Shane Bonds. The great problem being how injury prone he is and how little he can actually bowl in a day.

Fantastic bowler though.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I don't think he is overated as a batsman, as nobody really rates him that highly anymore.

 

[Richard]

Have now completed my edit of this post turning it into an article, expect to see it on the front page tomorrow evening.

 

[GIMH]

The Article Version

Big thanks to Richard for this

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think he is overated as a batsman, as nobody really rates him that highly anymore.

Nah, DWTA. CricketWeb doesn't really rate him as a batsman anymore, but if you read the English press or even listen to Michael Vaughan talk about him, he's still rated as a batsman of some note - he's just been "out of nick" for two and a half years now apparently.

 

[Goughy]

Nah, DWTA. CricketWeb doesn't really rate him as a batsman anymore, but if you read the English press or even listen to Michael Vaughan talk about him, he's still rated as a batsman of some note - he's just been "out of nick" for two and a half years now apparently.

And Flintoff himself is still of the mindset that he is a batsman first and a bowler 2nd.

 

[Richard]

The Article Version

Big thanks to Richard for this

Hope a few forummers might read this BTW, though obviously having read something fairly similar in the opening post I'd understand if not.

 

[GIMH]

And Flintoff himself is still of the mindset that he is a batsman first and a bowler 2nd.

Yeah, always found that odd

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Flintoff suffers from Tim Henman syndrome. Henman is the greatest and most successful British tennis player of the modern age. But because people thought when he first came along that he was going to be a genuine contender to be a multiple Grand Slam Winner he's seen as a loser because he didn't live up to it. Similarly a lot of people saw Flintoff as the next Ian Botham - something which none of us will live long enough to see - . He has the ability to bat at Number 7 and open the bowling which makes him as gifted as most so-called allrounders will ever be. Like Henman, he'll never rank along side the "greatest" exponents of his chosen sport but that shouldn't make him the butt of so much criticism.

 

[Richard]

Basically, the criticisms aimed at him are the fault of those who made the errors in overestimating his capabilities and thus criticise him for failing to live-up to their expectations rather than themselves admit they were mistaken to hold those expectations.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nah, DWTA. CricketWeb doesn't really rate him as a batsman anymore, but if you read the English press or even listen to Michael Vaughan talk about him, he's still rated as a batsman of some note - he's just been "out of nick" for two and a half years now apparently.

Yeah that's true, but I was more referring to how he is rated on CricketWeb.

 

[Goughy]

Flintoff suffers from Tim Henman syndrome. Henman is the greatest and most successful British tennis player of the modern age. But because people thought when he first came along that he was going to be a genuine contender to be a multiple Grand Slam Winner he's seen as a loser because he didn't live up to it. Similarly a lot of people saw Flintoff as the next Ian Botham - something which none of us will live long enough to see - . He has the ability to bat at Number 7 and open the bowling which makes him as gifted as most so-called allrounders will ever be. Like Henman, he'll never rank along side the "greatest" exponents of his chosen sport but that shouldn't make him the butt of so much criticism.

Fair points. Interesting post and perspective, though Id prefer him to be compared to someone a little more manly