Johnson V Flintoff

[Richard]

JUST more threatening

Johnson walks all over Flintoff as a bowler.

And this is also completely and totally wrong. Johnson has been a good Test bowler for the last 6 matches. Before then, plenty of people were questioning whether he had it in him to be such a thing. He appears to have now answered in the affermative, but it was only in late November 2008 that he did such a thing.

If the two's careers ended tomorrow, Flintoff would go down as infinitely the more accomplished bowler. No questions asked.

 

[Burgey]

And this is also completely and totally wrong. Johnson has been a good Test bowler for the last 6 matches. Before then, plenty of people were questioning whether he had it in him to be such a thing. He appears to have now answered in the affermative, but it was only in late November 2008 that he did such a thing.

If the two's careers ended tomorrow, Flintoff would go down as infinitely the more accomplished bowler. No questions asked.

This.

Now go to bed FFS.

 

[Furball]

Andy Flintoff might be the most overhyped cricketer of all time. He has one good series, and suddenly people are saying he's the greatest player on the planet.

2,437 runs @ 41.30 and 141 wickets @ 27.78 between April 2003 and April 2006 is an indicator of more than one great series.

 

[Flem274*]

Andy Mac to be better than both.

 

[Debris]

No question that Flintoff is better bowler right now and batting is a wash in my opinion. Johnston might have a slight edge as a fieldsman (fantatstic outfielder with possibly best arm in game).

I suspect Flintoff will start to break down more and more with injuries, though, and performances will fade.

 

[oldmancraigy]

No question that Flintoff is better bowler right now and batting is a wash in my opinion. Johnston might have a slight edge as a fieldsman (fantatstic outfielder with possibly best arm in game).

I suspect Flintoff will start to break down more and more with injuries, though, and performances will fade.

The performances have already faded.

Johnson is a better bowler right now and that's not even in question.

The question over Johnson finishing his career as a better bowler is whether or not Mitchell Johnson gets hampered by injury. It's irrelevant of Flintoff. Andy has had his serve, so to speak, and (in a comparison) it's up to Mitchell to return. Thus far the return game looks a whole lot shinier than that which went before it.

Johnson would have to do a lot to show he's a better batsman - and I'd be surprised if he did.

Completely different fielders - one a close in catcher, the other a powerful and athletic outfielder - a bit unfair to compare really.

 

[oldmancraigy]

2,437 runs @ 41.30 and 141 wickets @ 27.78 between April 2003 and April 2006 is an indicator of more than one great series.

It is - but let's not pretend the whole period was 'awesome' for him

'03 he scored a century and was 40 with the bat but only 42 with the ball.
'06 he was back to his normal 31 with the bat and 33 with the ball.

But if you look at just 2004 and 2005 he averages 40 with the bat including 3 centuries, and 25 with the ball - 102 wickets.

2 of those centuries he "plundered" against the fearsome West Indies attack - averaging 58 in 8 test matches against them over those 2 years - he backed this with a quarter of his wickets for that period at 23.

So - ok, I'm wrong, it wasn't just one good series (the 2005 Ashes) - he roughed up the WIndies pretty good too in 2004.
He went OK against NZ too I guess in 2004.

(we won't mention the Pakistan or South Africa tests though).

But, you can only play who you're given to play, and for those 2 years he looked like a pretty good cricket player.

However, IF you want to single out those 2 strong years from his 12 year career, then you get left with 10 other years - the best part of his career - where he has averaged 27 with the bat and 39 with the ball.

You can't have it both ways.
The mans overall career numbers highlight that his good form was a nice light - but the rest of it has been a pretty mediocre career...

I mean it's great that we call the guy an "All-Rounder" - but if for 10 of his 12 years he couldn't really bat or bowl at test standard, is it worth hyping him up?

I don't think I'm far off the mark in suggesting that he's one of the more overhyped cricketers.

 

[oldmancraigy]

And this is also completely and totally wrong. Johnson has been a good Test bowler for the last 6 matches. Before then, plenty of people were questioning whether he had it in him to be such a thing. He appears to have now answered in the affermative, but it was only in late November 2008 that he did such a thing.

If the two's careers ended tomorrow, Flintoff would go down as infinitely the more accomplished bowler. No questions asked.

Who was questioning whether he had it in him to be "such a thing"?

Not the Australian selectors - nor the opponents whom he was regularly removing.

He did finish 2008 as the second leading wicket taker behind a certain Dale Steyn. And he beat out Dale Steyn to be leading wicket taker in the Aus v SAf series that finished up the year.
People only noticed him in that final series of the year since (a) he kept up his wicket taking performances (b) Brett Lee didn't play (c) the world looked on as Australia fell off their throne.

Johnson has had 1 full year thus far. Of course Flintoff would go down as the 'more accomplished' bowler because he's taken 200+ test wickets.
But Mitchell Johnson is 5 years younger - are you telling me that in 5 years time Mitchell Johnson won't have picked up another 116 wickets... At the rate he's going, he'll be past Flintoff in 2 years time.

But that Flintoff is more "accomplished" (ie taken more wickets) doesn't make him currently a BETTER bowler. He's on the decline and not anywhere near as good a wicket taker as Johnson is. It's no contest as of right now - Johnson far superior with the ball.

 

[oldmancraigy]

This.

Now go to bed FFS.

Uh - what I just said.

Now go find someone else to swear at? I don't really think it's required....

 

[oldmancraigy]

Andrew Flintoff had several good years. No, several excellent years. And pretty much no-one who knows that much about cricket has ever said he's been the best cricketer on the planet for more than about a couple of years, between mid-2004 and mid-2006.

Best cricketer on the planet during that period?

There was some Ricky Ponting kid who scored 5077 runs - including 19 centuries - at 72.53 from January 2003 through to December 2006.

There was this Shane Warne fellow - who average 17 with the bat and picked up 215 wickets (that's 3 shy of Flintoffs career) at 23 between 2003 and 2006.

I mean - Flintoff was pretty good for those 2 years I've highlighted (2004, 2005) - but to suggest he was the best in the world during that period is a bit rich! He would've certainly gained selection in the 'all-world' squads during those times - mainly because Jacques Kallis' bowling was poor during the required time period - but for Ponting to average 72.5 across 4 years puts him a full step ahead I would think.

And those were just the first 2 players I thought to check - I'm sure there are other magnificent feats out there too...

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Warne and Ponting were pretty good in that time, but just keeping up Australian standards.

Flintoff on the other hand was way way above the curve on English standards.

 

[Ikki]

So, as it stands: Johnson >>>> McDonald > Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

The performances have already faded.

They haven't really, though. Flintoff is batting no differently now to how he always has; he's usually been found-out by the better bowlers (with three glorious exceptions). And anyone who has watched England's recent Tests will realise he's absolutely bowling no differently now to ever. The rewards have faded, but the performances certainly haven't.

 

[Richard]

Who was questioning whether he had it in him to be "such a thing"?

Not the Australian selectors - nor the opponents whom he was regularly removing.

He did finish 2008 as the second leading wicket taker behind a certain Dale Steyn. And he beat out Dale Steyn to be leading wicket taker in the Aus v SAf series that finished up the year.
People only noticed him in that final series of the year since (a) he kept up his wicket taking performances (b) Brett Lee didn't play (c) the world looked on as Australia fell off their throne.

Johnson was pretty poor in his opening home summer, pretty poor in West Indies, and poor in India. I couldn't care less whether the Australian selectors kept picking him, that had nothing to do with performances and everything to do with perceived potential. He was not regularly removing anyone, nor bowling tightly. His strike-rate and economy-rate were both up.

Johnson only became a good Test bowler with the First Test against New Zealand. If you hadn't seen people questioning his potential as a Test bowler you just need to look back through the "do you rate Mitchell Johnson?" thread and others.

Johnson has had 1 full year thus far. Of course Flintoff would go down as the 'more accomplished' bowler because he's taken 200+ test wickets.

But Mitchell Johnson is 5 years younger - are you telling me that in 5 years time Mitchell Johnson won't have picked up another 116 wickets... At the rate he's going, he'll be past Flintoff in 2 years time.

But that Flintoff is more "accomplished" (ie taken more wickets) doesn't make him currently a BETTER bowler. He's on the decline and not anywhere near as good a wicket taker as Johnson is. It's no contest as of right now - Johnson far superior with the ball.

Not important. I've already mentioned that; my previous post related to other matters.

 

[Richard]

However, IF you want to single out those 2 strong years from his 12 year career, then you get left with 10 other years - the best part of his career - where he has averaged 27 with the bat and 39 with the ball.

You can't have it both ways.
The mans overall career numbers highlight that his good form was a nice light - but the rest of it has been a pretty mediocre career...

I mean it's great that we call the guy an "All-Rounder" - but if for 10 of his 12 years he couldn't really bat or bowl at test standard, is it worth hyping him up?

I don't think I'm far off the mark in suggesting that he's one of the more overhyped cricketers.

You are. You seem to be responding to what you want people to think rather than what they actually do. Not very many people have ever claimed Flintoff to be anything more than he is, which is an outstanding player for a short time, a promising one for a while before that and a slightly disappointing, as well as hugely injury-prone one, for a little while now.

Flintoff has not had a 12-year career. The part of Flintoff's career of the remotest importance starts in 2001/02 and he's missed long periods with injury on several occasions. This means that his career basically comprises 6 years (2001/02-2008/09 minus approximately 2 lost to injury). To have been outstanding for the time he was (which was actually December 2003 to June 2006) is a pretty good effort.

 

[Richard]

Uh - what I just said.

Now go find someone else to swear at? I don't really think it's required....

Get the feeling the go to bed ffs was aimed at me, given I'm in the UK and he's in Australia and those previous posts of mine were made in the middle of the night.

 

[Richard]

Best cricketer on the planet during that period?

There was some Ricky Ponting kid who scored 5077 runs - including 19 centuries - at 72.53 from January 2003 through to December 2006.

There was this Shane Warne fellow - who average 17 with the bat and picked up 215 wickets (that's 3 shy of Flintoffs career) at 23 between 2003 and 2006.

I mean - Flintoff was pretty good for those 2 years I've highlighted (2004, 2005) - but to suggest he was the best in the world during that period is a bit rich! He would've certainly gained selection in the 'all-world' squads during those times - mainly because Jacques Kallis' bowling was poor during the required time period - but for Ponting to average 72.5 across 4 years puts him a full step ahead I would think.

And those were just the first 2 players I thought to check - I'm sure there are other magnificent feats out there too...

To my mind, Flintoff's performances were superior. All-rounders' all-round performances are always better than batting or bowling ones.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

To my mind, Flintoff's performances were superior. All-rounders' all-round performances are always better than batting or bowling ones.

not sure about always, although I am a big fan of the impact that a guy who's "always in the game" can have.

Without checking, I think Warne's batting output was also above his usuall in that period.

 

[Redbacks]

Always a difference between opinions and facts

 

[Uppercut]

No question that Flintoff is better bowler right now and batting is a wash in my opinion. Johnston might have a slight edge as a fieldsman (fantatstic outfielder with possibly best arm in game).

I suspect Flintoff will start to break down more and more with injuries, though, and performances will fade.

Johnson doesn't have the edge as a fieldsman. No outfielder can ever come anywhere near the value of Flintoff's world-class slip-catching ability.

Slips are the most important fielders in any side, by a considerable distance. Catches win matches, not strong throws from the outfield.