Johnson V Flintoff

[Matt79]

Fieldsman is just as valid as fielder in my view. Batter is a bit crap - they're batsmen.

Re: the irrelevant third option, I mainly use it for polls where I don't feel the question deserves my response. Using it here was maybe a tad harsh, but **** it. I was probably influenced by the proliferation of threads/poll on Midge at the time.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Fielders.

Batsman or batter???

 

[Richard]

You've a convoluted way of discussing things...

The 'Muller' comment wasn't a comparison - just using the sledge against him and directing it to the larger part of Flintoff's career. If you think 27 with the bat and 49 with the ball makes someone worthy of test selection then that's your opinion. But I'd hate to support the team that you were selector of

Flintoff since 2006/07 has averaged 26 with the ball and 36 with the bat. Between 2001/02 and 2003 he averaged 31 with the bat (went up significantly in that last series) and 49 with the ball.

To suggest these two periods were the same is plain brainless. Flintoff was poor but promising in the first one (2001/02-2003) and has been a little disappointing and often unfit - but no more than that - in the second one (2006/07-2009).

If you don't think Flintoff was worthy of Test selection from 2006/07 to 2009 then frankly you don't have a clue what you're on about.

CWers don't make up the world of cricket - my comment is that Flintoff is one of the most overrated cricketers - you're saying nobody is overrating him. I'm saying 'oh yes they are'.
But let's leave that aside for now - neither of us is getting anywhere on it...

Whether CWers make-up the world of cricket is irrelevant - this is CW, not anywhere else. Thus, it's generally a good idea to discuss things relevant to where you are, not anywhere else. I'm not saying nobody is overrating him, but frankly I couldn't give a flying **** who overrates him away from here, because there's plenty of know-nothings out there. CW enjoys a higher calibre of cricket discussion than just about anywhere, so there's not a lot of point in bringing in what people from elsewhere say.

Suffice to say, when people lob in here and try and pretend (for whatever obscure reason) that Flintoff is currently a better bowler than Mitchell Johnson at this point in their careers then my case is won. Flintoff is clearly overrated.

Not really. Even though Flintoff isn't that good a batsman, he's clearly better than Johnson. And although Johnson now appears very, very much on the road to being possibly the best on the planet, this has only been scaled very, very recently. It'll take a little longer before we can say that Johnson is obviously the better bowler of the two.

 

[PY]

Troy Cooley being a common denominator it has to be said.

 

[NUFAN]

Can I change my vote to Andrew McDonald?

 

[Richard]

Troy Cooley being a common denominator it has to be said.

Cooley was coach before Johnson became good TBH.

What's more, the likes of Marc Robbins were claiming Flintoff was bowling well before Cooley joined England, then went out of his way to claim that some chat with Cooley changed everything figure-wise, when in reality the figures change had already started to happen before then...

Anyway, trying to keep the downtalking of those who've withdrawn from posting to a minimum... the point is that I don't think you can neccessarily credit Cooley with anything as he has not made any obvious changes to either bowler.

 

[PY]

Ahem. I quote Cricinfo:-

"Johnson worked tirelessly with his bowling coach, Troy Cooley, during the Australian summer to restore arm height and rediscover the bounce and conventional swing he lacked for the majority of 2008."

I'm not talking good, I'm talking world-class wicket-taker. He gives the extra 5% you need to jump into a different category. I don't think you're giving Mr Cooley enough credit. Not just for keeping our bowling attack fit prior to his departure, but also helped each of the prongs of the 2005 attack develop further. Especially Flintoff.

Anyway, quite excited there's a decent left armer to be honest. Best one since Alan Mullally.

 

[Richard]

Ahem. I quote Cricinfo:-

"Johnson worked tirelessly with his bowling coach, Troy Cooley, during the Australian summer to restore arm height and rediscover the bounce and conventional swing he lacked for the majority of 2008."

I'm not talking good, I'm talking world-class wicket-taker. He gives the extra 5% you need to jump into a different category. I don't think you're giving Mr Cooley enough credit. Not just for keeping our bowling attack fit prior to his departure, but also helped each of the prongs of the 2005 attack develop further. Especially Flintoff.

I've always said that, while Cooley is unquestionably an excellent bowling coach, his impact on the England attack of 2004 and 2005 is horribly overrated. He might indeed have some impact on Flintoff (exactly how much is questionable), but he clearly made none whatsoever on Hoggard, none whatsoever on Harmison and obviously nothing on Giles.

Simon Jones was the one who he made a big difference to.

And I can't say I've spotted Johnson's arm being higher of late TBH, but if it is, it'd explain how he's suddenly discovered how to bowl the inswinger. Well done ol' Troy-ey in that case.

 

[PY]

I think he did make a difference with Harmison, it just didn't last longer than his tenure. Fair enough with Giles and Hoggy in terms of their bowling skills but I think the way that the attack evaporated afterwards said that he was doing something with them that was in the mind or in their training etc.

Anyway, thread detour over. Will see about Johnson tbh, the summer & swallows etc but he seems to be a bit of a beast at the moment.

I'd take Flintoff currently if he was fully fit comfortably due to consistency, but influence over next 3 years has to be looking rosy for the convict as Flintoff probably won't feature consistently.

 

[Richard]

I think he did make a difference with Harmison, it just didn't last longer than his tenure. Fair enough with Giles and Hoggy in terms of their bowling skills but I think the way that the attack evaporated afterwards said that he was doing something with them that was in the mind or in their training etc.

Harmison('s good figures) evaporated long before Cooley departed. They only lasted 3 months anyway. I think Flintoff's good figure-taking outlasted Cooley as well, and the reason for Flintoff's more recent less outstanding figures have been nothing to do with a change in the way he bowls but just the way the cookie crumbles. Hoggard too has simply been pensioned-off - I don't think his bowling has actually really declined at all. And much as it might be nice if Cooley could be thought to have been keeping Simon Jones fit, I don't think he really was TBH. Apart from anything, he got injured for the first time when Cooley was still here too.

Donald and Gibson have done a pretty decent job with Sidebottom and Anderson to my mind as well.

 

[ozone]

Donald and Gibson have done a pretty decent job with Sidebottom and Anderson to my mind as well.

Particularly the latter IMO. Sidebottom is someone who has benefitted from playing in county cricket for so long and therefore he knows his own game. Anderson never experienced a prolonged spell bowling in county cricket, and thus has had to learn his own game along the way. Donald and Gibson have, undoubtedly (sp?) helped him with this.

The influence of Cooley was, IMO, overstated. He was a good coach, certainly, but I think he was given far too much credit for the success of our bowlers. The fact is, we had four world class seamers, all of whom were pretty much at the peaks of their careers when he was coaching them.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Not really. Even though Flintoff isn't that good a batsman, he's clearly better than Johnson. And although Johnson now appears very, very much on the road to being possibly the best on the planet, this has only been scaled very, very recently. It'll take a little longer before we can say that Johnson is obviously the better bowler of the two.

I'm not debating the batting at all - Flintoff (even in his current mediocre state) is a better bat than Johnson.

But I think you'd be in the extreme minority if you opted to pick Flintoff ahead of Johnson as a bowler right now....

You're welcome to your preference though!

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not debating the batting at all - Flintoff (even in his current mediocre state) is a better bat than Johnson.

But I think you'd be in the extreme minority if you opted to pick Flintoff ahead of Johnson as a bowler right now....

You're welcome to your preference though!

Haha, it's hard to argue with you now. His bowling between lunch and tea today was probably the greatest spell of bowling by a fast bowler I've ever seen. Truly incredible.

 

[Richard]

But I think you'd be in the extreme minority if you opted to pick Flintoff ahead of Johnson as a bowler right now....

Depends. If it was tomorrow, clearly I'd pick Johnson. But we still have no way of knowing if Johnson is going to continue the sort of sensational bowling he's sent down the last week-and-a-bit for much longer, so Flintoff could quite possibly still be the better bet for the next year.

Johnson only needs a bit more of this before we can be fairly confident about his direction though.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not debating the batting at all - Flintoff (even in his current mediocre state) is a better bat than Johnson.

But I think you'd be in the extreme minority if you opted to pick Flintoff ahead of Johnson as a bowler right now....

You're welcome to your preference though!

I'd definitely take Flintoff (if you ignored the fact that he's currently crocked and not fit to bowl, obv). Johnson's obviously improving out of sight and looks like he's going on to big things but the success has been very much short-term so far. He'd need to do it for a longer period before I'd rate him better than Flintoff.

 

[GIMH]

Was thinking about this thread yesterday as I watched Johnson rip apart the south African top order, wow. I'm the biggest Freddie fanboy going but I haven't been that impressed by a spell of fast bowling since - I dunno....

 

[ozone]

When this thread started, I would have taken Flintoff's bowling ahead of Johnsons every day of the week, based purely on the fact Flintoff has maintained a high standard for longer. However, Johnson's spell was so good, it has made me think harder about it. All told, if both of them were fully fit for a test tommorrow, I would probably pick Flintoff, based purely on the fact that I can be very confident he will deliver (whilst only semi-confident about Johnson). However, if Johnson continues to dominate the current SA series, and goes on to bowl well in the Ashes, it will be a much easier decision, whatever Flintoff does, as Johnson will be without doubt, the best bowler in the world.

 

[Burgey]

Was thinking about this thread yesterday as I watched Johnson rip apart the south African top order, wow. I'm the biggest Freddie fanboy going but I haven't been that impressed by a spell of fast bowling since - I dunno....

Funny thing, after Perth I said if Johnson does nothing else, at least he's bowled one of the great flat-deck fast bowling spells to a decent batting line up.

But his spell the other night was scary, despite the figures being 3-for. And as good as he was first up with the new ball, that over he bowled to Boucher before tea was just excellent fast bowling exemplified. Very, very fast; accurate; hostile and a searing yorker last ball. You wouldn't think he was the same bloke who kicked off here last summer.

 

[oldmancraigy]

if both of them were fully fit for a test tommorrow, I would probably pick Flintoff, based purely on the fact that I can be very confident he will deliver (whilst only semi-confident about Johnson).

Yeah - you can be confident that Flintoff will waddle in and bowl a few good deliveries, not get too many wickets, offer up some 'hitting material' every now and then, and then after 6 overs hobble off with a sprained ankle of something...

Johnson would only bowl all-day if required - oh, AND maintain 145kph pace.

I think the fact that you're effectively saying that Johnson would have to be the best bowler in the world before you'd prefer him to Freddie proves the point I've been trying to make in this thread? Namely that Flintoff is waaaay overrated!!

In the last 4 years, Flintoff has only taken 55 wickets at a strike rate of 70. That's in 19 tests.
Johnson has played 19 tests in his 1.5 year career, and he already has 89 wickets (with an innings to bowl) at a strike rate of 56.

You're massively overrating Flintoff if you would pick him for a test tomorrow ahead of Johnson - there is nothing in the last 4 years of cricket to give you ANY logical reason to think that way...

 

[The Sean]

Batsman or batter???

Batsman. Always.

I hate how even some cricketers and commentators these days use the word "batter" - can't stand it.