Johnson V Flintoff

[Uppercut]

As a bowler who relies mostly on pace you'd expect him to tail off at some point and be injury prone, so right now he's probably bowling at his best. I think if he can keep this up for another 3 years he'll be a very good allrounder, but not a great one.

Basically I think the odds are stacked against him, especially with his action. Also to be quite frank I just don't think he's that good.

Also I don't think Kapil Dev's record is really comparable as he bowled mostly in India.

Batted mostly in India too though. The good thing about comparing all-rounders is that you can't use conditions to credit/criticise them.

 

[Cricket_God]

Mate I'm sorry but if you really think Flintoff is a better bowler than Dale Steyn then I just can't take your opinions seriously.

Flintoff may well test batsmen but Batsmen consistently pass. Much of the aura around Flintoff's bowling is to do with his action and physical presence, his back of a length stuff looks fantastic, but in reality is only really good for choking runs. Flintoff's batting is a joke, he was worked out 3 years ago (at least) and hasn't changed his game at all (because he's not the brightest), that's why he can't buy a run in international cricket and hasn't for a long long time. Whatever you think about Johnson's lack of technique the fact is he's producing results. I'm not saying Johnson's a great bowler by any means, but he's producing results and taking wickets in a way that Flintoff has never matched during his career. I agree that he probably won't swing it everywhere but he's got other weapons and his legcutter is seriously underrated, his stamina is also exceptional, almost like Ntini in his prime. He's also quicker than Flintoff ever was and while not amazing on flat surfaces he isn't bad as he's testing the batsmen out with pace. Looking at his physique I can't see his pace dropping too much any time soon. Your argument is in principle the same as saying Mark Ramprakash is a better batsmen than Shivnarine Chanderpaul because he looks better.

Also why can't Flintoff take tailender wickets, it's not like the other bowlers are ripping through them! He can look as nasty and aggressive as he wants, but until he produces the goods it's basically all bluster and the best batsmen will know it.

You will not understand mate,you seem like a stats man,Just ask any Batsman who faced both of them you will know the answer.
Mitch quicker than flintoff?no i think flintoff fastest is around 155km/h,where as johnson fastest is 152 km/h.
Flintoff if fit is relentless is the last few years most batsman look to play him safely and if englanbd had other good seamers who could compliment him
he could have really prospered.He is more talented than johnson,steyn and will always be

Johnson as a batsman?Have you seen him in india ,he was struggling reverse swing,spin just because he scored a few runs does not make him an allrounder.Let him bat in the top 7 then we can judge

 

[Top_Cat]

Mitch quicker than flintoff?no i think flintoff fastest is around 155km/h,where as johnson fastest is 152 km/h.

For one, I've never heard of Flintoff being clocked that quick. For two, Johnson has been clocked quicker than 152km/h. But, most importantly, Johnson's average speed is faster than Flintoff.

Flintoff if fit is relentless is the last few years most batsman look to play him safely and if englanbd had other good seamers who could compliment him
he could have really prospered.He is more talented than johnson,steyn and will always be

Then why hasn't he ever ripped through a side in Tests? His length. He's generally short of a length so, whilst tough to get away, batsmen don't get out to him either. When he throw the ball up there, I've always thought he was a far better bowler. But generally, whilst economical, he's not been much of a wicket-taker for England in Tests.

 

[oitoitoi]

You will not understand mate,you seem like a stats man,Just ask any Batsman who faced both of them you will know the answer.
Mitch quicker than flintoff?no i think flintoff fastest is around 155km/h,where as johnson fastest is 152 km/h.
Flintoff if fit is relentless is the last few years most batsman look to play him safely and if englanbd had other good seamers who could compliment him
he could have really prospered.He is more talented than johnson,steyn and will always be

Johnson as a batsman?Have you seen him in india ,he was struggling reverse swing,spin just because he scored a few runs does not make him an allrounder.Let him bat in the top 7 then we can judge

I'm sorry but you're talking ****, Flintoff has never and will never be clocked at 155, he bowls 90mph at best, usually he's coming back from injury so he doesn't hit that very often in a spell. Johnson is consistently in the early 90's. Johnson's batting has improved a lot since the India tour. Why don't you understand that short of a length bowling does not take wickets in test matches? Do you play cricket? The only way you're going to get out to that kind of bowling is if you try to force it away, otherwise you can pretty much defend and leave all day. That's why he's so much more effective in one day cricket. Reverse swing, spin, yeah Flintoff's put in some great performances against those in conditions that suit them......Johnson's never going to bat in the top 6 and he probably couldn't, Flintoff never should've either, it's just that the selectors seriously overrate his ability.

As a bowler please justify this belief that Flintoff is more 'talented' than Steyn. Does Flintoff have the best away swinger in the game? No. Can he hit 95mph? No. Has Flintoff decimated the best batting line ups in the world in their own backyards well before his 26th birthday (or after)? No. Is his stubborness to change his action going to keep getting him injured despite Allan Donald telling him how to correct it? Yes.

Of course batsmen have just looked to play him safely, when the rest of the England attack is that **** you'd be stupid not to. However they've succeeded in playing him safely, don't you think South Africa have tried to just play Johnson safely? Or Australia (and many others) to just play Steyn safely? Top quality bowlers force you to defend them and then get you out anyway, Flintoff does not.

Seriously where are you getting all this, 'if you ask batsmen' rubbish, have you asked any batsmen? A couple of good short pitched spells doesn't make you the best bowler in the world. If that was true Fidel Edwards would be in the top 5.

Like I said your argument is based on bull**** data, a chronic lack of understanding of the mechanics of the game and the belief that if a player's style is more attractive that makes him better. Let me reiterate that it's like saying Mark Ramprakash is a better batsmen than Shiv Chanderpaul because he looks better.

 

[Cricket_God]

I'm sorry but you're talking ****, Flintoff has never and will never be clocked at 155, he bowls 90mph at best, usually he's coming back from injury so he doesn't hit that very often in a spell. Johnson is consistently in the early 90's. Johnson's batting has improved a lot since the India tour. Why don't you understand that short of a length bowling does not take wickets in test matches? Do you play cricket? The only way you're going to get out to that kind of bowling is if you try to force it away, otherwise you can pretty much defend and leave all day. That's why he's so much more effective in one day cricket. Reverse swing, spin, yeah Flintoff's put in some great performances against those in conditions that suit them......Johnson's never going to bat in the top 6 and he probably couldn't, Flintoff never should've either, it's just that the selectors seriously overrate his ability.

As a bowler please justify this belief that Flintoff is more 'talented' than Steyn. Does Flintoff have the best away swinger in the game? No. Can he hit 95mph? No. Has Flintoff decimated the best batting line ups in the world in their own backyards well before his 26th birthday (or after)? No. Is his stubborness to change his action going to keep getting him injured despite Allan Donald telling him how to correct it? Yes.

Of course batsmen have just looked to play him safely, when the rest of the England attack is that **** you'd be stupid not to. However they've succeeded in playing him safely, don't you think South Africa have tried to just play Johnson safely? Or Australia (and many others) to just play Steyn safely? Top quality bowlers force you to defend them and then get you out anyway, Flintoff does not.

Seriously where are you getting all this, 'if you ask batsmen' rubbish, have you asked any batsmen? A couple of good short pitched spells doesn't make you the best bowler in the world. If that was true Fidel Edwards would be in the top 5.

Like I said your argument is based on bull**** data, a chronic lack of understanding of the mechanics of the game and the belief that if a player's style is more attractive that makes him better. Let me reiterate that it's like saying Mark Ramprakash is a better batsmen than Shiv Chanderpaul because he looks better.

Flintoff at best bowls at 90mph-,Flintoff regularly bowled over 145-151 km/hin the ind versus england test series in india.By talent i did not only mean pace flintoff has movement,control with pace.Flintoff always takes the oppositions best batsman and that what makes him special,his ability to beat the best and i had a oppurtunity to speak to
some indian players in a function when india and england played a odi match here in cuttack and most batsman{tendulkar included} said flintoff is the most dangerous bowler.You are talking about running thorugh a side for that picthes have to be helpful you do not run through sides on flat decks,
i remember sreesanth running through south africa,that was the only instant
a bowler ran through a top side in world cricket taking top-order wickets when batsman were genuinely beaten.

 

[oitoitoi]

Flintoff at best bowls at 90mph-,Flintoff regularly bowled over 145-151 km/hin the ind versus england test series in india.By talent i did not only mean pace flintoff has movement,control with pace.Flintoff always takes the oppositions best batsman and that what makes him special,his ability to beat the best and i had a oppurtunity to speak to
some indian players in a function when india and england played a odi match here in cuttack and most batsman{tendulkar included} said flintoff is the most dangerous bowler.You are talking about running thorugh a side for that picthes have to be helpful you do not run through sides on flat decks,
i remember sreesanth running through south africa,that was the only instant
a bowler ran through a top side in world cricket taking top-order wickets when batsman were genuinely beaten.

My god you've just displayed your ignorance more than ever. Sreesanth the only person to run through a top side???? Didn't Johnson just take an 8fer against South Africa, or are they not a top side? Didn't Steyn bowl India out in less than 2 sessions last year, on a flat surface in India too? I'm guessing they're not a top side either. Stuart Clark taking apart South Africa in his debut series, wickets including Gibbs, Kallis and Smith, they're pretty ordinary players too right? Even Jerome bloody Taylor just took apart England in a session on a good surface. Flintoff hasn't even run through sides on helpful surfaces in England never mind flat pitches in Asia. He does have control and enough pace, however he does not get much movement because like people keep telling you he doesn't pitch the ball up. He does get good players out, but usually after they've scored more than a few runs. The whole point of having a top class quick is so that you can bowl out sides on flat surfaces, bowlers are expected to take wickets in helpful conditions, only the best can take wickets on flatties.

You have zero evidence to back up your claims and that story about a function in Cuttack reeks of bull****. With every post you're making it more and more clear that you're just another ignorant Indian fanboy who makes the rest of us look bad. The concept of actually getting results over just looking good seems beyond your cerebral capacity, probably best if you just stop talking.

 

[andruid]

My god you've just displayed your ignorance more than ever. Sreesanth the only person to run through a top side???? Didn't Johnson just take an 8fer against South Africa, or are they not a top side? Didn't Steyn bowl India out in less than 2 sessions last year, on a flat surface in India too? I'm guessing they're not a top side either. Stuart Clark taking apart South Africa in his debut series, wickets including Gibbs, Kallis and Smith, they're pretty ordinary players too right? Even Jerome bloody Taylor just took apart England in a session on a good surface. Flintoff hasn't even run through sides on helpful surfaces in England never mind flat pitches in Asia. He does have control and enough pace, however he does not get much movement because like people keep telling you he doesn't pitch the ball up. He does get good players out, but usually after they've scored more than a few runs. The whole point of having a top class quick is so that you can bowl out sides on flat surfaces, bowlers are expected to take wickets in helpful conditions, only the best can take wickets on flatties.

You have zero evidence to back up your claims and that story about a function in Cuttack reeks of bull****. With every post you're making it more and more clear that you're just another ignorant Indian fanboy who makes the rest of us look bad. The concept of actually getting results over just looking good seems beyond your cerebral capacity, probably best if you just stop talking.

He 's not that bad

BTW I awlasy say judge them by their fruits, talk is cheap

 

[Richard]

Seriously, there's not a lot of point anyone continuing this argument with Cricket_God. Some won't budge.

 

[oitoitoi]

Seriously, there's not a lot of point anyone continuing this argument with Cricket_God. Some won't budge.

I wish I could hit him for being stupid, wouldn't change anything but would certainly make me feel better.

 

[Cricket_God]

My god you've just displayed your ignorance more than ever. Sreesanth the only person to run through a top side???? Didn't Johnson just take an 8fer against South Africa, or are they not a top side? Didn't Steyn bowl India out in less than 2 sessions last year, on a flat surface in India too? I'm guessing they're not a top side either. Stuart Clark taking apart South Africa in his debut series, wickets including Gibbs, Kallis and Smith, they're pretty ordinary players too right? Even Jerome bloody Taylor just took apart England in a session on a good surface. Flintoff hasn't even run through sides on helpful surfaces in England never mind flat pitches in Asia. He does have control and enough pace, however he does not get much movement because like people keep telling you he doesn't pitch the ball up. He does get good players out, but usually after they've scored more than a few runs. The whole point of having a top class quick is so that you can bowl out sides on flat surfaces, bowlers are expected to take wickets in helpful conditions, only the best can take wickets on flatties.

You have zero evidence to back up your claims and that story about a function in Cuttack reeks of bull****. With every post you're making it more and more clear that you're just another ignorant Indian fanboy who makes the rest of us look bad. The concept of actually getting results over just looking good seems beyond your cerebral capacity, probably best if you just stop talking.

Fool,I said run through the toporder,not middle and lower order,johnson took kallis and
a.b devilliers and blowed the tail when they were 200+,steyn did not run through the indian batting order it was ntini who took the top wickets steyn came back and took the tail,
as i said in my post you can only run through sides in bowling friendly conditions and if
you wathced cricket you should have known nowadays most pitches are batting friendly,
I pity you choose to reply in the manner you did as it shows your lack of knowledge and your childish behaviour .I support india why should i support freddy,because inspite of my national biaseness,i know how good he is,just do some
research or if you get an opportunity ask some real cricketers you will get it?
and If you again say flintoff bowls at 90mph max,watch out as your right hand may smack you

 

[TT Boy]

Steyn got Sehwag and Dravid, no? Pretty important wickets I would say, especially as there there was no Sachin…

 

[Cricket_God]

Steyn got Sehwag and Dravid, no? Pretty important wickets I would say, especially as there there was no Sachin…

my point is He did not run through the indian top order and dravid was in horrible form.

 

[TT Boy]

my point is He did not run through the indian top order and dravid was in horrible form.

So he merely got the two best batsman out who were playing?

You refer to Sreesanth running through the top order but in Jo’Burg he only got 3 out of the top 6 out and in Durban he got 4 but Bouch was batting 6. An achievement which is fairly unremarkable.

 

[Cricket_God]

So he merely got the two best batsman out who were playing?

You refer to Sreesanth running through the top order but in Jo’Burg he only got 3 out of the top 6 out and in Durban he got 4 but Bouch was batting 6. An achievement which is fairly unremarkable.

He got smith,amla,kallis,boucher,pollock where as steyn got shewag,dravid,harbhajan singh,
r.p singh,sreesanth.

 

[TT Boy]

He got smith,amla,kallis,boucher,pollock where as steyn got shewag,dravid,harbhajan singh,
r.p singh,sreesanth.

Amla, Smith were walking wickets during that period, so it was only Kallis and Prince who were any semblance of decent form. Steyn got Sehwag off the back of triple and Dravid of course, made hay in the previous test as well. So Dravid wasn't in such bad form when Steyn got him, considering his last test innings before Ahmedabad he scored 111.

 

[Cricket_God]

Amla, Smith were walking wickets during that period, so it was only Kallis and Prince who were any semblance of decent form. Steyn got Sehwag off the back of triple and Dravid of course, made hay in the previous test as well. So Dravid wasn't in such bad form when Steyn got him, considering his last test innings before Ahmedabad he scored 111.

Smith did come back in the series so did amla to make runs,dravid allthough he got a century was struggling,fact is he took 3 tailenders with 2 toporder wickets hardly running
through a side.To that fool who said flintoff was not quick -http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/394608.html ,gambhir has faced lee,shoaib,
flintoff is as quick as anybody due to his action and high point of delivery.

 

[Top_Cat]

Smith did come back in the series so did amla to make runs,dravid allthough he got a century was struggling,fact is he took 3 tailenders with 2 toporder wickets hardly running
through a side.To that fool who said flintoff was not quick -http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/394608.html ,gambhir has faced lee,shoaib,
flintoff is as quick as anybody due to his action and high point of delivery.

Who said Flintoff isn't quick? You over-rate Flintoff's raw pace whilst under-rating Johnson's when the objective measures (i.e. speedgun readings) say different, that's the point. They're both really fast and if the ball is landing in their half more than the batsmen's, of course they're going to be tough to face. Batsmen say that sort of thing about bowlers all the time, it really proves little other than Flintoff is really fast. Which we knew already.

The other bone of contention is how good he is and, again, despite being economical and tough to get away, 2 5-fers, a best of 5/58 and an average in the low 30's in 75 Tests would suggest a fairly average Test bowler. Dale Steyn alone has 11 5fers in less than half the number of Tests with an average almost 10 runs lower and almost half the strike-rate and you claim Flintoff is more talented? You're kidding yourself. Johnson's record is already headed in a better direction than Flintoff's too with 2 5-fers and a better average/strike-rate. Sure the second half of Flintoff's career has gone better than the first but he's still in and around averaging 30 - not exactly world-class bowling.

 

[aussie]

Who said Flintoff isn't quick? You over-rate Flintoff's raw pace whilst under-rating Johnson's when the objective measures (i.e. speedgun readings) say different, that's the point. They're both really fast and if the ball is landing in their half more than the batsmen's, of course they're going to be tough to face. Batsmen say that sort of thing about bowlers all the time, it really proves little other than Flintoff is really fast. Which we knew already.

The other bone of contention is how good he is and, again, despite being economical and tough to get away, 2 5-fers, a best of 5/58 and an average in the low 30's in 75 Tests would suggest a fairly average Test bowler. Dale Steyn alone has 11 5fers in less than half the number of Tests with an average almost 10 runs lower and almost half the strike-rate and you claim Flintoff is more talented? You're kidding yourself. Johnson's record is already headed in a better direction than Flintoff's too with 2 5-fers and a better average/strike-rate. Sure the second half of Flintoff's career has gone better than the first but he's still in and around averaging 30 - not exactly world-class bowling.

The thing is with Flintoff bowling. You just have to judge him from i'd say Bridgetown 2004 to his latest test.

Because before that he was either was nonsense (SA 98 to WI 2000) or a workhorse (IND 01 - Port-of-Spain 04).

 

[Richard]

He was often a workhorse in the period in question as well. In fact Flintoff's greatest strength, which has been apparent since the India tour in 2001/02, has been his ability to be a workhorse.

It's just that, starting at Galle in 2003/04 (not Kensington in 2004, that's a myth propagated by the fact that his attitude changed at that time - his bowling did not), he picked-up the figures as well. Sadly these figures have never been quite as good as they should be.

I'm fully in favour of Flintoff's Test career 1998-2000 being ignored completely, as he was a woefully inadaquete player and should never, ever have been playing. Any player would look bad if they were forced to play long before they were ready. I'm interested in discussing the Flintoff who was what he's been for most of his career, not what he was 1998-2000.

 

[Redbacks]

The thing is with Flintoff bowling. You just have to judge him from i'd say Bridgetown 2004 to his latest test.

Because before that he was either was nonsense (SA 98 to WI 2000) or a workhorse (IND 01 - Port-of-Spain 04).

so he was a long term poor selection then? Shouldn't have played a test...