Johnson V Flintoff

[TT Boy]

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.

I was referring to when Sreesanth faced Smith and Amla in the Republic; both players were in hideous form. Amla averaged about 20 odd in test cricket whilst Smith couldn’t buy a run. By the time they toured India in 08, both players were of course in very good touch.

Steyn may not have run through the side, he didn't but he just broke the back of an Indian side which had no Sachin thus was heavily dependent on Sehwag and Dravid.

 

[Richard]

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

He was a poor selection between 1998 and 2000 - he didn't play that much in that time but it was indeed absolutely bloody diabolical selector-ism.

BTW at people continuing to argue with Cricket_God.

 

[Furball]

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.

Flintoff's a weird one.

Even disregarding everything about his Test career before the 2003 Sri Lanka tour, his bowling average is only barely below 30.

When you watch him bowl he's capable of doing so much with the ball - I've been re-watching the Ashes 2005 series and I'd forgotten just how good some of his bowling in that series was. Even last summer, particularly his spells to Kallis in the 2nd and 3rd (?) Tests, he looked back to being the old Freddie.

And yet, even with all his skills and hostility, statistically he is an extremely average bowler. Why is that?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Combination of a couple of factors.

Outside of Hoggard, and recently Sidebottom, the other bowlers in the England side have always been very aggressive. Even in the 05 Ashes, Australia was still always scoring at a good rate. Jones was pitching up, and was prepared to be hit for the odd boundary, whilst Harmison's accuracy has never been his strong point. As a result, Flintoff ends up having to bowl back of a length more than he could - or should if attempting to be the wicket-taker, and attempt to build pressure from his end.

Plus, especially when England have been playing some ordinary bowlers, teams would be looking to weather the Flintoff storm, and look to cash in on the Mahmood's, Anderson's (till recently) who leak runs.

 

[Top_Cat]

Combination of a couple of factors.

Outside of Hoggard, and recently Sidebottom, the other bowlers in the England side have always been very aggressive. Even in the 05 Ashes, Australia was still always scoring at a good rate. Jones was pitching up, and was prepared to be hit for the odd boundary, whilst Harmison's accuracy has never been his strong point. As a result, Flintoff ends up having to bowl back of a length more than he could - or should if attempting to be the wicket-taker, and attempt to build pressure from his end.

Plus, especially when England have been playing some ordinary bowlers, teams would be looking to weather the Flintoff storm, and look to cash in on the Mahmood's, Anderson's (till recently) who leak runs.

More the former than the latter I reckon. Flintoff, when not bowling awesomely, seems to bowl a bit negatively (back-of-a-length) so he doesn't get hit around but doesn't really take bags of wickets, either. Was always a far better bowler, in my view, when he threw the ball up there and gave it a chance to swing. Case in point; Ashes '05, THAT over to Langer/Ponting (surely no need to point out which one). Rarely see a batsman worked-over like that in one over.

Dunno why he's never done it more, his economy rate won't suffer too much because he's still pretty accurate and he'll take more wickets, hence slowing the flow of runs anyway. Don't know if I buy he was just playing the team game, reckon he's just a bit too comfortable bowling back of a length and not giving much away. Flintoff's problem has never been ability but one of application and I did notice his length got shorter as the series wore on when last in Australia as the team fell to bits and he started to go for runs.

 

[GIMH]

Combination of a couple of factors.

Outside of Hoggard, and recently Sidebottom, the other bowlers in the England side have always been very aggressive. Even in the 05 Ashes, Australia was still always scoring at a good rate. Jones was pitching up, and was prepared to be hit for the odd boundary, whilst Harmison's accuracy has never been his strong point. As a result, Flintoff ends up having to bowl back of a length more than he could - or should if attempting to be the wicket-taker, and attempt to build pressure from his end.

Plus, especially when England have been playing some ordinary bowlers, teams would be looking to weather the Flintoff storm, and look to cash in on the Mahmood's, Anderson's (till recently) who leak runs.

That's a very nice way of putting it

 

[Cricket_God]

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.

he said flintoff fastest is 90 mph which is what i replied to,Speed guns readings may show
more for johnson but slingers generally clock more from speedguns but they also have more retardation and what the bull**** about johnson pitching it up,he is alos a backoff
length bowler just because he has pitched it up in southafrica doed not mean he will
pitch it up everywhere.Flintoff is surely more talented than steyn in all formats of the game
flintoff is ahead in terms of control,bounce and ability to beat the best batsman,steyn has taken a good % of tailenders.

 

[Cricket_God]

I was referring to when Sreesanth faced Smith and Amla in the Republic; both players were in hideous form. Amla averaged about 20 odd in test cricket whilst Smith couldn’t buy a run. By the time they toured India in 08, both players were of course in very good touch.

Steyn may not have run through the side, he didn't but he just broke the back of an Indian side which had no Sachin thus was heavily dependent on Sehwag and Dravid.

again you are trying to move things away from topic,what i was saying is steyn did not runthrough the indian side.In that series out of 15 scalps he got 9 were of lowerorder.

 

[andruid]

he said flintoff fastest is 90 mph which is what i replied to,Speed guns readings may show
more for johnson but slingers generally clock more from speedguns but they also have more retardation and what the bull**** about johnson pitching it up,he is alos a backoff
length bowler just because he has pitched it up in southafrica doed not mean he will
pitch it up everywhere.Flintoff is surely more talented than steyn in all formats of the game
flintoff is ahead in terms of control,bounce and ability to beat the best batsman,steyn has taken a good % of tailenders.

again you are trying to move things away from topic,what i was saying is steyn did not runthrough the indian side.In that series out of 15 scalps he got 9 were of lowerorder.

Tony Suji is so much more talented than Flintoff or Steyn or (insert any bowler witha <30 bowling average and <55SR) on that basis being as he continued to get selected for 10 years without ever produving anything with bat or ball for the entirety of that period. Even though in 60 ODIs he never managed more than two wickets an innings the sheer effrt and seat he put must sure mean he was better than the like of Flintoff and Midge with their bags of Tail ender wickets. Did I mention that he even got Sanath Jayasuriya (at the prime of his form in 2003 out on a flat deck in Sharjah) once.

Even though the speedguns indicate he hardly hit 80mph even with his effort ball and was lucky to get any wickets at all bowling such gentle medium pace he must have surely been better than bothe Flintoof and Steyn and no amount of dodgy numbers and statistics will sway me to beieve otherwise!

NB:This post is to illustrate the futility of arguing with cricket-god, and is not at all serious

 

[oitoitoi]

NB:This post is to illustrate the futility of arguing with cricket-god, and is not at all serious

I know I gave up too, he's just an idiot, he's like the one loud drunk guy talking **** when you're watching the football at a bar, in that situation a large bloke would come round and put him to sleep, unfortunately on the internet we don't have that option.

 

[aussie]

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.

Myth haa. Nah B, as you said yourself. The change of attitude in him getting his first 5-wicket haul took his bowling to the next level.

In SRI 03, Giles was the main wicket-taker. Freddie was the best quick yea, but he was still seen by Vaughan as the man he could go to dry up the runs.

 

[Richard]

As I say though - there's many times since the West Indies tour of 2004 when he's been the same thing. It's just that, in addition to that, he's been a wicket-taker as well. His wicket-taking started at Galle in 2003/04.

 

[Richard]

More the former than the latter I reckon. Flintoff, when not bowling awesomely, seems to bowl a bit negatively (back-of-a-length) so he doesn't get hit around but doesn't really take bags of wickets, either. Was always a far better bowler, in my view, when he threw the ball up there and gave it a chance to swing. Case in point; Ashes '05, THAT over to Langer/Ponting (surely no need to point out which one). Rarely see a batsman worked-over like that in one over.

Funny thing was that even there most deliveries that over weren't full at all. Fuller than Flintoff normally bowls, sure, but plenty of them were short enough to go over the stumps.

Flintoff, like Caddick, has that great tall bowler's ability to swing the ball even from slightly back of a length. Unfortunately, he doesn't do it as well as Caddick did.

If you could combine Flintoff's relentlessness and fearlessness with Caddick's ability (as well as Caddick's conventional swing with Flintoff's reverse) you'd have an incredible bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

Funny thing was that even there most deliveries that over weren't full at all. Fuller than Flintoff normally bowls, sure, but plenty of them were short enough to go over the stumps.

That's more my point, they were closer to a full length than Flintoff usually bowls, hence the big swing + seam movment. The over in question;

YouTube - Freddie Flintoff's Greatest Over

(just posted it because I love watching it)

You're right in that this over he wasn't as full as some bowlers bowl. But, as you said, they were definitely fuller than his usual length and part of a summer where he generally bowled a fuller length.

 

[stephen]

I'm looking forward to this coming ashes series, it's gonna be great to flog you guys again :P.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's more my point, they were closer to a full length than Flintoff usually bowls, hence the big swing + seam movment. The over in question;

YouTube - Freddie Flintoff's Greatest Over

(just posted it because I love watching it)

You're right in that this over he wasn't as full as some bowlers bowl. But, as you said, they were definitely fuller than his usual length and part of a summer where he generally bowled a fuller length.

That over was pretty awesome (as was his over to Kallis). When he's fit and in-form he's pretty awesome. Especially when he gets his back up. Unfortunately he hasn't been fit nearly enough the last few years.

 

[JBH001]

Damn, that was magic. Especially that over to Kallis. Phenomenal!

 

[Burgey]

That over was pretty awesome (as was his over to Kallis). When he's fit and in-form he's pretty awesome. Especially when he gets his back up. Unfortunately he hasn't been fit nearly enough the last few years.

Damn, that was magic. Especially that over to Kallis. Phenomenal!

Yeah, 'cept you could see the ****ing mints jiggling around in the ****'s pockets as he ran in to bowl.

Never forget. Never.

 

[Cricket_God]

I know I gave up too, he's just an idiot, he's like the one loud drunk guy talking **** when you're watching the football at a bar, in that situation a large bloke would come round and put him to sleep, unfortunately on the internet we don't have that option.

You cannnot put me to sleep as i am the large bloke ,You are simply stat minded
fan so you will never get the point,But you will get it in recent future when flintoff,johnson,steyn will compete with each other and we will see who is the better bowler.

 

[Cricket_God]

Tony Suji is so much more talented than Flintoff or Steyn or (insert any bowler witha <30 bowling average and <55SR) on that basis being as he continued to get selected for 10 years without ever produving anything with bat or ball for the entirety of that period. Even though in 60 ODIs he never managed more than two wickets an innings the sheer effrt and seat he put must sure mean he was better than the like of Flintoff and Midge with their bags of Tail ender wickets. Did I mention that he even got Sanath Jayasuriya (at the prime of his form in 2003 out on a flat deck in Sharjah) once.

Even though the speedguns indicate he hardly hit 80mph even with his effort ball and was lucky to get any wickets at all bowling such gentle medium pace he must have surely been better than bothe Flintoof and Steyn and no amount of dodgy numbers and statistics will sway me to beieve otherwise!

NB:This post is to illustrate the futility of arguing with cricket-god, and is not at all serious

Problem is he does not have flintoff like stats