C Cairns Vs A Flintoff - Test cricket only

[Scaly piscine]

Probably the thing that makes the stats a bit different is Flintoff's batting is horrible when he's just come back from a break or injury.

Nobody seems to have mentioned the fielding yet, Flintoff's bucket hands in the slips is a huge plus.

 

[Bahnz]

Difficult question. At their respective peaks (Cairns 1998-2000, Flintoff 2003-2005) they were both amongst the greatest allrounders to ever play. Quite similar batsmen, but very different bowlers, with Flintoff generally throwing it in back of a good length and looking to pressure out a wicket with pace and consistency, while Cairns preferred to pitch it up and swing it and also make use of his marvellous slower ball (arguably the best of any test bowler) at every opportunity.

I'm biased and have fond memories of Cairns from my childhood (his matchwinning 80 in the last test during the '99 series against England is undoubtedly my proudest moment as a New Zealand cricket follower) so I'll go for him, but it really is very difficult to choose. It's a pity they weren't quite playing at the same time, there could've been some great battles between the two.

 

[tooextracool]

Was a bit surprised to see that Cairns has 13 5fers tbh. Nonetheless, its fairly obvious that Cairns was the better batsman, if you ask me Cairns could have played purely as a batter if he wanted to and he played many match winning knocks with the bat. I would have said Flintoff might have been the better bowler but Cairns was more versatile and consistent than Flintoff IMO. So yeah Cairns overall.

 

[weldone]

Cairns the better batsman...Not much to choose between the two in terms of bowling...

I still don't think anyone of them did 100% justice to one's potential...But my experiece of watching them play throughout their careers says Cairns was better even potential-wise...And he was 'less inconsistent' among the two...

I'm not suggesting in any way that it's not a close call, though...

 

[Bort]

In the end Cairns underperformed with the ball, his injuries certainly didn't help. Could have been a dangerous mid 20s opening bowler.

Meanwhile Flintoff never really lost anything in his bowling, he was always going to be a 1st or 2nd change back of the length bowler who could pick up a couple of wickets an innings at around 30.

Of actual results Cairns I'd say outbowled Flintoff. See NZ in Australia 97/98 (13 wickets at 25 from 4 innings) for a bowling effort just as good as Flintoff's 05 Ashes, it just didn't have the support from the rest of team to turn it into wins. Or NZ in England 99, 19 wickets at 21.26 from 8 innings. Strike rates really show the difference, Cairns at 53.6 vs Flintoff at 66.1


Batting wise both were similar.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah Cairns was probably the better bowler, but unfortunately for him, the fact that he didn't bowl 90mph or win a series against the best team in the world would mean that history will always look back upon him less favorably. If Cairns had Simon Jones instead of Simon Doull to support him perhaps things might have been different.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah Cairns was probably the better bowler, but unfortunately for him, the fact that he didn't bowl 90mph or win a series against the best team in the world would mean that history will always look back upon him less favorably. If Cairns had Simon Jones instead of Simon Doull to support him perhaps things might have been different.

Fair enough that you make the point that Cairns didn't have much support from other more mediocre NZ bowlers, but your choice of Simon Doull is a dubious one IMO as he was a much better Test bowler than many give him credit for. A genuine swing bowler who could be close to unplayable on his day e.g his 7 for 60-odd against India in 98.

That said, based on what I was of the '05 Ashes, I'd say Jones was the more dangerous bowler, but not by the country mile you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Flem274*]

Simon Doull wasnt a weak link, that award falls to the likes of Justin Vaughan and Murphy Sua'a

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Cairns>>Flintoff.

 

[Albion]

Andrew Flintoff has had 2 careers really.

Let's not forget that after 23 tests Freddies batting average was 18 and his bowling average was a shocking 50

Since about 2003, Fred was a world class allrounder. Batting mid 30's and bowling 90mph taking nearly 200 wickets @ 28

Not bad for a fat lad

 

[shivfan]

In the end, Cairns' batting average was higher than his bowling average....

With Flintoff, it was the other way around.

 

[tooextracool]

Fair enough that you make the point that Cairns didn't have much support from other more mediocre NZ bowlers, but your choice of Simon Doull is a dubious one IMO as he was a much better Test bowler than many give him credit for. A genuine swing bowler who could be close to unplayable on his day e.g his 7 for 60-odd against India in 98.

That said, based on what I was of the '05 Ashes, I'd say Jones was the more dangerous bowler, but not by the country mile you seem to be suggesting.

You are right, I guess the biggest problem for NZ during the 90s and early 2000's was that their bowlers were constantly injured that there was rarely an occasion when the likes of Cairns, Doull, Nash, O'Connor etc were in the same side and bowling at their best. Quite possibly, the only time this happened was when Nash, Cairns and Vettori were fit and at their best against England in 1999 but thats pretty much it.

 

[Zinzan]

If one goes by stats alone it is too close to call but my impression has always been Cairns was better and thats my choice. I think my overall feeling is that Flintoff let down England more often.

Surely if you went on stats alone it would be easier to call wouldn't it ?

 

[Zinzan]

Certainly quite a land-slide on the poll itself, especially considering Manee conceded he changed his vote, effectively making it 30-7 in Cairn's favor at this point.

 

[aussie]

You are right, I guess the biggest problem for NZ during the 90s and early 2000's was that their bowlers were constantly injured that there was rarely an occasion when the likes of Cairns, Doull, Nash, O'Connor etc were in the same side and bowling at their best. Quite possibly, the only time this happened was when Nash, Cairns and Vettori were fit and at their best against England in 1999 but thats pretty much it.

Dont forget Allot..

 

[Zinzan]

Dont forget Allot..

Not sure Geoff Allott ever did anything decent at Test Level, just had that one amazing WC in '99

 

[R_D]

Cairns... one of my favourite cricketers.
Loved watching him bat

 

[aussie]

Not sure Geoff Allott ever did anything decent at Test Level, just had that one amazing WC in '99

True. But i dont know if you would agree, but he seemed to have peaked in the 99 WC. During the 99 series vs ENG i definately remember him swinging the red-ball, so in a way we could say thanks to injuries, he never got a chance to show his worth in tests.

 

[Blakey]

I think it depends on whoever is playing better on the day. If Flintoff is playing better than Cairns he is better on the day and if cairns is playing better than Flintoff then he is better on the day.

The fact is that both tried their best out there.

Game of two halves?

If it's black then it's not white, but in saying that, if it's white, I'd venture to say it's not black.

You really are a moron.

Cairns but a country mile. Fact he had no one really to back him up, but ended with superior figures over a long period in the game proves he was the better cricketer.

He returned from injuries better than Flintoff managed.

Also could grow a beard. Also, didn't nearly drown falling out of a pedalo. Also, mean as side burns. And finally wasn't a ginger nut.

 

[MC_Balaji]

Pretty hard to separate the two, they are both great all-rounders. But my vote would have to go Chris Cairns for his consistency with both the bat and ball.