C Cairns Vs A Flintoff - Test cricket only

[tooextracool]

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.

Allott was by and large a failure in ODI cricket, a failure in test cricket and his record in FC cricket wasn't flash either. If you want someone who had far more potential, it was Chris Drum.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Yeah, surprised me too. I think it's one of those cases where even though it's extremely close, Cairns shades it fairly clearly.

 

[Flem274*]

Think we had one of these a couple of years ago and Flintoff won.

 

[Bahnz]

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

The same could be said for Cairns. For the first 6 or 7 years of his career, up until his spectacular blow-out with Glenn Turner, Cairns averaged 26 as a batsman and 35 as a bowler. From 1996 onwards, those figures are almost exactly reversed, averaging 37 with the bat and 27 with the ball.

 

[SJS]

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

Not for batting but for bowling, you are right. The five wicket hauls are a significant difference in Cairns' favour.

Of course, Flintoff was the better fielder by quite a distance.

 

[aussie]

Allott was by and large a failure in ODI cricket, a failure in test cricket and his record in FC cricket wasn't flash either. If you want someone who had far more potential, it was Chris Drum.

I have to disgree. Allot clearly was peaking in 99 WC, but injuries prevented him from building on that in ODIs in test. I dont think Drum was on his level, he would be behind Doull, O'Connor, Nash & even younger Ian Butler based on what i saw of them.

 

[tooextracool]

I have to disgree. Allot clearly was peaking in 99 WC, but injuries prevented him from building on that in ODIs in test. I dont think Drum was on his level, he would be behind Doull, O'Connor, Nash & even younger Ian Butler based on what i saw of them.

Clearly, which is why he had 3 poor FC seasons from 97-99 averaging in the 40s. Allott was an ordinary test match bowler and there is no evidence that he could have been good at the test match level because he simply wasn't.

Drum averaged 18 in FC cricket, some 12 runs below Allott and when he did play for NZ, he actually had some success.

 

[Zinzan]

Not for batting but for bowling, you are right. The five wicket hauls are a significant difference in Cairns' favour.

Of course, Flintoff was the better fielder by quite a distance.

Just because he was a specialist slipper that made him a better fielder by quite a distance?

I assume you never saw Cairns field then, because whilst Flintoff had those safe bucket hands at slip, Cairns probably had the most powerful arm in the world when he played and was a superb out-fielder.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just because he was a specialist slipper that made him a better fielder by quite a distance?

I assume you never saw Cairns field then, because whilst Flintoff had those safe bucket hands at slip, Cairns probably had the most powerful arm in the world when he played and was a superb out-fielder.

If we are talking about Test cricket, then although Cairns was a great mover for a man of his size and could throw like anything, slippers are far more valuable.

 

[Zinzan]

If we are talking about Test cricket, then although Cairns was a great mover for a man of his size and could throw like anything, slippers are far more valuable.

Agreed more valuable, but not "far more"

 

[cric_manic]

vettori>>>>Flintoff

 

[SJS]

Just because he was a specialist slipper that made him a better fielder by quite a distance?

I assume you never saw Cairns field then, because whilst Flintoff had those safe bucket hands at slip, Cairns probably had the most powerful arm in the world when he played and was a superb out-fielder.

You are right I do not watch much cricket

 

[Zinzan]

You are right I do not watch much cricket

I think you know what I meant

 

[SJS]

I think you know what I meant

Okay. Then I meant what Jack just confirmed. Yes Cairns was a very good outfield but Flintoff, also with a terrific arm, was a specialist Test slip fielder. If you object to the word "distance" I will modify to Flintoff was the better fielder by a bit of a distance

 

[PhoenixFire]

:

You are right I do not watch much cricket

 

[Zinzan]

Okay. Then I meant what Jack just confirmed. Yes Cairns was a very good outfield but Flintoff, also with a terrific arm, was a specialist Test slip fielder. If you object to the word "distance" I will modify to Flintoff was the better fielder by a bit of a distance

Good work SJS, the ultimate in diplomacy

 

[Zinzan]

I'd say on the batting there that's very debateable - especially over the 2003-05 period when he was at his best with the bat.

Excuse the late reply...

You're right, Flintoff was consistent in that period, but still don't think he ever had as consistently good a series with the bat (against quality opposition) as Cairns did in the low scoring but competitive 3 test series against Aust in 1999-2000 Results | Global | Cricinfo.com Flintoff went close in the 05' Ashes with 401 in 10 innings (ave 40), but just to provide context on Cairns' effort, his 341 runs in 6 innings was the most runs of batsmen in either side.





New Zealand batting averages Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
CL Cairns 3 6 0 341 109 56.83 534 63.85 1 2 0 39 13
CD McMillan 3 6 0 194 79 32.33 419 46.30 0 2 1 30 2
AC Parore 3 6 1 144 46 28.80 374 38.50 0 0 0 14 4
NJ Astle 3 6 0 167 61 27.83 275 60.72 0 1 1 24 0
SB Doull 2 4 1 69 40 23.00 67 102.98 0 0 0 7 2
SP Fleming 3 6 0 137 60 22.83 374 36.63 0 1 0 16 0
CM Spearman 3 6 0 105 38 17.50 303 34.65 0 0 0 14 0
DL Vettori 2 4 1 50 27 16.66 92 54.34 0 0 1 9 0
MS Sinclair 3 6 0 61 24 10.16 157 38.85 0 0 1 7 0
MJ Horne 3 6 0 44 14 7.33 174 25.28 0 0 1 4 0
PJ Wiseman 2 4 0 27 16 6.75 93 29.03 0 0 0 5 0
DR Tuffey 1 2 1 4 3 4.00 24 16.66 0 0 0 0 0
SB O'Connor 2 4 2 6 4* 3.00 35 17.14 0 0 2 1 0



Australia batting averages Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
DR Martyn 3 6 2 241 89* 60.25 409 58.92 0 2 0 41 1
JL Langer 3 6 1 288 122* 57.60 330 87.27 1 1 0 37 4
SR Waugh 3 6 2 214 151* 53.50 421 50.83 1 0 0 32 1
ME Waugh 3 6 2 190 72* 47.50 360 52.77 0 1 0 24 1
AC Gilchrist 3 5 1 144 75 36.00 227 63.43 0 2 0 24 1
MJ Slater 3 6 0 177 143 29.50 311 56.91 1 0 0 28 1
ML Hayden 1 2 0 39 37 19.50 67 58.20 0 0 0 6 0
GS Blewett 2 4 0 50 25 12.50 246 20.32 0 0 1 5 0
SK Warne 3 4 0 36 12 9.00 48 75.00 0 0 0 7 0
GD McGrath 3 4 0 30 14 7.50 86 34.88 0 0 0 1 0
B Lee 3 4 1 20 8 6.66 49 40.81 0 0 1 2 0
CR Miller 3 4 0 14 8 3.50 27 51.85 0 0

 

[Prince EWS]

Agreed more valuable, but not "far more"

Nah don't agree. Slips are extremely important in Tests; a good arm's just a bonus really. I actually factor in slips fielding when selecting teams.

 

[thierry henry]

Funny how there's this perception that Cairns was "more consistent", and that Flintoff was clearly the better bowler.

There are plenty of words you could use to describe Chris Cairns, but I don't think consistent would be one of them. He suffered the exact same problems as Flintoff in that regard.

Also, of course Flintoff's record was poor for the first part of his career, but so was Cairns'. Honestly, their career trajectories were almost identical- started off regarded as boy wonders but actually performed pretty awfully, suffered a tonne of injuries, emerged for a few years as total guns, then the injuries came back again.

Flintoff's bowling in particular seems to be viewed with amazingly rose tinted glasses. Even at his peak he was the sort of bowler who averaged high 20s and hardly ever took big hauls of wickets.

Cairns, on the other hand, averaged high 20s over his entire career, even though for a lot of that time he was bowling at below 100% capacity due to injury. He was far more likely than Flintoff to run through a team or take a bag of wickets. Also, Cairns WAS a 90mph bowler- unfortunately, he only hit those speeds with any regularity right at the start of his career, and then around the late 90s which was the only time he was still in his prime and not injury-riddled.

Injury free and at full capacity I think Cairns was the better bat AND the better bowler. It's funny actually, because I think they were very similar cricketers, yet for whatever reason people remember Cairns overwhelmingly for his batting, and Flintoff overwhelmingly for his bowling. Flintoff was not far behind Cairns as a batsman at all.

 

[Zinzan]

Funny how there's this perception that Cairns was "more consistent", and that Flintoff was clearly the better bowler.

Honestly don't think that's been the consensus at all from what I've read of this thread

Also, of course Flintoff's record was poor for the first part of his career, but so was Cairns'. Honestly, their career trajectories were almost identical- started off regarded as boy wonders but actually performed pretty awfully, suffered a tonne of injuries, emerged for a few years as total guns, then the injuries came back again.

Yes, same point was made in the opening of this thread