Is Flintoff Overrated?

[NZ Guy]

Your point about being selected too early is probably valid but does that mean we can just void that off, it was still a testing part of his career and the best of the best stand up to these challenging periods. Again looking at Cricinfo they split his average into three stages, his averages were 25 and 45 until the end of '03, his golden period (Jan '04-June '06) he averaged 40 and 26, and his last 17 tests he averaged 28 and 40. Apart from that middle period which was only 2 1/2 years are those stats of an all rounder let alone a top class all rounder. There are so many players who have had a golden two years, it doesnt make them great. I will say he did possess an aura about him and he did have this canny ability to seize the moment - which could be used as an argument for greatness. But really too often he would come up with figures of 3/70, 4/90, very rarely did he take the game by the scruff of the neck and destroy a team like Botham, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram etc did. That to me is what makes a great player.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, and none of that is much different to what anyone has said, you said he was a one-series player, that was bollocks, you got called on it and decided to move the goalposts. End of.

 

[NZ Guy]

Yeah, and none of that is much different to what anyone has said, you said he was a one-series player, that was bollocks, you got called on it and decided to move the goalposts. End of.

Nah I havent when I was saying this what I was trying to say is that the reason he is rated so highly is purely because of that series. Moving the goal posts is quite similar to taking out stats that dont suit your argument, IMO Flintoff was nothing more than an average all rounder who had a magnificent series and a good 2 years after that, whenever a kingdom is conquered theres a hero, Englands hero was Flintoff he kind of rode on that for the rest of his career.

 

[GIMH]

Wrong again.

He had a good two to three years, then came the Ashes. After that, he only had one more memorable series, India away in 2006.

 

[Flem274*]

Lol irrotev. Trolled to just the right poster.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What is it with the English and them rating all rounders off just a portion of their careers?

 

[tooextracool]

While I reckon he was a good ODI player I just dont think he is really as good as people make out, he was on top of the world from like what 2005-2007.

Yeah I agree with this. Good ODI player for me but overrated in both batting and bowling departments in ODIs. If you ask me, I think he was misused as a slogger in ODI cricket when he quite clearly was far from it. On the other hand, his bowling suffered from an obvious lack in variation which made it predictable something which is ODI cricket and later in T20 cricket was a bit of a problem.

As far as tests goes, I'd liken him to someone like Cairns (though I do think Cairns to be the better player just FYI before some NZ's start attacking me on this). The comparison is apt though because both players were robbed a fair bit due to injury, both underperformed during their test careers with the bat but had significant potential and both were capable of leading their bowling attacks with the ball but were still a tier down from the very best.

 

[weldone]

Yeah I agree with this. Good ODI player for me but overrated in both batting and bowling departments in ODIs. If you ask me, I think he was misused as a slogger in ODI cricket when he quite clearly was far from it. On the other hand, his bowling suffered from an obvious lack in variation which made it predictable something which is ODI cricket and later in T20 cricket was a bit of a problem.

As far as tests goes, I'd liken him to someone like Cairns (though I do think Cairns to be the better player just FYI before some NZ's start attacking me on this). The comparison is apt though because both players were robbed a fair bit due to injury, both underperformed during their test careers with the bat but had significant potential and both were capable of leading their bowling attacks with the ball but were still a tier down from the very best.

Agree with this.

As I've mentioned earlier, I believe Flintoff is overrated as a batsman, he's overrated as a bowler too though for a period he was a real world-class affair with the ball. But as an alrounder, he's rated by most where he should be.

In short, if one is saying that he's definitely one of the 3 best alrounders of the last 15-20 years (alongwith Kallis and Cairns; and not considering Pollock an alrounder in the truest sense), he's certainly rating Flintoff correctly. But if one says that he should be in ATG discussions, then he's overrating Flintoff way way much.

 

[NasserFan207]

I'd call him a special player, in that he had the talent to turn a game on its head and the charisma to inspire others (though probably not the brains), but definitely not an ATG since for me an ATG in any sport must be based primarily on results, of which Flintoff's weren't consistent enough.

Not much else to say really.

 

[honestbharani]

Put it this way:


1. At his peak for about a period of 3 years, he was very good, perhaps great, NOT untouchable.
2. Considering him untouchable in his peak of 3 years IS overrating him..

 

[GIMH]

Put it this way:


1. At his peak for about a period of 3 years, he was very good, perhaps great, NOT untouchable.
2. Considering him untouchable in his peak of 3 years IS overrating him..

Okay, but no-one is untouchable, if you want to be literal about things. At his peak he was the best all-rounder in the world, I reckon. I suppose there's an argument to be made for Kallis, but meh.

 

[NZ Guy]

Yeah the comparison between Flintoff and Cairns is uncanny. Not in skill though, theres no comparison (No biased there:P). Btw there is stand out stat when comparing the two, Cairns - 13 5wi Flintoff - 3 5wi.

But yeah with the batting where does he rate, bowler who can bat? If so should he not be compared more with the likes of Pollock? Which would rate him lower than being a genuine all rounder.

 

[four_or_six]

Think the 5wi thing is over-done really. Fred didn't generally have to carry the whole attack in the way others, such as Cairns and Watson, have had to because the other bowlers were also very good players.

 

[NZ Guy]

Watson?! haha

EDIT:Yea fair enough though

 

[honestbharani]

Okay, but no-one is untouchable, if you want to be literal about things. At his peak he was the best all-rounder in the world, I reckon. I suppose there's an argument to be made for Kallis, but meh.

Actually agree with you mate.. Was juz pulling your leg a bit there. He was amazing in that 3 year period, but I just don't think he was ever as good as a batsman... Always tend to look at him as a bowling allrounder, even at his peak.. His technique and stuff were just a little too dodgy and even at his best, he was rather hit or miss as a batsman, wasn't he? His bowling, though, was other worldly at times. The way he troubled the likes of Lara and Gilchrist... Amazing!!!

 

[Jono]

What is it with the English and them rating all rounders off just a portion of their careers?

Hahahahh can't believe no one picked up on this gem

 

[four_or_six]

Whoosh... I don't understand.

 

[vcs]

Botham and Flintoff, I think.

 

[Jacknife]

What is it with the English and them rating all rounders off just a portion of their careers?

Is it just The English,or is it when good players suffer injuries that effect their career,fans all over the world do it.

 

[weldone]

Flintoff will definitely not be in my World XI for the last 20 years.

And, he'll definitely not be in my second World XI for the last 20 years.

He might just sneak in the third one, though.