Andrew Flintoff Jumps The Shark, But Does Correctly Call Michael Atherton A Prick

[zaremba]

There's a funny old subtext to all this, which is how good a player do you have to be (or have been) in order to be able to comment legitimately on others?

One can line up the individuals in this little tussle and say, well, Cook's a better player than Atherton was, and Freddie's a better player than either of them, and so Athers is bottom of the heap and should by rights just keep his big trap shut. But when you really think about that kind of logic for a second or two, you realise it's a pile of steaming horse ****.

Talent at playing the game provides you with precisely nothing - zero - by way of superior right to criticise others. It might get you picked for the schoolyard draft, but it won't make you a better commentator (except in the indirect sense that it might enable you to gain more interesting experience in the game).

In general those best equipped for the role of expert commentator/pundit are those who are (a) experienced (because that gives them knowledge); (b) lacking in supreme talent (because the less talented they are, the more they have had to analyse the game in order to get where they are); and (c) outstanding communication skills.

Now, why on earth is Athers, as a professional commentator, not entitled to express his views on Ally Cook, simply because Cook might turn out to have the better batting average than him? It's a load of ****ing crap. And it's the sort of logic that, if we follow it through, would end up with this site being shut down for good on the basis that not one of us here* is even remotely as talented as the weakest County 1st XI player, and therefore have no right to offer a valid opinion.


*Vic excepted, I think. Sorry mate. Pissed and ranting.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

There's a funny old subtext to all this, which is how good a player do you have to be (or have been) in order to be able to comment legitimately on others?

One can line up the individuals in this little tussle and say, well, Cook's a better player than Atherton was, and Freddie's a better player than either of them, and so Athers is bottom of the heap and should by rights just keep his big trap shut. But when you really think about that kind of logic for a second or two, you realise it's a pile of steaming horse ****.

Talent at playing the game provides you with precisely nothing - zero - by way of superior right to criticise others. It might get you picked for the schoolyard draft, but it won't make you a better commentator (except in the indirect sense that it might enable you to gain more interesting experience in the game).

In general those best equipped for the role of expert commentator/pundit are those who are (a) experienced (because that gives them knowledge); (b) lacking in supreme talent (because the less talented they are, the more they have had to analyse the game in order to get where they are); and (c) outstanding communication skills.

Now, why on earth is Athers, as a professional commentator, not entitled to express his views on Ally Cook, simply because Cook might turn out to have the better batting average than him? It's a load of ****ing crap. And it's the sort of logic that, if we follow it through, would end up with this site being shut down for good on the basis that not one of us here* is even remotely as talented as the weakest County 1st XI player, and therefore have no right to offer a valid opinion.


*Vic excepted, I think. Sorry mate. Pissed and ranting.

Right on Mr Z.

People get criticized in all walks of life, so why not cricket. It's part of the package, especially concerning to a global sport watched by Billions.

 

[Teja.]

I laughed when I read it, I must confess. The combination of obvious below average intelligence, drunkenness and deep personal dislike was amusing tstl.

Atherton is a gun commentator Ftr. It can only be good for cricket that we have commentators have no problem ripping into things. We need more critics, less diplomatic cheerleaders.

 

[GIMH]

There's no way you can draw anything about his intelligence from that quote, especially if you recognise drunkenness.

The deep personal dislike thing is interesting though; I honestly didn't ever recall there being a problem between the two. You'd have to imagine the Cook thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Nonetheless, it's interesting to me how much Freddie is a fan of this England team as by all accounts the return is not necessarily true, though that could be media bull**** as well.

 

[Jono]

It's not too big a stretch to say Freddie isn't the broadest thinker in the world.

 

[Top_Cat]

Honestly, can understand a healthy disregard for media ****s, should disregard just about anything said by Aussie journos about cricket. And being freaking awesome at cricket, as Z said, doesn't guarantee you're going to be an expert commentator (G Chapp, for example). Cricket's one of those multi-faceted games with many ways of doing things that a player who found a way for themselves to dominate doesn't necessarily have generalisable advice. This stats-based rant definitely reeks of defensiveness from Flintoff, the gap between Athers and Cook isn't as large as their averages would suggest, both have/had yawning weaknesses in their games that good-enough bowlers at various times were able to exploit with fairly alarming regularity, for example. And Athers is a bit of a prick about that too, pointing to the quality of the bowlers who got him out regularly as evidence of his own quality is a dick move, especially when McGrath and Ambrose didn't necessarily have to send down their best stuff to get him.

That said, I'm a bit on torn about the issue of who's qualified to commentate about the top level of the game. I'd probably feel a bit funny about Joe from the street having a go at my tendency to hang the bat outside off stump but coming from someone who was an above-average cricketer and captain, I'd be a bit more circumspect before having a go and clubbing him with his record as a god-damn Test cricketer.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think Fred's probably more intelligent than he's given credit for. His perception as an amiable, lumbering, northern lummox is partly his own fault because he definitely plays up to it in the media & one suspects it's quite profitable for him to do so. However reading the autobiographies of some of the key players (as in movers and shakers, not just cricketers per se) in his career and it becomes apparent that there's also a pretty huge ego at play, a desire to want to be seen as top dog & a marked reluctance to take advice onboard.

Even more than KP, Fred's career seems to have been for the greater glory of himself, it's just that his public image is more sympathetic. I'm not suggesting his northern brand of aw, shucksism ("eebygumism"?) is entirely cynically created, but when the mask slips what one sees isn't just curry, lager & flat caps.

 

[Top_Cat]

Andrew Flintoff's unseemly attack on Michael Atherton's commentary credentials simply doesn't add up - Telegraph

tbh, this is old stuff, articles like this miss that. Weren't they team-mates in county cricket at some point? Lancs? Was Athers his captain? Can't remember.

 

[GIMH]

Played together for England as well

 

[stumpski]

Team-mates very briefly, Flintoff debuted in 1998 but took a few years to establish himself, by which time Atherton had gone. Athers never captained Lancs as far as I can recall.

 

[uvelocity]

That said, I'm a bit on torn about the issue of who's qualified to commentate about the top level of the game. I'd probably feel a bit funny about Joe from the street having a go at my tendency to hang the bat outside off stump but coming from someone who was an above-average cricketer and captain, I'd be a bit more circumspect before having a go and clubbing him with his record as a god-damn Test cricketer.

Not sure if you're saying you're an awesome cricketer who wouldn't like avg joe commenting or you are just hypothesising. But the thing with it is the commentators will only stay around so long as they are seen to bring some value, be it technical insight, acceptable controversy, excitement or whatever. If average joe wants to sit on tv and pick apart techniques it won't last long if he can't back it up with being right. Just makes sense that some of those who can do it well can talk about it best.

 

[Teja.]

There's no way you can draw anything about his intelligence from that quote, especially if you recognise drunkenness.

The deep personal dislike thing is interesting though; I honestly didn't ever recall there being a problem between the two. You'd have to imagine the Cook thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Nonetheless, it's interesting to me how much Freddie is a fan of this England team as by all accounts the return is not necessarily true, though that could be media bull**** as well.

Yes, I recognize drunkenness. The thing is if he called Atherton a park cricketer and a ****, I would not really question his intelligence. However, from my experience, if one asserts a held belief and supports it with reasoning, even if he's drunk, he actually believes in the reasoning. So essentially, he has a stupidly simplistic take on looking at cross-era cricketing overall statistics.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, the take that you can't point out flaws in cricketers unless you're a better cricketer is also again a stupidly simplistic view and here it as at the core of of another of his statements. I believe it is again a clear sign that he is not the most logical bloke around.

 

[Ikki]

I think maybe people are taking the point regarding how good you have to be to judge too seriously. Maybe Flintoff has a problem with Athers where he thinks Athers was clearly in the wrong and nothing but jealous. I am not saying that is the reason, but it could be. Then, it is not just a general point about who can judge who but 'how can that wanker even begin to judge x'.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not sure if you're saying you're an awesome cricketer who wouldn't like avg joe commenting or you are just hypothesising.

Why speculate? My Test record speaks for itself.

 

[GIMH]

Yes, I recognize drunkenness. The thing is if he called Atherton a park cricketer and a ****, I would not really question his intelligence. However, from my experience, if one asserts a held belief and supports it with reasoning, even if he's drunk, he actually believes in the reasoning. So essentially, he has a stupidly simplistic take on looking at cross-era cricketing overall statistics.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, the take that you can't point out flaws in cricketers unless you're a better cricketer is also again a stupidly simplistic view and here it as at the core of of another of his statements. I believe it is again a clear sign that he is not the most logical bloke around.

A mate of mine, one of the most intelligent blokes I know, will argue literally anything after a drink. Mainly a bit of real-life trolling because he enjoys a good debate, but he takes some huge jumps in logic when constructing his arguments. It means nothing, really.

But then, even so, logical arguments and intelligence are not necessarily things you can correlate. I've heard Freddie talk about many topics and he comes across well; even if we do assume that he actually believes that 'thou shalt not criticise a better cricketer' that doesn't suddenly mean he is of below average intelligence. I've seen blokes at this forum throw out awful turns of logic, but talk mesmerisingly on other topics.

I'm not saying Freddie is the new Einstein but he's no idiot. He's passionate about England and I can tell you from experience that that can make you dumb your own opinions down at certain times.

But for the record, I think the whole 'Athers isn't fit to lace Cook's boots' thing is more of an emotional outburst than something we should take as indicative of a wider held principle. He was defending Cook and used the stick he could find to beat Athers with, until we see repeated evidence of such opinions then I don't think we should presume he holds widespread views about who is allowed to criticise who.

And finally, separate point, I am an Atherton fan but Cook would score more runs than him in any era because he's better, and that's the point that Freddie is definitely right about.

And yes I love Freddie but these are my reasoned views on the matter, I did stay out of it at first but **** it.

 

[Spikey]

why don't you just marry him

 

[Teja.]

A mate of mine, one of the most intelligent blokes I know, will argue literally anything after a drink. Mainly a bit of real-life trolling because he enjoys a good debate, but he takes some huge jumps in logic when constructing his arguments. It means nothing, really.

But then, even so, logical arguments and intelligence are not necessarily things you can correlate. I've heard Freddie talk about many topics and he comes across well; even if we do assume that he actually believes that 'thou shalt not criticise a better cricketer' that doesn't suddenly mean he is of below average intelligence. I've seen blokes at this forum throw out awful turns of logic, but talk mesmerisingly on other topics.

I'm not saying Freddie is the new Einstein but he's no idiot. He's passionate about England and I can tell you from experience that that can make you dumb your own opinions down at certain times.

But for the record, I think the whole 'Athers isn't fit to lace Cook's boots' thing is more of an emotional outburst than something we should take as indicative of a wider held principle. He was defending Cook and used the stick he could find to beat Athers with, until we see repeated evidence of such opinions then I don't think we should presume he holds widespread views about who is allowed to criticise who.

And finally, separate point, I am an Atherton fan but Cook would score more runs than him in any era because he's better, and that's the point that Freddie is definitely right about.

And yes I love Freddie but these are my reasoned views on the matter, I did stay out of it at first but **** it.

Yeah fair enough then. This is my only exposure to Freddie media so you can't really blame me.

 

[Jacknife]

A mate of mine, one of the most intelligent blokes I know, will argue literally anything after a drink. Mainly a bit of real-life trolling because he enjoys a good debate, but he takes some huge jumps in logic when constructing his arguments. It means nothing, really.

But then, even so, logical arguments and intelligence are not necessarily things you can correlate. I've heard Freddie talk about many topics and he comes across well; even if we do assume that he actually believes that 'thou shalt not criticise a better cricketer' that doesn't suddenly mean he is of below average intelligence. I've seen blokes at this forum throw out awful turns of logic, but talk mesmerisingly on other topics.

I'm not saying Freddie is the new Einstein but he's no idiot. He's passionate about England and I can tell you from experience that that can make you dumb your own opinions down at certain times.

But for the record, I think the whole 'Athers isn't fit to lace Cook's boots' thing is more of an emotional outburst than something we should take as indicative of a wider held principle. He was defending Cook and used the stick he could find to beat Athers with, until we see repeated evidence of such opinions then I don't think we should presume he holds widespread views about who is allowed to criticise who.

And finally, separate point, I am an Atherton fan but Cook would score more runs than him in any era because he's better, and that's the point that Freddie is definitely right about.

And yes I love Freddie but these are my reasoned views on the matter, I did stay out of it at first but **** it.

Agree.

 

[fredfertang]

If Atherton had had Cook's back instead of his own his career average would have been much higher than it was, and higher than anything Cook will achieve

 

[GIMH]

why don't you just marry him

Why don't you go and kiss a toilet seat