The allrounder cut-off

[OverratedSanity]

Even if you want to say those numbers aren't much cop (a clue or you by the way: they are) if you watched any England game he played in from 03 onwards it's not hard to see how important a player he was. You don't have to have played team sports at any significant level to know the difference one player can make to the performance of everyone around him.

Yeah I agree. Most posters simply judge players solely on stats, as if the cricketer's intangible attributes don't even exist. It's downright ridiculous. And comparing Flintoff with Vaas is simply taking the piss
I didn't watch every England game in Flintoff's time, but in the ones I did watch it was clear how he produced key breakthroughs/runs and very often lifted the side with a burst of brilliance with bat/ball/on the field. But oh no, it's cricketweb... Stats are all that matter

 

[watson]

TBF, Kallis at his peak ONLY as a batsman and a slipper was more valuable player than Flintoff as an allrounder.

It depends on the context. I'm sure that England would have a batsman equivalent to Kallis in their middle-order any day of week.

However, if you had asked Michael Vaughan at the beginning of the 2005 Ashes series whether he would like to swap Flintoff for Kallis then he'd probably give a frank "no". And if you'd asked Michael Vaughan at the end of the 2005 Ashes series whether Kallis would have been more valuable to the England team than Flintoff then he most certainly would have laughed in your face.

Of course we prefer our cricketers to be a model of consistency like Kallis, but let's not write-off players who happen to be both brilliant and inconsistent. Because let's face it, it's no fun expecting the expected. Instead it's the unexpected turn of brilliance during a Test match, so that the game is turned up-side-down, that makes us come back for more.

 

[hendrix]

Secondly, were people actually putting Vaas on his level as an all-rounder? As I said I only skimmed so am hoping for the sake of this forum I have misread

No, noone is saying Vaas is an allrounder. People are just using the Vaas example to show that bowlers who bat a bit can also have peaks where they look very good.

Flintoff's peak is simply not that great.

Perhaps Vettori is a better example?

between 2005-2009 (5 years) he averaged 45 with the bat and 31 with the ball.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I've just skimmed the last 50 posts or so and as Freddie's fanboy wanted to add some minor observations

Am pretty sure he didn't average 37 in the 05 Ashes but rather scored 402@40.2. I could well be wrong but well I don't think I am.

Secondly, were people actually putting Vaas on his level as an all-rounder? As I said I only skimmed so am hoping for the sake of this forum I have misread

And as for comparing him to Shakib? Bitch please.

Finally on a separate note. AN, yes it was Bresnan's true average as at this point it was what he averaged. Not hard to grasp.

True Average is a concept I invented because of Bresnan so don't put your twist on it ****.

 

[Flem274*]

Flintoff was a talisman in a way that Kallis, Shakib, Cairns and Pollock couldn't match, and you can't measure that statistically

Cairns was every inch the talisman of our side. When Cairns was batting or bowling, there was hope, and imo he was a better allrounder than Flintoff, though it is close. Neither compare to Botham of course.

Cairns was so much more than his statistics, which if you remove his early crap (similar to Freddie in this aspect I guess) are actually pretty impressive regardless. Something like 40 with the bat and 27 with the ball or something over a much longer time period than Flintoff's peak. Who cares, because this is a man who could bat at four on merit if our batting was more ****ed than usual and then turn around and open the bowling. This is a man who played major roles in some of the most influential series in New Zealand folklore, including series victories in England and the drawn series against the great Australian side. On his day the best batsmen and bowlers in the world had no answer to him. Warne once applauded him smacking him for six because the shot was just so ridiculously good.

I know Flintoff will be remembered more by those outside New Zealand for his role in the Ashes, and that series is the Aston Martin to tests against New Zealand's Toyota Corolla, but Cairns can't control his country of birth, and for me he is the best of the next tier down from the greats.

And I won't hear a word against Shakib either. He isn't as good as Flintoff or Cairns yet because he's only played 30 odd tests, but that bloke is a ****ing hero. Never has one player been so instrumental to the performance of his team. He is the true successor to John R. Reid, and imo will outdo him.

Saying Vaas is a better allrounder than Flintoff is hilarious though. He's a better bowler, but the bloke isn't even as good as Pollock or Hadlee with the bat ffs.

 

[Maximas]

Regarding Vaas, I used him as an example to show that not all all-rounders have to be these 'impact' players that are matchwinners regularly, but can be quiet contributors and still classed as all-rounders. Although I should note that I don't think Vaas is a genuine all-rounder or a better one than Flintoff or others mentioned

 

[Red]

Flem's right about Cairns. Often forgotten in these discussions. Excellent bat and capable of opening the bowling.

 

[hendrix]

both Cairns and Shakib are far more talismanic than Flintoff.

 

[smash84]

the common thing among all of Flintoff, Cairns, and Shakib is that they played for minnow sides

 

[kyear2]

Stats alone doesn't fully tell the story, but Flintoff like Botham in his prime had the ability to take over or change the course of a game in an instant with bat, ball or in the field. I imagine that is how Miller is viewed by Australians as well. Consistency be dammed, it's about that X factor.

 

[smash84]

X-factor, you mean someone like shahid afridi

 

[hendrix]

Stats alone doesn't fully tell the story, but Flintoff like Botham in his prime had the ability to take over or change the course of a game in an instant with bat, ball or in the field. I imagine that is how Miller is viewed by Australians as well. Consistency be dammed, it's about that X factor.

So does Cairns, Vettori, Shakib etc. Hell, some of the contributions of the latter two have been complete lone efforts

 

[Migara]

Stats alone doesn't fully tell the story, but Flintoff like Botham in his prime had the ability to take over or change the course of a game in an instant with bat, ball or in the field. I imagine that is how Miller is viewed by Australians as well. Consistency be dammed, it's about that X factor.

Afridi says hi. And if it is the X factor that matters, Lance Klusener beats Flintoff hands down with both bat and ball and in the field in his prime.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Afridi says hi. And if it is the X factor that matters, Lance Klusener beats Flintoff hands down with both bat and ball and in the field in his prime.

We're talking about tests here aren't we? Afridi and Klusener are nowhere close to Flintoff imo

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Haven't you heard, everyone is better than Flintoff -

You, me, Agarka, Marcus North, Giles, Chris Martin, Stevie Wonder. The list goes on and on here

 

[Maximas]

I think he's trying to prove that x-factor is not the only major indicator of the quality of an all-rounder

 

[OverratedSanity]

Afridi says hi. And if it is the X factor that matters, Lance Klusener beats Flintoff hands down with both bat and ball and in the field in his prime.

This post is making me angrier each time I read it. Hope I hulk up and smash Afridi's head with yours

 

[GIMH]

both Cairns and Shakib are far more talismanic than Flintoff.

Care to explain why?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think he's trying to prove that x-factor is not the only major indicator of the quality of an all-rounder

That X factor is the ability to inspire the team to greater heights by doing something brilliant at a critical point in the match. I can't believe people are arguing Afridi and Klusener had more of this quality than Flintoff. Do you people even watch cricket matches?

 

[hendrix]

Haven't you heard, everyone is better than Flintoff -

You, me, Agarka, Marcus North, Giles, Chris Martin, Stevie Wonder. The list goes on and on here

For some reason, it's ridiculous to compare Flintoff with other players with better stats than him. Anyone who compares Flintoff unfavourably with other players hasn't watched him bowl, right?

I mean I could use that argument about every frikken player. The constant argument is that he "had more impact than his stats". Well so do plenty of players.

Ever seen a Kallis out swinger? A Vettori arm ball? Cairns' seam movement?