The allrounder cut-off

[Furball]

Cribbage has smashed this one out of the park. Telling it like it is. People ignore that cricket is a team sport but ask Jimmy Anderson if he had any help getting his first innings wickets at Lord's in 09. ****, ask Geraint frigging Jones whether he reckons he'd have got to 85 at Trent Bridge in 05 if some other geezer was batting opposite him. Ask anyone who shared a team with Flintoff whether the impact his mere presence had on the overall atmosphere gave them a lift.If you want to claim someone is more talismanic because they are surrounded by more poor players than Freddie was, then I don't really know what to say because I don't think you've quite grasped the concept.Btw just throwing it out there, were also talking one of the great ODI players of his era, something which largely goes under the radar given I guess ODIs aren't highly regarded in these parts. Probably our best ever one day player for mine.Finally, I sight trauma.

If we're talking ODIs then he's unquestionably the greatest allrounder in that format.

 

[Flem274*]

in b4 watson fans

 

[OverratedSanity]

If we're talking ODIs then he's unquestionably the greatest allrounder in that format.

Unquestionably? No way.
He's got plenty of competition... Klusener and Jayasuriya to name two obvious ones

 

[The Battlers Prince]

If we're talking ODIs then he's unquestionably the greatest allrounder in that format.

Batting and bowling for sure, probably the opposite of Lance Klusener for me, but a more handy guy for his slip fielding. I think in ODI's though fielding is paramount, so Symonds and to an extent Collingwood deserve an argument in their favour too.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Rtd?

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Rtd?

Ready to drink?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rtd?

Sobers of ODIs

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Rtd?

Imran-esque

 

[benchmark00]

Haha, I have such mixed emotions about this Flintoff revisionism.

For all those who weren't around during the nitty-gritty of Flintoff's career, I was a main torch-carrier for the crowd that felt his batting was vastly over-rated. Even during his peak period of a couple of years where he averaged 40 odd against good opposition, he was never truly good enough to bat at number six IMO. It was pretty obvious to me at the time that he was enjoying a purple patch with the bat, spurred on as much by his personality and the momentum he could carry forward from his bowling, catching and the morale of an improving and winning side as it was by his ability with the bat. It was always going to fade sooner rather than later and when it did the selectors refused to acknowledge it, repeatedly selecting him to bat in the top six anyway to the detriment of his side. His batting average absolutely does his ability justice IMO and his century count is more of a reflection of the fact that he had a cemented spot in a plumb batting position for a large number of Tests than it is of his batting ability. He has less centuries in more Tests than Mohammad Ashraful for example, who similarly mixed awesome, memorable innings with large periods of barren production for much the same reasons. I strongly feel that Shaun Pollock would have a similar if not better Test batting record to Flintoff if he'd batted six for most of his career too.

So for all those reasons, I can't help but grin at history already looking at his batting a little less favourably, even if only on here. However..

The disparagement of him as an all-round cricketer is way over the top. Comparing his batting to Vaas's seems a step too far even to me and his bowling has IMO become pretty under-rated on this forum since he retired. The criticisms of him never ripping through sides and/or bowling the wrong length have been getting louder and louder, and there's obviously something to them, and they are backed up by his less than awesome bowling average. However his ability to build and maintain pressure was right up there with the very best I've seen this century. At the end of the day batting is about how many and when, but as a bowler you're much more looking to work as an overall bowling group, and Flintoff's contributions to that definitely went beyond the numbers a bit. I say that as someone who's primarily a stats man. A lot of people confuse "building pressure" with "bowling economically", and while there is some overlap I think anyone who's batted in a competitive cricket match will know it's not quite the same thing. Nathan Astle could bowl very economically without the batsmen feeling pressured at all in a Test match because they knew he wasn't threatening their wicket, but even if Flintoff didn't end up getting you out because he bowled half a yard too short to actually take the edge, consistently threatening to beat the batsmen on both edges with hostile, accurate spells back of a length really contributed to the attack. His ability to break partnerships is what I found the most under-rated though; he rarely took wickets in bunches because of the aforementioned length issue but bowling slightly shorter made him a greater threat to set batsmen who had their eyes in and were looking to play more expansively. That wasn't just the case during some mystical peak where all the planets aligned, but his entire career once he became a serious bowler. It wasn't a purple patch or a bit of a personality-driven momentum. Giving the ball to Flintoff when a partnership had developed became such a successful tactic and was a massive part of any close England victory. His contribution to an overall bowling attack was greater than an average of 32 or whatever he ended up with, which is why it's madness to compare his bowling with Kallis or Klusener.

His catching and leadership abilities don't seem to be in question here but they were obviously big parts of his threat as an allround cricketer, and even his batting - which I never thought I'd be defending on this forum - was obviously excellent in the context of a bowling allrounder, even if he was batting a spot or two higher than he should've been. That ability to carry momentum through from one discipline to the other when the team was on top, which I mentioned earlier as a reason for the quality of his batsmanship being over-rated to the detriment of the side after his peak, is still a valuable commodity for an allrounder. It allows them to make up for the fact, to some extent, that they might not quite be all the way there in one discipline or another by being able to combine both in one game to make a massive contribution towards a victory for one man. It's obviously not a quality I value as highly as many others on this forum but it's something that definitely needs to be taken into account when you analyse players such as Flintoff and Botham, no matter what extent you take it to.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[Goughy]

Im not sure I really want to get drawn into the Flintoff debate but anyway...

I like Flintoff. I liked him as a cricketer, I like him as a personality and I like him as a relatable sportsperson.

He certainly was a talisman and he was great for the sport in England and when on song with either bat or ball then he was a joy to watch. A man who was the spiritual descendant of the great Learie Constantine. When he played people wanted to watch and he entertained with powerful and skilled cricket.

However, and I cant get passed it, as much as I enjoyed him as a cricketer -- England were a better team without him than with him batting at 6. Flintoff's problem is that he couldnt play (or injuries or whatever reason) as a tent pole of a 4 man attack. There are not enough overs in a day for 5 full time bowlers and he weakened the batting and balance substantially when at 6. Flintoff at 6 weakened dramatically weakened the batting line-up. Flintoff at 6 weakened the England team.

Flintoff, as a cricketer, in a vacuum is someone I admire and rate highy but within the context of the England team he - much like Botham later in his career - was a net loss when asked to do a role he wasnt capable of performing. Flintoff wasnt a top order batsman and he wasnt a top 3 seamer reliable enough to be trusted with a full workload. In the end he was in a position doomed to weaken the team compared to the more conservative option of an established batman at 6 and the allrounder's share of the overs being shared by possibly superior bowlers.

Oh well. There you go.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Im not sure I really want to get drawn into the Flintoff debate but anyway...

I like Flintoff. I liked him as a cricketer, I like him as a personality and I like him as a relatable sportsperson.

He certainly was a talisman and he was great for the sport in England and when on song with either bat or ball then he was a joy to watch. A man who was the spiritual descendant of the great Learie Constantine. When he played people wanted to watch and he entertained with powerful and skilled cricket.

However, and I cant get passed it, as much as I enjoyed him as a cricketer -- England were a better team without him than with him batting at 6. Flintoff's problem is that he couldnt play (or injuries or whatever reason) as a tent pole of a 4 man attack. There are not enough overs in a day for 5 full time bowlers and he weakened the batting and balance substantially when at 6. Flintoff at 6 weakened dramatically weakened the batting line-up. Flintoff at 6 weakened the England team.

Flintoff, as a cricketer, in a vacuum is someone I admire and rate highy but within the context of the England team he - much like Botham later in his career - was a net loss when asked to do a role he wasnt capable of performing. Flintoff wasnt a top order batsman and he wasnt a top 3 seamer reliable enough to be trusted with a full workload. In the end he was in a position doomed to weaken the team compared to the more conservative option of an established batman at 6 and the allrounder's share of the overs being shared by possibly superior bowlers.

Oh well. There you go.

This relies of 2 incorrect assumptions -

1. England had a better bowler than Flintoff. For all the time he was fit and bowling, we didn't. And ...

2. England had a number 6 bat who could average the 40 Flintoff provided in his prime, or even the 31 he provided overall. I seem to remember the likes of Hick, Ramps; and lately Birstow not doing a lot better. And they were full time batsmen, higher up the order to boot. Who, out of interest, would you have put at 6? Because I recall our great number 6s numbering the square root of FA

So no, I don't buy for a minute that Flintoff in reality made England weaker batting at 6.

 

[Goughy]

So no, I don't buy for a minute that Flintoff in reality made England weaker batting at 6.

Oh well. More fool you then.

 

[Furball]

I don't agree that Flintoff wouldn't have worked in a 4 man attack ftr. There were a few occasions in 2005 when England effectively were a 4 man attack - 2nd innings at Edgbaston where Hoggard bowled 6 (IIRC) overs and 2nd innings at Trent Bridge where Simon Jones got injured.

edit: as for batting 6, that positio was largely occupied by Paul Collingwood from 2005-11, and he averaged 40 - the same as Flintoff managed between 2003 and 2006.

If England appear to be a better balanced side without Flintoff then in part it's because England have better players now than they did in Flintoff's day.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Oh well. More fool you then.

Who would you have batted at 6? What demon batsman did we have in the wings who would have nailed that 6 spot?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I don't agree that Flintoff wouldn't have worked in a 4 man attack ftr. There were a few occasions in 2005 when England effectively were a 4 man attack - 2nd innings at Edgbaston where Hoggard bowled 6 (IIRC) overs and 2nd innings at Trent Bridge where Simon Jones got injured.

edit: as for batting 6, that positio was largely occupied by Paul Collingwood from 2005-11, and he averaged 40 - the same as Flintoff managed between 2003 and 2006.

If England appear to be a better balanced side without Flintoff then in part it's because England have better players now than they did in Flintoff's day.

Not to mention the Oval 05

Colly batted at 4 and 5, and still managed only 40.

Fact is, any England batsman averaging higher than Flintoff would have quite swiftly found themselves shunted up. So I call bollocks on the claim Flintoff weakened out batting order

 

[Migara]

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

When Klusener was fit and firing, he was a better bowler, better bat and better fielder than Flintoff. Later with injuries, Kluseners bowling became trash. But he was a joy to watch in his early years sending balls near 150k on unresponsive tracks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

When Klusener was fit and firing, he was a better bowler, better bat and better fielder than Flintoff. Later with injuries, Kluseners bowling became trash. But he was a joy to watch in his early years sending balls near 150k on unresponsive tracks.

By early years if you mean his first match then sure... I don't remember him doing anything with the ball remotely close to what Flintoff could produce

 

[Migara]

By early years if you mean his first match then sure... I don't remember him doing anything with the ball remotely close to what Flintoff could produce

Once the longevity argument fails the band wagon turns to the peaks. When peaks argumet fails they turn to X factor argument. Klusener is the answer for X factor argument. When Klusener fired, SA won. It was so simple. But it happened rarely. Flintoff it it more regularly, but the bandwagon has already blown the longevity argument.

The bitter truth is in what parameter you take Flintoff as an all rounder, there were others who did it better.

 

[smash84]

yeah, I remember Klusener being good in ODIs, don't think he was really very useful in test cricket