Andy Flintoff and bowling

[Gob]

How do you rate his bowling?

future generations will look at his numbers and scratch their heads thinking what the fuss was all about this bloke who averaged well over 30 with a strike rate well above 60,took less than 3 wickets for a match and barely took 5 fers...then it would be up for us old stagers to tell them that he was little better than that.
He was quick,fairly accurate,tall and extracted plenty of bounce,bowled the heavy ball,could nip it around,could swing it conventionally and great with the old ball. humiliated Kallis,worked over Ponting and basically most great batsmen who faced him respect him.

so what held him from becoming a great bowler?was it the slightly shorter length?discuss

 

[GIMH]

He's the GOAT

 

[honestbharani]

Its an interesting question overall, isn't it? If you are gonna have an allrounder, do you want someone who has an amazing peak where he is one of the best in the world or do you want someone who is always there and thereabouts but never really sets the world on fire? And the interesting thing is that both players may end up with pretty much similar records and averages at the end of their careers. One example off the top of my head for such cases are Flintoff and Shane Watson...

 

[smash84]

How do you rate his bowling?

future generations will look at his numbers and scratch their heads thinking what the fuss was all about this bloke who averaged well over 30 with a strike rate well above 60,took less than 3 wickets for a match and barely took 5 fers...then it would be up for us old stagers to tell them that he was little better than that.
He was quick,fairly accurate,tall and extracted plenty of bounce,bowled the heavy ball,could nip it around,could swing it conventionally and great with the old ball. humiliated Kallis,worked over Ponting and basically most great batsmen who faced him respect him.

so what held him from becoming a great bowler?was it the slightly shorter length?discuss

They will be quite justified in this

 

[OverratedSanity]

Its an interesting question overall, isn't it? If you are gonna have an allrounder, do you want someone who has an amazing peak where he is one of the best in the world or do you want someone who is always there and thereabouts but never really sets the world on fire? And the interesting thing is that both players may end up with pretty much similar records and averages at the end of their careers. One example off the top of my head for such cases are Flintoff and Shane Watson...

Heh it's going to be hilarious when CW has serious debates on Watson vs Flintoff. Anyone who's watched their careers which one was better but the stats hide everything.

 

[fredfertang]

He was at his best with the ball for a relatively short period, and at a time when England had an excellent attack - but for a while he was the hound's testicles - Flintoff circa 2005 would have got into any side in history as a bowler

 

[Red]

Had Gilchrist pretty well worked out. And Hayden.

Really good bowler to left handers.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

no-one's gonna forget 2005 in a hurry

 

[TheJediBrah]

Highly rated due to 2005 being such a great series and his overwhelming personality and presence at the bowling crease.

But you have to keep in mind that people often overrate him due to these factors, and his stats, while good for an all-rounder, are pretty well representative of how good he really was.

 

[FBU]

I would say Flintoff was the best ODI bowler England have had.

 

[Red]

But you have to keep in mind that people often overrate him due to these factors, and his stats, while good for an all-rounder, are pretty well representative of how good he really was.

What do you mean by this?

 

[pardus]

On occasion, his bowling could be astonishingly good. Outside of his famed 2005 Ashes, I once saw him bowl to India in the World Cup 2003 match at Durban. That Indian batting line up was pretty loaded, especially in ODIs, with Tendulkar, Sehwag, Ganguly, Dravid everyone in their prime. Tendulkar was on rampage in that match, and was at the height of his powers in that World Cup. Both Caddick & Anderson went for over 6 an over in their 10 overs. Tendulkar scored 50 at a run a ball. He could have scored a lot more, and a lot quicker, if it weren't for Flintoff.

I vaguely remember Flintoff bowled around 10 deliveries to Tendulkar, from which Tendulkar managed to eke out 1 or 2 singles, before getting out on the final delivery. It was incredible fast bowling by Flintoff. He bowled every delivery around 140-142 kph range. The ball would pitch just outside off-stump, and would rear in towards Tendulkar's chest/throat from short of length. Tendulkar was absolutely strangled. None of the Indian batsmen (including Sehwag) could do anything against Flintoff's bowling that day. It was amazing to watch the power with which Flintoff's deliveries would hit the deck and rise towards the batsmen. He could generate that extra bounce making run scoring very uncomfortable. Flintoff conceded 15 or 16 runs in his quota of 10 overs, picking up the wickets of both Tendulkar & Sehwag. On the other side, rest of the English bowlers got mauled.

Considering the strength of the batting line-up and ODI rules heavily favoring batsmen, it was one of the best bowling performances I have seen in an ODI. It was in vain though as England lost the match by a big margin.

 

[GIMH]

Highly rated due to 2005 being such a great series and his overwhelming personality and presence at the bowling crease.

But you have to keep in mind that people often overrate him due to these factors, and his stats, while good for an all-rounder, are pretty well representative of how good he really was.

Drivel

 

[Gob]

What I sort of wanted people to discuss here is not how overrated Flintoff is or how mediocre his stats are. The question was why he couldn't achieve much with the ball despite everything he had going for him skill wise

 

[Dan]

Because, y'know, statistical outcomes aren't everything.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What I sort of wanted people to discuss here is not how overrated Flintoff is or how mediocre his stats are. The question was why he couldn't achieve much with the ball despite everything he had going for him skill wise

His fitness let him down. When he was on it he was deadly but couldn't sustain a period when he was on it with remaining on the park to get his stats down. Then he had the Broad thing currently of as soon as he was fit he was back in the side so had to do the hard yards of getting match sharp again in international cricket and that would have harmed his average a bit. Wasn't helped also by having an Andersonesque start to his career when he was a fat drunk mess who didn't make the most of his talent and had an average around 40.

I think despite being highly regarded and rightly so there will always be that thought in your head of what might have been with him.

 

[Andre]

Reality around Flintoff is that as outstanding as he was, he just bowled a touch too short too often. Didn't hit the stumps all that often and was a fraction short and quick for the ball to get edges frequently - think Gillespie at his best, the ball would simply just beat the bat because the batsmen couldn't get there in time to edge it. Didn't seem to get many cheap tail wickets either for the similar reasons; tail wasn't good enough to to edge it and he didn't threaten their stumps enough.

So while he was a terrific bowler, he may just have lacked the skill set slightly to be a great Test match bowler, but his (relative) weaknesses with the red ball made him an excellent white ball bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not trying to take anything away from him and he was an incredible bowler on his day. But he is massively overrated. Not saying he wasn't great, but people tend to remember him as being unbelievably great as a result of the factors I mentioned earlier.

 

[GIMH]

His biggest strength in Tests was the role he played in bowling partnerships. His being a touch too short is true in a direct sense and it's why he didn't take the 5fers that he should have been done - however he created pressure that bowlers like Harmison and Anderson were able to capitalise on

 

[GIMH]

I'm not trying to take anything away from him and he was an incredible bowler on his day. But he is massively overrated. Not saying he wasn't great, but people tend to remember him as being unbelievably great as a result of the factors I mentioned earlier.

People remember him having a great peak. Which he did. From around mid-03 to his injury in 2006 he was averaging 40ish with the bat and around 27 with the ball.

So yeah, you're talking drivel but it's okay. Carry on.