Andy Flintoff and bowling

[Zinzan]

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.

They're indeed good numbers, but frankly for a 3.5 year 'peak' period for an all-rounder, really nothing to write home about in comparison to others.

I mean even if you take his contemporary (well, kind of) - Chris Cairns' last 6 years from late '98 to 2004, he averaged 43 with bat & 25 with ball for a much longer period & this is of course saying nothing about the likes of Botham & Imran who's 'peak' periods saw them averaging close to 50 with bat & 20 with ball if one condensed it to a 3 year period.

Not saying Flintoff wasn't a very fine cricket, but these comparisons do kind of prove that even his 'peak' is marginally overrated by some, as is his overall career.

 

[honestbharani]

Think Flintoff hit his straps as the bowler he finished up as, during the tour to India under Hussain (2002 or 2003 I think). He and Craig White were unbelievably good with the SG balls. Reverse Swing at pace and the kind of length the Indian batsmen hate. Fair to say he did not look back as a bowler after that and went from strength to strength. Two factors IMO led to his numbers being as ordinary as they ended up being... First, he started off rather early in his career. A bit of the Martin Crowe effect on his stats there. Second, when he did get to his best, he got injured way too often.

Honestly, during that Super Series, he was quite often the best bowler for the rest of the world side. That shows he was indeed outstanding for that period in his career.

For those guys who have seen the great allrounders of the 80s play, would it be fair to say peak Flintoff was a better bowler than peak Botham and a better batsman than peak Imran and peak Hadlee?

 

[Furball]

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

Because he bowled too short to ever be a consistent wicket taking threat.

At his best, he was hostile, difficult to score off and could work over the best of them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For those guys who have seen the great allrounders of the 80s play, would it be fair to say peak Flintoff was a better bowler than peak Botham and a better batsman than peak Imran and peak Hadlee?

Certainly not a better bowler than Botham. He was a better batsman than Imran or Hadlee. But Imran's peak as a batsman was late in his career when he was a dogged accumulator of runs but way past his best as a bowler. Difficult to compare.

 

[Migara]

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...

Exactly. Way too overrated because he performed in Ashes. There are many better players who have better careers, better peaks, better peaks and careers combined.

 

[honestbharani]

Certainly not a better bowler than Botham. He was a better batsman than Imran or Hadlee. But Imran's peak as a batsman was late in his career when he was a dogged accumulator of runs but way past his best as a bowler. Difficult to compare.

I tend to rate the impact players more than the dogged style guys. Personal preference. But I am interested to know more about peak Botham's bowling. Are you saying Flintoff was not as good because he bowled the lengths that did not allow him to get as many wickets or do you believe Botham was just straight out a better bowler at his best than Flintoff?

 

[smash84]

I tend to rate the impact players more than the dogged style guys. Personal preference. But I am interested to know more about peak Botham's bowling. Are you saying Flintoff was not as good because he bowled the lengths that did not allow him to get as many wickets or do you believe Botham was just straight out a better bowler at his best than Flintoff?

Peak Botham was a pretty good bowler actually. Because his slide was so bad and lengthy that his peak tends to be forgotten. Botham wasn't very quick like Imran at his peak nor was he as accurate as Hadlee but he could certainly strike quickly and many times to leave the opposition reeling. While Flontoff was good for a few years bowled quicker and more menacing than Botham but he wouldn't get you as many wickets as Botham

 

[fredfertang]

Exactly. Way too overrated because he performed in Ashes. There are many better players who have better careers, better peaks, better peaks and careers combined.

But none who could empty the bars so quickly, he did that more efficiently than even Sir Beefy at his peak

 

[Gob]

I tend to rate the impact players more than the dogged style guys. Personal preference. But I am interested to know more about peak Botham's bowling. Are you saying Flintoff was not as good because he bowled the lengths that did not allow him to get as many wickets or do you believe Botham was just straight out a better bowler at his best than Flintoff?

After 54 tests, IT Botham had taken 249 wickets(more than Garner,Roberts,Holding,Miller) at 23.32 with 20 five wicket hauls. He was averaging 38 with the bat with 11 tons including a double. Once you throw in the icing on the cake with the 81 saga, particularly considering the fact that he may have played the greatest test innings ever, just cant help but feel had he retired at that point,his overall place as an alrounder could have been much higher.

 

[Red]

After 54 tests, IT Botham had taken 249 wickets(more than Garner,Roberts,Holding,Miller) at 23.32 with 20 five wicket hauls. He was averaging 38 with the bat with 11 tons including a double. Once you throw in the icing on the cake with the 81 saga, particularly considering the fact that he may have played the greatest test innings ever, just cant help but feel had he retired at that point,his overall place as an alrounder could have been much higher.

No doubt true and his stats legacy would've been greater. But surprisingly, guys don't retire when they're averaging 38 with the bat and 23 with the ball and have just had a whole Ashes series named after them.

It's an interesting discussion though, because for me a peak has to be sustained over a significant amount of tests. As you highlighted above, Botham did it over 50 tests which in the more modern era seems a reasonable amount to judge a guy on. And when you imagine a cricketer like Botham, you don't just imagine his stats (30ish and 30ish), you imagine the guy who could tear apart a bowling attack including Lillee and Thommo, and you imagine a guy who could take wickets at the exact time they were needed when others couldn't.

Flintoff, as good as he could be, just didn't sustain his brilliance for quite long enough. Nevertheless, he was incredible to watch when on song.

 

[GIMH]

Exactly. Way too overrated because he performed in Ashes. There are many better players who have better careers, better peaks, better peaks and careers combined.

Yep definitely just because it was in the Ashes and not because he took down the greatest team in the world

 

[Jono]

No doubt true and his stats legacy would've been greater. But surprisingly, guys don't retire when they're averaging 38 with the bat and 23 with the ball and have just had a whole Ashes series named after them.

hahaha.

The whole "retire when you stats are great" stuff, ughhhhhhhh (not that Gob was saying said he should retire btw)

 

[Migara]

But none who could empty the bars so quickly, he did that more efficiently than even Sir Beefy at his peak

Don't think he's a match for David Boon in that aspect.

 

[Burgey]

As an Australian supporter, I was always glad when his spell ended.

 

[watson]

Yep definitely just because it was in the Ashes and not because he took down the greatest team in the world

I recall Simon Jones being the unsung hero of the 2005 Ashes, and a bowler that I feared every time that he came onto bowl.

If you look at the figures of the 4 quicks in that series it seems pretty obvious to me that Australia lost because they sailed into a perfect storm with each bowler hitting their peak at the same time - not because of a lone effort by Flintoff which has been overstated IMO.


Simon Jones: 18 wickets at 21.00, SR 34.0 (4 Tests)
Andrew Flintoff: 24 wickets at 27.29, SR 48.5
Matthew Hoggard: 18 wickets at 29.56, SR 45.8
Steve Harmison: 17 wickets at 32.29, SR 56.8

 

[GIMH]

I recall Simon Jones being the unsung hero if the 2005 Ashes, and a bowler that I feared every time that he came onto bowl.

If you look at the figures of the 4 quicks in that series it seems pretty obvious to me that Australia lost because they sailed into a perfect storm with each bowler hitting their peak at the same time - not because of a lone effort by Flintoff which has been overstated IMO.


Simon Jones: 18 wickets at 21.00, SR 34.0 (4 Tests)
Andrew Flintoff: 24 wickets at 27.29, SR 48.5
Matthew Hoggard: 18 wickets at 29.56, SR 45.8
Steve Harmison: 17 wickets at 32.29, SR 56.8

Yeah plenty say that Jones was the best England bowler in that series. For me Freddie was more consistent but Jones' performances in the 3rd+4th Tests were exceptional. A real shame they were his last Tests.

Nobody has ever said it was a lone effort by Flintoff to win that series, however when people do talk about his efforts they aren't just talking with the ball.

That being said, an absolute key factor in England winning was keeping Gilchrist quiet. That was the work of Freddie. And some might say that Gilchrist never really recovered from that.

 

[Zinzan]

That being said, an absolute key factor in England winning was keeping Gilchrist quiet. That was the work of Freddie. And some might say that Gilchrist never really recovered from that.

That's stretching it mate. I'd say he'd well & truly recovered by 06/07 when he smashed England's attack to score the 2nd fastest test ton of all-time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah plenty say that Jones was the best England bowler in that series. For me Freddie was more consistent but Jones' performances in the 3rd+4th Tests were exceptional. A real shame they were his last Tests.

Nobody has ever said it was a lone effort by Flintoff to win that series, however when people do talk about his efforts they aren't just talking with the ball.

That being said, an absolute key factor in England winning was keeping Gilchrist quiet. That was the work of Freddie. And some might say that Gilchrist never really recovered from that.

lmao

 

[flibbertyjibber]

That's stretching it mate. I'd say he'd well & truly recovered by 06/07 when he smashed England's attack to score the 2nd fastest test ton of all-time.

That never happened as that series never happened. You should know this by now.

 

[GIMH]

That's stretching it mate. I'd say he'd well & truly recovered by 06/07 when he smashed England's attack to score the 2nd fastest test ton of all-time.

lmao

Averaged 32 for the rest of his Test career so...