Andy Flintoff and bowling

[Flem274*]

Flintoff when he figured out tests was a beast. Look at his role - hit the deck and put the ****s up them with an inspiring allrounder spell that lifts the rest of the team. He was really good at it when he was on.

I think cricket fans tend to appreciate roles less than we should. Cricket isn't a game of ICC.

Flintoff wasn't a very fine cricket

Decent cricketer though

 

[Zinzan]

Flintoff when he figured out tests was a beast. Look at his role - hit the deck and put the ****s up them with an inspiring allrounder spell that lifts the rest of the team. He was really good at it when he was on.

I think cricket fans tend to appreciate roles less than we should. Cricket isn't a game of ICC.

Decent cricketer though

WTF? Talk about quote mining me. The sentence I used was "Not saying Flintoff wasn't a fine cricketer......". you ****.

Way to take someone completely out of context, this is even below CG quoting standards.

 

[Furball]

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.

Gilchrist went into that innings with his place severely under question and he'd contributed **** all in 4 innings in the series up to that point.

 

[Zinzan]

Gilchrist went into that innings with his place severely under question and he'd contributed **** all in 4 innings in the series up to that point.

Even so, to suggest Gilly never recovered due to one series vs. Flintoff as opposed to naturally declining as most hand-eye aggressive batsmen do slightly as they age is really clutching at straws.

 

[GIMH]

Even so, to suggest Gilly never recovered due to one series vs. Flintoff as opposed to naturally declining as most hand-eye aggressive batsmen do slightly as they age is really clutching at straws.

Well I didn't say that Flintoff caused it, but that afterwards he was not the same. Which is categorically true, Perth or not.

Crux of the issue. Rate Fred or don't as you feel. But downplaying his achievements in that ashes series and his others in that time period - such as his display as captain away to India - is to ignore not just impressive numbers but his impact on both the opposition and his team mates, and therefore matches and series as a whole.

 

[Furball]

He's the ultimate "numbers aren't everything" cricketer. Nobody sums that up better than Flintoff.

 

[GIMH]

He's the ultimate "numbers aren't everything" cricketer. Nobody sums that up better than Flintoff.

As hb said - and hey regular readers know that's not necessarily a phrase I'll often lead with - compare with numbers and Watson is better

If you think Watson is actually the better player, you should probably take up another hobby. Like punching yourself in the face

NB - to my knowledge nobody has actually said Watson was better. Just throwing it out there.

 

[honestbharani]

Well I didn't say that Flintoff caused it, but that afterwards he was not the same. Which is categorically true, Perth or not.

Crux of the issue. Rate Fred or don't as you feel. But downplaying his achievements in that ashes series and his others in that time period - such as his display as captain away to India - is to ignore not just impressive numbers but his impact on both the opposition and his team mates, and therefore matches and series as a whole.

I dont think it matters if Gilly was the same player or not afterwards.. Fact is, Flintoff kept him and Hayden and most of their left handers quiet and did not let them get away to big scores like they usually do. His control over them is what helped England beat them to a great degree. He was good to them even during the ICC Super Series. It was ridiculous how good he was to their left handers especially. His peak was short compared to the great allrounders of the 80s but he was amongst the best this side of the 80s for sure, as an allrounder.

 

[Prince EWS]

As hb said - and hey regular readers know that's not necessarily a phrase I'll often lead with - compare with numbers and Watson is better

I think this is only true to those whose idea of 'comparing with numbers' is just looking at their cricinfo profile page and comparing their raw Test averages. To be fair that's not actually a straw man as there are people who do actually do just that, but any serious statistical analysis will reveal that Flintoff was a much, much better Test bowler than Watson, even without having watched them.

 

[GIMH]

I dont think it matters if Gilly was the same player or not afterwards.. Fact is, Flintoff kept him and Hayden and most of their left handers quiet and did not let them get away to big scores like they usually do. His control over them is what helped England beat them to a great degree. He was good to them even during the ICC Super Series. It was ridiculous how good he was to their left handers especially. His peak was short compared to the great allrounders of the 80s but he was amongst the best this side of the 80s for sure, as an allrounder.

Yep. I mean hey this is a somewhat facile way of making a point but any world XI thread 04-06 would have Freddie in every side. And tbh when he came back to Tests in 08 most people were putting him in then too (batting at 8).

This wasn't just the fanboys like me. Just cricket fans who appreciated what he brought to the table.

 

[honestbharani]

And of course there was this iconic moment of the Ashes 2005 for me.. Nothing was happening and a partnership was going on and it looked like Australia could draw the game or something, Flintoff just waved to Vaughan, took the ball and went and bowled and duly broke the partnership. When a guy is that good, people WILL remember, bad stats or whatever.

 

[Cabinet96]

It's super weird that Watson has the same number of 5fers as Flintoff. I do wonder if Freddie bowled too short to be an amazing strike bowler.

 

[Furball]

It's super weird that Watson has the same number of 5fers as Flintoff. I do wonder if Freddie bowled too short to be an amazing strike bowler.

Yes is the answer to that.

Here's the thing. If I'm captain of my all time England team, and I've got 2 well set batsmen at the other end, I'm throwing the ball to Flintoff to get the breakthrough. Regardless of how good or well set they are, he'll cause them trouble, have them dancing round the crease and will probably get them out.

Once he's got the breakthrough, I'm chucking the ball to Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson to exploit the breakthrough. Flintoff's not the man to run through a side.

 

[GIMH]

It's super weird that Watson has the same number of 5fers as Flintoff. I do wonder if Freddie bowled too short to be an amazing strike bowler.

Yeah he was often, but the difference between him and someone like Watson is that he didn't build pressure by keeping it tight but by being all over their batsmen. Lords 09 sure he got his 5fer second dig, but first dig his bowling at the other end heaped the pressure on the Aussie bats and Jimmy reaped the rewards

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasn't just the length with Flintoff's bowling, though. It was his willingness to be driven. Didn't push it into the batsman's half as often as a top Test bowler should. Saw it so many times, he'd try to swing it, bats would go after him and he'd come back a bit to stop them from driving him.

He could bowl world-class stuff and he could swing it at pace but, most of the time, he chose not to. I can't imagine he wasn't backed to do whatever he wanted to from '03-'07 and I think he just lacked the killer instinct that the very best have. That should count against him no matter what his abilities were.

 

[smash84]

Yes is the answer to that.

Here's the thing. If I'm captain of my all time England team, and I've got 2 well set batsmen at the other end, I'm throwing the ball to Flintoff to get the breakthrough. Regardless of how good or well set they are, he'll cause them trouble, have them dancing round the crease and will probably get them out.

Once he's got the breakthrough, I'm chucking the ball to Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson to exploit the breakthrough. Flintoff's not the man to run through a side.

So your AT England XI will have Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson as the main bowlers?

 

[marc71178]

As hb said - and hey regular readers know that's not necessarily a phrase I'll often lead with - compare with numbers and Watson is better

If you think Watson is actually the better player, you should probably take up another hobby. Like punching yourself in the face

What about punching Twatto in the face?

 

[Furball]

So your AT England XI will have Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson as the main bowlers?

Of the players I've seen, easily.

 

[smash84]

Of the players I've seen, easily.

fair enough. Else I was wondering why the heck would you want jimmy A or Stuart B over a Sydney F Barnes or Freddie Trueman

 

[Prince EWS]

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

I think there are two parts to explaining this.

A lot of people have correctly gone about explaining that his length meant he was much less likely to have those 6/50 kind of days that other bowlers of his skill level had. He was the ultimate pressure bowler though, and I do certainly think that while bowling slightly shorter as a rule will prevent you running through teams as much, it'll make you more useful against set, quality batsmen who are looking to go at that length anyway and are less likely to play and miss when beaten. The real special bowlers like McGrath and Steyn were able to change their length slightly depending on who they were bowling to, but most even world class bowlers tend to have a stock length that they feel most comfortable with, and Flintoff's was such that he probably offered a little more (and looked a little better) than his figures suggested. Through his peak I think he was worth the equivalent of a bowler averaging a couple of runs less than he was just because what he provided was such a rare commodity.

More than that though, I just think the Flintoff we all remember - the who had everything going for him with the ball skill was as you said - only existed for about a third of his career. At the beginning of his career he just didn't do enough with the ball to be very threatening, and at the end of his career he was playing through dire injuries whenever he went out there and was often pushed well beyond the workload he was truly capable of. We tend to forget those bits because they were less exciting than that middle part where he was a world class bowler.