Chris Cairns vs Flintoff?

[sledger]

After the '05 ashes KP just did his explosive batting style better than him while also being able to construct traditional test knocks

yeah I don't think you'll find a single person on here who would say otherwise though

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah, just chiming in with agreement. I'm not always hunting for an argument Mr sledge

 

[sledger]

Yeah, just chiming in with agreement. I'm not always hunting for an argument Mr sledge

you're a good lad mister

wasn't necessarily arguing with you, just vaguely drawing attention to the fact that Flintoff's inability to construct traditional test innings is not really a stick to beat him with (imo), since this was never really something that was ever part of his game/appeal

in the very early days pressure was put on him to try and be a classic test batsman, from what I remember anyway, but this was abandoned once it bcame clear that his real value was in picking him with the possibility of him playing a really explosive innings with the bat (whilst accepting that this would inevitably result in quite a few failures) and his bowling being absolutely gun (and at his best, pretty much unplayable)

freddie just a great team man as well, real Roy of the Rovers type, uncomplicated, unpretentious, just showed up, hit the ball bloody hard, bowled the ball bloody fast, went out afterwards and had multiple pints, fired up and motivated everyone around him (including the fans/crowd), hero

 

[GIMH]

Late career Flintoff was great with the bat. Just had nothing left anymore in terms of Test batting other than going for it.

 

[subshakerz]

Late career Flintoff was great with the bat. Just had nothing left anymore in terms of Test batting other than going for it.

If you ignore minnows, Flintoff has more tons than Cairns.

 

[subshakerz]

Feel posters are again being misled by raw stats to make a judgment than no captain on Earth would do in picking Cairns ahead of Flintoff.

Cairns in the nineties was pretty much seen as a useful cricketer, not some high class allrounder. His stats reflect better than his actual playing reputation.

As mentioned, they average pretty much the same sans minnows. As batsmen they are more or less similar.

But Flintoff as a bowler 2003/4 onwards was consistently very good even if the wickets dont show, and even touched worldclass at points. And he bowled in the middle of the flat bat era as well.

 

[mr_mister]

Since it keeps getting mentioned, I'd like to point out Cairns' 2 Zim tons came in '96 and '2000 an era I feel it's unfair to refer to them as minnows

Streak, Brandes and Paul Strang in '96

Streak, Olonga, Mbwanga and Paul Strang in '00


Not pushover attacks

 

[subshakerz]

Since it keeps getting mentioned, I'd like to point out Cairns' 2 Zim tons came in '96 and '2000 an era I feel it's unfair to refer to them as minnows

Streak, Brandes and Paul Strang in '96

Streak, Olonga, Mbwanga and Paul Strang in '00


Not pushover attacks

Nah they're still minnows. And Cairns fattened his record on them and Bangladesh with both ball and bat.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

no captain on Earth would do in picking Cairns ahead of Flintoff.

Azhar, Salman Butt, Cronje if he was still on Earth.

 

[sunilz]

Extremely surprised this one sided poll result. Thought it would be too close.
So where does Cairns rank amongst great Kiwi cricketers?

 

[sledger]

Feel posters are again being misled by raw stats to make a judgment than no captain on Earth would do in picking Cairns ahead of Flintoff.

Cairns in the nineties was pretty much seen as a useful cricketer, not some high class allrounder. His stats reflect better than his actual playing reputation.

As mentioned, they average pretty much the same sans minnows. As batsmen they are more or less similar.

But Flintoff as a bowler 2003/4 onwards was consistently very good even if the wickets dont show, and even touched worldclass at points. And he bowled in the middle of the flat bat era as well.

only part of this post I would contest is the suggestion that his bowling "even touched wordclass at points" bit

he did way more than touch it at points, he was categorically really bloody good for several years

 

[Flem274*]

cairns unfortunately, with bat and ball. he did have the advantage of playing against england though.

 

[trundler]

Cairns has 10 more fifers in fewer tests and a much better strike rate (and therefore more wickets per match) so Flintoff must've been bloody awful outside of those 3 years.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We need a list of Indian fast bowlers who are definitely better than Cairns.

 

[Starfighter]

Without minnows, Cairns is 32 with bat and bowl, pretty much like Flintoff.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Flintoff 31 bat, 33.5 bowl against the same opposition.

 

[GIMH]

Cairns has 10 more fifers in fewer tests and a much better strike rate (and therefore more wickets per match) so Flintoff must've been bloody awful outside of those 3 years.

After the 06-07 Ashes when he was never really fully fit, the make-up of the attack was significantly different as was Flintoff's role. Any match thread from those days will tell you what people saw and what the stats didn't. Of course, some of that was that he was maybe a fraction too short which meant his balls were unplayable but didn't take as many wickets as they could have. But additionally the benefit the likes of a still-developing Anderson and a very green Broad got from bowling at the other end to him was noticeable, especially at times like the 09 Ashes where at Lord’s in the first dig the Aussies struggled to score from Freddie and Jimmy then made them pay.

Of course, stats do tell us a lot, and you can't just pick one player and say that stats don't count for him. But it is true that cricket is a team game and late-career Flintoff was worth more than the sum of his parts to the team. At the same time, once he was fully retired it probably helped in a way as it gave us a bit of certainty. That being said, #6 was never really a flourishing spot afterwards.

 

[trundler]

After the 06-07 Ashes when he was never really fully fit, the make-up of the attack was significantly different as was Flintoff's role. Any match thread from those days will tell you what people saw and what the stats didn't. Of course, some of that was that he was maybe a fraction too short which meant his balls were unplayable but didn't take as many wickets as they could have. But additionally the benefit the likes of a still-developing Anderson and a very green Broad got from bowling at the other end to him was noticeable, especially at times like the 09 Ashes where at Lord’s in the first dig the Aussies struggled to score from Freddie and Jimmy then made them pay.

Of course, stats do tell us a lot, and you can't just pick one player and say that stats don't count for him. But it is true that cricket is a team game and late-career Flintoff was worth more than the sum of his parts to the team. At the same time, once he was fully retired it probably helped in a way as it gave us a bit of certainty. That being said, #6 was never really a flourishing spot afterwards.

Ok

 

[Starfighter]

Since it keeps getting mentioned, I'd like to point out Cairns' 2 Zim tons came in '96 and '2000 an era I feel it's unfair to refer to them as minnows

Streak, Brandes and Paul Strang in '96

Streak, Olonga, Mbwanga and Paul Strang in '00


Not pushover attacks

Flintoff's centuries against the West Indies were scored against attacks that were not exactly fearsome either.

 

[Flem274*]

After the 06-07 Ashes when he was never really fully fit, the make-up of the attack was significantly different as was Flintoff's role. Any match thread from those days will tell you what people saw and what the stats didn't. Of course, some of that was that he was maybe a fraction too short which meant his balls were unplayable but didn't take as many wickets as they could have. But additionally the benefit the likes of a still-developing Anderson and a very green Broad got from bowling at the other end to him was noticeable, especially at times like the 09 Ashes where at Lord’s in the first dig the Aussies struggled to score from Freddie and Jimmy then made them pay.

Of course, stats do tell us a lot, and you can't just pick one player and say that stats don't count for him. But it is true that cricket is a team game and late-career Flintoff was worth more than the sum of his parts to the team. At the same time, once he was fully retired it probably helped in a way as it gave us a bit of certainty. That being said, #6 was never really a flourishing spot afterwards.

this is very similar to what you could say about cairns when he played half fit tbh.

you're correct, freddie was a world class player who boosted the side beyond his stats, but it is to the credit of both players in this comparison that they share this trait.

 

[subshakerz]

Flintoff 31 bat, 33.5 bowl against the same opposition.

32 with the bat and 33.3 with the ball. But closer than without minnows.