Chris Cairns vs Flintoff?

[trundler]

Seriously though that makes sense. Stokes has to bowl as the enforcer a lot of the times and it reflects poorly on his stats. His actual impact is probably undersold. That said, Cairns battled a lot with injuries too and I'm sure some kiwaaaah bros can tell us more about his impact. That's a lot of fifers for an all rounder and Cairn's average at 7 is only worse than Botham from memory.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah I'm really making my comments on Freddie about him in isolation rather than as a comparison to Cairns.

 

[Flem274*]

Seriously though that makes sense. Stokes has to bowl as the enforcer a lot of the times and it reflects poorly on his stats. His actual impact is probably undersold. That said, Cairns battled a lot with injuries too and I'm sure some kiwaaaah bros can tell us more about his impact. That's a lot of fifers for an all rounder and Cairn's average at 7 is only worse than Botham from memory.

the 'make the team as bat or bowl' meme was genuinely true for cairns, who did make the team as a specialist batsman or bowler and has the new ball overs and i think even time at #4 to prove it.

if Big Jake wasn't recently exposed to be such a rabble rouser as senior player i'd pop in a little plug for him here as easily the better batsman than both and a perfectly acceptable bowler but nah **** him.

 

[subshakerz]

Seriously though that makes sense. Stokes has to bowl as the enforcer a lot of the times and it reflects poorly on his stats. His actual impact is probably undersold. That said, Cairns battled a lot with injuries too and I'm sure some kiwaaaah bros can tell us more about his impact. That's a lot of fifers for an all rounder and Cairn's average at 7 is only worse than Botham from memory.

To me, Cairns is better with the bat but overall he was middling in both disciplines, while a great addition overall to most sides, whereas Flintoff was genuinely class in bowling and I think that is the difference between them.

 

[thierry henry]

The problem here isn’t revisionism ignoring how good Flintoff was, it’s revisionism/total ignorance about Cairns - for good and bad.

Cairns is somehow being cast as the plodder who accumulated decent stats, vs Flintoff’s ‘higher peak’ and presumably greater genius/talent. Total BS. Cairns was a woeful underperformer for most of his career who just like Flintoff had a terrific peak for a few years. He was also an outstanding talent - particularly with the ball.

Cairns’ bowling in particular seems to have become weirdly underrated here. He was injured and at half pace most of the time and still managed to lead the attack.

But really the main takeaway is these two were pretty similar - bowling all-rounders who could be both excellent frontline bowlers and explosive big hitting batsmen, who were outstanding for a few years of their careers and fairly ordinary aside from that, and who probably should have achieved more.

 

[Flem274*]

To me, Cairns is better with the bat but overall he was middling in both disciplines, while a great addition overall to most sides, whereas Flintoff was genuinely class in bowling and I think that is the difference between them.

your opinion is cool and all but idk how you can watch chris cairns bowl and go 'meh'

 

[thierry henry]

Cairns was a prodigious talent, primarily with the ball. That was like….his whole thing - the prodigious, largely unrealised talent. I don’t blame posters here for not being familiar with 90s NZ cricket lore, but y’all are spinning a totally fabricated narrative.

 

[subshakerz]

your opinion is cool and all but idk how you can watch chris cairns bowl and go 'meh'

I only really watched him in the 90s and NZ including Cairns were Pakistan's punching bag then.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Flintoff had a superb peak. Cairns was better over a career.

 

[mr_mister]

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

Like they literally weren't though. Streak, Brandes and Mbwanga all had genuinely respectable bowling records in tests and they exclusively had to bowl to non minnow batsmen

 

[_00_deathscar]

Like they literally weren't though. Streak, Brandes and Mbwanga all had genuinely respectable bowling records in tests and they exclusively had to bowl to non minnow batsmen

Isn’t that around the same time they beat Pakistan and India too?

 

[mr_mister]

And made the super 6 stage of a very strong '99 WC

 

[subshakerz]

And made the super 6 stage of a very strong '99 WC

Kenya made a semi-final too in another WC.

 

[subshakerz]

Like they literally weren't though. Streak, Brandes and Mbwanga all had genuinely respectable bowling records in tests and they exclusively had to bowl to non minnow batsmen

Streak yes. You are really stretching it with Brandes and Mbwanga though.

Zimbabwe had the odd quality players but the level of the others is why they were a tier below all the regular test teams. It is only some major revisionism that can suggest that runs and wickets against them should be treated the same in quality as other teams.

 

[mr_mister]

Kenya made a semi-final too in another WC.

That was entirely different... They were helped by forfeits and wash outs and easy games at critical stages eg Bangladesh

Zimbabwe got through the group stage taking wins off India and South Africa

 

[mr_mister]

Streak yes. You are really stretching it with Brandes and Mbwanga though.

Zimbabwe had the odd quality players but the level of the others is why they were a tier below all the regular test teams. It is only some major revisionism that can suggest otherwise.

I admit I actually mistook Brandes test record for his ODI record. Either way he's far better than who I picture when I think of a minnow bowler. Look at some notable Bangladesh pacer records... You'd have to assume Mbwangas test average of 31 makes him far above their class for example

 

[mr_mister]

Streak yes. You are really stretching it with Brandes and Mbwanga though.

Zimbabwe had the odd quality players but the level of the others is why they were a tier below all the regular test teams. It is only some major revisionism that can suggest that runs and wickets against them should be treated the same in quality as other teams.

I think it's more with the benefit of hindsight we can see that it was wrong to really consider their side minnows from 95-02 or so. Bangladesh in the 00s and Zim, Ireland and Afghanistan today are real minnows

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's more with the benefit of hindsight we can see that it was wrong to really consider their side minnows from 95-02 or so. Bangladesh in the 00s and Zim, Ireland and Afghanistan today are real minnows

Zimbabwe then was certainly better than minnows today but they were still the minnows then and a tier below the quality of the other teams.

It's like looking at Shakib and Tamim's records and saying that Bangladesh aren't a minnow. The problem is the quality of the other players which is usually so dire that it sinks the team.

 

[trundler]

Zimbabwe beat India and Pakistan though. Bangladesh have never won a test against either.

 

[trundler]

Also, did Flintoff have a better peak or a more visible peak?