andrew flintoff was a bit **** really

[Burgey]

….. and your point is?

Self evident

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Flem been on the wine gums I see.

 

[Burgey]

Lol it’s quality

Flintoff is a weird bowler though. Under performed massively for a bloke with his big throbbing tools

 

[mr_mister]

yeah 3 michelles in 79 tests (and never took a 6fer) is not really the sign of a legendary bowler

Was his main skill meant to be beating the edge and softening the batsmen up for other bowlers to actually claim the rewards?

 

[Shady Slim]

Was his main skill meant to be beating the edge and softening the batsmen up for other bowlers to actually claim the rewards?

morne morkel has entered the chat

 

[stephen]

His main skill was getting 402 runs and 24 wickets to beat Warne's 249 runs and 40 wickets for man of the series in 2005.

In 2005 I learned that 153 runs was worth more than 16 wickets.

 

[Burgey]

Warne was comfortably the best player in the 2005 series but Flintoff the most influential on the winning side (apart from the inventor of the Murray Mint) so in fairness deserved the MOTS award imho

 

[Shady Slim]

His main skill was getting 402 runs and 24 wickets to beat Warne's 249 runs and 40 wickets for man of the series in 2005.

In 2005 I learned that 153 runs was worth more than 16 wickets.

on mycricket you get one champion player point for every assisted wicket and one for every ten runs so this isn’t too far off

 

[Bijed]

yeah 3 michelles in 79 tests (and never took a 6fer) is not really the sign of a legendary bowler

Was his main skill meant to be beating the edge and softening the batsmen up for other bowlers to actually claim the rewards?

That definitely happened with him and it's why I think he was a more useful bowler to the team than his stats would suggest, but he would have been more useful if he'd got more wickets instead, which he didn't because I don't think he pitched it up enough.

I've also always personally felt that commentators really seemed to overplay any wickets he did get (in the second half or so of his career) - sometimes it felt like any wicket he got yielded a reaction of "FLINTOFF HAS GOT THE BREAKTHROUGH!!!" which, whilst obviosuly technically true, wouldn't have got such an excited reaction had another bowler done exactly the same. Of course he did sometimes get wickets when others didn't look like they would, maybe more than most, but imo there was definitely a point where everything he did was talked up to mean more than it did, based on his reputation.

 

[mr_mister]

Haha great post

I'm now picturing commentators gushing over him taking 2/60 like he's just run through a side

 

[trundler]

You have no charm though. This moralising over threads and posts is gormless. You need t stop it

This is a very poor post

.

 

[GotSpin]

couldnt even average under 30 despite getting to bowl with a duke at home. fell out of a boat. is objectively inferior to the alleged mr x who may or may not be christopher lance cairns.

wouldn't be remembered at all if he didn't exist in a side that used minties to cheat their way to an ashes fluke, because they were such a bad team they needed to make the duke ball even more h4x for bowlers.

get in the bin, or the pond in flintoffs case.[/]

Yawn

 

[flibbertyjibber]

His main skill was getting 402 runs and 24 wickets to beat Warne's 249 runs and 40 wickets for man of the series in 2005.

In 2005 I learned that 153 runs was worth more than 16 wickets.

I have no issue with Flintoff getting the award, he was the main player in the side who won the series for the first time in almost 2 generations. Had Warne not dropped KP on that last day Australia would have won and Warne would have been deservedly named the MOTS

 

[morgieb]

It's very hard to justify the MOTS going to someone on the losing side most of the time, especially in a case like 2005 where Warne and Flintoff were both very close.

Think Flintoff's numbers does him a disservice regardless of how good they were as well.

 

[vcs]

That definitely happened with him and it's why I think he was a more useful bowler to the team than his stats would suggest, but he would have been more useful if he'd got more wickets instead, which he didn't because I don't think he pitched it up enough.

I've also always personally felt that commentators really seemed to overplay any wickets he did get (in the second half or so of his career) - sometimes it felt like any wicket he got yielded a reaction of "FLINTOFF HAS GOT THE BREAKTHROUGH!!!" which, whilst obviosuly technically true, wouldn't have got such an excited reaction had another bowler done exactly the same. Of course he did sometimes get wickets when others didn't look like they would, maybe more than most, but imo there was definitely a point where everything he did was talked up to mean more than it did, based on his reputation.

Those crazy celebrations also played into it, the Kallis dismissal where he failed to pick up the ball at Edgbaston comes to mind. Also bowled some manful spells IIRC in the 5-0 thumping in 2006-07 when all the other bowlers took a hammering.

Looking at his stats in hindsight, calling him a tad overrated seems a fair opinion. Very likeable cricketer though.

 

[stephen]

Warne was basically a one man show that series. Probably the only time he truly bowled with three quicks who were past it (Gillespie, Kasper) or junk (Lee, Tait).

 

[mr_mister]

pretty much how trundler v burgey seems to me currently

(see if you can guess who is who)

no disrespect to either btw

 

[Adders]

Wasn't MOS split between Fred and Warne in 2005 or is my memory failing me?

 

[Bijed]

Wasn't MOS split between Fred and Warne in 2005 or is my memory failing me?

IIRC they were both named as players of the series, but it also was the series where the Compton-Miller medal was introduced, which went to Flintoff

 

[Kirkut]

Haha great post

I'm now picturing commentators gushing over him taking 2/60 like he's just run through a side

Cricket is more than purely performance I guess, there is that charisma factor too. There was a spell from Akhtar to Ponting in 1999 during the Perth test which Ponting rated it as the quickest bowling he's ever faced. The scorecard says that he got no wickets and Ponting/Langer smashed 197 and 133 respectively.