• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Chris Cairns vs Flintoff?

Better Cricketer

  • Cairns

  • Flintoff


Results are only viewable after voting.

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
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

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

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

sunilz

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

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
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
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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*

123/5
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.
 

Top