sledger
Spanish_Vicente
yeah I don't think you'll find a single person on here who would say otherwise thoughAfter 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 thoughAfter the '05 ashes KP just did his explosive batting style better than him while also being able to construct traditional test knocks
you're a good lad misterYeah, just chiming in with agreement. I'm not always hunting for an argument Mr sledge
If you ignore minnows, Flintoff has more tons than Cairns.Late career Flintoff was great with the bat. Just had nothing left anymore in terms of Test batting other than going for it.
Nah they're still minnows. And Cairns fattened his record on them and Bangladesh with both ball and bat.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
Azhar, Salman Butt, Cronje if he was still on Earth.no captain on Earth would do in picking Cairns ahead of Flintoff.
only part of this post I would contest is the suggestion that his bowling "even touched wordclass at points" bitFeel 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.
Flintoff 31 bat, 33.5 bowl against the same opposition.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
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.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.
OkAfter 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.
Flintoff's centuries against the West Indies were scored against attacks that were not exactly fearsome either.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
this is very similar to what you could say about cairns when he played half fit tbh.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.
32 with the bat and 33.3 with the ball. But closer than without minnows.Flintoff 31 bat, 33.5 bowl against the same opposition.