Richard said:
In 2003 there most certainly weren't many.
I'm sorry - there is no such thing as "fudging" stats. The overall career stats can be as incredibly misleading as anything. If you look at Lance Gibbs' overall career you might think him an extremely ordinary bowler. If you look at Vinod Kambli's overall career you might think "why the hell didn't he play more?" (indeed, many still do).
For each and every player, there are certain stats that sum them up best. Sometimes you have to go deeper than the surface crust.
Please do not get it into your head that I am one of those who lies down and worships every centimetre of ground Flintoff walks on. This is nothing to do with him; I am simply pointing-out the folly of insisting that you are only allowed to use a single stat - overall career average - to judge a player. There are many, many, many different stats that are available: some show a very revealing pattern, some show nothing at all.
In Flintoff's case it shows quite clearly that he was an incredibly ordinary player before 2003, and that he has been a rather good one from then
onwards. Once again, this must be taken in context; 18 months in the sun does not, indeed, make an all-time great.
But equally you can't say "no, you're not allowed to 'fudge the facts' because that's not the most commonly used thing".
In almost every case, you can't just take an overall skim of the surface, you need to break it down. This is not "manipulation" or "fudging", it's giving a truer picture. Those who try to dismiss it as "manipulation" or "fudging" are simply clutching at straws.
The fact is, lots of players go through peaks and troughs, and it's the most recent stuff that's almost invariably the most meaningful. If you look at Jacob Oram's Test-career, you might think he's not too bad a bowler, when in fact you remove his first series and you see quite clearly that he's absolutely terrible. You won't realise how ****-poor Brett Lee is if you include his Tests pre-injury. You won't realise that Stuart MacGill is possibly the most overrated bowler of the modern era if you look at his career as a whole instead of the two phases it very, very clearly falls into.
Phases (and other patterns) are part-and-parcel of cricket. To deny the fact that they say far more than the overall average is pure folly.
I actually stated that the reality is that history judges a test cricketer on their Full career stats. Not one year. Regardless of the fact you make some reasonable points, this fact cannot be escaped.
Although you make a decent argument , your examples were awful IMO
I'd take Brett Lee's bowling over Flintoff in a test match anyday of the week -so i disagree with you there. And i'm a not an Aussie fan.
Your describing Oram is an "absolutely terrible bowler" is a tad harsh given Jacob's have similar injury problems as flintoff had early in his career. For the record I believe Oram is better test bat than Flintoff. I'm sure most who witnessed his amazing 127 n.o in the brisbane test against the best bowlers in the world will testify to that, not to mention his test average over 40. I will concede Flintoff a better test bowler than Oram at the moment even though Orams average is a lot better. That doesn't make Oram an "absolutely terrible bowler" though, just one that has been struggling for fitness for the last year. And you are right that his bowling has declined since the start of his career.
But as you've said yourself, cricketers have Lows and highs.
As far as Mcgill goes..Exactly why do think he's so overrated. Next you'll be suggesting that you'd rather have Giles than Mcgill.
Overall I agree that a players Full career record is not always the "be all and end all". But i still think it does mean a lot.
Why is Bradman rated as the undisputed best bat of all-time?? Because his record is so Amazing!!
Whilst you are correct in saying that a lot a factors must be taken into consideration as opposed to just glancing at a record.Flintoff is simply not good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as the current great test cricketers in the world. I'm talking the likes of Mcgrath, Warne, Lara , Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting, Inzi, Gilchrist.
What Flintoff's current test record shows me is that he is improving a lot, however it also shows me that he hasn't yet proven that as a test cricketer of the very top bracket. ie the names above.
If he continues his form and averages 40 with the bat and 25 with the ball, in the up and coming Ashes (against the best oppositions) and then for the next 2 years or so (as Cairn's did in the 2nd half of his career) then I will be the first to say I'm wrong. And I'ms ure it would change my current view that Flintoff is the most overated and overhyped cricketer of all time.
