-
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.
Is Flintoff Overrated?
- Thread starter a massive zebra
- Start date
pasag
RTDAS
Haha, would have said the same thing to anyone tbh. But reading over the post I may have come across as slightly condescending for which I apologise for.There's a surprise
Last edited:
C_C
International Captain
I think 'where a player stands today respective to his contemporaries' is a flawed and meaningless point unless you happen to outshine your contemporaries by a few orders of magnitude like Bradman did. For eg, top 5 pacers in the 80s would've been Marshall, Imran, Hadlee,Holding,Garner probably. The top 5 pacers today are : McGrath, Pollock, Vaas, Ntini, Asif.
Without some sort of comparisons across the eras, its very hard to tell how good the current folks are empirically rather than relatively.
comparing only how a player is by where they stand today or with their contemporaries is basically assuming that the quality of cricket remains more or less constant over time. Which it clearly isn't so.
Fiery
Banned
I think you'll find Hadlee's batting was a lot better than you, or his stats, give him credit for. He averaged late 20's in tests at 8 and always scored his runs fast, (usually when we needed them) and a lot of times, to either get the team into a winning position, get the team out if ****, or in some cases, win the game
Fiery
Banned
I didn't think it was condescending at all pasag
...just a bit surprisingly naive from someone as obviously intelligent as yourself wrt alcohol for a start. Yes, I know he tries his guts out on the field, it's off the field where he could improve a lot
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
In many cases though, this thread seemingly included, we simply aren't discussing a player in relation to players in years gone by - we're simply discussing the role in which he has played/will played agaisnt the players he actually plays against. If you find that an irrelevant point, then don't post.
Sometimes I get the impression that people only use the between-eras comparisons so they can say whatever they want without any chance of them being completely proven wrong. Not saying this is the case with you, but I do get that impression from some people.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Cricket is played on the field though, not off the field.I didn't think it was condescending at all pasag
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Complicated question, really. There are so many factors to consider.
Flintoff has always, in my estimation, been rather overrated as a batsman in the longer game. I've never really expected much of him from him as a Test-match batsman. Yet three times, undeniably, he's scored runs against pretty high quality bowling (South Africa 2003, Australia 2005 and India 2005\06). However, these occasions are vastly outnumbered by the times he's failed: he was completely and totally useless before 2003 - in all bar that one series against a NZ attack with 3 or 4 front-line bowlers injured. Since that South Africa series he's failed in Sri Lanka and West Indies that winter\spring, failed in South Africa the following winter, failed in Pakistan, failed at home to Sri Lanka in 2006 and failed in Australia in 2006\07. He's also, of course, bashed around the rubbish bowling sent down in 2004 by New Zealand and West Indies, some of the worst bowling I've ever seen. To me, he's never been much of a Test batsman, and I'm always thinking failure's more likely than success when he goes to the crease in a Test.
With the ball, it's a different matter - you're mad if you think he's done nothing of note since summer 2005, even if he's never been quite as red-hot, wicket-coming-any-minute as he was then. He can get something out of most pitches, and if he bowled fewer no-balls he'd be even better than he already is. I don't find it outrageous to suggest he'll never again reach the heights he reached with the ball in 2005, but equally it's not OOTQ.
As a ODI player, he's pretty damn good all round IMO - much better batsman (bizarrely, for one of his style of play) and a fine bowler. Has his off-days, which can be spectacular, but is generally more reliable with the ball than most in the current day-and-age.
As for alcohol - what nonsense, the guy's always liked a few drinks, as do so many of us. To suggest it's impacted in any way on his performances baffles logic and smacks of trying to make something out of nothing in order to get a talking-point.
And as for Hadlee - he wasn't an all-rounder, it's no insult to say he wasn't. He was a magnificent bowler who also happened to be a pretty reasonable batsman. He was a different case to Kapil, the 1980-1990 Imran and the 1977-1981 Botham. To attempt to put the four in the same category, never mind compare them, is pretty silly IMO.
Flintoff has always, in my estimation, been rather overrated as a batsman in the longer game. I've never really expected much of him from him as a Test-match batsman. Yet three times, undeniably, he's scored runs against pretty high quality bowling (South Africa 2003, Australia 2005 and India 2005\06). However, these occasions are vastly outnumbered by the times he's failed: he was completely and totally useless before 2003 - in all bar that one series against a NZ attack with 3 or 4 front-line bowlers injured. Since that South Africa series he's failed in Sri Lanka and West Indies that winter\spring, failed in South Africa the following winter, failed in Pakistan, failed at home to Sri Lanka in 2006 and failed in Australia in 2006\07. He's also, of course, bashed around the rubbish bowling sent down in 2004 by New Zealand and West Indies, some of the worst bowling I've ever seen. To me, he's never been much of a Test batsman, and I'm always thinking failure's more likely than success when he goes to the crease in a Test.
With the ball, it's a different matter - you're mad if you think he's done nothing of note since summer 2005, even if he's never been quite as red-hot, wicket-coming-any-minute as he was then. He can get something out of most pitches, and if he bowled fewer no-balls he'd be even better than he already is. I don't find it outrageous to suggest he'll never again reach the heights he reached with the ball in 2005, but equally it's not OOTQ.
As a ODI player, he's pretty damn good all round IMO - much better batsman (bizarrely, for one of his style of play) and a fine bowler. Has his off-days, which can be spectacular, but is generally more reliable with the ball than most in the current day-and-age.
As for alcohol - what nonsense, the guy's always liked a few drinks, as do so many of us. To suggest it's impacted in any way on his performances baffles logic and smacks of trying to make something out of nothing in order to get a talking-point.
And as for Hadlee - he wasn't an all-rounder, it's no insult to say he wasn't. He was a magnificent bowler who also happened to be a pretty reasonable batsman. He was a different case to Kapil, the 1980-1990 Imran and the 1977-1981 Botham. To attempt to put the four in the same category, never mind compare them, is pretty silly IMO.
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Excellent post Richard. (edit - referring to this one )
For me, Freddie would get in most Test sides based on his bowling alone. In fact, I'd maybe even go as far as saying all sides. You can count the better pace bowlers in Test cricket on one hand.
I think if he batted at 7, people would be less critical of his batting. His average is around 30-odd, which is fine for a 7, and his true average should probably be around 35 if we took away the early days when he shouldn't really have been playing international cricket. The problem is, we like to play five bowlers, and he generally is a better batsman than whoever tends to be keeping wicket, as such he bats at 6. I hope he gets to bat at 7 this summer tbh.
I also think that he would be better at either discipline if he wasn't good at the other; but that obviously comes with the territory of being an all-rounder.
In tests, calling him a bowling all-rounder is maybe a little harsh, as for me he is the world's premier all-rounder, but i think people in this country expect miracles from him with the bat, which we generally won't get, and we should just be grateful that we have a bowler of his calibre, who also happens to be a decent bat. It astounds me really that he considers himself a batsman who bowls - imagine if he regarded bowling as his premier discipline: he might be even better.
In ODIs, he clearly is as true an all-rounder as exists in the game at the moment. Pollock and Kallis may come close, but for me, Flintoff is better. My main criciticsm of him in ODIs is that he doesn't take enough wickets, but he tends to be economical - most notably his rate was under 3 against NZ recently I believe.
Yes, I am a huge Flintoff fan. But I am a fan because he is a great player who is English - the reason I believe he is a great player is not that he is English. I hope people don't accuse me of that just because it's me making this post.
So to answer the question, I don't really think he is overrated. People generally do wish he'd bat a bit lower, and do cite his limitations and strengths. It's only the non-cricket educated media that think he's Bradman meets McGrath, I think all real Cricket fans, even the one-eyed Englishmen like me (
) know he's not that, but he'd still make my World XI any day in both forms, and I don't think there's a single Test side that could say they wouldn't pick him if they had the chance.
For me, Freddie would get in most Test sides based on his bowling alone. In fact, I'd maybe even go as far as saying all sides. You can count the better pace bowlers in Test cricket on one hand.
I think if he batted at 7, people would be less critical of his batting. His average is around 30-odd, which is fine for a 7, and his true average should probably be around 35 if we took away the early days when he shouldn't really have been playing international cricket. The problem is, we like to play five bowlers, and he generally is a better batsman than whoever tends to be keeping wicket, as such he bats at 6. I hope he gets to bat at 7 this summer tbh.
I also think that he would be better at either discipline if he wasn't good at the other; but that obviously comes with the territory of being an all-rounder.
In tests, calling him a bowling all-rounder is maybe a little harsh, as for me he is the world's premier all-rounder, but i think people in this country expect miracles from him with the bat, which we generally won't get, and we should just be grateful that we have a bowler of his calibre, who also happens to be a decent bat. It astounds me really that he considers himself a batsman who bowls - imagine if he regarded bowling as his premier discipline: he might be even better.
In ODIs, he clearly is as true an all-rounder as exists in the game at the moment. Pollock and Kallis may come close, but for me, Flintoff is better. My main criciticsm of him in ODIs is that he doesn't take enough wickets, but he tends to be economical - most notably his rate was under 3 against NZ recently I believe.
Yes, I am a huge Flintoff fan. But I am a fan because he is a great player who is English - the reason I believe he is a great player is not that he is English. I hope people don't accuse me of that just because it's me making this post.
So to answer the question, I don't really think he is overrated. People generally do wish he'd bat a bit lower, and do cite his limitations and strengths. It's only the non-cricket educated media that think he's Bradman meets McGrath, I think all real Cricket fans, even the one-eyed Englishmen like me (
) know he's not that, but he'd still make my World XI any day in both forms, and I don't think there's a single Test side that could say they wouldn't pick him if they had the chance.
C_C
International Captain
pasag
RTDAS
Haha, as if anyone would think you were referring to the "Out of the question - yeah...?" post
.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
For a couple of years before his less-than-match-fit return in the 06-07 Ashes, Andrew Flintoff matched his dangerous-looking bowling with results.
He was a very good bowler for a lot longer than most bowlers will ever be.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I bet someone would have asked...Haha, as if anyone would think you were referring to the "Out of the question - yeah...?" post
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
He's rated perfectly as an ODI player. One of the best going around.
His batting in tests however, is highly overrated.
His batting in tests however, is highly overrated.
Fiery
Banned
If you've got your **** together off the field, you've got a much better chance of doing well on the field tho Prince
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It depends. He's perfectly capable of stringing together 6 consecutive Test fifties. It's all about his mindset. I don't think anyone rates him as a great batsman, but he's certainly world class, IMO.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
A lot of very good cricketers have been booze-addled and woman-crazy off the field.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Disagree really. As long as you keep training enough and have your mind on your job when you get out there, what you do with the rest of your time is of little concequence.
Shane Warne's a good example...