Johnson V Flintoff

[Trumpers_Ghost]

In response to the Johnson V Broad batting thread, I though perhaps a more realistic comparrison.

So the Question is:

Which of these two players will have the biggest influence on International Cricket in the next 3 years?

 

[Furball]

Mitch.

I'll be amazed if Flintoff is still playing in all formats in a year.

 

[gwo]

**** misvoted.

 

[Jakester1288]

Johnson by a long shot currently. However, if Flintoff becomes fully fit again and starts playing his cricket from 2005ish, he could trump Johnson, but both are generally injury prone, so who knows?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd go Flintoff if there was a guarantee he'd be fit and in form for the next 3 years...so I picked Johnson. I think Johnson's bowling will get better and he can already hold a bat pretty well.

 

[inbox24]

I think Flintoff beats Johnson in all departments on paper, whether that will translate to dominance or even consistency on the park, we have no idea.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think Flintoff beats Johnson in all departments on paper, whether that will translate to dominance or even consistency on the park, we have no idea.

I actually like Johnson's batting style moreso than Flintoff's, he plays some shots that look great. Whereas from what I've seen of Flintoff he favours the flat-footed heave a little more. Mind you, it's been a while since I've seen him bat. Both can hit a ball. Flintoff's backswing sometimes looked to me like he had a small terrier in his arms and he was trying to shield it from a Rottweiler. Effective though I enjoyed watching him bat when he was going well.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I think Flintoff beats Johnson in all departments on paper, whether that will translate to dominance or even consistency on the park, we have no idea.

not all......I think Johnson is far superior in the field

 

[Burgey]

If Flintoff's fit then imo it's him easily, as he's England's main man.

If he plays as sporadically as he has in recent times, it will likely be Johnson.

Of course the third option is tha tJohnson's workload turns him into Flintoff in terms of injuries. They said on TV t'other day he's bowled on average > 50 overs per test for the past 9 he's played. That's heaps.

 

[Evermind]

Flintoff is OVERRATED.

Johnson FTW.

 

[Evermind]

**** misvoted.

How do people keep "misvoting"? It's not that hard. You just click in the little circle next to the name you like. What can go wrong in that?

 

[JBH001]

Johnson, Freddie is a bit over the hill I think. Although, that said, injury is always looming for Johnson, imo, considering his workload.

 

[Noble One]

Johnson, Freddie is a bit over the hill I think. Although, that said, injury is always looming for Johnson, imo, considering his workload.

Considering the injury history of Johnson it is amazing that he has been able to maintain such a bowling workload over the past year. Must be at his physical best right now, terrific for a young man to get his body into such shape after so many early problems.

As for the question, well Johnson on current form. Three years is a long time, many factors may change. Think back three years ago and Flintoff was at the time regarded as one of the great all-rounders of the modern game. Now he is being compared to an emerging fast bowler who has made some half centuries.

 

[gwo]

How do people keep "misvoting"? It's not that hard. You just click in the little circle next to the name you like. What can go wrong in that?

i click a box. (midge's)

i accidentally press the up key not noticing.

i read a few other tabs i have open.

go back and click submit.

****.

 

[Richard]

Mitch.

I'll be amazed if Flintoff is still playing in all formats in a year.

That's the thing.

I can well see Flintoff not playing a particularly massive amount of cricket over the next 3 years TBH. Hope otherwise, obviously, but I think you'd be asking a lot for him to play enough to better what Johnson appears likely to manage to do.

 

[Uppercut]

not all......I think Johnson is far superior in the field

Not a chance, Freddie's a superlative slip catcher in the most important position around. Johnson's batting is currently better because of form, but in the long run Flintoff's probably better there too. If anything Johnson's just a more threatening bowler at the minute. Having got the inswing going there's nothing to stop him being the best bowler in the world.

 

[Evermind]

i click a box. (midge's)

i accidentally press the up key not noticing.

i read a few other tabs i have open.

go back and click submit.

****.

You're a dum-dum, man.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ignoring Flintoff's inability to stay on the park for consecutive Test series, Flintoff by quite some margin.

Taking that into account, Johnson.

 

[oldmancraigy]

If anything Johnson's just a more threatening bowler at the minute.

JUST more threatening

Johnson walks all over Flintoff as a bowler.

Andy Flintoff might be the most overhyped cricketer of all time. He has one good series, and suddenly people are saying he's the greatest player on the planet.

Every dog has its day - and Flintoff certainly had his moment in the sun. But he's turning 32 this season, and is on the decline. He's had a solid career - with a brief spectacular moment. But his career 31 with the bat and 32 with the ball really don't speak volumes...

Johnson, on the other hand, already has a 27 average with the ball (29 with the bat) - and at 27 years of age is set to play at his peak for the next 3 years. If he finishes around 27 with the ball, then he'll go down as a very good test bowler.

I don't know whether he'll finish up with better overall numbers than Flintoff - but there's little reason to think Freddy will be better over the next 3 years.

Clearly the pollsters know this - which is why as many people have voted 'McDonald' as Flintoff so far.

 

[Richard]

Andy Flintoff might be the most overhyped cricketer of all time. He has one good series, and suddenly people are saying he's the greatest player on the planet.

Oh dear, not this again.

Andrew Flintoff had several good years. No, several excellent years. And pretty much no-one who knows that much about cricket has ever said he's been the best cricketer on the planet for more than about a couple of years, between mid-2004 and mid-2006.

He is most certainly not a one-series wonder, nor close to being. He has, in the end, only managed to produce the goods for a relatively short time (2003/04 to 2006/07). He has had injuries, many of them, some of which could have been avoided with better preparation. He was also to a fair extent to blame for the fact he was utterly useless until the age of 23-24.

But he is not remotely close to being either a one-series wonder nor "the most overhyped cricketer of all-time". Utter nonsense.