Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Updated.
-
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.
Johnson V Flintoff
- Thread starter Trumpers_Ghost
- Start date
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's a given, as you well know.
Trumpers_Ghost
U19 Cricketer
Well the thread doesn't specify test cricket (deliberately actually) so I think that fast footwork and a dynamic arm can be matchwinning. 
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Generally most posts around here refer to tests unless otherwise specified. Richard knew what i meant, but I guess it's fair enough to clear that upWell the thread doesn't specify test cricket (deliberately actually) so I think that fast footwork and a dynamic arm can be matchwinning.
oldmancraigy
U19 12th Man
But you can't just pick and choose which parts of his career you want to have a look at...
Even by selecting his best period of time, one still gets left with an awkward 27 with the bat and 39 with the ball in over 2/3rds of his test career
The best part of his career hasn't been ordinary - it's been decidedly poor.
The sledge of Scott Muller "can't bat can't bowl" by 'Joe the cameraman' can pretty well be applied to Flintoff for the best part of his career.
Like it or not, cricket is a measured game where a players input to the team is seen in terms of the runs he scores or the wickets he takes. Near misses don't win matches - and if someone can come up with 'near misses' for around 50 tests, then one starts to wonder if they're up to the task?
Anyway - in the end we're disagreeing on what people say about Flintoff - the chatter I'm hearing is still people saying he could/should be one of the all time greats (even the media still loves it... Mark Nicholas in the Australian summer season; Peter Roebuck on ABC radio during the Aus v NZ test series in a discussion on 'all-rounders')
Maybe it gets my goat more than it should since (as I point out) the guys standard level of performance is rather poor.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
I expected better of you Uppercut - you've subliminally absorbed Mark Nicholas' outpourings.
By Heaven! What a batter, what a fieldsman!
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Apologies- the post I quoted used the horrid expression and I forgot to put it in Inverted Commas of Mockery in order to properly express my contempt for it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Flintoff was disappointing but still promising 2001/02-2003. Most people who watched him (I say most people, because I wasn't one of them) in that time thought he'd eventually come good, and so he did.
And really, if you think he's been poor 2006/07-2008/09 you haven't been watching. He could've done better, undoubtedly he could, but he has categorically not been poor. He has bowled well without that much reward.
No, it hasn't. The only time Flintoff was out-and-out poor was 1998-2000. And I'll tell you something else - anyone will be poor if they're picked at a time when there's no evidence whatsoever to support their elevation.
The selectors were to blame for Flintoff's inadequacies 1998-2000. He should never have been near the side. To try to suggest that the Flintoff of those 3 years is of the remotest relevance to the Flintoff of 2001/02 onwards is, well, stupid, plain-and-simple.
Err, no, it can't. Even Flintoff of 1998-2000 (when he truly was awful) was better than Muller in those 2 Tests of his.
I've made this clear on countless occasions. I've said that Flintoff has been disappointing in terms of actual figures of late. He's bowled about as well as ever, but has not taken the hauls the way he did 2003/04-2006.
Perhaps, then, you should direct these sorts of comments at those, rather than at CW which generally enjoys a higher standard of discussion than elsewhere and not project others' comments onto CWers as if they were saying them.
Because, with a few exceptions, they're not.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Fair enough mate - we're shoulder to shoulder on this one then
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha, it's the "irrelevant final option". If you want to see the poll results but want to abstain, you pick McDonald.
ozone
First Class Debutant
As it stands:
As batsmen, Flintoff >> Johnson. The only reason people think otherwise is because Johnson has scored a few runs recently.
As bowlers Flintoff > Johnson. Flintoff has been fairly consistent as a bowler for a number of years, and his average always seems high because he rarely gets out tailenders, so finishes with, say, 3 wickets when other bowlers would have taken 5.
As fielders, Flintoff > Johnson. Flintoff is one of the safest slip fielders in the world, whilst Johnson is good outfielder. Therefore, in test cricket, Flintoff is always going to be more useful as a fielder.
That said, over the next three years I expect Johnson to improve as a bowler. I would expect him to become one of the top three bowlers in the world in that time, and so would probably be better than Flintoff at his peak. I think anyone who thinks Johnson will become an all-rounder is being overly optimistic, I reckon he will become a decent test match number 8, and will finish with a record similar to that of Warne (batting wise). In contrast, I expect Flintoff to still be playing in 3 years, but only to have played 50% of England's games through injury.
All things considered, Johnson will have more of an impact over the next three years, but his impact will not be as large as Flintoffs from 2003-2006.
As batsmen, Flintoff >> Johnson. The only reason people think otherwise is because Johnson has scored a few runs recently.
As bowlers Flintoff > Johnson. Flintoff has been fairly consistent as a bowler for a number of years, and his average always seems high because he rarely gets out tailenders, so finishes with, say, 3 wickets when other bowlers would have taken 5.
As fielders, Flintoff > Johnson. Flintoff is one of the safest slip fielders in the world, whilst Johnson is good outfielder. Therefore, in test cricket, Flintoff is always going to be more useful as a fielder.
That said, over the next three years I expect Johnson to improve as a bowler. I would expect him to become one of the top three bowlers in the world in that time, and so would probably be better than Flintoff at his peak. I think anyone who thinks Johnson will become an all-rounder is being overly optimistic, I reckon he will become a decent test match number 8, and will finish with a record similar to that of Warne (batting wise). In contrast, I expect Flintoff to still be playing in 3 years, but only to have played 50% of England's games through injury.
All things considered, Johnson will have more of an impact over the next three years, but his impact will not be as large as Flintoffs from 2003-2006.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Never noticed one here. And yes, it is often used as an abstinence (or a "can't split 'em") if you want to vote anyway.
I myself very rarely spot a poll and let it go unvoted. So if I a) don't have an opinion on the subject; b) don't want to vote or; c) think it's one I can't split the options, I vote irrelevant.
oldmancraigy
U19 12th Man
You've a convoluted way of discussing things...
The 'Muller' comment wasn't a comparison - just using the sledge against him and directing it to the larger part of Flintoff's career. If you think 27 with the bat and 49 with the ball makes someone worthy of test selection then that's your opinion. But I'd hate to support the team that you were selector of
CWers don't make up the world of cricket - my comment is that Flintoff is one of the most overrated cricketers - you're saying nobody is overrating him. I'm saying 'oh yes they are'.
But let's leave that aside for now - neither of us is getting anywhere on it...
Suffice to say, when people lob in here and try and pretend (for whatever obscure reason) that Flintoff is currently a better bowler than Mitchell Johnson at this point in their careers then my case is won. Flintoff is clearly overrated.
oldmancraigy
U19 12th Man
That's a completely absurd statement... I'm not going to trawl the data, but to check his latest test pretty well proves you wrong.
He claimed 3 wickets in that test, 2 of the three were batsmen 7 and 9 of the West Indian team.
edit: I just checked his last test v India, and he picked up 3 wickets in that test too. Number 9 and 10 were 2 of them.....
But maybe if you try a bit harder you'll be able to come up with some other spin??
Last edited:
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Don't think they're comparable to the pitches Johnson bowled on against NZ and SA. He had some pretty weak tours of India and the West Indies prior to that, remember. Truth be told, Flintoff came out of them averaging 29 and 30 respectively, so he did a much better job in difficult conditions than Johnson. His wickets are almost all top-order batsmen too.
That's a completely absurd statement... I'm not going to trawl the data, but to check his latest test pretty well proves you wrong.
He claimed 3 wickets in that test, 2 of the three were batsmen 7 and 9 of the West Indian team.
edit: I just checked his last test v India, and he picked up 3 wickets in that test too. Number 9 and 10 were 2 of them.....
But maybe if you try a bit harder you'll be able to come up with some other spin??
There's a bit of a pendulum effect here, you're underrating a widely overrated player.
Last edited:
Trumpers_Ghost
U19 Cricketer
Huh!! What do you call one who patrols the field, gathers and returns a hit ball?
In my country this has always been the term used (even if dust spreader would be more appropriate at some venues)
Perhaps the Belgians could be called upon to give us some historical perspective!