The allrounder cut-off

[hendrix]

Care to explain why?

Shakib is Bangladesh's best bowler and best batsman. Do I need to elaborate?

Cairns opened the bowling for NZ and batted in the top 6. Do I need to elaborate?

 

[OverratedSanity]

For some reason, it's ridiculous to compare Flintoff with other players with better stats than him. Anyone who compares Flintoff unfavourably with other players hasn't watched him bowl, right?

I mean I could use that argument about every frikken player. The constant argument is that he "had more impact than his stats". Well so do plenty of players.

Ever seen a Kallis out swinger? A Vettori arm ball? Cairns' seam movement?

It's very fair to compare Flintoff with Cairns... But Afridi? Vaas? Klusener? Come on... It's a joke

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, I have such mixed emotions about this Flintoff revisionism.

For all those who weren't around during the nitty-gritty of Flintoff's career, I was a main torch-carrier for the crowd that felt his batting was vastly over-rated. Even during his peak period of a couple of years where he averaged 40 odd against good opposition, he was never truly good enough to bat at number six IMO. It was pretty obvious to me at the time that he was enjoying a purple patch with the bat, spurred on as much by his personality and the momentum he could carry forward from his bowling, catching and the morale of an improving and winning side as it was by his ability with the bat. It was always going to fade sooner rather than later and when it did the selectors refused to acknowledge it, repeatedly selecting him to bat in the top six anyway to the detriment of his side. His batting average absolutely does his ability justice IMO and his century count is more of a reflection of the fact that he had a cemented spot in a plumb batting position for a large number of Tests than it is of his batting ability. He has less centuries in more Tests than Mohammad Ashraful for example, who similarly mixed awesome, memorable innings with large periods of barren production for much the same reasons. I strongly feel that Shaun Pollock would have a similar if not better Test batting record to Flintoff if he'd batted six for most of his career too.

So for all those reasons, I can't help but grin at history already looking at his batting a little less favourably, even if only on here. However..

The disparagement of him as an all-round cricketer is way over the top. Comparing his batting to Vaas's seems a step too far even to me and his bowling has IMO become pretty under-rated on this forum since he retired. The criticisms of him never ripping through sides and/or bowling the wrong length have been getting louder and louder, and there's obviously something to them, and they are backed up by his less than awesome bowling average. However his ability to build and maintain pressure was right up there with the very best I've seen this century. At the end of the day batting is about how many and when, but as a bowler you're much more looking to work as an overall bowling group, and Flintoff's contributions to that definitely went beyond the numbers a bit. I say that as someone who's primarily a stats man. A lot of people confuse "building pressure" with "bowling economically", and while there is some overlap I think anyone who's batted in a competitive cricket match will know it's not quite the same thing. Nathan Astle could bowl very economically without the batsmen feeling pressured at all in a Test match because they knew he wasn't threatening their wicket, but even if Flintoff didn't end up getting you out because he bowled half a yard too short to actually take the edge, consistently threatening to beat the batsmen on both edges with hostile, accurate spells back of a length really contributed to the attack. His ability to break partnerships is what I found the most under-rated though; he rarely took wickets in bunches because of the aforementioned length issue but bowling slightly shorter made him a greater threat to set batsmen who had their eyes in and were looking to play more expansively. That wasn't just the case during some mystical peak where all the planets aligned, but his entire career once he became a serious bowler. It wasn't a purple patch or a bit of a personality-driven momentum. Giving the ball to Flintoff when a partnership had developed became such a successful tactic and was a massive part of any close England victory. His contribution to an overall bowling attack was greater than an average of 32 or whatever he ended up with, which is why it's madness to compare his bowling with Kallis or Klusener.

His catching and leadership abilities don't seem to be in question here but they were obviously big parts of his threat as an allround cricketer, and even his batting - which I never thought I'd be defending on this forum - was obviously excellent in the context of a bowling allrounder, even if he was batting a spot or two higher than he should've been. That ability to carry momentum through from one discipline to the other when the team was on top, which I mentioned earlier as a reason for the quality of his batsmanship being over-rated to the detriment of the side after his peak, is still a valuable commodity for an allrounder. It allows them to make up for the fact, to some extent, that they might not quite be all the way there in one discipline or another by being able to combine both in one game to make a massive contribution towards a victory for one man. It's obviously not a quality I value as highly as many others on this forum but it's something that definitely needs to be taken into account when you analyse players such as Flintoff and Botham, no matter what extent you take it to.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't know how Kallis is in this argument. He is a completely different cricketer. As a batsman he is your bank, and his bowling is a small lottery win when he brings in this awesome 140kph outies at 50 years of age or however old he is.

Flintoff was the pokies with the bat; didn't always work, but huge pay off. and was another type of bank (the third seamer bank) with the ball.

Cairns was somewhere in between. He was definitely a bank with the ball, and his batting graduated from the pokies to a solid racehorse pick: Not without risk, but you can rely on it a bit more.

 

[hendrix]

Comparing his batting to Vaas's seems a step too far even to me and his bowling has IMO become pretty under-rated on this forum since he retired.

This wasn't what the argument was. The argument was that some bowlers who bat have had 3 year peaks where their stats look like they're genuine all rounders. But that doesn't make them allrounders. It just means that players have peaks.

Daniel Vettori at 8 was a better batsman than Flintoff for a period of 10 years.

 

[Burgey]

These cut offs are mandatory

 

[OverratedSanity]

This wasn't what the argument was. The argument was that some bowlers who bat have had 3 year peaks where their stats look like they're genuine all rounders. But that doesn't make them allrounders. It just means that players have peaks.

Daniel Vettori at 8 was a better batsman than Flintoff for a period of 10 years.

Which is why stats without context are utterly f***ing useless.

If you watched their careers you'd know Flintoff was a capable allrounder... Vaas was a talented who could be pesky on occasion.

And why do people not understand that at his peak it's not just Flintoff stats alone that made the peak great... It's when he got those wickets, against whom, at which point in the game...

 

[Flem274*]

Hendrix, I don't think comparing Freddie and DV is a good comparison. Freddie is a hot dirty fling, DV is marriage.

 

[GIMH]

Cribbage has smashed this one out of the park. Telling it like it is. People ignore that cricket is a team sport but ask Jimmy Anderson if he had any help getting his first innings wickets at Lord's in 09. ****, ask Geraint frigging Jones whether he reckons he'd have got to 85 at Trent Bridge in 05 if some other geezer was batting opposite him. Ask anyone who shared a team with Flintoff whether the impact his mere presence had on the overall atmosphere gave them a lift.

If you want to claim someone is more talismanic because they are surrounded by more poor players than Freddie was, then I don't really know what to say because I don't think you've quite grasped the concept.

Btw just throwing it out there, were also talking one of the great ODI players of his era, something which largely goes under the radar given I guess ODIs aren't highly regarded in these parts. Probably our best ever one day player for mine.

Finally, I sight trauma.

 

[Flem274*]

Flintoff is better than Shakib at present and I don't think anyone disputes that, and between him and Cairns it is close and imo Cairns shades it, but to imply it's clear cut stinks of nationalism and emotion probably caused by Migara dredging his posts from a blue and gold toilet. Cairns wasn't a talisman because he was surrounded by poorer players, he was a talisman because he was simply that good.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think many have much beef when it comes to a Freddie/Cairns argument.

I do have beef with an argument of 'he is more of a talisman because he's the best batsman and bowler in his team' because that's just an utter nonsense line of reasoning

I also have beef with the blatant misuse of the term nationalism on this forum but that's for another day

 

[Dan]

I don't care what anyone says, Flintoff was no Steve Tikolo

 

[harsh.ag]

Kallis' X Factor:

 

[Red]

Saffer women rule the world imo

 

[harsh.ag]

Haha, I have such mixed emotions about this Flintoff revisionism.

For all those who weren't around during the nitty-gritty of Flintoff's career, I was a main torch-carrier for the crowd that felt his batting was vastly over-rated. Even during his peak period of a couple of years where he averaged 40 odd against good opposition, he was never truly good enough to bat at number six IMO. It was pretty obvious to me at the time that he was enjoying a purple patch with the bat, spurred on as much by his personality and the momentum he could carry forward from his bowling, catching and the morale of an improving and winning side as it was by his ability with the bat. It was always going to fade sooner rather than later and when it did the selectors refused to acknowledge it, repeatedly selecting him to bat in the top six anyway to the detriment of his side. His batting average absolutely does his ability justice IMO and his century count is more of a reflection of the fact that he had a cemented spot in a plumb batting position for a large number of Tests than it is of his batting ability. He has less centuries in more Tests than Mohammad Ashraful for example, who similarly mixed awesome, memorable innings with large periods of barren production for much the same reasons. I strongly feel that Shaun Pollock would have a similar if not better Test batting record to Flintoff if he'd batted six for most of his career too.

So for all those reasons, I can't help but grin at history already looking at his batting a little less favourably, even if only on here. However..

The disparagement of him as an all-round cricketer is way over the top. Comparing his batting to Vaas's seems a step too far even to me and his bowling has IMO become pretty under-rated on this forum since he retired. The criticisms of him never ripping through sides and/or bowling the wrong length have been getting louder and louder, and there's obviously something to them, and they are backed up by his less than awesome bowling average. However his ability to build and maintain pressure was right up there with the very best I've seen this century. At the end of the day batting is about how many and when, but as a bowler you're much more looking to work as an overall bowling group, and Flintoff's contributions to that definitely went beyond the numbers a bit. I say that as someone who's primarily a stats man. A lot of people confuse "building pressure" with "bowling economically", and while there is some overlap I think anyone who's batted in a competitive cricket match will know it's not quite the same thing. Nathan Astle could bowl very economically without the batsmen feeling pressured at all in a Test match because they knew he wasn't threatening their wicket, but even if Flintoff didn't end up getting you out because he bowled half a yard too short to actually take the edge, consistently threatening to beat the batsmen on both edges with hostile, accurate spells back of a length really contributed to the attack. His ability to break partnerships is what I found the most under-rated though; he rarely took wickets in bunches because of the aforementioned length issue but bowling slightly shorter made him a greater threat to set batsmen who had their eyes in and were looking to play more expansively. That wasn't just the case during some mystical peak where all the planets aligned, but his entire career once he became a serious bowler. It wasn't a purple patch or a bit of a personality-driven momentum. Giving the ball to Flintoff when a partnership had developed became such a successful tactic and was a massive part of any close England victory. His contribution to an overall bowling attack was greater than an average of 32 or whatever he ended up with, which is why it's madness to compare his bowling with Kallis or Klusener.

His catching and leadership abilities don't seem to be in question here but they were obviously big parts of his threat as an allround cricketer, and even his batting - which I never thought I'd be defending on this forum - was obviously excellent in the context of a bowling allrounder, even if he was batting a spot or two higher than he should've been. That ability to carry momentum through from one discipline to the other when the team was on top, which I mentioned earlier as a reason for the quality of his batsmanship being over-rated to the detriment of the side after his peak, is still a valuable commodity for an allrounder. It allows them to make up for the fact, to some extent, that they might not quite be all the way there in one discipline or another by being able to combine both in one game to make a massive contribution towards a victory for one man. It's obviously not a quality I value as highly as many others on this forum but it's something that definitely needs to be taken into account when you analyse players such as Flintoff and Botham, no matter what extent you take it to.

Quite a lot of sense made here, I honestly don't know how much of a "talismanic" effect Flintoff had as compared to Kallis, and what exactly said effect is all about. When I play cricket, then yes, magical moments of individual brilliance and a great personality like Freddie's can indeed lift the spirits for a few overs in a sustained manner, but it doesn't last for too long. Having a person like Kallis can increase the overall comfort level of the dressing-room as well, and makes everyone a bit more confident in the team. So it goes both ways. As a bowler, Flintoff was certainly a more threatening figure than Kallis, while with the bat there is, of course, no comparison. By the way, is it just me who thinks that batting lower down the order gives a player more chances to appear "talismanic" with quickfire innings?

 

[harsh.ag]

Has the like button been removed?

 

[hendrix]

I don't think many have much beef when it comes to a Freddie/Cairns argument.

I do have beef with an argument of 'he is more of a talisman because he's the best batsman and bowler in his team' because that's just an utter nonsense line of reasoning

I also have beef with the blatant misuse of the term nationalism on this forum but that's for another day

wtf is a talisman if not the best player on your team?

 

[marc71178]

No, noone is saying Vaas is an allrounder. People are just using the Vaas example to show that bowlers who bat a bit can also have peaks where they look very good.

Flintoff's peak is simply not that great.

Perhaps Vettori is a better example?

between 2005-2009 (5 years) he averaged 45 with the bat and 31 with the ball.

Difference being Flintoff didn't overly rely on ZimBan for his figures, but then again 42 and 36 doesn't quite have the same ring about it does it?

And also on Vettori, although a fantastic bloke at 8, is it at all coincidental that he couldn't really replicate it whenever he went further up the order?

 

[Flem274*]

Yes it is. Vettori the batsman was easily a number six, and he had sporadic success from his sporadic elevations up the order. I don't really care if his record was patchy there (I haven't looked), watching him bat it was evident he was good enough to bat higher.

I wouldn't put him above Flintoff because Vettori's bowling post 2002 was mythological, but he was a quality allrounder and should have been batting at six or seven more often than he did, and if he had decent quicks at the other end more often I suspect he may have been more successful in his role as the pressure building bowler.

 

[hendrix]

In the same way that Flintoff's bowling average is tempered by the fact that he was a "partnership breaker" (this despite him being a third seamer quite often but we'll ignore that for now), Vettori's bowling average can be tempered by the fact that he was expected to be both the partnership breaker and the principle threat during the years when didn't even have a decent new ball attack.

There was a period when Ian O'brien was NZ's best pace bowler. Yuck.

Also, Flem, I disagree. I think Shakib is a better allrounder than Flintoff (and Vettori). I also think that Vettori was definitely better batting at 8 and shouldn't bat above 7, but I think the same for Flintoff tbh.