Chris Cairns vs Flintoff?

[mr_mister]

Zimbabwe then was certainly better than minnows today but they were still the minnows then and a tier below the quality of the other teams.

It's like looking at Shakib and Tamim's records and saying that Bangladesh aren't a minnow. The problem is the quality of the other players which is usually so dire that it sinks the team.

Shakib and Tamim were the only 2 decent players in the side for large periods

Alongside the decent bowlers I mentioned, the '96 match had Houghton and the Flowers

The '2000 match had Goodwin, Johnson and the Flowers

And I won't talk up Guy Whittall too much but he did get a test double ton against NZ

Like from 95-02, Zim would consistently only carry 2-3 passengers in their XI, usually one of the openers like Gripper or a weak 3rd/4th pacer like Andy Whittall or Bryan Strang


Bangladesh was full of passengers and had massive holes that needed fixing in the middle order, the whole pace attack etc

 

[subshakerz]

Shakib and Tamim were the only 2 decent players in the side for large periods

Alongside the decent bowlers I mentioned, the '96 match had Houghton and the Flowers

The '2000 match had Goodwin, Johnson and the Flowers

And I won't talk up Guy Whittall too much but he did get a test double ton against NZ

Like from 95-02, Zim would consistently only carry 2-3 passengers in their XI, usually one of the openers like Gripper or a weak 3rd/4th pacer like Andy Whittall or Bryan Strang


Bangladesh was full of passengers and had massive holes that needed fixing in the middle order, the whole pace attack etc

Yeah and like I said Zimbabwe then was the strongest of the minnows. But I still think they were a tier below the other test teams of their time.

 

[mr_mister]

But minnow is a strong word. Are SA and SL currently minnows IYO? Clearly a tier below Australia, England and India

 

[subshakerz]

But minnow is a strong word. Are SA and SL currently minnows IYO? Clearly a tier below Australia, England and India

Top tier
Mid tier
Bottom tier
Minnows

That's generally how test teams are classified.

 

[mr_mister]

I would say Zim from 95-02 are bottom tier, not minnowe, so Cairns' tons against them can't be completely discounted

 

[subshakerz]

I would say Zim from 95-02 are bottom tier, not minnowe, so Cairns' tons against them can't be completely discounted

You are inflating them frankly. They may look better on paper now than they were then as a complete team.

A few years from now people may look at Bangladesh winning in NZ and at home in a few tests and argue the same.

 

[Zinzan]

Also, did Flintoff have a better peak or a more visible peak?

No

 

[Flem274*]

You guys are arguing with someone who just admitted he only saw Cairns against 90s Pakistan

 

[trundler]

No

I meant Flintoff's best came in more high profile series so there's an impression that he peaked higher which may or may not be accurate. His best series seems to have come against SA but that's a pretty low key series by any definition.

 

[GIMH]

I meant Flintoff's best came in more high profile series so there's an impression that he peaked higher which may or may not be accurate. His best series seems to have come against SA but that's a pretty low key series by any definition.

He took down the best team in the world, one of the greatest teams ever. Gilchrist was never the same player again, Australia were suddenly desperate for an all-rounder. There was an Aussie paper with a picture of him on the front and the headline ‘SOMEONE STOP HIM’

People value different things when ranking players and that’s absolutely fine, taking the best apart will always get masses of attention.

 

[SteveNZ]

I meant Flintoff's best came in more high profile series so there's an impression that he peaked higher which may or may not be accurate. His best series seems to have come against SA but that's a pretty low key series by any definition.

Depends what peak means, I guess? Because Cairns never offered anything as huge as Flintoff in the 05 Ashes. Third top run scorer (both teams) with 402 at 40, and second most wickets with 24 at 27s. Runs at a good pace, bucket hands in the slips and a ferocious aura about him that lifted his team and the crowd.

I can't recall Cairns having a series like that. He was immense in the 1999 England series but only scored his runs at 30s (albeit in a low scoring series) with 19 wickets at 21. He had an outstanding series with the bat v Australia in 99/00 (341 at 56) but only took 10 wickets at 37s.

It's worth mentioning that both guys' numbers are inferior to Colin de Grandhomme's. For all the hype around Flintoff and Cairns, let that sink in.

 

[subshakerz]

You guys are arguing with someone who just admitted he only saw Cairns against 90s Pakistan

Mostly. Was Cairns a better bowler in your reckoning than Flintoff?

 

[Flem274*]

Mostly. Was Cairns a better bowler in your reckoning than Flintoff?

Yes, and that's as someone who thinks the 30 averaging guys of Flintoffs time are very hard done by on face value due to the flat homogeneity of world ptches and would average 27ish in any other era.

Cairns' bowling stats are skewed by playing as a batsman or batting allrounder when he wasn't fully fit. That could be seen as a negative in another comparison but Flintoff was equally injury prone so shrug.

Cairns basically gave you a true Southee/Boult standard opening bowler who could also bat. Flintoff filled the first change role really well and it's harder to find guys good at that, but unfortunately Cairns also bowled first change a lot and quite well.

Again, I think Flintoff, Hoggard etc are quite hard done by when it comes to their face value averages. I guess it means I have to soften on Chris Martin and Brett Lee too. Boooo.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah Cairns to me was a genuine test match opening bowler, attack leader, pitch it up and swing it wicket taker.

Flintoff could be really quick and hostile and an ‘enforcer’ but even then, it seems like a big part of his reputation as a bowler is ‘here’s an explanation for why he didn’t take wickets’.

Cairns, like Flintoff, was also prone to injury, to playing while unfit and for big chunks of his career (especially early on) just wasn’t very good. When I talk about ‘good Cairns’ I’m really just referring to a period of a few years in the latter-middle part of his career. Something similar applies to Flintoff.

Funnily enough I think Cairns originally was supposed to be our Flintoff-style enforcer anyway. He bowled a decent fast-medium when fit but as a youngster he was supposedly really rapid. It’s to his credit he was able to still be a fine bowler despite muddling through different incarnations in terms of bowling style.

 

[Burgey]

Cairns by miles. Flintoff was good for 18 months. Rest of the time he was pretty average tbh.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Streak, Brandes and Paul Strang in '96

Streak, Olonga, Mbwanga and Paul Strang in '00

Not pushover attacks

Better attacks than India in that era.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Cairns came out 16th in the CW allrounder rankings, while Flintoff was 19th.

Cairns was the better test player, whereas Flintoff was the better ODI player.

 

[SteveNZ]

Cairns by miles. Flintoff was good for 18 months. Rest of the time he was pretty average tbh.

Same could be argued for Cairns. World class from 1999-00, underperforming around that (apart from his final year as a batsman).

Maybe I'm failing to separate the person from the cricketer.

 

[honestbharani]

I dunno if there is a clear way to seperate them, its one of those greater peak vs greater consistency debates. Flintoff's peak, as shortlived as it was, was also extremely impactful for England and in a way, got them from their forever midcardness that I associated with them having properly followed cricket since 90 or so. Cairns definitely wasted a lot of his potential as well but he did stay closer to his norm over his career than Flintoff did, but ultimately I just feel Flintoff had the bigger impact of the two across world cricket. So going with Freddie on this one.

 

[Bahnz]

I don’t think Cairns’ bowling was ever quite as good as Flintoff’s during that 04-06 peak. Having said that… Flintoff was great when he was surrounded by a great attack. Once Jones broke down, Harmison fell to bits mentally and Hoggard got old he was a lot less effective. That’s no great slight on him, it’s true for pretty much all bowlers to a greater or lesser extent. But even when NZ had a relatively strong attack in the late 90’s I don’t think they were ever a patch on the 05 Ashes attack, so comparing the two at their respective peaks is a bit of apples and oranges to be honest.

I will say that I generally agree with Steve in that Cairns never had as many games where he bossed high profile opposition with bat and ball like Flintoff did in that 05 test series. The only case that really comes to mind was the 4th test in the 99 England v NZ series were Cairns flattened England’s top-order (5/31) and then the next day rescued New Zealand from 39/6 with possibly the most Botham-esque 80 since Beefy retired.

Both men were also shadows of themselves for their last couple years in tests, but both also pulled out epic efforts with the ball once they knew they didn’t need to worry about their bodies - Flintoff with that epic 5fer on a dead track at Lords’ in 09 and Cairns with that 9 wicket haul at Trent Bridge when the NZ bowling attack was so stricken with in-game injuries that Mark Richardson was brought on to bowl at first change in the 2nd innings.