Really not sure about that, at all. Maybe, sometimes, he might have (in the aftermaths of his two greatest triumphs, Australia '05 and India '05/06), but I myself would completely disagree if he did.
It's, obviously, not possible to be able to bowl and not bat; there have been occasions wher he's batted for a little while (for Lancashire) without bowling and never been remotely considered.
He did play ODIs in 2000/01 as a specialist batsman, and it was frankly ridiculous.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Played a couple of ODIs as a specialist bat in 04, played a few in 06 as well (though they were a failure).
Given that between 03 and 06 he averaged somewhere around 40 with the bat, it's not unreasonable to suggest he'd have been in the team anyway. Especially as without bowling he might have scored more runs (might).
Averaged 42 in ODIs with the bat in that period, SR of 89.25, there's approximately 0 arguments against him making that team based on batting alone.
Certainly not in ODIs (though as I say, in 2000/01 it was utterly stupid). But in Tests, absolutely not. If Flintoff ever had played a Test as a specialist bat, regardless of what his overall average was, I'd have been disgusted.
Yeah, but I wasn't talking about whether you would or wouldn't have agreed with the selection, rather the fact that I reckon he would have been successful. And quite frankly in the years I stated I think he would have done bloody well.
Well, he did play (not as batsman but as all-rounder, bowling or otherwise) and didn't in my view do exceptionally.
It's quite fair enough for two different people to hold two different classifications. If you think Flintoff is a better batsman than me - as you do - then you're bound to do so.
"Batsman\bowler\all-rounder" isn't some sort of must-be-defined thing.
Mind you, I do believe he'd have scored more runs if he hadn't been a bowler as well but obviously there is no way of knowing. At least not until I can sort some time travel.
Seeing as Broad is in for his batting atm, I would say he has the edge over MJ.
Going to need a big one from Mitch to win this.
168 vs 94.
Rest In Peace Craigos
Broad's had more chances to bat tbf, and both failed when their middle order collapsed.
Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
- Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence
Think I back MJ here more for his destructiveness than for any extra runs. More likely to win you a test match with a freak innings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)