Flintoff is Hercules.. a God

[oitoitoi]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

The weight issues were when he was about 22/23 though, haven't been an issue for years. And the WC stuff, dunno, don't really think it affected his form at the tournament. Still bowled well and had a stinker with the bat.

What about being pissed at practice while captain in australia? Even he didn't have the best series there, alcohol must have played a part.

If he's honest with himself for a professional athlete he is still carrying too much weight, he's not alone there among cricketers but he could do with losing maybe 15 pounds or so, would have helped reduce his susceptibility to injuries a lot too (less weight = less stress on his joints). I wonder how many pull ups he can do? I reckon Lee must be able to do the 20 rep set.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by oitoitoi

What about being pissed at practice while captain in australia? Even he didn't have the best series there, alcohol must have played a part.

If he's honest with himself for a professional athlete he is still carrying too much weight, he's not alone there among cricketers but he could do with losing maybe 15 pounds or so, would have helped reduce his susceptibility to injuries a lot too (less weight = less stress on his joints). I wonder how many pull ups he can do? I reckon Lee must be able to do the 20 rep set.

Yeah, fair enough, and even as the biggest Freddie fan going I have criticised his alleged behaviour in Australia. Am reading Fletcher's book currently, will be interesting in reading that part.

RE your second point, though, not sure I agree. I mean, if Flintoff was to lose weight, is it not conceivable that he would also drop in power?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by oitoitoi

What about being pissed at practice while captain in australia? Even he didn't have the best series there, alcohol must have played a part.

I have to doubt it TBH. It's poor form turning-up to practice drunk, for certain, there's no excuse for anyone doing that, especially someone who's been appointed captain for the Test series in question. But whether it affected his performance, I doubt. Flintoff batted moreorless as I expected on that tour, and moreorless as he's generally batted against good-quality bowling. And as a bowler he bowled well sometimes and less well at others - some in which he was hampered by his ankle.

[GIMH]

Yeah, I remember in the first couple of sessions the Aussies were all saying it looked like he would be having another special series with the ball. he tailed off, but it did seem to be injury-related. Impossible to say for sure really, though.

[Pigeon]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Flintoff's a rare sportsman indeed.

You have the Paul Gascoigne types, mercurial talents who have all the ability but piss it away.

There's the Paul Collingwoods, the honest performers who seem to make the most of their natural ability and hence become popular with fans- but you sometimes suspect they don't work as hard off the field as they do on it.

There's the Geoffrey Boycotts, who have all the talent and all the application but never manage to capture the imagination of the fans because they lack any kind of magic in their game.

There are Shahid Afridis, capable of the most magnificent moments but never solid nor consistent enough to contribute regularly to the success of their team.

There are Kevin Pietersens, exciting and very, very good, but with an attitude that makes him hard to identify with and sometimes unpopular.

Then you have someone like Flintoff, tremendously talented but still willing to put in the hard yards, capable of playing the most thrilling cricket at times but still brilliantly consistent and solid, one of the best in the world at what he does yet still comes across as a down-to-earth, good bloke. How many sportsmen could you say that about? He's exactly who you want playing for your team. Of course the English ****ing love him.

And then there is the Tendulkar.........

[Richard]

Tendulkar's just too good though. He does so little wrong that he's an icon to everyone and everyone, and thus you can barely even get a glimpse of him without everyone around going completely insane.

[Pigeon]

Originally Posted by Richard

Tendulkar's just too good though. He does so little wrong that he's an icon to everyone and everyone, and thus you can barely even get a glimpse of him without everyone around going completely insane.

What do you mean? The poor guy is so popular and in the media flashlights for the last two decades that the only time he gets off on his own is in the bathroom and bedroom. And hardly anything scandalous happens there.

Regards Tendulkar, its WYSIWYG. He hardly has the space to carry on a different persona.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pigeon

What do you mean?

What do I mean? Well, I mean moreorless exactly what you state in the below quote, really:

The poor guy is so popular and in the media flashlights for the last two decades that the only time he gets off on his own is in the bathroom and bedroom. And hardly anything scandalous happens there.

[oitoitoi]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Yeah, fair enough, and even as the biggest Freddie fan going I have criticised his alleged behaviour in Australia. Am reading Fletcher's book currently, will be interesting in reading that part.

RE your second point, though, not sure I agree. I mean, if Flintoff was to lose weight, is it not conceivable that he would also drop in power?

Well once you're past the beginner stages it is impossible to build muscle and lose fat at the same time, that's why most professional athletes will bulk up first with heavy weights etc. and heaps of protein, if you are careful with your diet you can build lean muscle, but it takes a lot of discipline, once you've bulked up enough you then 'cut' your excess weight through the likes of cardio and ideally circuit training (for the serious athlete). So what Flintoff would have to do is cut his excess weight (which there is a considerable amount of) and then be careful with his diet while building up any muscle that might have been lost. He may temporarily lose a little bit of 'power' but he would eventually gain significantly more.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by andyc

Can't agree completely. He's definitely pissed away a bit of his talent. Stuff from weight and fitness issues to getting drunk and making an embarrassment of yourself at the World Cup aren't exactly making the full use of your abilities.

Actually, I dont think he's pissed away his talent by being, for lack of a better word 'pissed'. Getting drunk and making a fool of yourself hardly affects your ability on the field. It's caused controversy yes and he should have shown restraint but it does not mean he underperformed because of it.

If anything, I've always felt that Flintoff has pissed away his talent by not being very bright. As a bowler, you'd think he would have tried to learn new skills during his time out due to injuries and what not, but if anything he has not improved and if anything has got worse since 2005. I still cannot fathom how, at 31 years old and on his last legs, he finally figured out that he needed to pitch the ball a bit further up and look to hit the stumps in test match cricket, and that apparently only was a direct result of a few wise words from our bowling coach Otis Gibson. Reminds me a bit of a lad named Javagal Srinath, who could get his inswinger to go around a left hander's pads and hit off stump, except that he didnt make use of it because he tried to bowl half way down the pitch.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

If anything, I've always felt that Flintoff has pissed away his talent by not being very bright. As a bowler, you'd think he would have tried to learn new skills during his time out due to injuries and what not, but if anything he has not improved and if anything has got worse since 2005. I still cannot fathom how, at 31 years old and on his last legs, he finally figured out that he needed to pitch the ball a bit further up and look to hit the stumps in test match cricket, and that apparently only was a direct result of a few wise words from our bowling coach Otis Gibson.

But he did exactly that in the 2005 Ashes series and before. Whatever the definitive reasons for not being consistently fuller with the ball, I highly doubt it's because he only just 'figured it out' that his wicket-taking length is fuller than he usually bowls.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by pigeon

and then there is the tendulkar.........

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

But he did exactly that in the 2005 Ashes series and before. Whatever the definitive reasons for not being consistently fuller with the ball, I highly doubt it's because he only just 'figured it out' that his wicket-taking length is fuller than he usually bowls.

Did he really? England, along with Flintoff were constantly criticized for bowling too short at Lords in the first test (and McGrath hailed for bowling on the stumps that test), and then again on the 5th morning at Edgbaston against Lee, Warne and Kasprowicz. Granted, Flintoff bowled a fuller length a little bit more than he usually does particularly at OT and the Oval, but on the whole he still bowled too short, particularly to the right handers and this is why the Australian tail got so many runs in that series.

At Lords in the last test match, he got Katich with a full delivery and pointed to Otis Gibson and the England management on the balcony. He repeated the same when he got Haddin and it was quite obvious that he had been told to bowl a fuller length on the morning of the last day. Maybe he has thought about bowling fuller before, and perhaps hes even tried it on occasion, but Lords in 2009 was the first time he has actually pitched the ball up consistently, and as a result of the frightening pace he was bowling at and the fact that he was mixing it up with the short ball, most of the Australian batters were flummoxed. If you ask me, the Lords 2009 spell was the best he's bowled in his career to date, even better than that over to Ponting at Edgbaston and better than anything else he managed in 2005 or 2008 against Kallis.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Did he really? England, along with Flintoff were constantly criticized for bowling too short at Lords in the first test (and McGrath hailed for bowling on the stumps that test), and then again on the 5th morning at Edgbaston against Lee, Warne and Kasprowicz. Granted, Flintoff bowled a fuller length a little bit more than he usually does particularly at OT and the Oval, but on the whole he still bowled too short, particularly to the right handers and this is why the Australian tail got so many runs in that series.

Yeah I remember all that. I also remember that many of Flintoff's wickets came from full deliveries. Just because he bowled full a lot more, doesn't mean he's going to be there all the time. ****, if I could bowl 145Km/h+, you'd see a lot less deliveries in the batsmen's half too. Point is, if he just bowled full all the time, he'd be just as predictable as when he bowls short all the time.

Either way, he took a bunch of wickets with fuller deliveries bowling generally full than he did before or since (present series excluded). So he clearly figured it out ages ago, just chooses not to do it as often and I reckon it's less about intelligence and more about background. Don't think it's unfair to say that guys who bowl full and fast and risk going for runs aren't looked upon as favourably in English circles so it's no surprise Flintoff's default length is shorter, hitting the seam in the mid 130's for pace. You don't take as many wickets but you don't go for many runs, either.

Don't think it's much of a stretch to guess, especially years ago when he was in and out of even his county side with injury, that bowling a more 'English' style wouldn't have hurt his chances of getting regular overs. Seems to be his default when he's not bowling as well. He started off a very dangerous bowler in 2006/07, for example, when he was throwing the ball up there but, as the series wore on, his pace slowed, his length got shorter and he took fewer wickets.

This is why I never judge a bowler purely by their peak. The very best (Marshall, McGrath, etc.) find a way to take wickets consistently even when they're not bowling as well/fast which is where he falls short in comparison to the top performers. Had the raw ability to be a fantastic performer for England but, like Jason Gillespie, just had too many spells where nothing much happened where they were happy sitting back of a length and not conceding too many.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Yeah I remember all that. I also remember that many of Flintoff's wickets came from full deliveries. Just because he bowled full a lot more, doesn't mean he's going to be there all the time. ****, if I could bowl 145Km/h+, you'd see a lot less deliveries in the batsmen's half too. Point is, if he just bowled full all the time, he'd be just as predictable as when he bowls short all the time.

Either way, he took a bunch of wickets with fuller deliveries bowling generally full than he did before or since (present series excluded). So he clearly figured it out ages ago, just chooses not to do it as often and I reckon it's less about intelligence and more about background. Don't think it's unfair to say that guys who bowl full and fast and risk going for runs aren't looked upon as favourably in English circles so it's no surprise Flintoff's default length is shorter, hitting the seam in the mid 130's for pace. You don't take as many wickets but you don't go for many runs, either.

Don't think it's much of a stretch to guess, especially years ago when he was in and out of even his county side with injury, that bowling a more 'English' style wouldn't have hurt his chances of getting regular overs. Seems to be his default when he's not bowling as well. He started off a very dangerous bowler in 2006/07, for example, when he was throwing the ball up there but, as the series wore on, his pace slowed, his length got shorter and he took fewer wickets.

Oh yeah, I never intended to suggest that bowlers should only bowl full. Which is why I rate his spell at Lords last week so highly, because he frequently mixed it up bowling full and short. It disproved the theory that if you have raw pace you still need to be able to swing/seam the ball to take wickets, because you can still cause indecision in a batter's mind by just varying your length. I can certainly see why Flintoff is more effective bowling a shorter length than Anderson for example (who should only use the short ball as a surprise ball if anything). But if we were to do a pitch map of Flintoff's career and I wish we could, the percentage of deliveries that he bowls that hits the stump would have to be minimal. It's all fine getting the batsmen to play and miss, but I dont think he's an 'unlucky' bowler as people have often made him out to be, when he hasnt bowled the right lengths to hit the stumps often enough IMO, especially to right handers.

If you watched the Superseries actually, he bowled a fuller length during the test match, and had a bit of success, even got the ball to swing down under. He's obviously had spells where hes bowled fuller in the past, but it is frustrating to see him bowl a spell where he was consistently fuller and then point at Otis Gibson as though he just provided him a life changing message from God himself.

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

This is why I never judge a bowler purely by their peak. The very best (Marshall, McGrath, etc.) find a way to take wickets consistently even when they're not bowling as well/fast which is where he falls short in comparison to the top performers. Had the raw ability to be a fantastic performer for England but, like Jason Gillespie, just had too many spells where nothing much happened where they were happy sitting back of a length and not conceding too many.

Interesting, and not that I disagree, but how would you rate Ambrose who despite what most people think,was frequently guilty of sitting back by bowling a bit shorter of a length and not conceding very many runs?