Botham vs Flintoff?

[Richard]

It had nothing whatsoever to do with his weight?

 

[Richard]

I think Flintoffs batting just hasnt gone on to the heights that a few years ago suggested. I think though he has the ability to turn a corner with his batting...we shall see.

Flintoff (when healthy) does exhibit more consistancy than Botham showed through much of his career, just not quite with that killer instinct that Botham seemed to turn on when required

I've never really believed myself that Flintoff had it in him to score runs consistently against particularly good bowling-attacks. He's done well, IMO, to score the number of runs he has against South Africa (2003), Australia (2005) and India (2005/06). Even that is almost beyond what I generally expected of him.

The only other occasions (New Zealand 2001/02, New Zealand and West Indies 2004) he's scored have been against woefully poor attacks.

Had he played against India last summer and Sri Lanka and New Zealand this winter, I'd not have expected him to score very many. He just doesn't have the game for it, for my money. Even after 2005, I never expected him to kick-on with the bat - if he had, it'd have been a bonus.

I've obviously only seen highlights packages of Botham's (proper) batting, but it always struck me as more convincing than Flintoff's. Always.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sympathy vote.

 

[Top_Cat]

Botham easily.

Roebuck's comment on Flintoff last summer were illustrative "He's half the cricketer Botham was, but twice the man".

Not sure of the contect of Peter's comment tbh.

Been dying to beat Volty to one.

Anyway, no contest, Both. Far better batter and significantly better with the ball over a long period of time. Flintoff is/was quicker and more accurate, though.

 

[Goughy]

Strange poll and thread.

Its maybe possible that for a short period that Botham was one of the best couple of cricketers ever to have played the game.

A genuine, very good batsman and a genuine World class bowler.

Flintoff is certainly comparable to a later Botham in terms of effectiveness but to compare them anywhere near their respective peaks and its like comparing Bradman to Kallis.

 

[Sanz]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?p=487175#post487175

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17909

Botham >>> Freddie.

 

[iamdavid]

I think this is a fair enough question to ask. As at his very best in 2005 Flintoff was playing as well in all likelyhood as Botham (or Imran Khan) ever did.

However due to the chronic injuries and the collapse of his batting, it ended there.

All things considered Botham the better cricketer. Certainly a better batsman, I agree somewhat with Richard that Flintoff's batting has always looked a little overhyped, he certainly had the talent and the power, however technically he leaves a bit to be desired with glaring weaknesses against balls moving into him. And he's imo a pretty poor player of spin (although his huge hitting power can hide this when luck goes his way, as it tended to against Warne in '05).

With the ball its much tighter though, I know Bothams record early on was remarkable, however the general opinion on his bowling (and he owns up to it himself in his autobiography), is that he had a knack of taking wickets with unspectacular deliveries and being able to pull a wicket out of nowhere against the run of play.
Flintoff on the other hand I think for a large part of his test career has been very unlucky with the ball, very often bowling superb spells which go unrewarded (I'm thinking particularly in '03 v South Africa and at times in '05).

Flintoff did as has been mentioned have more pace and better control, however Botham probably had a few more tricks up his sleeve (although Flintoff showed, particularly in '05 that he has plenty aswell)

 

[Sanz]

I think this is a fair enough question to ask. As at his very best in 2005 Flintoff was playing as well in all likelyhood as Botham (or Imran Khan) ever did.

Flintoff was pretty average with the bat in 2005, very good with the ball but nowhere close to Botham's bowling at his best.

 

[Top_Cat]

With the ball its much tighter though, I know Bothams record early on was remarkable, however the general opinion on his bowling (and he owns up to it himself in his autobiography), is that he had a knack of taking wickets with unspectacular deliveries and being able to pull a wicket out of nowhere against the run of play.
Flintoff on the other hand I think for a large part of his test career has been very unlucky with the ball, very often bowling superb spells which go unrewarded (I'm thinking particularly in '03 v South Africa and at times in '05).

Flintoff did as has been mentioned have more pace and better control, however Botham probably had a few more tricks up his sleeve (although Flintoff showed, particularly in '05 that he has plenty aswell)

I've always thought Botham was being a bit self-deprecating with his bowling, though. I've seen footage of his bowling early in his career and although there were a lot of balls where he got wickets just through trying something crazy, there were some genuinely good balls taking wickets. Hooping out-swingers and all that. Botham was a genuine Test wicket-taking swing bowler in his early days. Flintoff bowled with a heavy ball and tried to hit the seam most of the time so they were different bowlers. That, I reckon, is why he often gave little away but pre-2004, didn't take huge bags. That said, when Flintoff tried pitching the ball up more and swinging it, as he did in the Ashes 2005, he was absolutely world-class and I find it difficult to believe Botham could have bowled any better. But overall, Freddie was hard to get away but didn't take many bags of wickets, much like Jason Gillespie pre 2005.

With the bat, there's a larger gap. Even when batting well as he did in 2005, I never thought Flintoff should have been in the English top-6. His ton in that series was the knock of a top-6 batsman (it really was a class knock), given, but his other knocks were your more counter-punching types, perfect for a Test number 7. At Edgbaston, for example, had England batted him at 7 and had a true number 6 in the line-up, I reckon they'd have scored even more in their first dig and totally put Australia out of the match.

Botham, on the other hand, was a genuine top 6 option without his bowling. Solid technique, orthodox shots, etc.

 

[GIMH]

I've always thought Botham was being a bit self-deprecating with his bowling, though. I've seen footage of his bowling early in his career and although there were a lot of balls where he got wickets just through trying something crazy, there were some genuinely good balls taking wickets. Hooping out-swingers and all that. Botham was a genuine Test wicket-taking swing bowler in his early days. Flintoff bowled with a heavy ball and tried to hit the seam most of the time so they were different bowlers. That, I reckon, is why he often gave little away but pre-2004, didn't take huge bags. That said, when Flintoff tried pitching the ball up more and swinging it, as he did in the Ashes 2005, he was absolutely world-class and I find it difficult to believe Botham could have bowled any better. But overall, Freddie was hard to get away but didn't take many bags of wickets, much like Jason Gillespie pre 2005.

With the bat, there's a larger gap. Even when batting well as he did in 2005, I never thought Flintoff should have been in the English top-6. His ton in that series was the knock of a top-6 batsman (it really was a class knock), given, but his other knocks were your more counter-punching types, perfect for a Test number 7. At Edgbaston, for example, had England batted him at 7 and had a true number 6 in the line-up, I reckon they'd have scored even more in their first dig and totally put Australia out of the match.

Botham, on the other hand, was a genuine top 6 option without his bowling. Solid technique, orthodox shots, etc.

Agree with this whole post, and the bolded bit I think that's what I was trying to say

 

[Goughy]

Interestingly, as good a batsman as Botham was, I still think the gap is far wider with the bowling.

Flintoff was great in 2005 but Botham early was great nearly all the time. Botham could do so much with the ball and was willing to try anyting.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It had nothing whatsoever to do with his weight?

Not at all. He was bowling at the Parks in 1980 on a cold day and didn't bother to loosen up and he felt a twinge in his back. He put it down to his lack of preparation and carried on bowling. By the end of the match he had to finish the over he was bowling using off spin because he was struggling with back stiffness. X-rays discovered that he had a deformity of the spine. The specialist he saw at the time was of the opinion that surgery to correct the deformity wasn't guaranteed to be successful and could make it worse. From then on he always had discomfort in his back whenever he bowled, sometimes a minor niggle which disappeared soon after he stopped bowling and sometimes great pain, more often than not it would be somewhere in between.
He eventually had surgery on his back several years later and it wasn't until after that he even had any weight problems.

 

[Richard]

Strange poll and thread.

I don't neccessarily think it is. I know what I think, and I know what some others think, but want to gauge a wider consensus.

Similar, in fact, than Imran Khan vs Wasim Akram as bowlers. SJS put it well - he was expecting it to be closer than it should have been, and somehow it turned-out more CWers thought Wasim the better bowler than Imran.

I knew what I hoped the result would be (didn't expect it to be this spectacular, was expecting it to be more like the previous poll from JASON which I've never come across before) but I wondered if the general youthfulness of this forum would impact in any way on the results.

 

[Goughy]

I don't neccessarily think it is. I know what I think, and I know what some others think, but want to gauge a wider consensus.

Similar, in fact, than Imran Khan vs Wasim Akram as bowlers. SJS put it well - he was expecting it to be closer than it should have been, and somehow it turned-out more CWers thought Wasim the better bowler than Imran.

Wasim and Imran are far closer as bowlers than Botham and Flintoff (unless its the middle-latter part of Bothams career being looked at).

Also this thread isnt about just bowling is it? Botham far superior batsman and bowler

 

[Richard]

I know, but SJS has no doubt Imran is notably superior to Wasim as a bowler, but still created the thread (and was rather surprised by the outcome). Equally I have no doubt Botham is superior to Flintoff as an all-rounder but wanted to see if I'd be surprised by consensus.

Not so, however.

 

[Goughy]

I know, but SJS has no doubt Imran is notably superior to Wasim as a bowler, but still created the thread (and was rather surprised by the outcome). Equally I have no doubt Botham is superior to Flintoff as an all-rounder but wanted to see if I'd be surprised by consensus.

Not so, however.

Yeah. I mean even the most young and naive would realise without ever seeing Botham that when Flintoff has played 67 Tests and has 2 fifers and Botham had that many after 2 Tests, its not hard to do the maths.

 

[Richard]

That low number of five-wicket-hauls remains one of the most incongruous things about Flintoff. I simply cannot understand it. Flintoff has been, often fairly comfortably, England's best Test-match bowler since about July 2004. Yet he's still taken just a single five-for in that time.

Biggest difference, I guess, between an average of 26 and one of 18.

 

[GIMH]

I was thinking this after I alluded to it yesterday. Potentially because at his peak, Harmison, Jones and Hoggard were all taking wickets as well. Alas, it never stopped other greats, such as McGrath and Warne, from taking hatfuls all the time.

It just strikes me that Monty has about seven or eight, Flintoff has just two, who would I ask to bowl for my life? Flintoff every time. odd stat.

 

[Top_Cat]

That low number of five-wicket-hauls remains one of the most incongruous things about Flintoff. I simply cannot understand it. Flintoff has been, often fairly comfortably, England's best Test-match bowler since about July 2004. Yet he's still taken just a single five-for in that time.

Biggest difference, I guess, between an average of 26 and one of 18.

Just one of those blokes, I think, who never did a huge amount with the ball. He relied on seam movement, especially before 2005, and as I said, when he swung the ball, he was infinitely more dangerous as a bowler. So many of his really good wickets in 2005 came from hooping out and in-swingers rather than seam-up outside off. Probably would have had a better record had he been playing for Australia because I reckon his style of bowling would have suited Aussie conditions.

 

[GIMH]

He hasn't retired you know...