Botham vs Flintoff?

[Swervy]

I'd hope Flintoff's Edgbaston 2005 will be talked about through the annals of history too - though given much of the rest of 1981 was unremarkable and almost all the rest of 2005 was gripping, it stands-out less.

How to put it best... Botham may have been involved in the game and done brilliantly. But despite this, his side were still well on track to lose, very heavily indeed, until his second-innings effort with the bat. Flintoff, on the other hand, was the principle figure in keeping his side on top throughout the game.

So, because Bothams performance at Headingley stood out, it should be downgraded, and because the rest of the team performed well at Edgbaston 05, Flintoffs should be upgraded????

A part of the reason Bothams performance at Headingley will be talked about throughout time are:

a) the complete nightmare he was going through before Headingley
b) his performances in the first half of the Headingley game at least allowed England to be a 'mere' 227 behind on the first innings
c) he pulled his team from being 3 wickets away from a heavy innings defeat
d) with the help of Willis, England won
e) he continued his magic touch with his 5-1 in a couple of overs in the next text, when Australia
f) he the pulled England out of the crap again with his 118 at Old Trafford (one of the truely great innings)
g) he then took 10 in the match at the Oval

What makes Headingley such a momentous preformance was the context of it all. In itself, it will go down as one of the really great performances. But with hindsight, it can be seen it was merely the start of a superhuman run, and all that after such a disasterous. Botham was so far clear of everyone else on both sides, it is embarressing (and neither team were bad teams either). Take Botham out of the equation and Australia would probably have won that series 3-0

Flintoff did what he did in a fine allround team performance. So much easier to do when the support is there.

 

[Richard]

As I said - apart from Trescothick, Strauss and Pietersen on the opening day, no-one but Flintoff really turned-up to the Test.

Of course, Botham's personal circumstances were infinitely worse than Flintoff's, and of course this makes the performance more memorable. But not better.

 

[Swervy]

As I said - apart from Trescothick, Strauss and Pietersen on the opening day, no-one but Flintoff really turned-up to the Test.

Of course, Botham's personal circumstances were infinitely worse than Flintoff's, and of course this makes the performance more memorable. But not better.

So 199 for once out, when the rest of the England team managed to pull together 281 runs (an average of 14.7) over the entire match off the bat, and also 6 wickets in the first innings isnt a better performance than scoring 141 out of 589 in the match for twice out, and taking 7 wickets in the match, including Gillespie twice, Warne, and Kasper???

I find that odd to be honest!

 

[Richard]

I don't think it's much better, no. The gap is nothing like as big as the gap between Botham's and Flintoff's careers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I thought April Fools Day was two days ago.

 

[Swervy]

I don't think it's much better, no.

But you feel it is better?

 

[Richard]

This was my first post on the matter:

TBH I don't really think there's a hell of a lot between them.

Both, so to speak, were superlative performances. I've only seen relatively decent highlights of Headingley '81; I saw\listened to most of Edgbaston 2005 ball-for-ball - reckon I'd have missed 7 or 8 overs at best.

Regardless of the fact he dismissed a few tailenders, Flintoff bowled sensationally well in both innings. And batted brilliantly in both innings. I doubt you'll see any performances from an all-rounder that will significantly eclipse that game.

Had I followed Headingley 1981, I'd undoubtedly have been able to gain the "excitement" factor that was present there, too.

 

[wpdavid]

flintoff's 2005 ashes effort vs. bothams 1981 ashes effort.

although i feel this will be just as one sided as the botham-flintoff question....

It shouldn't be. I argued at the time that Fred's overall series efforts in 2005 matched Beefy's in 1981, even if he didn't produce miracles such as Botham's 149* at Leeds and 5 for buggerall in the Edgbaston demoument. But the bottom line is that we'd have lost both series by a mile without these guys' contributions. And Fred, of course, was up against superior opponents. Certainly when he was bowling, anyway.

Whilst I wouldn't say that Flintoff 2005 > Botham 1981, I think it's fair to say that they were equivalent. Of course, that doesn't a prevent the final career analysis being miles in Botham's favour, but lets not downgrade Fred's 2005 perfoemances because of what's happened subsequently.

 

[GIMH]

I'm with Rich and David here

 

[Swervy]

I'm with Rich and David here

Doesn't make it less bollox of course, does it?

 

[GIMH]

Haha, maybe not in your mind

Would be a pretty boring forum if we all complied with convention.

 

[Swervy]

Haha, maybe not in your mind

Would be a pretty boring forum if we all complied with convention.

very true

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haha, maybe not in your mind

Would be a pretty boring forum if we all complied with convention.

That is true, but on the other hand being unconventional is equally boring when it's just done in a "look at me I'm different" approach. (not aimed at you, just a general observation in reply to the comment).

In this case on the face of it Flintoff's performance was not in the same dimension as Botham's one man rescue act. In fact it's not really a fair comparison. For the large part of Botham's innings he was just enjoying himself playing a few shots in what he thought was a losing cause. He played with freedom in the knowledge that if he got out cheaply no one was going to criticise him more than the rest of the team. In Flintoff's case he had to maintain 100% concentration and intensity throughout the match.
In comparing the two I think Botham was more than capable of doing what Flintoff did in 2005 but I don't think Flintoff was anything like capable of doing what Botham did in 1981. The century he made at Old Trafford had the crowd shaking their heads in disbelief at what they'd seen, it wasn't the hit and hope of Headingley - although admittedly one or two of his hooked sixes were not quite out of the coaching manual.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Haha, maybe not in your mind

Would be a pretty boring forum if we all complied with convention.

Dire tbh gagfc

 

[aussie]

For the guys who saw Botham play, when would you say his decline begun. Based on stats it seems like after the 5-0 drubbing in the WI in 86, if it when so may i ask?

 

[Goughy]

For the guys who saw Botham play, when would you say his decline begun. Based on stats it seems like after the 5-0 drubbing in the WI in 86, if it when so may i ask?

IMO, around 1982.

His biggest failure was that he spent such an early part of his career as a cricketing superman that he never accepted his decline and how his back and associated issues impacted him.

He also was such a natural and fluently technical batsman that he never bothered to work out the couple of kinks he had.

The legacy of Botham is that he gave 5 years of possibly the greatest cricket ever played and then his continued selection and the lack of acceptance (by him, the public and selectors) that a new role was needed held Enlgand back for upto 15 years.

A shame that there was a negative legacy to his career but it wasnt all his fault and before the back he was as good as there has been.

 

[Richard]

For the guys who saw Botham play, when would you say his decline begun. Based on stats it seems like after the 5-0 drubbing in the WI in 86, if it when so may i ask?

You sure you don't mean the 5-0 drubbing in 1984?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Botham was still the best bowler in England in 1985 when he bowled quicker than he'd ever done - not that express press was his main asset, but that summer he was quick.
Although he came back after his ban against New Zealand and immediately broke the all time record for number of wickets he wasn't the same as before dispite the occasional match winning performance. Trevor Bailey on TMS commented that he was only in the side in the late 80's for what he might do rather based on actual recent achievement. By his own standards you could argue that he started to decline in after 1982, but it was really around 1988 when the "experts" started to question his place in the side.

 

[aussie]

Interesting stuff Goughy & L&T..

 

[aussie]

You sure you don't mean the 5-0 drubbing in 1984?

nah 86 why though?