C Cairns Vs A Flintoff - Test cricket only

[Zinzan]

Should be an interesting comparison between these two larger-than-life characters who's test careers were fairly similar in their makeup.

* Both were incredibly affected by injuries throughout their careers , in fact Cairns missed more than half of NZ's test matches between 1989-2004.

* Both were thrown into Test cricket too early & hence were both better cricketers in the 2nd half of their respective careers;

Cairns filtered 1998-2004 (last 29 out of 62 tests) averaged 42.6 with the bat & 27.6 with the ball

Flintoff Filtered 2004-2009 (last 39 out of 79 tests) averaged 30.5 with the bat & 29.5 with the ball

*Cairns never reached the bowling heights that Flintoff did against Australia in 2005 although Flintoff never reached the heights that Cairns did with the bat against Australia in the 2000 series

Here are their overall test career summaries, you decide

Cairns - Bat; M 62 Inns 104 NO 5 runs 3320 HS158 Ave 33.53 Runs 5815 SR 57.09 100s 5 Fifties 22

Cairns - Ball M 62 Balls 11698 Runs 6410 Wickets 218 BBI 7/27 BBM 10/100 Ave 29.40 5WI 13 10WM 1

Flintoff - Bat; M 79 Inns 130 NO 9 HS167 Ave 31.77 Runs 5815 SR 62.04 100s 5 Fifties 26

Flintoff - Ball M 79 Balls 14951 Runs 7410 Wickets 226 BBI 5/58 BBM 8/156 Ave 32.78 5WI 3 10WM 0

 

[Perm]

At his best, Flintoff. But overall I'd say Cairns was more consistent.

 

[Top_Cat]

Flintoff the better bowler, Cairns the better bat.

 

[NUFAN]

I think they are definitely both about the same, but ended up voting for Cairns.

 

[aussie]

At their peaks, Flintoff 05 Ashes & Cairns vs ENG 99 - overall i'd say the where even. But you can probably give Flintoff a whisker's edge with the ball though.

 

[DingDong]

I think it depends on whoever is playing better on the day. If Flintoff is playing better than Cairns he is better on the day and if cairns is playing better than Flintoff then he is better on the day.

The fact is that both tried their best out there.

 

[Flem274*]

And player of the day awards should be shared around the whole team so no one gets left out eh Dingdong?

 

[0RI0N]

I think it depends on whoever is playing better on the day. If Flintoff is playing better than Cairns he is better on the day and if cairns is playing better than Flintoff then he is better on the day.

The fact is that both tried their best out there.

thanks captain obvious.
Anyway toughie,but went with Cairns.

 

[Uppercut]

Cairns for me. Was always more likely to make a really big contribution to victory, as his 13 five-wicket hauls in 62 matches show. Flintoff was more likely to chip in with a wicket or two or a slogged 40 and get the crowd and his team going then leave the major wicket taking to the rest of the side.

Flintoff was like the ignition spark for his team, Cairns was the engine.

 

[SJS]

If one goes by stats alone it is too close to call but my impression has always been Cairns was better and thats my choice. I think my overall feeling is that Flintoff let down England more often.

 

[marc71178]

*Cairns never reached the bowling heights that Flintoff did against Australia in 2005 although Flintoff never reached the heights that Cairns did with the bat against Australia in the 2000 series

I'd say on the batting there that's very debateable - especially over the 2003-05 period when he was at his best with the bat.

 

[Craig]

Not only were their career's very similar (although I voted for Cairns), but they were just as injury prone. We were certainly robbed from seeing them at their best on a lot longer period of time.

 

[Zinzan]

I'd say on the batting there that's very debateable - especially over the 2003-05 period when he was at his best with the bat.

Sorry who'd you vote for?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Probably have to go with Cairns, all things considered. Both similarly crippled by injuries and his career stats are the more impressive. Still think Fred's bowling stats don't tell the full story of his worth tho. & Fred at his zenith was probably the greater force, but was at that level all too rarely.

Such comparisons show the danger of comparing players who're still playing with those already retired; I doubt Cairns would've had a sniff 4 years ago.

 

[Manee]

I'm going to go with Flintoff. Although Cairns is the more well rounded player, Flintoff is a potentially match winning bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm going to go with Flintoff. Although Cairns is the more well rounded player, Flintoff is a potentially match winning bowler.

Cairns was a matchwinning bowler, no potential about it

 

[Manee]

Cairns was a matchwinning bowler, no potential about it

I wanted to sum up my feelings concisely, without looking at the statistics but blimey, Cairns has a lot of five wicket hauls...hmmm, it looks like Cairns is the stronger cricketer. I never recalled him tearing so many teams apart when I watched him in the 1990s, just seemed to remember him probing away from one end and ending up with two or three wickets, guess I was wrong.

 

[Ikki]

Cairns was a fantastic player and I'd say just that much more reliable than Flintoff. Was one of my favourite cricketers.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, loved Cairns a heap.

 

[masterblaster]

I'm voting for Cairns as well. Cairns is a legend and he's one of my favourite players.