The allrounder cut-off

[Red]

True Nufan. His bowling was epic. His batting was patchy but when he was on, it was incredible.

I honestly think he and KP intimidated the Australians for the first time in a long time.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Completely irrelevant to the point I made. Even a player who is not considered as an all rounder can produce results close to Flintoff's, hence his figures are far from being outstanding. Imran for a 5-6 year time averaged 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball. Kallis and Sobers would have done very close to that if not better. Flintoff is massively overrated IMHO. Pollock could every bit what Flintoff did with the bat and was miles ahead with the ball, but never rated as Flintoff. Pre-injury Lance Klusener was quick as anything that SA put on the field and bashed hundreds at run-a-ball. Steady Brain McMillan is massively underrated, and would walk in to ant test side of today. Flintoff had a magnificient peak. But top all rounders had peaks that dwarf Flintoff's. Even Shakib Al Hasan who is the only match winner in a minnow side averages 47 with the bat and 35 with the ball in last three years.

How is it completely irrelevant?

I like Vaas. A handy and pragmatic lower order batsman (a classic number 8 you might say), and a subtle and intelligent swing bowler. But comparing Vaas in his prime to Flintoff in his prime as allrounders is just plain silly.

And I'm going beyond numbers here. Flintoff was impact. He'd visibly shake the best batsmen in the world with his bowling, and then club the ball into a different time zone with his batting. I'll be the first to admit that he suffered when out of form (especially his batting), but to compare Vaas' and Flintoff's primes as allrounders is just a joke.

There's something primal about great allrounders. It's as much a personality thing. The best ones just find ways to win matches one way or another. Botham had this more than anyone else in history in his first 5 years. Flintoff wasn't quite ITB, but he had some of the same stuff thrown in. In fact Flintoff was a faster bowler and harder hitter IMO, but Botham simply had more skill with his batting (11 centuries in his first 51 tests), and more self-belief.

 

[Maximas]

consistency is also a virtue tbf, and is almost as important as impact

 

[GuyFromLancs]

consistency is also a virtue tbf, and is almost as important as impact

Which is why Flintoff isn't regarded as an all-time great. Had he shown his 03-06 form across his career, it would be.

But as I say, Vaas v Flintoff as an allrounder ... no way!

 

[GuyFromLancs]

no, I don't agree with this. First of because I think Kallis is just as likely to make big break throughs as Flintoff - their average and strike rates are virtually identical. Also, Flintoff's ability to bat in the top 6 isn't any better than Imran's - it's just that his bowling was never as good.

Across their careers maybe. But Flintoff didn't bowl seriously for the first 4 or 5 years, and then suffered from serious injuries for the last 3 years. That's 7 to 8 years of an 11 year career where he couldn't (or didn't) bowl to his ability.

In his prime as a bowler, Flintoff was a better bowler than Kallis.

 

[Arjun]

In a realistic observation, a genuine all-rounder would never be exceptionally good in either department. Their role does not allow that to happen. If they tried to be exceptionally good at one skill, always, the other would suffer.

They'd be tilted towards a higher level of skill in one department, at best, but not be exceptionally good at either. The only exception was Sir Garfield Sobers, who was genuinely good in both departments. There were a few, including Botham and his new-age counterpart Flintoff, but neither were exceptionally good at both skills over their whole career- just for a few years.

 

[Migara]

Across their careers maybe. But Flintoff didn't bowl seriously for the first 4 or 5 years, and then suffered from serious injuries for the last 3 years. That's 7 to 8 years of an 11 year career where he couldn't (or didn't) bowl to his ability.

In his prime as a bowler, Flintoff was a better bowler than Kallis.

TBF, Kallis at his peak ONLY as a batsman and a slipper was more valuable player than Flintoff as an allrounder.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

In a realistic observation, a genuine all-rounder would never be exceptionally good in either department. Their role does not allow that to happen. If they tried to be exceptionally good at one skill, always, the other would suffer.

They'd be tilted towards a higher level of skill in one department, at best, but not be exceptionally good at either. The only exception was Sir Garfield Sobers, who was genuinely good in both departments. There were a few, including Botham and his new-age counterpart Flintoff, but neither were exceptionally good at both skills over their whole career- just for a few years.

I think of Sobers as exceptional in two aspects, batting and fielding. Bowling not exceptional, and seeing he was picked as a bowler, it must have suffered when he became so good at batting and he ended up with underachieving bowling stats. He was an exception to the rule though when it came to bowling, meaning he opened and bowled just about anything to an acceptable standard.
But not great. I think that opens up so many others. Miller was great too and on the other side of the coin. He was picked for his batting but the team needed him for his bowling. I know Sobers is the perfect allrounder for the extra things he bowled. But Miller was extremely varied, even from ball to ball it could change, legspin was a part of his variations.
No Sobers isn't far in front as you say there as far as I'm concerned Miller is on par with him but loses out due to fielding and the way Sobers was a freak in the field.

 

[smash84]

yeah, Sobers bowling was not that great

 

[Migara]

How is it completely irrelevant?

I like Vaas. A handy and pragmatic lower order batsman (a classic number 8 you might say), and a subtle and intelligent swing bowler. But comparing Vaas in his prime to Flintoff in his prime as allrounders is just plain silly.

And I'm going beyond numbers here. Flintoff was impact. He'd visibly shake the best batsmen in the world with his bowling, and then club the ball into a different time zone with his batting. I'll be the first to admit that he suffered when out of form (especially his batting), but to compare Vaas' and Flintoff's primes as allrounders is just a joke.

There's something primal about great allrounders. It's as much a personality thing. The best ones just find ways to win matches one way or another. Botham had this more than anyone else in history in his first 5 years. Flintoff wasn't quite ITB, but he had some of the same stuff thrown in. In fact Flintoff was a faster bowler and harder hitter IMO, but Botham simply had more skill with his batting (11 centuries in his first 51 tests), and more self-belief.

It is completely irrelevent bcause non- allround players have done closer to what Flintoff has done in his so called prime. Flintoff's prime compared to Imran's, Kallis', Sobers' or Pollock's for that matter is a joke. Flintoff was not the best all rounder of 90s and 00s, not even in the top three. Pollock, Kallis, Cairns and Shakib have done much more for their teams than Flintoff.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

TBF, Kallis at his peak ONLY as a batsman and a slipper was more valuable player than Flintoff as an allrounder.

I was thinking I disagreed but I think you're right thinking about it more. I'm picturing a last day either chase or trying to bowl the opposition out. I think both are reasonable slippers. So would Freddie add much with the bat on a last day pitch? not likely even at his best. Kallis can hang in there or even attack at times with the batting. Would it be Flintoff I'd throw the ball to in that situation, well maybe but compared to Kallis' batting, nah. I think you're right pn the money there

 

[fredfertang]

Flintoff was a talisman in a way that Kallis, Shakib, Cairn and Pollock couldn't match, and you can't measure that statistically

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Flintoff was a talisman in a way that Kallis, Shakib, Cairn and Pollock couldn't match, and you can't measure that statistically

As a bowler I think he definitely was, but so could Kallis as a batsman. He has been a rock down one end for SA at times and I think talisman could be qualified by that for him The others were a bit less reliable I think to get that tag.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Flintoff was a talisman in a way that Kallis, Shakib, Cairn and Pollock couldn't match, and you can't measure that statistically

For a good few years, yes he was. Like Botham, there were times when he was a liability as well though... Which arguably Kallis, Pollock, Shakib never have been

Also disagree about Cairns. He definitely had that talismanic quality fir NZ

 

[fredfertang]

As a bowler I think he definitely was, but so could Kallis as a batsman. He has been a rock down one end for SA at times and I think talisman could be qualified by that for him The others were a bit less reliable I think to get that tag.

Great batsman Kallis, the stats prove that, but he's more of a comfort blanket than a talisman

 

[harsh.ag]

Flintoff was a talisman in a way that Kallis, Shakib, Cairn and Pollock couldn't match, and you can't measure that statistically

Kallis was more of a Talisman than Flintoff and Cairns combined

 

[hendrix]

Guys the Vaas comparison is to show that a bowler can have an exceptional period with the bat and pick up a year where, statistically he looks like an allrounder. The point is that Flintoff's prime isn't that exceptional when you can have bowlers putting up similar numbers.

Hell, Kane Williamson will probably go through a 2 year period where he takes a few wickets and scores a few runs. I still won't consider him any more than a part timer.

Across their careers maybe. But Flintoff didn't bowl seriously for the first 4 or 5 years, and then suffered from serious injuries for the last 3 years. That's 7 to 8 years of an 11 year career where he couldn't (or didn't) bowl to his ability.

In his prime as a bowler, Flintoff was a better bowler than Kallis.

nope. that's just not true.

Even Kallis today is still bowling 140km/h outswingers.

Flintoff was a talisman in a way that Kallis, Shakib, Cairn and Pollock couldn't match, and you can't measure that statistically

wtf is this

 

[GIMH]

I've just skimmed the last 50 posts or so and as Freddie's fanboy wanted to add some minor observations

Am pretty sure he didn't average 37 in the 05 Ashes but rather scored 402@40.2. I could well be wrong but well I don't think I am.

Secondly, were people actually putting Vaas on his level as an all-rounder? As I said I only skimmed so am hoping for the sake of this forum I have misread

And as for comparing him to Shakib? Bitch please.

Finally on a separate note. AN, yes it was Bresnan's true average as at this point it was what he averaged. Not hard to grasp.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Shakib is quality

 

[GIMH]

I'd like to add that the downgrading of Fred on this forum since his retirement is downright appalling. No doubt he wasn't I the absolute top tier of all rounders but some of you should be ashamed of the utter bollocks you've posted.

Even if you want to say those numbers aren't much cop (a clue or you by the way: they are) if you watched any England game he played in from 03 onwards it's not hard to see how important a player he was. You don't have to have played team sports at any significant level to know the difference one player can make to the performance of everyone around him.