Andrew Flintoff

[Rik]

Except they don't because he bowled far better than those figures suggest.

In your view maybe, but I watched every day of every Test that summer, most of which you spent at work. Highlights don't show the full story as you have said many times yoursef.

Flintoff rarely created chances. He would bowl accurately then bowl a little too short and wide and then the batsmen took him to pieces. Anderson and Harmison were just as bad. Those figures show the story, the pitches were flat, the opposition weren't troubled untill Kirtley came in and Flintoff just didn't threaten the batsmen. He bowled tidily yes, but there's a difference between bowling well and bowling tidily without posing much of a threat.

 

[KishanTeli]

The thing I find bemusing is the fact that Flintoff seems to have the worst luck ever in terms of bowling. Critics analyse his figures as "unlucky, do not show the whole story". Surely this cannot be the case nearly every game?? Once in a while maybe.

I seem to think that it is not lack of luck. As Rik said the pressure is built up and then disappears due to a loose ball. He needs to try and attack the stumps more and not just do a containing job. He has many attributes to use to his advantage, its time he starting using them properly. With hard work, he could be a very useful strike bowler for England.

 

[Prince EWS]

Shane Warne (forum member) is worthless.

 

[Craig]

Most over-rated all-rounder in Tests and second to Brett Lee as the most over-rated player in the world.

However, Lords I will concede he really did bowl well, except England left their slip catching ability behind.

 

[Tim]

Can you really go 3 test series, bowl really well & not have much luck?

 

[Richard]

Quite simply, no.
Flintoff may suffer a few more dropped catches off his bowling than most but it really isn't difficult to understand that there is no difference, as far as the ability of the bowler is concerned, between a decent ball that is left to the 'keeper and the same ball that is flapped to slip and dropped.
It is only possible to have only bowled better than your figures suggest if you have had catches dropped off good deliveries.
Getting a batsman to play-and-miss, and bowling a good line and length, does NOT mean you deserve wickets. You have to earn them by taking them with good deliveries.
Otherwise figures are all that matter. Although continuous edges to an unguarded third-man should be remembered (not that it has happened to Flintoff very often).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Shane Warne (forum member) is worthless.

That was uncalled for.

 

[Craig]

Quite simply, no.
Flintoff may suffer a few more dropped catches off his bowling than most but it really isn't difficult to understand that there is no difference, as far as the ability of the bowler is concerned, between a decent ball that is left to the 'keeper and the same ball that is flapped to slip and dropped.
It is only possible to have only bowled better than your figures suggest if you have had catches dropped off good deliveries.
Getting a batsman to play-and-miss, and bowling a good line and length, does NOT mean you deserve wickets. You have to earn them by taking them with good deliveries.
Otherwise figures are all that matter. Although continuous edges to an unguarded third-man should be remembered (not that it has happened to Flintoff very often).

Does Flintoff offer anything in swing and seam movement?

 

[iamdavid]

Does Flintoff offer anything in swing and seam movement?

His action & height prevent him from doing anything through the air (swing) , but he has a decent seam position & hits the deck hard so he is able to jag it about off the seam pretty well while the ball's new.

And when it gets older he uses his off cutter very nicely.

 

[Craig]

Well he could pitch the ball up more around off stump and see if his luck changes, if the batsman miss, the off stump could go back.

 

[Richard]

I have actually seen Flintoff bowl both conventional and reverse swing, in the 2002 Tests against India (reverse at Lord's, actually got night-watchman Nehra out with a reverse in-ducker from around-the-wicket; conventional at Trent Bridge, though it didn't get him any wickets).
The main thing about Flintoff is, on rare occasions, he actually moves the ball in every way (swing of both types, seam-movement [for instance the Bangalore Test] and cutters).
He still doesn't bowl many deliveries that take the edge, though. This is mainly, as far as I can see, due to the fact he mostly bowls too short. Unlike Caddick, whose action means he swings the ball all the time, he can't get away with that.
I don't really think Flintoff is likely to improve as a bowler, because he has been playing top-level cricket for nearly 7 years now.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I have actually seen Flintoff bowl both conventional and reverse swing, in the 2002 Tests against India (reverse at Lord's, actually got night-watchman Nehra out with a reverse in-ducker from around-the-wicket; conventional at Trent Bridge, though it didn't get him any wickets).
The main thing about Flintoff is, on rare occasions, he actually moves the ball in every way (swing of both types, seam-movement [for instance the Bangalore Test] and cutters).
He still doesn't bowl many deliveries that take the edge, though. This is mainly, as far as I can see, due to the fact he mostly bowls too short. Unlike Caddick, whose action means he swings the ball all the time, he can't get away with that.
I don't really think Flintoff is likely to improve as a bowler, because he has been playing top-level cricket for nearly 7 years now.

Agreed, although he is still a handy bowler IMO. Not to take wickets, but to keep the runs down. He is very accurate.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Agreed, although he is still a handy bowler IMO. Not to take wickets, but to keep the runs down. He is very accurate.

You're gonna get slated for that one.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Why? Take a look at his RPO in all forms of the game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And look at the point of Test Cricket.

 

[Rik]

Can you really go 3 test series, bowl really well & not have much luck?

It's possible, but amazingly unlikely. I've played 4 games in my indoor season so far, bowled full and straight in every single one, got 2 wickets in the 1st game and since haven't picked up a single one. Every time I bowl it on the stumps it turns past them or the batsman seems to only just get the bat in the way or edges it or mis-times it when slogging, but because it's only indoor it goes for 6. But bowling in Test after Test not taking any wickets, that can't just be unlucky. Last year I got 15 wickets in 8 games bowling pure rubbish medium but this year I'm bowling slower and spinning it and no luck's gone my way. When your fielders don't stop the ball it doesn't tend to help either, and especially not when you bowl your last over off one leg having done your hamstring in on your left (back) foot.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And look at the point of Test Cricket.

True. The point is to take 20 wickets. But if you build pressure, wickets become more likely. Not necessarily for Freddie, but for the strike bowlers. (Although I admit at the present time, England have no strike bowlers.)

 

[FRAZ]

He was the pick of the pace bowlers by a country mile in Bangladesh, and is much more consistent than any of the rest of the pace attack.

He's not the new Botham, and I hate that tag. However, he's a brilliant guy to have in the side and I reckon he would be in every national side for matches away from the sub continent.

i THINK NOT MUCH OF TIME HE HAS GOT TO BE IN INTERNATIONAL SPORT. Just look at his body fat .....

 

[djsj]

well said FRAZ

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well said? Difference of opinion here, because I think that was a stupid comment.