Andrew Flintoff vs Chris Cairns

[Burgey]

Don Bradman's average is only worth 25 in NZ conditions then.. Martin Crowe was actually a 75+ average player.

Actually, that's not correct because Bradman played on uncovered wickets which compensates for your supposed discrepancy (as opposed to your actual one, between the lugs).

 

[Zinzan]

It's the same reason Hadlee's numbers are so good and why he's regarded as a great but not in the ultra top tier of ATG quicks by truly good judges.

Nah, unlike Lillee, Hadlee actually had remarkably good numbers in India and the SC, where pitches didn't offer much

Also the nature of NZ wickets were generally flatter in Cairns' 90s-mid 2000s era, than in Hadlee's 70s & 80s era. That deck Cairns' annihilated the Windies on in 1999-00 for example was pretty damn flat.

 

[Burgey]

I will address this further anon, as I am heading home from work and dropping by Woolworths to purchase some Baby Cos lettuce for the San Choy Bow. I'm not dissing this discussion, however, Mrs Burgey could cook for Australia (a good Australian team btw, not the **** one we have now) and requires this ingredient.

Adieu.

 

[GIMH]

I'm correct in reading this with a heavy tinge of joking right?

Look i would say Freddie was better whatever, so take it for what it is, but the points about when he was the best all-rounder in the world and regarded as the top cricketer are all true.

 

[GIMH]

records against australia in australia are a prime example of wanker records. look at lou vincent. one performace at the WACA against an ATG line up on dayboo and nothing else because he was ****.

fast forward to now and people think some pom who couldn't even maintain a decent bowling average because he banged in it too short is great because he helped the most overrated english team in history beat an australian side that relied on shane warne to take all its wickets in that series.

it's like a debutant thinking they're good because they got sachin out or an indian thinking he can play swing bowling because he got to face tim southee. once you look past the big three media lens you just see some pretty lame teams that have to fight over literal ashes and get in verbals to one another to compensate. one minute johnson is the west indian pace attack reborn and the next his career is finished at the WACA by a blond midget with a high pitched voice who, as grandpa simpson rightly notes, plays a pretty drive.

Lol, what a try hard. We all know you don't remotely think this Flem. Poor attempts of late to become the kiwi Burgey.

 

[Zinzan]

I will address this further anon, as I am heading home from work and dropping by Woolworths to purchase some Baby Cos lettuce for the San Choy Bow. I'm not dissing this discussion, however, Mrs Burgey could cook for Australia (a good Australian team btw, not the **** one we have now) and requires this ingredient.

Adieu.

Without wishing to derail the thread too much, your argument Hadlee needed green-tops also falls over when you see his away average was better (21.72), than his home one (22.96).

And his record in Australia, 77 wickets @ 17 in just 12 test matches was even better still So unless you're also implying Aust wickets were even greener.... but I don't think you were.

Now enjoy your dinner.

 

[Zinzan]

records against australia in australia are a prime example of wanker records. look at lou vincent. one performace at the WACA against an ATG line up on dayboo and nothing else because he was ****.

Throw Doug Bracewell into that camp while you're there, and he won & Test match in Australia, which I can't recall Flintoff ever doing.

 

[Stapel]

Having watched cricket on the BBC (hence only English home matches) in the days. And thus having stopped watching in 1998 (right?), to pick it up again during the 2005 Ashes, I am a bit biased for two reasons:

-I've never ever seen a bit of cricket by mr Cairns.
-Flintoff is the main reason I got back to watching cricket again.

So, Freddie it is!

 

[Zinzan]

Having watched cricket on the BBC (hence only English home matches) in the days. And thus having stopped watching in 1998 (right?), to pick it up again during the 2005 Ashes, I am a bit biased for two reasons:

-I've never ever seen a bit of cricket by mr Cairns.
-Flintoff is the main reason I got back to watching cricket again.

So, Freddie it is!

Nothing like good old honest impartiality. At least you admit it.

 

[Flem274*]

Lol, what a try hard. We all know you don't remotely think this Flem. Poor attempts of late to become the kiwi Burgey.

im not sure what's more insulting - implying i want to hate the simpsons or that i want to be a lawyer

where are your english manners ****?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Statistically, during their peak periods, it's not even a close comparison, Cairns dominates Flintoff.

Cairns: From 1999 to 2004...

Averaged 45.6 with the bat, with notable performances against Australia, South Africa, the Windies and cameos against England.
Averaged 25.69 with the ball, with notable performances against England, South Africa and the Windies.

Windies weren't at their best, but were still a reasonable force with some good players in that period.

He didn't play as many tests as he should have by the end, but he was a world class all rounder for the last stanza of his career and had he been Australian or English, would probably have been hailed as one of the great all rounders of the game.

28 matches in 5 years for his peak then. Only fair to take a sample of 28 matches from Flintoff then including his ashes series of 05.

28 matches
1775 runs @43.29
106 wkts @25.39

Not much in it but Flintoff had to do his in 2 years due to the tougher schedule.

 

[GIMH]

And had Flintoff played a schedule akin to Cairns' peak, it's not unreasonable to suggest his peak would have lasted longer, given it was following his injuries in 2006 that he was never quite the same player again on a consistent basis

Of course, he could have taken better care of himself too, and he'd be the first to admit that, but I think it's a valid point.

 

[Zinzan]

And had Flintoff played a schedule akin to Cairns' peak, it's not unreasonable to suggest his peak would have lasted longer, given it was following his injuries in 2006 that he was never quite the same player again on a consistent basis

Of course, he could have taken better care of himself too, and he'd be the first to admit that, but I think it's a valid point.

Well yeah, considering keeping yourself fit and your body intact is part of it. Shane Bond always gets that held against him when it comes to top bowler discussions.

Cairns was not much different though, it's crazy to think that in his career spanning from 1989-2004 that he only managed 62 Tests. And the fact he played for NZ, we know that wasn't due to selection.

 

[harsh.ag]

Qualitative difference between Bond and Flintoff though. Bond was very fit. He was just injury prone. Flintoff didn't work hard enough to be fit (unless he had a metabolic issue which I didn't know about).

 

[cnerd123]

Voting Cairns to piss off the poms and burgey, and because the kiwaaaahs needs something to be cheerful about after the recent summer.

 

[Red]

I was disappointed when Cairns was involved in controversy because I loved him as a cricketer. Really legit all rounder, great player.

 

[Zinzan]

Qualitative difference between Bond and Flintoff though. Bond was very fit. He was just injury prone. Flintoff didn't work hard enough to be fit (unless he had a metabolic issue which I didn't know about).

Depends how you define fit... In Bond's book he says his poor fitness and lack of strengthening work to cope with fast bowling when he was in his late teens/early 20s ultimately cost him a lot of those injuries throughout his career.

 

[Zinzan]

Voting Cairns to piss off the poms and burgey, and because the kiwaaaahs needs something to be cheerful about after the recent summer.

Sympathy vote with snot running down the face or not, we'll take it.

 

[Blocky]

Flintoff got supremely fit during that run he went on during the Ashes.

Also, judging New Zealanders based on the lack of tests they play over their careers is a little unfair - it took Hadlee 17 years to play 86 tests, without hardly missing one.
Even in the modern era, you'll probably never see a NZer play 150 tests.

 

[Zinzan]

Yup, meanwhile Cook manages close to 140 tests in a decade.