Johnson V Flintoff

[Uppercut]

Batman IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Batsman. Always.

I hate how even some cricketers and commentators these days use the word "batter" - can't stand it.

Yeah, AWTA.

HDS to confirm.

 

[Richard]

Yeah - you can be confident that Flintoff will waddle in and bowl a few good deliveries, not get too many wickets, offer up some 'hitting material' every now and then, and then after 6 overs hobble off with a sprained ankle of something...

Johnson would only bowl all-day if required - oh, AND maintain 145kph pace.

I think the fact that you're effectively saying that Johnson would have to be the best bowler in the world before you'd prefer him to Freddie proves the point I've been trying to make in this thread? Namely that Flintoff is waaaay overrated!!

In the last 4 years, Flintoff has only taken 55 wickets at a strike rate of 70. That's in 19 tests.
Johnson has played 19 tests in his 1.5 year career, and he already has 89 wickets (with an innings to bowl) at a strike rate of 56.

You're massively overrating Flintoff if you would pick him for a test tomorrow ahead of Johnson - there is nothing in the last 4 years of cricket to give you ANY logical reason to think that way...

And similarly, there was nothing in Johnson's first year-and-a-bit of cricket to suggest he was a Test-class bowler, never mind Flintoff's equal.

Some people are over-hasty and presume Johnson can keep-up the sort of magnificent bowling he's displayed the last 6-and-a-half Tests. I don't. I'm going to wait for it to last a little longer before I start presuming it's going to last.

And please note the difference between:
waiting before presuming it'll continue
and
presuming it won't continue.

 

[oldmancraigy]

And please note the difference between:
waiting before presuming it'll continue
and
presuming it won't continue.

I'll note the difference

But please note the difference between performance and non-performance?

Your style of argument puts the onus of proof on one, but not the other.

Taken at face value, without any emotional (parochial?) input, you cannot possibly be suggesting that Flintoff is a better bowler because he's taken less wickets, at a worse strike rate, than Mitch over their last 19 tests.

The last 4 years clearly show there's a difference in performance between the 2 players - but for some reason you keep boldly declaring "I'd like to see Johnson maintain it". I'm guessing - but surely you'd like to see Flintoff do something??

Stop arguing the point - it's facile.
Flintoff is not currently a better bowler, and has a fair bit to do to prove he is.

If you want proof that Freddy is overrated here on CW, just read through this thread again and see all the people suggesting Flintoff is a greater bowler than Johnson. If you still can't stomach the premise that Johnson is a better bowler, then I little more to say on the matter - but (I'm assuming you're an English supporter) it might show why the Australian team has been so much more successful than the English over the last 20 years? A refusal to accept mediocrity?

 

[Jamee999]

Batsman. Always.

I hate how even some cricketers and commentators these days use the word "batter" - can't stand it.

Hitter, imo.

@ Batman, though

 

[SJS]

Which of these two players will have the biggest influence on International Cricket in the next 3 years?

Neither.

Johnson because he isn't good enough (he is good but not so as to have great "influence on International Cricket in the next 3 years?") and Flintoff because he isn't fit enough and isn't getting younger.

 

[social]

Neither.

Johnson because he isn't good enough (he is good but not so as to have great "influence on International Cricket in the next 3 years?") and Flintoff because he isn't fit enough and isn't getting younger.

Really depends on how you define "influence"

Neither is likely to break any records but both are capable of leading their sides to series wins and/or top of the rankings plus are amongst the world's best cricketers

If the criteria is record breaking, then there's only a couple of cricketers out there that will have any influence on the game

 

[Evermind]

A more pertinent comparison would be Steyn vs Johnson. Both are quick, both are world-beaters on their day.

I'd pick Steyn - but they're both really good.

SJS probably think Steyn is better?

 

[Richard]

I'll note the difference

But please note the difference between performance and non-performance?

Your style of argument puts the onus of proof on one, but not the other.

Taken at face value, without any emotional (parochial?) input, you cannot possibly be suggesting that Flintoff is a better bowler because he's taken less wickets, at a worse strike rate, than Mitch over their last 19 tests.

The last 4 years clearly show there's a difference in performance between the 2 players - but for some reason you keep boldly declaring "I'd like to see Johnson maintain it". I'm guessing - but surely you'd like to see Flintoff do something??

Stop arguing the point - it's facile.
Flintoff is not currently a better bowler, and has a fair bit to do to prove he is.

If you want proof that Freddy is overrated here on CW, just read through this thread again and see all the people suggesting Flintoff is a greater bowler than Johnson. If you still can't stomach the premise that Johnson is a better bowler

Flintoff, as things currently stand, is a better bowler than Johnson. If you had seriously suggested to anyone who knew the tiniest bit about cricket that Johnson > Flintoff on the 4th of November 2008, they'd have snorted in derision. A few months and a few matches does not change this, it will take more. That said more will happen appears likely - nay, probable - but until it does, the relative position of the two compared to each other will not change.

Would I like to see Flintoff return better figures than he's returned since 2006/07? Umm, yes, of course I would. However, I don't doubt that he can. Anyone who does doesn't really know what they're on about either.

then I little more to say on the matter - but (I'm assuming you're an English supporter) it might show why the Australian team has been so much more successful than the English over the last 20 years? A refusal to accept mediocrity?

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It has to do with skill levels.

 

[social]

Flintoff, as things currently stand, is a better bowler than Johnson. If you had seriously suggested to anyone who knew the tiniest bit about cricket that Johnson > Flintoff on the 4th of November 2008, they'd have snorted in derision. A few months and a few matches does not change this, it will take more. That said more will happen appears likely - nay, probable - but until it does, the relative position of the two compared to each other will not change.

Would I like to see Flintoff return better figures than he's returned since 2006/07? Umm, yes, of course I would. However, I don't doubt that he can. Anyone who does doesn't really know what they're on about either.

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It has to do with skill levels.

Nope - one gets wickets whilst the other is injury prone and when he plays, despite looking good, doesnt do enough

 

[GIMH]

Yeah - you can be confident that Flintoff will waddle in and bowl a few good deliveries, not get too many wickets, offer up some 'hitting material' every now and then, and then after 6 overs hobble off with a sprained ankle of something...

Johnson would only bowl all-day if required - oh, AND maintain 145kph pace.

Yeah, Flintoff has never done that, lazy bastard

****, he bowled in Antigua when he needed to be in a wheelchair

 

[Matt79]

Seem to remember an 18 over spell during the 2005 Ashes that pretty much sunk us in a test.

 

[GIMH]

The Oval, I'd imagine. People talk about Pietersen winning us the Ashes, but Flintoff just kept running in for one of the best spells of his career, this in the 5th match of a 5 match series where he had been at the forefront of everything with the bat, ball and in the field.

But what the hell, Mitchell Johnson would bowl all day if he had to and Flintoff wouldn't, so...

 

[Ikki]

I tend to think this is a non-sensical comparison. I voted Johnson for logical reasons - Freddy ain't Fit.

Johnson is on the up-and-up and Freddy on the down so it could really go only one way IMO. I hope Flintoff gets somewhere near his best and Johnson continues the way he has been so that in at least one future Ashes series we can get them head-to-head.

 

[pup11]

My vote would go to Johnson, overall when one looks at both of them, Freddie without a shade of doubt is a better cricketer, when it comes down to cricketing skills, he is a better bowler and a better batsman, but Johnson is much, much better athlete then Flintoff, and hence there lies the difference.

Mitch is a very fit bloke, who started as someone, who can bowl fast right through the day and had great endurance and stamina levels, now in addition to that, slowly but surely other aspects of his game are also evolving, his batting seems to be getting better, and he seems to have finally developed the ability to swing the ball too, and his accuracy to has improved.

This constant evolution of Johnson as a cricketer in the last 18 months, is fast developing him into one of the better cricketers around in world cricket, but in Flintoff' case, despite having all the talent in the world, he has really gone nowhere with his career (in terms of development) since the 05 Ashes, purely because of his injury woes, and that's seems like would be the case for the rest of his career too.

 

[Uppercut]

Nope - one gets wickets whilst the other is injury prone and when he plays, despite looking good, doesnt do enough

Freddie's the ultimate stock bowler. Accurate, economical, doesn't let the pressure drop, rarely goes for runs and gets big, big wickets. You say he hasn't done enough, but it only feels that way because the rest of the side doesn't chip in. From his four matches this winter he averages under 30 on some extremely slow, flat pitches.

The issue is that he doesn't win matches on his own. He's ideal for making a good team a world-class one, but England need more than that. Flintoff should be the icing but they don't have a cake. He could turn India from one of the top three teams into the undisputed world's best, but he can't be all things to England at their current level.

 

[Prince EWS]

Freddie's the ultimate stock bowler. Accurate, economical, doesn't let the pressure drop, rarely goes for runs and gets big, big wickets. You say he hasn't done enough, but it only feels that way because the rest of the side doesn't chip in. From his four matches this winter he averages under 30 on some extremely slow, flat pitches.

The issue is that he doesn't win matches on his own. He's ideal for making a good team a world-class one, but England need more than that. Flintoff should be the icing but they don't have a cake. He could turn India from one of the top three teams into the undisputed world's best, but he can't be all things to England at their current level.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more with this post if I tried.

 

[Richard]

Nope - one gets wickets whilst the other is injury prone and when he plays, despite looking good, doesnt do enough

Johnson has only taken many wickets for 7 Tests (and only in 5 out of those 7).

Flintoff took wickets for far longer than that and may perfectly conceivably start to do so again if he gets a decent run on the park again.

 

[Richard]

Freddie's the ultimate stock bowler. Accurate, economical, doesn't let the pressure drop, rarely goes for runs and gets big, big wickets. You say he hasn't done enough, but it only feels that way because the rest of the side doesn't chip in. From his four matches this winter he averages under 30 on some extremely slow, flat pitches.

The issue is that he doesn't win matches on his own. He's ideal for making a good team a world-class one, but England need more than that. Flintoff should be the icing but they don't have a cake. He could turn India from one of the top three teams into the undisputed world's best, but he can't be all things to England at their current level.

Precious few bowlers who aren't Allan Donald, Glenn McGrath, Shaun Pollock circa 1995/96-2001 or Curtley Ambrose could.

 

[Beleg]

^

add in wasim, waqar, shoaib, gellespie and shabbir ahmad.