Andrew Flintoff vs Chris Cairns

[Zinzan]

Cairns is getting as much favourable feedback in this thread as he ever will, because come about 5pm EDST all the Poms will wake up from their slumber and correct the current pro-Kiwi bias.

That might have seemed a valid point if we hadn't previously run a comprehensive poll when Flintoff retired from Tests back in '09... and before we knew about the Cairns Match-fixing allegations...

On the question of best Test cricketer, CW voted Cairns 61 votes to 17 for Flintoff, http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/44019-c-cairns-vs-flintoff-test-cricket-only.html You can see who voted back then, & Cairns still wins if you strip out the Kiwi voters and leave the Poms in there, which kind of blows your Kiwi-bias theory out of the window in regards to this question...

 

[Black_Warrior]

Cairns is getting as much favourable feedback in this thread as he ever will, because come about 5pm EDST all the Poms will wake up from their slumber and correct the current pro-Kiwi bias.

Can we close the poll before that?

 

[Burgey]

That might have seemed a valid point if we hadn't previously run a comprehensive poll when Flintoff retired from Tests back in '09... and before we knew about the Cairns Match-fixing allegations...

On the question of best Test cricketer, CW voted Cairns 61 votes to 17 for Flintoff, http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/44019-c-cairns-vs-flintoff-test-cricket-only.html You can see who voted back then, & Cairns still wins if you strip out the Kiwi voters and leave the Poms in there, which kind of blows your Kiwi-bias theory out of the window in regards to this question...

Yeah but that was before the Kiwis on here got uppity beyond their station. They're a far more Bolshie set now than they were back then. Back then they were a nice bunch of blokes who punched above their weight with quality posts made in the spirit of the game. They had one star (Volty), and the rest were just happy to get a guernsey. Now they're all a bit gobby because Williamson has made a few runs and plays a pretty off drive, so revisionism kicks in. Now people can look back on Flintoff's career with the same distance they did on Cairns' in 2009. It'll be far fairer now because the rose coloured glasses of hindsight will be applied to both players instead of just Cairns.

And by uppity, I mean the Kiwis begin to post things like Vettori was a top quality spinner and not just a dogged lower order all rounder; that McCullum wasn't just a slogger and could bat properly; that Boult and Southee will rip through batting line ups everywhere; that Watling is the world's best keeper/ batsman; that Cairns wasn't just a bloke who played a couple of decent cameos against the best sides he played against. Everyone else knows these views are dross, but they keep getting made because of the increase in Kiwi white noise on here. You have to allow for these things when assessing poll results.

Come this afternoon, when the northern hemisphere white noise starts, the views from the Original Poms will rightly drown out those of their South Sea Island Pom brethren.

 

[_Ed_]

Now they're all a bit gobby because Williamson has made a few runs and plays a pretty off drive

When I went to a game at Eden Park last summer, someone sitting a few rows behind me sounded like he reached ***ual ecstasy every time Kane played a late cut.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah but that was before the Kiwis on here got uppity beyond their station. They're a far more Bolshie set now than they were back then. Back then they were a nice bunch of blokes who punched above their weight with quality posts made in the spirit of the game. They had one star (Volty), and the rest were just happy to get a guernsey. Now they're all a bit gobby because Williamson has made a few runs and plays a pretty off drive, so revisionism kicks in. Now people can look back on Flintoff's career with the same distance they did on Cairns' in 2009. It'll be far fairer now because the rose coloured glasses of hindsight will be applied to both players instead of just Cairns.

And by uppity, I mean the Kiwis begin to post things like Vettori was a top quality spinner and not just a dogged lower order all rounder; that McCullum wasn't just a slogger and could bat properly; that Boult and Southee will rip through batting line ups everywhere; that Watling is the world's best keeper/ batsman; that Cairns wasn't just a bloke who played a couple of decent cameos against the best sides he played against. Everyone else knows these views are dross, but they keep getting made because of the increase in Kiwi white noise on here. You have to allow for these things when assessing poll results.

Come this afternoon, when the northern hemisphere white noise starts, the views from the Original Poms will rightly drown out those of their South Sea Island Pom brethren.

Decent rant, but really just translates to "Only cricketers record against Australia really counts, provided of course they are games not played in the SC".

Any change to the consensus that Cairns was quite clearly the better Test allrounder from that one in 2009, I'll put down to the match-fixing stuff.

 

[Prince EWS]

Decent rant, but really just translates to "Only cricketers record against Australia really counts, provided of course they are games not played in the SC".

So it's just like all his other rants then.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Only cricketers record against Australia really counts, provided of course they are games not played in the SC

well said Zinzan

 

[Adders]

Cairns is getting as much favourable feedback in this thread as he ever will, because come about 5pm EDST all the Poms will wake up from their slumber and correct the current pro-Kiwi bias.

And in the meantime I'm here to hold the fort and tell all the Kiwis that they're all ****ed and Flintoff was greater than Cairns......just because.

Oh and my fellow Poms may make an earlier appearance today since the 2nd test starts at 3pm EDST

 

[Burgey]

Decent rant, but really just translates to "Only cricketers record against Australia really counts, provided of course they are games not played in the SC".

Any change to the consensus that Cairns was quite clearly the better Test allrounder from that one in 2009, I'll put down to the match-fixing stuff.

It matters in the era Cairns played in because they were far and away the best side during that time. These days they're almost wanker runs/ wickets when you play Australia.

 

[Burgey]

When I went to a game at Eden Park last summer, someone sitting a few rows behind me sounded like he reached ***ual ecstasy every time Kane played a late cut.

It might have been Hurricane. Did they stand up when he reached his ton?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

How many ashes series did Cairns win?

Enough said.

 

[GIMH]

Cairns comfortably if we're talking Test cricket.... It's a myth Flintoff was better with the ball, or that he had a higher peak.

People forget Cairns was the best allrounder in the world between about 1999-2002

Look at the numbers, number of 5-fers etc.

Freddie was the best all rounder in the world from 2003 until his injury in 2006. This was a world that included Jacques Kallis.

Circa 2005 he was regarded by many as the greatest cricketer in the world. Rightly.

The OP says all round cricketer, we correctly place an emphasis on Tests in this joint but should probably account for the fact that Freddie is also one of the greatest ODI all-rounders that ever did live.

All this being said there is a strong case for Cairns. But Freddie's impact on the game was enormous, and elsewhere you've said about Cairns never getting to play for a side as strong as the England side that beat Australia...what do you think happens if Flintoff isn't in that side???

Freddie.

 

[Zinzan]

How many ashes series did Cairns win?

Enough said.

That argument's already been used up for Ashley Giles being better than Murali, remember?

 

[Blocky]

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.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

 

[Zinzan]

Freddie was the best all rounder in the world from 2003 until his injury in 2006. This was a world that included Jacques Kallis.

Circa 2005 he was regarded by many as the greatest cricketer in the world. Rightly.

The OP says all round cricketer, we correctly place an emphasis on Tests in this joint but should probably account for the fact that Freddie is also one of the greatest ODI all-rounders that ever did live.

All this being said there is a strong case for Cairns. But Freddie's impact on the game was enormous, and elsewhere you've said about Cairns never getting to play for a side as strong as the England side that beat Australia...what do you think happens if Flintoff isn't in that side???

Freddie.

I'll give you ODIs without any argument, but no way when it comes to Tests.

Both had very similar careers, played fewer games than they should have due to injury, & both started poorly & were superb the second half of their careers. Only Cairns slightly better, with both bat and bowl.

Most seem happy to concede Cairns was the better batsman of the two, but Cairns' Test bowling is the thing that always gets underrated. He ended with over 200 wickets, averaging sub 30 in spite of a terrible start to his career when he was an erratic youngster, playing in a weak side that got hammered in the mid-90s. He was a damn fine test bowler in the second half of his career.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

Yup, it could be an age thing with many posters here first watching cricket in the mid-2000s, because to average mid 40s with the bat and mid 20s with the ball as Cairns did, is about is good as it gets for a Test all-rounder in a 5 year period.

So yeah, in spite of the myth about their peaks, Cairns' peak was actually better, as well as his entire Test career.

 

[Burgey]

I'll give you ODIs without any argument, but no way when it comes to Tests.

Both had very similar careers, played fewer games than they should have due to injury, & both started poorly & were superb the second half of their careers. Only Cairns slightly better, with both bat and bowl.

Most seem happy to concede Cairns was the better batsman of the two, but Cairns' Test bowling is the thing that always gets underrated. He ended with over 200 wickets, averaging sub 30 in spite of a terrible start to his career when he was an erratic youngster, playing in a weak side that got hammered in the mid-90s. He was a damn fine test bowler in the second half of his career.

Bowled on NZ green tops. 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.

 

[Blocky]

Bowled on NZ green tops. 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.

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

 

[TheJediBrah]

Freddie was the best all rounder in the world from 2003 until his injury in 2006. This was a world that included Jacques Kallis.

Circa 2005 he was regarded by many as the greatest cricketer in the world. Rightly.

The OP says all round cricketer, we correctly place an emphasis on Tests in this joint but should probably account for the fact that Freddie is also one of the greatest ODI all-rounders that ever did live.

All this being said there is a strong case for Cairns. But Freddie's impact on the game was enormous, and elsewhere you've said about Cairns never getting to play for a side as strong as the England side that beat Australia...what do you think happens if Flintoff isn't in that side???

Freddie.

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