Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
A little wary of making this poll as we still don't know for sure that Flintoff's Test career is over. But we can redo it if neccessary, under the rather remarkable circumstances that there is still a chapter (or more) to run in The Freddie Story.
Considering Test cricket only - Flintoff is obviously overwhelmingly the better ODI player, probably with ball as well as bat - who was better?
Was always going to be such an interesting one - "The Next Botham" a tag infamously stuck on tens of cricketers, and with Flintoff it seemed we'd finally found one. Similar characters, magnificent slip-catchers, and excellent batsmen and bowlers for a time (and also awful for a time). Even similar in being troubled later in their careers (but earlier than they should have been) by injury, and alike in being to an extent at fault: Flintoff's troubles with his ankle were always highly possible with his bowling-action; and Botham's back troubles were caused overwhelmingly by his weight. So similar are the two that people started worrying about "The Next Flintoff" being a similar ghost haunting the English game for the next 20 years.
I wonder if everyone truly realises how good Botham was early on in his career, sometimes. His first four years and 42 Tests produced results few have matched, and not as captain (whether the captaincy was at fault for the unquestionable drop-off in form is debatable, but certainly a possibility that can never be ruled-out) it's even more astonishing, though there were admittedly just 30 Tests. The next phase saw his batting remain excellent but his bowling fall away badly.The next again saw a once brilliant player only very rarely show glimpses of his past glories, and the last is something which it's a crying shame ever happened. Some would claim of course that the third phase was a result of being worked-out - nonsense, IMO, was simply a result of his own calibre dropping-off.
Most on these boards will of course be more familiar with the Flintoff story, but to emphasise\reiterate - in his career there was the first phase where he should never, ever have been anywhere near the side; the second where he promised much and delivered little; one series where his batting developed greatly but his bowling remained poor; the star phase (note: much shorter than Botham's in terms of timespan but equal in number of games, but with much less good results with the ball and better with the bat); and the uncertain most recent phase, where he's played 8 Tests out of 25 and performed wholly unremarkably.
So, who had the better career in the opinion of the esteemed CricketWeb?
Considering Test cricket only - Flintoff is obviously overwhelmingly the better ODI player, probably with ball as well as bat - who was better?
Was always going to be such an interesting one - "The Next Botham" a tag infamously stuck on tens of cricketers, and with Flintoff it seemed we'd finally found one. Similar characters, magnificent slip-catchers, and excellent batsmen and bowlers for a time (and also awful for a time). Even similar in being troubled later in their careers (but earlier than they should have been) by injury, and alike in being to an extent at fault: Flintoff's troubles with his ankle were always highly possible with his bowling-action; and Botham's back troubles were caused overwhelmingly by his weight. So similar are the two that people started worrying about "The Next Flintoff" being a similar ghost haunting the English game for the next 20 years.
I wonder if everyone truly realises how good Botham was early on in his career, sometimes. His first four years and 42 Tests produced results few have matched, and not as captain (whether the captaincy was at fault for the unquestionable drop-off in form is debatable, but certainly a possibility that can never be ruled-out) it's even more astonishing, though there were admittedly just 30 Tests. The next phase saw his batting remain excellent but his bowling fall away badly.The next again saw a once brilliant player only very rarely show glimpses of his past glories, and the last is something which it's a crying shame ever happened. Some would claim of course that the third phase was a result of being worked-out - nonsense, IMO, was simply a result of his own calibre dropping-off.
Most on these boards will of course be more familiar with the Flintoff story, but to emphasise\reiterate - in his career there was the first phase where he should never, ever have been anywhere near the side; the second where he promised much and delivered little; one series where his batting developed greatly but his bowling remained poor; the star phase (note: much shorter than Botham's in terms of timespan but equal in number of games, but with much less good results with the ball and better with the bat); and the uncertain most recent phase, where he's played 8 Tests out of 25 and performed wholly unremarkably.
So, who had the better career in the opinion of the esteemed CricketWeb?