Chris Cairns vs Andrew Flintoff

[gettingbetter]

4 really as he was poor in the First Test. But anyway, there's a fair bit to be said for being the largest cog - by a fair whack - in your side beating the best team going around, a team that's hammered most others (including your side) before and after.

If Flintoff had performed only in that series, people would not talk extensively about him - see Simon Jones. Similarly, if Flintoff's highly impressive performances for the preceding and succeeding 2 years and year respectively had not been replicated in 2005, he'd not be talked of anywhere near as highly as he has been.

Hmm, was hoping you'd be one of the first to reply because I had a pre-determined answer for you, but with what I have bolded, you have virtually nulified my point, but I'll try and twist it to suit myself.

Your first paragraph...you have a tendency to pick and chose certain areas of a cricketers career which is fair, in this instance we are talking about a relatively short period. Surely if you can utilise this as an argument, you could argue for Harmison on his little golden spell under that logic.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Chris Cairns.

 

[andruid]

At this rate the only poll it seems Freddie can win is against Tony Suji

I like lollys though

 

[Richard]

Hmm, was hoping you'd be one of the first to reply because I had a pre-determined answer for you, but with what I have bolded, you have virtually nulified my point, but I'll try and twist it to suit myself.

Your first paragraph...you have a tendency to pick and chose certain areas of a cricketers career which is fair, in this instance we are talking about a relatively short period. Surely if you can utilise this as an argument, you could argue for Harmison on his little golden spell under that logic.

Harmison's little golden spell lasted a few months and 7 Tests, however; Flintoff's, on the other hand, wasn't little at all and lasted 3 years and 30-odd (I forget exactly how many) Tests, and may indeed resume if he were to manage to regain fitness and continue his career.

One was long enough to be considered the time of importance, the other wasn't.

 

[Nutter]

Cairnsy for me.

 

[gettingbetter]

Harmison's little golden spell lasted a few months and 7 Tests, however; Flintoff's, on the other hand, wasn't little at all and lasted 3 years and 30-odd (I forget exactly how many) Tests, and may indeed resume if he were to manage to regain fitness and continue his career.

One was long enough to be considered the time of importance, the other wasn't.

30 Tests seems a bit rich, sure he did better than what was expected of him, but I really wouldn't nominate it as a patch of good form.

 

[Raghav]

Cairns for sure.

 

[Bahnz]

I'd take Cairns for the batting and Flintoff for the bowling. After he had his first stress fracture when he was 19, Cairns never really developed into the genuine fast bowler that he had the potential to be. While he retained a relatively heavy ball, and developed a good attacking mind, he was never the force of nature that Flintoff can be. But when it comes to batting, I'd take Cairns everytime.

 

[Craig]

I voted Cairns cause i dont know who Andrew Fintoff is.

 

[Jono]

If this poll was taken September 2005, how different would the results be?

Interesting question. Anyway for me its Cairns, did it for longer. At their peak Flintoff is better though.

 

[Craig]

What was Cairns best innings in ODIs when New Zealand were under all sorts of pressure? For mine I'll do with his century to win the 2000 ICC Champions Trophy (or whatever it was called) in Kenya.

 

[_Ed_]

v SA at the Gabba IMO.

 

[NZTailender]

Would take Cairns over Flintoff in ODI's as well, ftr.

 

[Craig]

v SA at the Gabba IMO.

That was a great knock. Was also a great series, when scores like 200 was defendable.