Flintoff v Botham the better allrounder - poll

[Barney Rubble]

Didnt Bradman cause Grade and state games to be sold out?

Though it is your cricketing world

All I meant is, it's a personal thing.

 

[Anil]

How many great attacks did Tinarse actually score centuries against then?

..and since when did a century become the sole arbitrer of good batting then?

 

[Anil]

Hear hear. Voted Freddie for the same reason I voted Warne > Bradman a while back - his impact on my cricketing world has been immeasurable.

...but that doesn't mean that he is better than botham or that warne is better than bradman....

 

[marc71178]

..and since when did a century become the sole arbitrer of good batting then?

I was intrigured, having had a quick look at his tons, to see how any of those attacks (with the possible exception of the Alderman-lead one) were actually any great cop (in terms of having more than 1 good bowler)

 

[silentstriker]

Botham > Flintoff

I compare flintoff to someone like Kapil Dev, rather than Botham...or Imran Khan (I heard someone say Flintoff > Imran, which made me laugh). This is assuming he has some longetivity, that is.

 

[Top_Cat]

I was intrigured, having had a quick look at his tons, to see how any of those attacks (with the possible exception of the Alderman-lead one) were actually any great cop (in terms of having more than 1 good bowler)

Well, here's a couple of tons of his with at least one 'great' (whatever that is) bowler in the attack;

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979/IND_IN_ENG/IND_ENG_T3_16-21AUG1979.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/ENG_IN_AUS/ENG_AUS_T3_01-06FEB1980.html

He liked India a lot, actually, scoring 5 tons at 70 against them.

Anyway, the question about tons being the arbiter of decent knocks is a good one because when the context of the match, boldness of the innings, clean-hitting, etc. is taken into account, I would rate two of Freddie's non-hundreds (95 against SA at The Oval in 2003 and 73 against Australia at Brimingham) as being better than his best hundred. Only marginally so, though; I thought his 142 against SA was a brilliant knock and his 102 against Australia was his most 'complete' knock i.e. he didn't just bash the ball to all parts.

EDIT: Oh yeah, knew I forgot something......... As for who's better, I think Freddie has better raw materials than Both did (tighter technique with bat and ball) but Both has greater results and, I think, a more creative cricketing brain, especially with the ball. Flintoff showed in his most recent Test how penetrating he isn't when he knocks back the speed to play stock bowler whereas Both might have had days when he was bowling lots of rubbish but in between all that, was swinging the ball miles and always trying something. And it only takes a couple of good 'uns in a pile of rubbish to make your day a whole lot brighter.

 

[Raymond]

Didnt Bradman cause Grade and state games to be sold out?

Though it is your cricketing world

None

Monty Python

 

[Goughy]

EDIT: Oh yeah, knew I forgot something......... As for who's better, I think Freddie has better raw materials than Both did (tighter technique with bat and ball)

Not true at all. Listen to alot of the people who are knowledgeable (ex-pros, analysts etc) and they will often talk about Bothams personality and aggression hiding and overshadowing an almost immaculate batting technique.

Same is true for the bowling. He had an easy runup, perfect coil and exceptional body position.

Botham was, despite the headlines and bravado, a very classical and techincally proficient player. Far more technical than Flintoff is or ever could be.

For all the Beefy and Guy the Gorilla nicknames and alter-egos ITB was very traditional is so much as everything was built around strong fundamentals

 

[pskov]

I don't think it's as clear cut as some people think.

Botham from debut to the end of the English 1982 season (before injury started slowing him down):

54 matches - 2996 runs @ 37.92 with 11 centuries; 249 wickets @ 23.32 with 20 five-fors

Flintoff's last 35 matches (roughly since he's been a genuine world class allrounder):

35 matches - 2142 runs @ 41.16 with 3 centuries; 137 wickets @ 26.36 with 2 five-fors

Botham was more of an impact player. Despite having a worse batting average, he made centuries more regulary than Flintoff has and Beefy also picked up a lot more 5 wicket hauls. However, if Flintoff can continue at his current rate of performance through to the end of 2007, which is far from inconcievable, then they could be pretty fairly compared over a similar stretch of matches. So far, it seems Flintoff is more consistent, but Botham was more spectacular.

 

[Anil]

I don't think it's as clear cut as some people think.

Botham from debut to the end of the English 1982 season (before injury started slowing him down):

54 matches - 2996 runs @ 37.92 with 11 centuries; 249 wickets @ 23.32 with 20 five-fors

Flintoff's last 35 matches (roughly since he's been a genuine world class allrounder):

35 matches - 2142 runs @ 41.16 with 3 centuries; 137 wickets @ 26.36 with 2 five-fors

Botham was more of an impact player. Despite having a worse batting average, he made centuries more regulary than Flintoff has and Beefy also picked up a lot more 5 wicket hauls. However, if Flintoff can continue at his current rate of performance through to the end of 2007, which is far from inconcievable, then they could be pretty fairly compared over a similar stretch of matches. So far, it seems Flintoff is more consistent, but Botham was more spectacular.

those figures seem spectacular to you, but not as consistent as flintoff....would you care to explain how you figure that???

 

[Anil]

I was intrigured, having had a quick look at his tons, to see how any of those attacks (with the possible exception of the Alderman-lead one) were actually any great cop (in terms of having more than 1 good bowler)

..and flintoff's increasing consistency as a batsman in recent years on extremely flat wickets against declining bowling attacks the world over should be considered more impressive than that...right? that too in an era when 40 is considered a sub-par average and tons of batsmen have 50+ and 55+ averages....not knocking flintoff here but you are not giving botham a fair deal when you dismiss his achievements thus...

 

[James]

Flintoff is clearly the best all-rounder in cricket today, but does he even come close to any of the great all-rounders of the 80's - Kapil Dev, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee?

I personally don't think you can talk about Flintoff being among those list of names, at least currently anyway.

 

[Sanz]

After 60 Tests Ian Botham had 271 Wickets @ an average of 24.34, 20 Fifers and 4 10 wicket hauls Compared to Freddie's only 2 Fifers and ZERO 10 wickets hauls.

Agreed Botham had bowled 14170 balls compared to Freddie's 11378, but the strike rate is remarkebly better for Botham with 52 compared to Freddie's 64. Although we must keep in mind that Botham bowled on pitches that were much bowler friendly than the pichets Freddie bowls now a days. Also about the quality of batsmen I would say both have bowled to some great batsmen and If anything Freddie has had to bowl to better batsmen on much flatter wickets. Freddie has bowled to batsmen like Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Tendulkar, Rahul, Inzi, Aravinda, Gilchrist, Laxman, Sehwag, Hayden whereas Botham bowled to batsmen like Richards, Gavaskar, Chappel, Border, Miandad, Greenidge. All said , Botham's 20 fifers in same no. of test matches are enough for me to conclude that He was a class apart as a bowler in his first 60-70 test matches. Freddie's career isn't over yet and we all know that he had a poor start and he has picked up well in last couple of years. At the end of his career he might end up with figures as good as Botham but he is not there right now.

As a test batsman, I dont think there is any competition. For most of his career Botham could walk into any country's batting Eleven on his batting alone but we cant say that about Freddie. I am not sure if he can make into his own country's XI as a pure batsmen. At least I wont have him in my England XI as a batsmen alone.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The 5 wicket haul statistic of Flintoff's is the most striking one for me when you look at his stats (not just comparing to Beefy), and its really hard to read anything into it, or to understand it. Maybe it's because he's part of a 5 prong bowling attack, and logic dictates that the more bowlers you have, the more that the wickets will be spread around.

I guess a lot of time he bowls a fairly "defensive" (read shorter) length, which can make him tough to score off and reduces the likelihood of regulation nicks to the keeper and slips. And helps to build some scoreboard pressure. But it's fair to say that he's never really torn batting line-ups apart.

Also, Botham's statistic of getting a 5 wicket haul every three Tests is pretty amazing. The biggest problem with comparing their first 60 Tests, or whatever it is, is that Freddy had such a slow start, while Botham's best part of his career (from what I gather) was towards the start of it.

 

[pskov]

those figures seem spectacular to you, but not as consistent as flintoff....would you care to explain how you figure that???

Flintoff's batting average is higher than Bothams was, but Botham hit centuries more often than Flintoff has. So, Botham was more likely to get either a big score or a get out for a low score, whereas Flintoff is more likely to hit solid 40s, 50s and 60s. Also Botham has a lot more 5fors, so he got his wickets much more in bunches than Flintoff who spreads them around. That's what I meant.

 

[wpdavid]

It's not nearly as clearcut as some of the Botham brigade will try to have us believe. And if they're going to argue that Fred's runs have been made on easier wickets, then it strikes me as odd to ignore the fact that he's taken his wickets on the same more batsman friendly tracks.

At his absolute peak, Botham probably just gets my vote, but there's no getting away from the fact that heck a lot of his tests in that period were against sides that were weakened by Packer or just plain ordinary anyway. The Aus series in 1979/80 showed that he could cut it against decent sides, but it's pretty well established that he struggled badly against WI. Yes, Botham carried out more oneman rescue acts that Fred, but it's hardly Fred's fault that he's playing in a more comepitive England side than Beefy did. And, once established, we haven't seen the absolute dross from Fred that Botham gave us when he still should have been at his peak, such as the 1982/3 Ashes and Christchurch in 1983/4.

 

[Top_Cat]

At his absolute peak, Botham probably just gets my vote, but there's no getting away from the fact that heck a lot of his tests in that period were against sides that were weakened by Packer or just plain ordinary anyway.

So Botham played heaps of Tests between 1977 and 1979 before the compromise between Packer and the ABC? Riiiight.............

The Aus series in 1979/80 showed that he could cut it against decent sides, but it's pretty well established that he struggled badly against WI.

Name me one bowler who DIDN'T struggled against the WI during the 80's, let alone one who also had to bat in the top 7 and do the business in consecutive 0-5 losing series'. Averaging mid-30's in that period against the WI was an achievement!

Also Botham has a lot more 5fors, so he got his wickets much more in bunches than Flintoff who spreads them around. That's what I meant.

Botham averaged about 24 with the ball in his first 60-odd Tests; that tells you he did both taking wickets in bunches and consistently took 3/4-fers. That's the difference between Both and Freddie; Freddie is consistent, occasionally devastating. Botham was simultaneously consistent and devastating throughout that period.

 

[wpdavid]

So Botham played heaps of Tests between 1977 and 1979 before the compromise between Packer and the ABC? Riiiight............. .

Er ..It's a fair chunk of the period when he was any good. Thereafter you get twin series against WI when he struggled, 1981 against an Aus side with a decent attack but weak batters, a couple of decent series against a moderate India side and an OK series against Pakistan. You probably know what came next.

Name me one bowler who DIDN'T struggled against the WI during the 80's, let alone one who also had to bat in the top 7 and do the business in consecutive 0-5 losing series'. Averaging mid-30's in that period against the WI was an achievement! .

IIRC he batted well enough in 1984, but I doubt that he averaged mid-30's against them in 1980, 1981 or 1985/6. As for bowlers, Imran & Hadlee both had their successes against WI. One of the big myths perpetutated by the 80's generation is that 5-0 was a frequent margin of victory for WI in that period. In reality, we were stuffed far more comprehensively than anyone else, and that's down to the players of that era, including Beefy.

EDIT
In case you thought I was making it up. In his 4 series against WI, Beefy averaged with the bat 18.8, 10.4, 34.7 and 16.8. With the ball, he averaged 29.6, 32.8, 35.1 & 43.0.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Let me just clarify my stance on this. Botham was by far the superior player, but Flintoff has shaped my life as a cricket fan in such a way that I just can't vote against him. Sorry guys.

 

[PY]

Let me just clarify my stance on this. Botham was by far the superior player, but Flintoff has shaped my life as a cricket fan in such a way that I just can't vote against him. Sorry guys.

Shhh Barney.....fight fight fight.