Is Freddie Flintoff overrated?

Average batter, average bowler yet rated so highly as one of the great all-rounders. Credit where it's due, Freddie was superb against the Aussies and did well against the Windies but then what?.. Certainly by the common Cricket fan the first Cricket player they think of is normally Freddie or KP. For one reason and one reason only that 05 Series. KP has went and to do big things and still is while Freddie struggled with injuries and struggled to retain any type of form. The comparison between these two is massive and often not understand by a fan who watches the sport on the odd occasion.


Freddie is simply what could of or might of been. Take the 05 series out of the equation and your left with a player who would hardly be recognised, maybe for his personality and influence but not on the field which he should be for. 79 Tests, Batting average of 31 and bowling average of 32 yet he's almost a god of English Cricket, my personal opinion is that Broad and Bresnan will become better all-rounders than him yet will likely receive half the attention he gets. I find it baffling when people compare to the likes of Botham, as a Cricketer Freddie was nothing more than a alright player and is in my opinion overrated.

Cheers, Liam.

His bowling average does not do him justice.

Great player on his day but thanks to a poor start to his career and then injuries late on, not as consistent as some others.

i think his batting was too incosistent to be classed as an allrounder, and peobably would have been better used as 7, but had to bat 6 cos jones was useless with the bat, however i think he was a very good bowler, and 32 is very good average for an allrounder, but he was slightly overrated, he was more of an impact player, everyone would lift when he was on the field.

Think Flintoff's is a classic case of stats not telling the full story. At his peak - which was admittedly far too short - he was one of the greatest allrounders ever seen. I take a big exception to this idea that he only had one great series, too, because that's absolute cobblers. He'd been in fantastic form for a couple of years before that 2005 Ashes series, and performed admirably in the subsequent tours of Pakistan and India, too.

Simple question - could Botham have ever done what Flintoff did against the best side in the world (some say the best of all time) in 2005? Absolutely not. The stats tell nothing like the whole story with Flintoff. When in full flow, he had few peers as an allrounder.

88Chris05 wrote:Think Flintoff's is a classic case of stats not telling the full story. At his peak - which was admittedly far too short - he was one of the greatest allrounders ever seen. I take a big exception to this idea that he only had one great series, too, because that's absolute cobblers. He'd been in fantastic form for a couple of years before that 2005 Ashes series, and performed admirably in the subsequent tours of Pakistan and India, too.

Simple question - could Botham have ever done what Flintoff did against the best side in the world (some say the best of all time) in 2005? Absolutely not. The stats tell nothing like the whole story with Flintoff. When in full flow, he had few peers as an allrounder.

Who's to say it wasn't just a one off brilliant series?

We will never know because after that he never proved himself. He had a good tour of the Windies and obvious the 05 series and that's it. Stats may not tell the full story but they show that Freddie wasn't consistent enough and that as i've said it's the case of what could of been.

Botham could perform well in more than one series, Botham was more consistent and I think Botham was a better impact player than Freddie. 1981?

Botham never really done it against the Windies from what I can recall.

On the other hand, Botham was far more consistent and was definitely a better bat.

I would edge towards Botham bowling also.

Liam, the Australian side of 1981 would be lucky to win once in half a dozen outings against the 2005 side. Botham's record against the West Indies is decidedly average. Don't get me wrong, Botham had the better career and was more consistent than Flintoff - but when in full flow, Flintoff was very probably the better player and hit heights than Botham never quite did. Let's not forget that Botham's career took a distinct nose dive after the return of many top players from WSC, too.

Freddie should be knighted for services to the Pedalo industry

A big character but ultimately his batting too often did not match the build up. I agree with comments made above that several of the current, less flamboyant, England players are likely to end up with better test figures.

Exactly, I just hate how he gets so much attention compared to other English Cricketers when most have achieved way more than what he did.

Flintoff with the ball, for me. At his best he was nigh on unplayable.

Batting was entertaining, but too many failures, despite some heroic innings.

freddie would have been very effective in t20 cricket, he got a contract with chennai but got injured, but i think he would have been very good at t20

Bear in mind that he played most of his career semi fit and hungover.
As a bowler hes rated very highly by his contemporaries, and as a batsman he was ahead of the game as a modern allrounder. At the time he came into teh England side the thought of one of our genuine bowlers being abel to hit a fifty was a revelation.
With a more professional attitude he could have been a much better and more succesful player.

I do think the "legend" outweighs the player. But he was a huge personality in English cricket.

cricketfan90 wrote:freddie would have been very effective in t20 cricket, he got a contract with chennai but got injured, but i think he would have been very good at t20

He was interviewed recently saying that he probably wouldnt have made it as an international T20 bowler as he only had 3 balls (stock delivery, fast bouncer, inswinging yorker) and couldnt understand why the coaches kept trying to get him to develope more variation. The way England bowled at the world cup was comepltly alien to his mentality. T20 has changed bowling, Englands bowlers are expected to have at leats 3 slower balls and 3 bouncers as well as their regular deliveries and yorkers so that they can adapt to the way batsmen are looking to score form them and keep them guessing.
Flintoff, like Harmisson, never had the application or interest in learning that way of thinking and actively ignored requests to do things differently. He had the raw talent but didnt becaome the player he could have been.

cricketfan90 wrote:freddie would have been very effective in t20 cricket, he got a contract with chennai but got injured, but i think he would have been very good at t20

I disagree, Freddie would have been expected to have been very good in t20 but never showed it for England or Lancs.

The thing is with Freddie he had a really poor/slow start to his career. Early on he hardly bowled and then when he did start bowling a lot he became a very good stock bowler used to bowl tight and hold up an end. It was certainly only in the second half of his career that he started to be a dangerous bowler. If you look at his stats from 2003 onwards (about half way through his career time wise) he averaged 36 with the bat, 30 with the ball and claimed 193 of his 226 career wickets.

I'd say that makes him a pretty good all rounder but perhaps due to injuries and blooming a bit later he probably didn't fulfil his potential.

Freddie was a good player throughout his career and at times a great one, sadly though those times probably only make up around 18 months, to some he's overrated, to others he's underrated, IMO, he was a joy to watch, but could have dedicated himself a lot more to the game, he may then have become a true legend like Botham .

Also, comparing the talents of players from differing generations is just as pointless as the All Time Best XI lists we see all too often, these questions may make interesting conversation over a few drinks, but it is impossible to take all factors into account.
About all we can ever be certain of, is the Don will stay as the best ever and we'll all have our own personal favourites to argue for.

One other point is that as a bowler, Freddie was usually an unlucky one (bowled lots of good balls for little reward) and Botham was a golden arm (having the happy habit of taking wickets with absolute dross - something Swann has to a certain extent).

Not saying that all the difference in stats between Both and Freddie came down to luck, and has often been said 'it's better to be lucky than good'...

In terms of being a great all-rounder, if people are suggesting he was a all time great all-rounder, then I would say yes they are over-rating him. If they are saying his is was a great all-rounder of his generation then I would say they are bang on the money.

One other point is that as a bowler, Freddie was usually an unlucky one (bowled lots of good balls for little reward) and Botham was a golden arm (having the happy habit of taking wickets with absolute dross - something Swann has to a certain extent).

----------------------------

Good point.
Botham often use to get wickets in his latter years with bad balls.

Having watched both Botham and Flintoff in their prime, Botham was a better bowler and batsman IMO.

Certainly a better bat, by a long way.

Comparing Flintoff to Botham is the ultimate disrespect to Botham. Flintoff was a mediocre player who have one decent series. Botham could bat properly, whilst Flintoff just slogged wildly.

as an allrounder hugely overrated, he could easily play in a side as a frontline bowler

I don't know whether Andrew Flintoff was overrated or underrated. But anyday, he does remain one of my most favorit cricketers. I am reminded of Brian Lara's farewell question, 'Did I entertain?' Fredye was a great entertainer. Superb bowler who stats just can show his real impact. I don't think England has had a good ODI bowler of Flintoff's quality.
His batting was more on the wilder side at times, and he has had prolonged rough patches with the bat.
Everyone remember the 05 ashes series, but equaly important was Fredye's series in India the year after. He was at his consistent best with the bat, although he scored no 100, he made runs in all the matches, and was his usual self with the ball.
He was an impact cricketer, one of the best all-rounders of his generation. Its a close call between Flintoff and Jacques Kallis, the latter is a far better batsman, but for me, Flintoff was the better bowler.

Agree, Kallis the better batsman but Flintoff by far the better bowler.

Fredie's batting was a bit too inconsistent for him to be considered a great all-rounder throughout his career. He did have a spell of about 2 years in the middle of his career where he genuinely meritted being a top 6 batsman, but for much of the time he was really more a bowler who could bat.

Partly the batting issues were technical - for example he was always a much better front foot player than back foot (as with most tall men), however some of the issues were more mental, in that he often just wanted to hit the ball hard rather than bat properly.

Freddie could change matches,Kallis cant.

Shanky

Kallis could and still can change matches as a batsman - South africa wouldn't win anything like as many matches without him.

Your point is more about the speed with which Flintoff (and Botham before him) could change the momentum of a match, which does have some validity, but must be weighed against the fact that Kallis averages mid 50s with the bat and FF only in the low 30s

I am talking about the ball.

As far as batting is concerned Kallis is one of the greatest ever and to even compare him with Freddie would be an insult.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I am talking about the ball.

As far as batting is concerned Kallis is one of the greatest ever and to even compare him with Freddie would be an insult.

kallis can turn around a match with a ball, and has done it plenty of times in test cricket.

I'm not sure Kallis can now be a match winning bowler, but in his prime he was seriously under-rated (probably because he was a genuinely world class batsman) - his best bowling ranking was 6th (742 points), and he has taken 270 wickets at 32.0.

For comparison, Flintoff's highest ranking was 4th (810 points), with 226 wickets at 32.7.

So their bowling records are pretty much equal. Fred's best was slightly better, but JK more consistent

Freddie slogged every time he batted, he would have been better with the bat, if once in a while he batted maturely, he was more known for his bowling.

cricketfan90 wrote:Freddie slogged every time he batted, he would have been better with the bat, if once in a while he batted maturely, he was more known for his bowling.

That's a half truth - when he batted well (and he did for a couple of years around 2004 to 2006), Freddie could control the urge to just take a big swipe at the ball. He could still hit a big 6, but it would either be a drive over the bowler/mid on or a pull shot, so a proper stroke. When he batted like that he was consistently getting 50+ (something like 8 consequtive innings) and could go on to get a big score. However, a lot of the rest of his career he was more interested in just bashing the casing off the ball, which is usually good for a quick and entertaining 20 or 30 but is a let down for a player with his ability (a similar failing could be argued over with Botham in his later years, especially as Both's technique was fundamentally better and he could have achieved even more than he did with the bat).

Sorry but its daft to compare Kallis with Flintoff.

Kallis has been a great through a long crareer, a decent enough bowler and an exceptional batsman ( at times the best in the world).
Flintoff was never more than a good bowler and then for only a few years intercut with injury breaks. For a while he was a servicebale number 6 , but you look at Englands test side now and theres at least 7 players the match of him ( arguably 8 or 9 with Broad and Bresnan) in the deaprtment.

That Kallis is losing his bowling now does change his legend status, what he has acheived as an allrounder is unparelled in his generation of players.

To an extent the same can be said of Botham who was clearly a better bowler and arguably a better bat and did it for longer. He could also eat more shredded wheat.

Flintoff was a popular big name player and could have acheived more if he'd had the professional attitude earlier and not had such injury problems. But he didnt.
His involvement at the heart of an iconic series doenst put him in the same bracket as Kallis...but thats hardly a criticism.

freddie overal will be dissapointed with his test batting, only averged 32 and was a much better player than that. But this bowling was class, at his best he could play as a frontline bowler and bat 7/8 no issue and come in and smash the ball around.