Freddie to retire from test cricket

[Gwylan]

Genuine all rounders are very few and far between. In other teams at the moment they don't really exist. Maybe Kallis at South Africa but thats about it at the top notch level. Going back to the "England are better without Freddie" lets not forget that often Freddie has been recovering or rested when we have played the minor nations so lets not jump on that too much. There is no way an England side is better with Freddie not in it, just no way. The balance he brings to the side as well as his skills dictate that in my opinion.

As has often been pointed out, NZ's Jacob Oram has both a better batting and bowling average than Flintoff. India's Irfan Pathan has got a near identical record to Flintoff.

In all honesty, it's stetching the definition of an all-rounder to include Flintoff - a batting test average of 31.7 is no great shakes.

I'm a big fan of Freddie who's been a breath of fresh air to cricket but he's been trading on past glories for some time now.

As I said, you can tell how much the Australians think of him by the fact that they keep talking him up - a sure sign that other players know his time is near the end.

 

[Pavilionaire]

In all honesty, it's stetching the definition of an all-rounder to include Flintoff - a batting test average of 31.7 is no great shakes.QUOTE]

Eh? What, 219 wickets and 30 scores of 50 or more, and he's not an all-rounder? What a load of old cock you talk!

Flintoff's batting average is less than 2 runs different to Botham's, who is the greatest English all-rounder of them all.

 

[Gwylan]

In all honesty, it's stetching the definition of an all-rounder to include Flintoff - a batting test average of 31.7 is no great shakes.QUOTE]

Eh? What, 219 wickets and 30 scores of 50 or more, and he's not an all-rounder? What a load of old cock you talk!

Flintoff's batting average is less than 2 runs different to Botham's, who is the greatest English all-rounder of them all.

The classic definition of an all-rounder is someone who could be played for his batting or bowling (like Imran when he couldn't bowl for a year yet still played for Pakistan and Sussex).

All I was saying is that a batsman with an average of nearly 32 would struggle to get into a test side if he didn't bowl as well. I really don't think that's contentious at all.

 

[keaton]

I'd add Vettori and Bravo as all-rounders at the moment. I still think Kallis is the best in the world by miles

 

[sten_super]

The classic definition of an all-rounder is someone who could be played for his batting or bowling (like Imran when he couldn't bowl for a year yet still played for Pakistan and Sussex).

All I was saying is that a batsman with an average of nearly 32 would struggle to get into a test side if he didn't bowl as well. I really don't think that's contentious at all.

I think that's too harsh a definition, and one that defines the GREAT all-rounders. I've always thought that an all-rounder had to have a bowling average lower than his batting average (although you'd need some proviso in there, perhaps that the maximum bowling average/minimum batting average was 30). Not that Flintoff falls into this category of course (although he's damned close).

 

[Gwylan]

I think that's too harsh a definition, and one that defines the GREAT all-rounders. I've always thought that an all-rounder had to have a bowling average lower than his batting average (although you'd need some proviso in there, perhaps that the maximum bowling average/minimum batting average was 30). Not that Flintoff falls into this category of course (although he's damned close).

Yes fair enough, there has to be a little leeway on it perhaps and criteria shouldn't be set so high.

As you say, Flintoff doesn't work as an all-rounder under your definition either. And the figures don't give a picture of his current form - his last century was nearly four years ago. I can't see the figures anywhere but my guess is that his batting average since the 2005 would be something in the mid-20s.

I'm not knocking Freddie BTW. But I do think his importance has been over-stated.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

As I said, you can tell how much the Australians think of him by the fact that they keep talking him up - a sure sign that other players know his time is near the end.

I disagree with that completely. They respect him possibly more than any other England cricketer, and they also fear him. If you look back at key moments in that 2005 series he produced more match swinging moments than KP did or any othr Englishman. But I do agree that his career has been on a downer since then. He openly says that 2003-2005 was his peak, but he still can have a big influence on the Ashes this summer.

 

[sten_super]

Yes fair enough, there has to be a little leeway on it perhaps and criteria shouldn't be set so high.

As you say, Flintoff doesn't work as an all-rounder under your definition either. And the figures don't give a picture of his current form - his last century was nearly four years ago. I can't see the figures anywhere but my guess is that his batting average since the 2005 would be something in the mid-20s.

I'm not knocking Freddie BTW. But I do think his importance has been over-stated.

Cricinfo give his post-2005 Ashes averages as 28.25 with the bat and 24.68 with the ball.

I appreciate what you mean about over-stating his importance, but I think what he added apart from his numbers was a) balance - he was invariably replaced by someone who could EITHER bat or bowl, and would have probably comparable numbers in only one of the disciplines but not the other and b) his attitude - he is, when he plays, England's go-to guy, and I think he helps to pump up the rest of the team.

He wasn't key to the team, but he'll be bloody hard to adequately replace. Even half-decent all rounders are pretty hard to find...

 

[Gwylan]

I appreciate what you mean about over-stating his importance, but I think what he added apart from his numbers was a) balance - he was invariably replaced by someone who could EITHER bat or bowl, and would have probably comparable numbers in only one of the disciplines but not the other and b) his attitude - he is, when he plays, England's go-to guy, and I think he helps to pump up the rest of the team.

He wasn't key to the team, but he'll be bloody hard to adequately replace. Even half-decent all rounders are pretty hard to find...

But the flipside of this is that the other players think, at least unconsciously, let's leave it to Freddie.

I agree that logically it should affect the balance of the side but logic doesn't appear to have much to do with it. As the records point out, England without him have a far, far better record than England with him.

 

[keaton]

It's a shame, but sometimes over the last couple of years I think it would have been better overall if we had a more settled team or a more settled team balance. With Collingwood, Prior, Broad and Swann at 5,6,7 and 8 we pretty well set to swerve the issue of a genuine all-rounder and have five proper bowlers and Colly as another option( and at the moment Bopora who they refuse to bowl for some reason)

 

[Pavilionaire]

The classic definition of an all-rounder is someone who could be played for his batting or bowling (like Imran when he couldn't bowl for a year yet still played for Pakistan and Sussex).

All I was saying is that a batsman with an average of nearly 32 would struggle to get into a test side if he didn't bowl as well. I really don't think that's contentious at all.

In the test cricket of yore a score of 435 in your 1st innings would GUARANTEE at least a draw. England have proved this no longer applies.

Against a higher scoring background a bowling average of around 32 per wicket is decent, in fact most countries would take a bowler who could provide 219 wickets at 32 a pop, so I'd contend that for the bulk of his test career he WOULD get in on his bowling alone.

Similarly, he's batting at No. 7 at the moment and most test sides, especially England, would settle for a No. 7 who averaged 32 over 76 tests.

When he's in the team and fit he does the work of 2 men which opens up all sorts of options. Anyone who thinks England will be stronger without a Flintoff is, IMHO, wrong.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

People always quote the fact that we win more games without him than with him. Look into it and you will realise that is because we never risk him when playing teams like Bangladesh or recently the West Indies, teams that we could beat with our third string playing.

On a personal note I have seen first hand how much work he has put into getting fit after all of the operations. He most certainly cares greatly about playing for England but physically his body just cant take the pounding. It isnt about the money but even if it was who gives a shit - he has three kids under the age of five to support and has been playing cricket since he was a kid. Good on him for trying to make a few quid out of his last couple of years of playing given he has devoted more than the last ten years to his country.

 

[vegster]

I think we should look back and think what might have been if he hadn't overbowled him self and was overbowled by other captains through the last few years. His " re-fuelling " has not done him any favours either and apart from some highlights from time to time I think that this could go down as a career wasted.