Andrew Flintoff vs Andrew Flintoff?

[inbox24]

If the batting of Flintoff was pitted against his bowling, which would come out of top, that is, if he batted against his own bowling? Interesting question considering today his batting and bowling averages were exactly equal, 32. something.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

He'd get himself out 6 times an over.

 

[Polo23]

Strange question...his bowling is lightyears ahead of his batting.

 

[inbox24]

Ok maybe, what about Watson?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Ok maybe, what about Watson?

He'd bounce himself and walk off injured after 1 delivery.

Lets get back to the Flintoff discussion.

 

[_Ed_]

How about God?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think it could get ugly. Fred would slip a few short ones in, which Fred would initially ignore but Fred would doubtless have a little chirp about the intestinal fortitude of the batsman & Fred would be unable to resist the bait.

Could come to blows; would fancy Fred to prevail tho.

 

[Goughy]

Who would you back in a single wicket contest between Watson and Flintoff?

ie Watson bowls to Flintoff and then Flintoff bowls at Watson.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Ok maybe, what about Watson?

Would make a good score against himself imo. Might get himself early though.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Who would you back in a single wicket contest between Watson and Flintoff?

ie Watson bowls to Flintoff and then Flintoff bowls at Watson.

You'd think Fred would prevail though if they were both at peak form in both diciplines it'd be a good contest.

Fred's certainly more likely to get a hold of Watson's bowling than Watson against Fred, though he's also probably more likely to play a crap or rash shot and get out tamely than Watson would.

 

[Indipper]

How about God?

Unless God would get light headed and start hooking, I don't think God could beat him.

 

[four_or_six]

How about God?

Silly question. Fred is God.

 

[Richard]

You'd think Fred would prevail though if they were both at peak form in both diciplines it'd be a good contest.

Fred's certainly more likely to get a hold of Watson's bowling than Watson against Fred, though he's also probably more likely to play a crap or rash shot and get out tamely than Watson would.

Ind33d.

As to the first question, Flintoff's bowling > Flintoff's batting at any point from 2003/04 onwards. And 2001/02-2002, Flintoff's bowling > Flintoff's batting, though only because his batting was abysmal and his bowling merely unpenetrative. Only in the summer of 2003 could Flintoff's batting genuinely be said to be > his bowling.

1998-2000, incidentally, Flintoff's batting = Flintoff's bowling, as both were utterly terrible. How he ever got anywhere near international cricket just because he once hit 34 in an over is beyond me. Should never have played Tests or ODIs until 2001/02.

Thread needs a poll with an imaginative irrelevant-third, BTW.

 

[Prince EWS]

Flintoff IMO. Just.

 

[GIMH]

Would have been a close one last time he was India IMO

 

[Richard]

Nah, I don't think so. His batting that tour was excellent, his bowling was superlative. Seriously, if you look-up "excellent bowling from a seamer" you won't see a great deal better than what he produced pretty much throughout that series. Obviously there was the odd few bad overs, but I can barely remember thinking "that was a poor spell for once" that series.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, but he was very stubborn with the blade on that tour. Think we could have seen some interesting duels.

 

[Richard]

Only the most stubborn of stubborn batsmen could've resisted that much of the bowling he dished-up IMO.

Good as his bladework was for that series (the final innings excepted, that was a sheer shocker) I don't think it was Dravid-esque. And Dravid was the only one that series who ever looked close to comfortable against him.

 

[GIMH]

Yet if you look at his final figures for the series, they don't look all that impressive. Always found that ITSTL, and perhaps sums Flintoff up as a bowler. His two finest series with the ball IMO were against Australia in 05 & India in 06, he averaged 27 & 30 respectively IIRC. I hope people in 20 years don't look at his average and think, "he must have been crap."

 

[Richard]

In '05 at least that can be partially explained - he bowled dreadfully (or at least, not that well) in the opening game and his figures in the last for were pretty good - 24 or something.

Guess though you'd expect the best series of someone's career to produce an average of 14 or 15. The impact of dropped catches shouldn't be underestimated, of course. Nor that Kasprowicz lbw being denied, and Jones subsequently putting him down at third-man. One of the great injustices that Flintoff didn't get the final wicket of that Test (especially given Harmison did ) as he did more to win it than almost any player has ever done to win a game AND should have had Kasprowicz twice.