I cannot but agree more with you. Flintoff is a very good player, but it just about ends there. I am saying very good as over 200 wkts and 3000 runs deserves some recognition. I'd take Botham anyday. Or Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Kallis, etc.
It surprises me when peeple start making comparisons without any research. Statistics mean a lot in cricket!

veryyy true...flintoff wz a good cricketer..bt not great. there were a few great proformances..but nothing consistant .so he cannot be classified as a great..good cricketer.not great. english media hypes all their players up too muchh..

That is quiet true, I guess the labeling of great for Flintoff comes from one reason "The Search of Greatness in England" which they have been lacking Since the era of Botham, Gooch, Gower, Boycott and Gatting. For the last 15 years they have had no greats coming round the mill and in this era of commercialization and gross marketing they had to label someone great, who better than someone who waves his shirt, who gets down on the pitch like Jesus everytime he picks up a wicket.

finally!! I was getting tired of this hype about flintoff..he's a really good player, that's it! not a great player..well written piece and I would suggest Mike Atherton's article in the Times as well..both these articles sums it up well what Flintoff is and that is he isn't a great!!

Everything you say is spot on. Flintoff's reputation is far more about his personality and ego than his performances on the cricket field. The english public like him because he likes a drink and would be a good bloke to go on a night out with, they see him as one of them. This is also attractive to Australians admittedly, but they also require their players to be really good as well. If you look back in 5 years, when hopefully Broad will have matured into the player Flintoff never was, you will wonder what all the fuss was about!

Nothing underscores the mediocrity of English cricket than the tendency of the British press to elevate ordinary players. At a time when Tendulkar is gunning for 15,000 runs and Murali for 800 wickets Freddie's achievements aren't even worth mentioning. How can a team reach the top-level when sports fans have such low expectations?

"He bowls fast, but bowls too short and too far outside the offstump", is not a good way of describing Andrew. He economy rate in test matches is 2.97 in 79* test matches. And out of 79 test matches, he has started the bowling in only 26 matches which does not make him a front-line bowler. His main strength is reverse swing. As for his batting, he has a pretty decent batting technique. To sum things up, Flintoff has given England many match winning performances with the ball and bat.

Well Mr Jacob I agree with you. One Ashes doesnt make u a legend. Callinf Flintoff a legend seems to me the clutching of straw by the english media and fans. Its same with Afridi, yes he is good, dangerous, lethal but not a legend, No way. But then again, English press and fans are always blinkered doesnt matter cricket or football. Didnt we know that before?

I forgot to mention one other point. Marcus North just started his career. Flintoff has already played 78 matches so you can't compare the two. Take Michael Hussy for an example. His average was around 80. Now he's in the low 40's and his average is constantly dropping. Also, Flintoff is an all rounder, North is a batsmen.

I'd agree. 'Great' tends to be an over-used term and English fans and media have thrown it around for Fred far too easily. He is amazing at times, touches rarefied heights, especially while bowling. But he can hardly hold his place as a Test-class batsman or bowler alone. Like 1981 would be Botham's Ashes, .. 2005 would be Flintoff's. But that said, Botham held the Test record for most wickets, had 14 Test centuries and all this when he supposedly waned with time. No greatness is complete without consistency. I'd place him more alongside Chris Cairns - plenty of potential and talent, world-beating brilliance on their day, but fell short of greatness.

Andy Flintoff is a "good" player not a "great player". The crowd have warmed to his character and he has occasionally "turned" a couple of games for England rather than than been a "consistent match-winner". In bowling, Flintoff has been a "hostile" bowler rather than a "wicket-taker". He does not swing the ball enough. In batting he has proved to be an occasional "lusty hitter" with a good-eye-for-a-ball without the "patience to consistently build innings ".

Thanks for writing it down. I think it was necessary to bring it out. British media has made a hype out of Flintoff. But that how this country is like, today Stuart Broad took 5 wickets, and he is about to become an Ashes hero and would emerge as a perfect replacement for the 'great' but injured Freddie...

excellenly said.could not agree any more!!!!!!!1

Andrew Flintoff is the worlds most overrated player by far!!!! But shame, England havnt had many 'superstar players' over the past 2 decades, so understandably, English crowds will turn a 1.ft fish into a 12.ft shark. Most underrated player btw over the past ten years - Jacques Kallis, now theres a legend! Just look at his stats and compare them with MR. Flintoffy...

What is the point of this article? Bashing Freddy or the English media? And talking about English media, don't forget our boys when it came to Symonds. Our media didn't really picture him as a wet puppy. Freddy did rise to the occasion and what an occasion that was. See, it is the potential he bring to the game that makes the game interesting: when he falls, the spectators feel they missed out something special. When he gets wickets, the wait becomes worthwhile. Is Freddy an international cricket great? May be not. A legend? Why not? And what is the big deal? He is and will remain a champion for the English for a long time. That kind of makes him great, doesn't it?

I totally agree he is totally overrated, only in England. As for the rest of the world we know he isn't great or not even good but average. He isn't even a household name in world cricket like the others, you know who I mean. The Ashes win in 2005 doesn't make him great and where was he when they lost the Ashes 5-0 and his record in this series is nothing to talk about. England might see him as a great everyone else just know him as Flintoff.

P.S If he was in any other team apart from England he would have been dropped ages ago and not picked again because of his poor form in domestic cricket.

Great, describes him perfectly, Perhaps if his injuries were to have permitted him, he would have done many more great things. Even bradman had a question mark over him during a back injury that potentially would have robbed us of his greatness. as it happens it didn't. Flintoff has also an aura about him , when he plays the team play better, you can't measure that quality by mere stats.

Echoed my thoughts..Fantastic article...

One more interesting fact Stuart Broad already has three five-wicket hauls in 22 test matches. (I am not saying that he is better than freddy)

couldn't agree more on the facts of the article.... i seriously dnt know the english see in him to be considered as a great. i wonder how bothem got the knighthood??? was it based on the same perception be the crowd??? well i actually don't know.
mediocre performances + personality = flintoff

Well Said!!!

The TEST statistics of Botham & Flintoff are not so different yet no one questions Botham's greatness. Botham averages 33.54 with the bat, Flintoff 32.06; Botham 28.4 with the ball, Flintoff 32.9. Botham passed fifty runs 36 times in 161 innings;Once every 4.472 innings. Flintoff 31 times in 128 innings;Once every 4.129 actually putting Flintoff ahead as far as consistency. However Flintoffs 14 innings of 4 wickets or more compare less than favourably to Bothams 43 innings of 4 wickets or more, but lets not forget Test Matches are not the only form of cricket. Comparing One Day averages & performances Flintoff is the clear winner. Botham averages 23.21(with 9, 50's) with the Bat & 28.54(3*4wicket hauls) with the Ball. Flintoff 32.01(3,100's, 18,50's)with the bat, 24.38(6*4wi,2*5wi) with the ball. So Flintoff is Legend & a "great". This coming From an Aussie so it must be true!

if these averages aren't good enough, than i wonder wut r u really lookind for. no allrounder in the world has a batting avg of 50 & bowling avg of 20. may it be kallis, oram, gayle, afridi, jayasuriya, razzaq, shakib, pathan, or anyone else for that matter.

Well flintoff,s greatness doesn't come from statistics alone. cricket is more than a stats game, flintoff has the attitude which is more important and we dont know how many wickets the other bowler bowling with him got due to his nagging line and miserly bowling. so he is not legend but a pseudo legend.

U r a just bloody jealous of Andrew. If u go and check his damn stats, you will see. I mean comparing him and Botham. There is not much of a difference.

as an Englishman I totally agree. Good player, came good in acouple of key tests, but he could not be considered great by any stretch of the imagination. Probably it's the need for the media to latch onto someone and pump them up.. and maybe the public read it and believe it...

couldn't give a monkey's for puerile debates about greatness. Fred was wonderful to watch, a huge character, a great entertainer and an outstanding cricketere. Just enjoy it instead of dribbling into your cravat about 'greatness'.

After Sir Botham England need a hero desperately. So when the media of Englnd saw a bit of Sir Botham in Freddie, they caught him as a ray of hope and made him look like Botham. The article says nothing new which we don't know and the time to write this article suites the author too... when Freddi is retiring and is only one inning left to prove any value. Why did not this article came before the Ashes Started? Whether Author was worried of getting a backfire from Freddie the All Rounder?

Yes of course he is a great player. He is the one up to the class of Botham,Wasim,Imran etc...He certainly deserves to be called a GREAT

flintoff is played in the england side for his 'PRESENCE'.its not about his statistics. when he's on the field the team jells,his presence energizes the players.the opposition's wish 'stay injured dont come on'.thats the effect he has on every game and the media hype magnifies his presence/absence the win/loss.if england wins here will it be coincidence?

No! Not great. Not when compared with Sobers, Hadlee, Botham, Vivian Richards, Barry Richards Gavascar, Zaheer Abbas - I could go on.

True enough Flintoff's statistics are underwhelming, but anyone who has watched the last 3 ashes series knows Flintoff lifts the English team in a way that is undefinable by the decimal point.

He brings a fight to the English and makes them a better team than they actually are. He is a charismatic and intimidating character who creates a momentum that can only be witnessed and sadly will not be measured by numbers in a way others can be.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Flintoff brings so much to the team, and the game, but not in wickets or runs.

flintoff is certainly one of the best talents after botham but he has hardly lived upto expectations. he cannot be included in illustrious group of imran,botham,wasim etc.he was hardly a match winner.

Frankly I'm glad he's gone. His innings today was selfish in the extreme, playing for himself and not the team. In his own mind he is a legend but, when the ashes have settled, his career will be seen as one of missed opportunities.

His presence was certainly felt in the last World cup and Ashes. You should compare Flintoff's record with this contemporaries Kallis, Pollock, and Vetori (Mitchell Johnson's record is also interesting). There is a sublime club of Great all-rounders Sobers, Imran (you want presence), Kapil, Haddlee, Botham, Miller, Lindwall, Wasim, Marshall. It is often overlooked that Tony Greig is a comparable or better allrounder (when compared on pure statistics to Botham and Flintoff) and also captained England successfully.

Flintoff is undoubtedly, at the present time, one of England's great players. When he is in the team, they have a great chance of winning.
We should not forget that his greatness is measured against the rest of the English team. Should he fail with the bat, he more than makes it up with the ball.
I agree that Flintoff cannot or should not be compared with the truly great players of the cricketing world.

A hero is somebody who can motivate the team to fight for that one extra minute. Flintoff is somebody who could do that. Any number of centuries cannot be equal to that. Cricket is team game. You are overlooking that factor. And that factor cannot be measured in the statistics you mention. That is truly invaluable. Any team would swap any player in their side for flintoff.

Nonsense! Its not just about numbers.. Its about performance under pressure. As Vaughn and others have acknowledged, Freddie is on the cusp of winning 2 home Ashes series. Consistency isn't everything. Most players never reach the heights of performance Freddie has managed - and he did it on the biggest stage.

echoed my thoughts.. good article....

I think England will miss Andrew Flintoff as so the cricketing public whomever they support. His figures are genuine all rounder stats. Only three allrounders I can think of (I'm sure there may be more) whom had "great" figures for either batting or bowling. Imran - bowling, Hadlee - bowling, Sobers - batting. Flintoff for me was more of a bowler who bowled much better than his stats would suggest. He is a player whom feeds off the crowd and raises his game accordingly. His off field antics may have affected his focus and desire and thus his career figures.

The English cricket media and fans has been so starved for a hero for a long time after the days of Botham and Gower, it appears that Flintoff was the answer to their call, their messiah. I cannot agree more with the statements of the article and the comments.

While Flintoff's overall avgs are mediocre at best, his averages in matches England have won are considerably better 40.6/28.47 (with 29/79 matches) which is possibly the X-factor that people seem to be talking about. Botham's averages in matches England won are of course even better 43.5/20 (33/102 matches).

yes Flintoff really is 'great' because of who he is and his presence while playing on the field. 400 runs and 24 IMPORTANT wkts not great? only better by shane warne and would have been alot better if we didnt have s jones hoggard and harmison. Also he said himself he was a 'cricketing' legend

Thank you Mr. Astill. Believe me, some of us passionate English cricket lovers are also tired of the hype surrounding Flintoff. He was great from 2003-2006, but overall you are right. Nowhere near.

To those trying to compare him to Botham using stats, can I say you're on a loser. Botham averaged 40 with the bat and 18 with the ball before he became captain, and until his prolonged decline his averages stayed about the same as Imran's (37 and 23). More importantly, Botham turned and won more matches than Flintoff. Far more. He was a far bigger presence and a far better, more consistent Test performer. I couldn't care less about Botham's one-day stats. Flintoff can go ahead and be the "best one-day/T20 player in the world" if he likes, but don't dare claim he was a "great" Test cricketer because he wasn't. Oh, and he agrees!

This hype is, as others have suggested, due to the general inabliity of today's media to think and put things in their proper persepctive.

Freddie good player, good team man. Great ? No.
Would never have got close to any world eleven.
Overhyped by the media of course to generate interest, confusion and money.

It's the difference between peak value and career value. On career value there's no question his statistics don't stand up. But from about 2003 to 2005, he had statistics which matched up with Garry Sobers. What I mean is, his stats over that period were as good at his peak as Sobers average over his career. Obviously Sobers' peak was better still, but it tells you a lot.

For a year, maybe two, he was legitimately the best player in the world. For the rest of his career he was mediocre.

Forgive Brits if we treasure the memories.

Like many sportsmen with a dynamic character, Flintoff spoiled his chances, and sometimes his team's chances by engaging in inappropriate activities. With the Ashes coming up, he (and Pietersen) risked fitness by playing 20/20 in India. He knew the risks but chose the money and, incidentally, failed to impress. If England win this series, and regain the Ashes it will be no thanks to either of those players and I say thank goodness we can play well without them. They are not the be all and end all of English Cricket but I have to admit that on their day they can be hugely entertaining!

Adding to my recent comment - I wish the selectors would, in future, not pick the most entertaining cricketers as Captain. The choice has failed a number of times in the past - Botham, Flintoff, Pietersen. We need the best cricket brains to lead our team. Strauss is a good choice and when he is eventually replaced let's look towards someone like him rather than the "big character"

Flitoff was never great but people may him look great. But flitoff was never consistant look at were he went when playing abroad and in india australia and few other countries he was show to became a bad player. greatness is reserved for only those who change the way team plays the game and he did not.

Bad logic! What good are stats (runs and wickets) if they can't help your team win matches & series.
Cricket is a team game unlike tennis etc..

Plus - as someone pointed out, if Flintoff can indeed up the psyche of his team (watever be the reason), isn't that also a mark of greatness? How many players can do that by the dint of their mere presence in the team?

He was a larger than life figure, who had a good presence in the dressing room and the bar (and once or twice on the field) but some of the praise for Mr.Flintoff seems a bit odd, e.g. "anyone who has watched the last 3 ashes series knows Flintoff lifts the English team in a way that is undefinable by the decimal point". Erm, how did our (and I presume, "Sir Freddie's") disgusting efforts in 2006.07 (note the decimal point) get wiped from the records?

if hes so bad why did he get paid 1.55m to play in IPL?

A "Great" player with "Good" statistics?
Will Freddie go down as the "Greatest" player with the worst stats?

Haha, give us break. Freddie is a good player, no doubt. He is a better team player than a player, that is without doubt and a link England needed to become competitive again, but not the only link.

Longevity, statistics, field presence and success have to be ticked off before a player can be considered truly great.

A measure of greatness is not a players impact on 1 or 2 Ashes series, but how he measures up to other past greats.

Ask yourself if he would have got a spot in Steve Waugh's team (I only use this a more recent reference point) or any other team that had some truely great players.

No Freddie is not great, he's good, not great. Not yet anyway.

Husain (Aug 22 9:11am) you are joking aren't you? There is not much difference between Ian Bothams stats and Freddies stats?. Your not looking at Liam Bothams stats are you mate?

Sir Ian Botham has 27*5 wicket hauls and 17*4 wicket hauls in 102 tests at 28.40.

Flintoff has 3*5 wicket hauls and 11*4 wicket hauls in 78 tests at 32.59.

Batting, well Botham has 14 tons and Freddie 5 and when you exclude to not outs (when you bat so low down the order, NO's mean less) Botham has an average of 32.3 and Flintoff 29.8.

Oh no, another one... I'm sorry it can't be left unattended to.

Porshatom (Aug 22 5:03am), stats can be sliced and diced to say almost anything. We can take obscure stats and use them to back a story.

I'm not saying that passing 50 runs is an obscure stat, no sir but lets look at the whole run conversion stat.

As you have so rightly calculated...

Sir Ian Botham passed 50 runs every 4.129.
Freddie passed 50 runs every 4.472.

But lets look at his conversion rate to tons.

Sir Ian Botham scored a 100 every 11.5 innings.
Freddie scored a 100 every 25.6 innings.

Therefore, Sir Ian Botham has a far superior batting record when considering his ability "to go on with it". Freddie fails to convert (by comparison).

What i fin fascinating is if you are to compare flintoff to a player with very similar stats in test cricket, the person you would mark him up against is Chris Cairns. Similar number of tests, comparable runs, wickets and averages.

Would you consider Chris Cairns a cricketing legend?

Andrew Flintoff is a much overrated player,to overrated.Give the cricket lovers in the world greater talent to admier,not andrew he is just not good enought.Please to the British cricketing media dont be arrogant flintoff is not a great player ,he has not proven it in no department of his cricket game.

English cricket needs a hero.Freddie's probably the only one they'll have for a long time.winning the 2005 ashes was a biggie,when Australia was at full stength!!Actualy cricket needs more freddies it makes the game more interesting,like NBA & NFL where the fan is drawn towards a certain personality or personalities.

AF is a cricketing legend, because legends do great stuff on great occasions. Those occasions have brought three times as much interest in cricket in the UK than normal. That creates a myth, an aura, stuff legends possess. But how great was he overall if you had to rank them - he was good and provided legendary performances but he WASN'T great. The best and closest comparison is Chris Cairns - big, strong, came with an aura and drew people to the cricket, though he played for a lot smaller cricket market. They both played similar n.o. of tests (CC 62 v 78 AF). Batting records are almost identical with CC having 1.50 better average, 5 x 100's each, similar 50's, strikes rates and n.o. of 6's. Both could be destructive but rarely were with the bat really. But AF is considered a bowling all rounder, yet CL has a better record - AVE, S/R and 5WI (13 v 3). Plus CL played for a poor NZ, with low scores to defend etc. CL ranks higher and if he was English he would easily be considered greater

England will be a better team without Flintoff. Not that he's not a good player (I agree he's not great - he's not in the class of a Kallis, let alone Imran or Sobers). It's just that in their desire for an all-rounder to solve their problems, England have totally mis-used Flintoff. As others have said, an all-rounder should be able to hold their place as either a batsman or bowler. Sobers & Kallis are batsmen who bowl a bit; Imran, Hadlee, Vettori are bowlers who are handy in the lower order. Flintoff is currently a bowler who can bat a bit, but instead they pick him as a batsman who can bowl. The result is that you have both Prior and Flintoff batting one slot too high, and then you wonder why the English batting is brittle. Flintoff should be picked as one of 4 specialist bowlers, Prior should bat at 7, and a real no. 6 should come into the team. Of course, if Flintoff's body can't handle 5 days as a specialist bowler, then his retirement will only strengthen the team.

Well written article and completely true. I think Freddy`s greatness actually lies in the effect he has on his team mates. For some reason English cricketers still seem to believe in super heroes. When Freddy is in the side, they believe they can beat anyone. When he`s not...well....Headingly. Freddy is a good allrounder and a great entertainer.

I have always found Flintoff over rated. OK he is a good player but not a great one. Would you pick him ahead of the likes of Botham, Imran, Hadley, Kapil, Wasim & Kallis.

He had a great summer in 2005 which happened to also be the year we won the Ashes again which kind of helped throw him into the media as the superstar!

Other than the summer of 2005 I cannot recall where he has been instrumental in a victory. He will be missed for his prescene on the field but not as a legend.

About time someone pointed this out. All the English out there defending him should really get a reality check. I guess if you don't get that many great players, then you just grab what you got and brand them as "great". He is like the English scare crow. They trumpet him around as if he is supposed to instill fear into opposition batsmen and bowlers, but really all the hard work is done by his team mates. I am sure the English players will be happy when he stops hogging the limelight and they get due credit for their exploits.

if Freddy is so called "great", then wat happens 2 Wasim Akram?

better bowling, better batting figures by Wasim...

do i make a point here?

Name Team Matches Inns NotOut
"if hes so bad why did he get paid £1.55m to play in IPL?"
This is what Venom asked yesterday - look at the stats -
matches inns NO
A Flintoff Chennai Super Kings 3 3 1
Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct
62 24 20.67 0 0 4

He was No 48 out of 200 in the batting averages and 121st out of 157 in the bowling averages with 2 for 105 although he bowled at fewer than 2 an over.
Was he worth it?

He is considered a great not of all-time but of this era mate. Compare him with the all-rounders of his era. There is no genuine all-rounder in this era. Kallis is not a better bowler than Freddie. Pollock was not a better batsman than Freddie. Vettori is not a better batsman than him or Vaas or Pathan. Kallis is a batting all-rounder while Pollock, Vettori, Vaas, Pathan or now Johnson all are bowling all-rounders. Flintoff was the real genuine all-rounder of this era.

Just a couple of things I thought I'd rebutt. Many people here in support of Flintoff have said how his presence inspires the team to do great things, and how this unique ability can transcend mere statistics. But how, as sudheen at August 22, 2009 6:18 PM has pointed out, have England won only 29 of 79 matches with Flintoff in the side if his presence is that influential?

Another note to Manish at August 22, 2009 10:07 AM, the author didn't write this article before the Ashes because the author didn't know he could submit an article to Cricinfo until a week ago.

One post on this comments page suggests that Freddie is not considered a great of all time but of this era... I'm sorry but how can you just be great compared by todays standards? Greatness and the context of its use in cricket and this article is a reflection of the history of the game and its players. If Freddie is great by comparison to todays players, do we erase any reference to his "greatness" when he retires? I think not.

Anyway, when comparing Freddie to other all rounders of todays era we find Freddie wanting for better statistics.

Firstly Freddies record (which is very good):
79 tests, 130 inns, 3845, runs @ 31.78, 2483.5 overs, 226 w @ 32.66

Pollock:
108 tests, 156 inns, 3781 runs @ 32.32, 4058.5 overs, 421 w @ 23.12

Kallis:
131 tests, 221 inns, 10277 runs @ 54.66, 2840 overs, 258 w @ 31.09

C. Cairns:
62 tests, 104 inns, 3320 runs @ 33.54, 1949.4 overs, 218 w @ 29.40

Finally, batters that bowl or bowlers that bat, they all count as all-rounders.

I agree with the writer,s comments.Flintoff, similar to Vaughan, was a good player who had one series over which he was the dominant figure.Other than his performances in 2005 his stats don,t match up with true cricketing legends.

True. Botham's record once the Packer players returned isn't anything to write home about, mind, either.

Hassan, I took you advice and compared Flintoff against Pollock and Kallis. Firstly Pollock's batting performance is as good as Flintoff both having scored around 3800 runs with Pollock edging Flnitoff on the averages 32.31 vs 32.06. Pollock is in a different league in the bowling department however averaging 23.11 vs Flintoff's 32.59. Against Kallis's batting average of 54.95 (and over 10000 runs), Flintoff falls hopelessly short at 32.06 (3816 runs) and on the bowling side Kallis' average of 31.08 with 258 wickets is comfortably better than Freddie's.
One area Flintoff beats both these better cricketing allrounders with is attitude, aggression and most of all charisma, and I think these (rather than cricketing statistics) are the basis of the 'legend'.

I totally agree with your comments

Is he great? take one look at that run-out, the man is a freak!!!

I just realized something...

Freddie is a "Great" English cricketer...

1st of all, stop all this nonsense, you just compare his records with kallis or pollock, whom only we can consider as a legend contemporary... and if you still think he is great then what have chris cairns done wrong with you? he is also better than andrew and eventhough he is never considered as a legend. so at last i admit that he is a good player, but not great. not at all.

Interesting that you should bring Sobers' name in as the epitome of an allrounder, and used averages to measure it. Have you compared Kallis' averages with Sobers? Kallis has better bowling and batting averages than has Sobers, and has a better catch ratio in the field. The only thing that Sobers has over him, is that he could also bowl spin. If you are using averages as a measurement, then Kallis is the yardstick - not Sobers.

Interesting that you should bring Sobers' name in as the epitome of an allrounder, and used averages to measure it. Have you compared Kallis' averages with Sobers? Kallis has better bowling and batting averages than has Sobers, and has a better catch ratio in the field. The only thing that Sobers has over him, is that he could also bowl spin. If you are using averages as a measurement, then Kallis is the yardstick - not Sobers.

A. Flintoff was a great player but due to injury, he is not able to perform well. After Ian Botham, Flintoff is a great allrounder for England

Flintoff is in the same league as Kapil dev..
both of them were good cricketers, but not really
comparable to those awe-inspiring gaints....

However both of them have been blown out of the
proportion, by hungry media, and to some extent
the people of the nation, who desperately needed
a Hero...

Great blog! He IS the best all-rounder England have had since Botham, but nowhere near as good as him.

"But you can get an accurate idea of how good a batsman Brian Lara is because of the amount of runs and centuries he's scored"
I dont think so. It is not true for Brian Lara and also is not applicable for Flintoff either. Both of them deserved a lot more in the statistical report card.

i wouldn't go so far as to say i agree with all you say. for instance, it is a spurious definition of an all-rounder that he should be able to be selected on either his batting or his bowling. that def is far too narrow. secondly, we shouldn't look only at freddie's figures to determine if he is a great player, and largely because figures don't tell us when freddie got his wickets, and when one gets one's wickets makes all the difference. figures also don't tell us about that nebulous quality that accompanies influential sportsman - presence, intimidation, the spark given to teammates by that players' inclusion. freddie hits top marks in these latter categories, something few cricketers are capable of.

in the end - yes, fred is not great. but not necessarily for the reasons you identify.

I agree with you, and a bit of an information for you. When you look at the records against Australia:

Flintoff has 906 runs @ 33.55 and 50 wkts @ 33.20. He has one 100, five 50's and two 5 wkt hauls against them.

Pollock has 517 runs @ 28.72 and 40 wkts @ 36.85. No hundred, 2 50's and one wkt haul.

Kallis has 1664 runs @ 40.58 and 47 wkts @ 36.34. He has 4 hundreds, 8 fifties and no 5 wkt haul.

Cairns has 863 runs @ 34.52 and 39 wkts @ 41.94. He has one hundred, 6 fifties and one 5 wkt haul.

Pollok has 39 not outs and Flintoff has just 9. So no wonder why Pollock' average is close to him. Pollock was not trusted much to bat higher than no.8, while Kallis hasn't been trusted much to open the bowling attack. It is all about the confidence the captain has in you. And Freddie's captains had a lot of confidence in him.

England has been lacking star players in their team since long time. So English fans and media overrate the good players as great players often. Monti Panesar was said to be a great bowler by British media, but Monti quickly proved that he is not so and after 39 Tests his bowling average is 34.

Great no talented yes.He reminds me of Chris Cairns on his day very dangerous but overall the figures dont lie.Botham is the only true English allrounder and i think the poms liked the fact Flintoff liked a drink and played up off feild and that reminded them of the great man.Botham must privately have a laugh about the comparisons . Andrew has admitted he wasnt great .He entertained us and was a joy to watch but in the end he was all hat and no ranch.

One yardstick of greatness is the consistency of performance.If you look at this Flintoff falls short.Good yes, great no.Flintoff had a career of nearly 10 years in which he was brilliant for about 3 years and middling to mediocre later.Even this series was won by bowlers like Broad, Onions and Swann rather than Freddie.One brilliant moment does not make a legend.Also if you look at his home and away record, the away record would possibly not be much to write about. Botham had a better away record.Someone wrote about Kapil being overrated.Kapil's career could be divided into 3 parts 1978-83 and 1984-91 and 1992-94. In the first he was incandescent, in the second he was brilliant but not incandescent.The last 2 yearswere agony.But considering that he bowled quick playing for India, when we had only military medium bowlers, definitely makes him great. As Gavaskar once said, he would prefer to bat against India, because he only had to see out Kapil's spell with the new ball.

i think fredy is a good bolwer not a good batsman.he is best english bolwer since 2000. he is not a greatest player.