Flintoff's Bowling

[sam450]

A number of people and a number of times I heard Flintoff praised as one of the very best quicks in the world post 04/05. Warne, Boycott, Langer to name a few. But why does he not have the stats to prove it?

My theory-

Flintoff was mainly raised as a containment bowler, trundling in 78mph-ers at the back end of a ODI innings. It wasn't until he was in his mid-twenties that he really believed that seaming was what he did best (actually evidence suggests he never really believed it). He realised if he got fit, put 100% in he could actually get to 90mph and combined with his natural accuracy he could be a world class bowler. But by this time injuries and their subsequent recoveries were taking their toll. Only when he was injury free and at his best would he pitch the ball all the way up and take wickets but all to often he would resort to his back of a length deliveries that were economical but not devastating. I remember him bowling a spell that went 6 overs, 6 runs, 3 maidens, 0 wickets that I thought was a good soundbite for his bowling.

Be interesting to see what people think........

 

[stereotype]

His figures are similar to Brett Lee and he also gets criticised for his above 30 average.

Some guys are just wicket takers or can't both contain and pick up wickets, whereas a guy like Glenn McGrath could at least build pressure through dot balls and high quality seam bowling and therefore their averages are lower because they don't concede runs.

Brett Lee if he wasn't taking wickets he was often easily scored off it was either all or nothing.

Actually with Flintoff it looks like it is opposite to Lee, his RPO is lower but Lee will take a wicket in 2 less overs on average to Flintoff. Flintoff and his strike rate of 66 is pretty high for a class bowler.

 

[pcfan123]

The pressure put on by Flintoff caused wickets to fall at the other end. Anyone who has seen him bowl knows its a prime case of misleading statistics

 

[sifter132]

^Trouble is, his prime wasn't very long. When he came to Australia in 06/07 we were all expecting a repeat of 2005 but he had nothing. Some/most of that was probably due to his ankle problems (or maybe a lack of Murray's mints ), but the point remains - he rarely ever bowled at his best for very long, hence the lesser stats.

Backing that up with figures:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
He played in 25 series, yet in only 5 of them did he average below 25 (and 2 of those were the one-off ICC XI Test and a series v Bangladesh)

 

[MaD]

He's way out of form, one of those that never reached full potential

 

[drainpipe32]

Overrated for the most part, but brilliant when it needed to be.

Bowled two of the greatest spells against Australia: Edgbaston in 2005 and Lords in 2009.

Both match winning efforts, and both man of the match efforts.

 

[AbhishekS]

Overrated for the most part, but brilliant when it needed to be.

First time ever, I agree with the Birthday Boy.

 

[angryangy]

He's got the pace and bounce and can get the ball to go a bit, but a lot of the time he just bowls a fraction short and ends up with a lot of oohs and ahs, but no dismissal.

 

[Harishan]

Allan Donald pointed out a few key pointer about Flintoff as a bowler, he said something along the lines 'that his body structure was not that of a fast bowler and this did not let him remain top fast bowler for a long period of time'.

Not to mention Flintoff decided to stick with his action at a younger age where there was a lot stress forced on his ankle which caused all sorts of problems for him throughout his career. Flintoff also saw himself as more of a batsman, overall he wasn't a bad bowler he had his highs and lows though I truly believe he had potential to be a great bowler.

 

[War]

Allan Donald pointed out a few key pointer about Flintoff as a bowler, he said something along the lines 'that his body structure was not that of a fast bowler and this did not let him remain top fast bowler for a long period of time'.

Not to mention Flintoff decided to stick with his action at a younger age where there was a lot stress forced on his ankle which caused all sorts of problems for him throughout his career. Flintoff also saw himself as more of a batsman, overall he wasn't a bad bowler he had his highs and lows though I truly believe he had potential to be a great bowler.

What Donald said is true. But the thing is their was a big chance that if he tried to change his action it could affected his effectiveness i.e losing some pace. So i sort of agree with Freddie for not trying to change it.

Overall though i've always felt Flintoff problems was that his body was just weak for test cricket. Which was the main reason for his persistent injuries, just like Frank Tyson, Brett Schultz, Cairns, Allot, O'Connor, Ian Bishop, Bond, Akhtar. England are lucky he played as much as 79 tests.