I've watched his performances over the last few tests and although I can see he is a pretty useful bowler, his batting average seems relatively low...
2006-07-25 21:44:47 · 15 answers · asked by Stigma 2 in Sports ➔ Cricket
He's OK, but like you I think he is a bit over-rated. Sometimes he bats well, sometimes he is poor. Of course, Botham was the same, but the Ashes victory he engineered got him a permanent place in cricket folklore. Same for Freddy.
It's a team game, though, so respect to all of them - all they have to do now is retain the Ashes on the away fixture...
2006-07-25 21:48:52 · answer #1 · answered by izzieere 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Andrew Flintoff is considered the best all rounder because he has the great ability to be great in both batting and bowling and although his batting hasn't been very good recently you can't deny that he has been a great bowler even if he has been playing on the back of an ankle injury
2006-07-26 14:45:03 · answer #2 · answered by nichola v 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah his most recent tests have been pretty poor with the bat.
Go back to the ashes series however and you will see why he is so highly rated, both with ball and bat he has the ability to turn matches quickly.
SInce then he's been playing with injuries, and acting as captain, which always effects batting averages for some reason.
He is quality, the only player the Aussies say they would have in their team, a good captain, an aggressive intelligent bowler who takes wickets well at both ends of an innings, and when on form a potentially devestating batsman. Thats why I and many others think he really is the new Botham.
As for your reply Amie - if you think Beckham is an average player at best your head is up your ****. I kind of buy it now, but when he was at Utd he was something special. Still maybe you know more than than a whole host of domestic and International managers who highly rate him.
2006-07-26 04:49:56 · answer #3 · answered by diab963 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As has been mentioned that he is injured at the moment and experianced some poorer performances recently. He is still ranked 25th in the world just as a batsmen and 6th as a bowler. Currently he is 2nd as an all rounder behind J Kalis (due to the poor batting since the ashes). Kalis is 4th in the world with the bat and 24th with the ball so pretty even.
2006-07-27 07:22:05 · answer #4 · answered by D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he is over rated..there are no doubts on him bing the best criceter in the current english team..but enough doubts on him being the best in the world....certainly not...not even kallis...kallis is more of a batting all rounder.. ands his bowling is no more a threat to any batsmen..while flintoff is a good bowler and a not so good batman...he is not consistent with the bat in his hand...and a bigger problem is that he bowls well only under good bowling conditions...we saw what happened in pakistan..where his bowling was made look so ordinary at the pakistani pitches...by no means hes a bad all rounder...he certainly is a very good one but not the best i guess..his ashes performance has been over lighted as the crickket media is dominated by the englissh and aussies....he is a better ODI player i feel...where his averages are better...venkallis averages better then flintoff in test match bowling...i guess its chris cairns whos better than the others...a pure all rounder...while we can considr flintoff best under suitable bowling conditions....while in ODIs there stands no all rounder to claim the best..as there are so many of them these days...with flintoff kallis jaysuria pollock razzaq afridi malik pathan symonds..all look equal
2006-07-26 05:29:04 · answer #5 · answered by Zuhair-from-pakistan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He has match winning capabilities with bat and ball.
Some say the real allrounder can get into he side just for his batting or his bowling alone. Freddie is the closest person who fits that profile.
He plundered the Aussie attack and took 24 wickets, some of them absolute beauties. He could get into the England side as specialist in either disciplines.
Proof of that is is he was picked for england a couple of years ago after an injury and could not bowl, he was picked as a batsman, and did the business.
He is a very good allrounder, but there aren;lt that many around the world who can turn a match either batting and bowling.
He's a gem!
2006-07-26 04:53:51 · answer #6 · answered by HarryBore 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think his charisma goes a long way, he's really the lynchpin of his team in terms of spirit. As for the question of "best" who is his competition? Paul Collingwood, Shane Watson (Aus), Graeme Smith (ok, included that one for a joke)
I think being considered the cream of hat crop is fair, I can't think of an outstanding all rounder at the moment, but of the english bowlers (Or should that be British Bowlers since Simon Jones is among them?) he can bat the best and of the batsmen he can bowl the best. I suppose that's what makes him the best all rounder.
2006-07-26 06:06:41 · answer #7 · answered by Emmersonne M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Andrew Flintoff may be the best English all-rounder playing currenlty but according to me the best all-rounder of the 2000+ gen, is Shaun Pollock of the South african side. He plays bettr than Andrew n does both very well.
2006-07-26 05:37:18 · answer #8 · answered by DPC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good bowler but his batting isnt up 2 scratch, he performed well during the ashes and as we r rtypically english we jumped on this and elevated him 2 a great height of celebrity status (just like david beckham - an average at best footballer)
2006-07-26 04:49:26 · answer #9 · answered by amie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he is a quality batter and bowler, either aspect of his game would get him into the england team. He produces 100's at crucial times, gets vital wickets and is a role model to other players.
2006-07-26 06:20:10 · answer #10 · answered by Toomg 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋