For Cricket Fans

Marc

Marc

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
34,670
Edit My Images
Yes
Just tweeted by Freddie Flintoff

View attachment 1090

Personally, I thing there are a few more greats (Botham, Richards & Boycott spring to mind) and I think Freddie is being a little too modest.

Discuss*




*Please can this be a discussion about cricket without the "I'd rather watch paint dry" comments Thanks.
 
Already replied to him that Warne is a great too. Could argue for Marshall, Holding, McGrath, Grace, Murali, Lara, etc etc...
 
I suppose it comes down to how you define 'greatness' in sport. [I would have had Lara on your list for a start] - Possibly easier to do in cricket than some other sports, for example F1 where 'greatness' so often seems to be brought down to the numbers game, in world where the numbers across generations cannot be compared due to the vagaries of the rules, the number of races and the points available for those races.

However, I tend to agree with Freddie that Bradman & Tendulkar are possibly a league above everyone else, but then just behind them you can add a whole raft of players from across the history of the sport that were also 'great', if not 'the greatest'


....and yes, he is probably indulging in some modesty, although I wouldn't have had him right up there as injury and a penchant for the high life possibly removed some of what he could have achieved, but definitely being a tad modest ;)
 
I'd never call Flintoff a great. His record is average at best, but he was a good player.

Greatest alrounder? Sobers or Kallis?
 
The23rdman said:
I'd never call Flintoff a great. His record is average at best, but he was a good player.

Greatest alrounder? Sobers or Kallis?
Click to expand...

But that's kind of my point, he could have been a great I think, just never quite made it.

Certainly agree with your first list as a starting point of the greats though
 
But you can't have greats based on potential, can you? It has to be based on impact and record. Yes, Freddie had an impact but not the record. He was, however, one of the unluckiest bowlers around. So accurate, fast and hard to hit. Shame he only had one delivery. If he could have moved it away from right handers he'd have been a real contender.
 
Just to clarify my comment on Freddie's modesty. I would upgrade him from 'the rest of us' to 'very good'.

Dean, wouldn't argue with any on your list. The one's I listed were because they were up there when I first got into cricket. I was also in awe of the great Windies team of that era so Holding, walsh etc.. :notworthy:
 
The23rdman said:
But you can't have greats based on potential, can you? It has to be based on impact and record. Yes, Freddie had an impact but not the record. He was, however, one of the unluckiest bowlers around. So accurate, fast and hard to hit. Shame he only had one delivery. If he could have moved it away from right handers he'd have been a real contender.
Click to expand...

Its a bit arguing semantics, but I am not elevating him based on potential, I was simply clarifying why I think he is indulging in modesty, that's all and explaining why I think there is an extra tier he has missed of 'the greats', between 'very good' and Sachin/Bradman. For me, freddie was very good, not 'the rest if us', I was merely stating that in my own personal and limited opinion he could have made the greats, but didn't. Clear enough? :D
 
Yeah, sure, I'm down with that. :D
 
I think I would agree with Freddie to be honest although it does depend on how you define greatness......

No one has ever come close to averaging nearly 100. This is more incredible when you're talking about uncovered pitches and bats that were made of balsa wood as opposed to the sleepers with handles on most "power players" use to day.

Then there's the "Little Master" who's been one of the best batsmen in the World for 20 odd years, not to mention becoming a bit of a cult in the process. I don't think we're going to see anyone else like him in the same way as we haven't seen anyone else like Bradman.

Yes, Lara was a fantastic batsman and broke/set many batting records and is probably going to be the best batsman for a generation or two.

Yes, Warnie revolutionised leg spin and has been one of the most successful spin bowlers but then there's Murali too.

Then there are the likes of Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh and pretty much most of the Aussie team that dominated most of the 90s and early 00s. All incredible players in their own right.

South Africa have had their fair share of World Class players too with the likes of Kallis, McGrath, Pollock and even Smith who I think's underated.

At his peak, Freddie would have made it into any International or World XI, perhaps with a couple of the other England players from the 2005 Ashes winners team, however whilst they were great at the time, that effort wasn't sustained for a significant period of time like Tendulka and certainly not to the level of someone like Bradman.

Don't get me wrong, Freddie was/is one of my favourite England cricketers, he was a bit of a character off the field and I think most club cricketers could probably empathise with him, especially with his struggles to maintain his weight early in his career and the legendary p1ss up after the 2005 Ashes series win :lol:

He is a modest guy, another endearing feature but I think he's realistic about his own ability too.
 
I`m gonna be tired for a while listening to TMS till silly o`clock in the morning.
 
Is cricket getting harder or easier? No England batsmen from the modern era ( say 70s onwards) in the top 50 in test matches. Quite a few prior to that though.
 
Gaz J said:
Is cricket getting harder or easier? No England batsmen from the modern era ( say 70s onwards) in the top 50 in test matches. Quite a few prior to that though.
Click to expand...

Well, its easier to bat on flat pitches designed to last for the whole match and with bats like tree trunks, but we also have DRS...
 
johnb said:
Each era has its greats. It does not mean that they could easily transfer to another era with the same success
Click to expand...

Agreed but there are some that were so good that they could have played in any era and still have been up there.
 
Never saw them play but Messrs Fry and Grace were supposed to be quite good! Wouldn't elevate Freddie to a great but do think he's being too modest in placing himself among the also rans.
 
fabs said:
Just tweeted by Freddie Flintoff

View attachment 1090

Personally, I thing there are a few more greats (Botham, Richards & Boycott spring to mind) and I think Freddie is being a little too modest.

Discuss*




*Please can this be a discussion about cricket without the "I'd rather watch paint dry" comments Thanks.
Click to expand...

Boycott can never be considered a great, too slow and too selfish. Not fit to even oil the bats of players like Bradman, Sachin, Botham and Sir Viv.
 
Boycott was often accused of of only thinking about himself but he never threw his wicket away and whilst he perhaps would never be considered one of the great test batsmen its taken a long time for any England batsman to overhaul him.

Botham was a great player, unpredictable and capable of turning a game on its head. Pretty similar stats to flintoff actually. Was Botham the greatest all rounder? He would certainly be up there.
 
Flintoff lost all credibility as a sportsman when he slithered into the boxing ring... thousands of boxers around the country working hard trying to get to be a pro... he walks in for his first fight just on his "cricket" name.... talk about que jumping.. not to mention the insult to the whole sport of boxing...
 
KIPAX said:
Flintoff lost all credibility as a sportsman when he slithered into the boxing ring... thousands of boxers around the country working hard trying to get to be a pro... he walks in for his first fight just on his "cricket" name.... talk about que jumping.. not to mention the insult to the whole sport of boxing...
Click to expand...

Yes I think that wasn't his finest moment.
 
KIPAX said:
Flintoff lost all credibility as a sportsman when he slithered into the boxing ring... thousands of boxers around the country working hard trying to get to be a pro... he walks in for his first fight just on his "cricket" name.... talk about que jumping.. not to mention the insult to the whole sport of boxing...
Click to expand...

See, thats the problem with Freddie, there is always an air of him never quite having found what he was looking for [stop humming], a sort of dissatisfaction. Can't quite put my finger on it, describe it exactly, but the boxing thing was very much part of it. :shrug:

Meanwhile the Aussies are currently 500 ahead and are conclusively humiliating the current bunch of 'greats' - any thoughts on which, if any, of the current crop might make greatness? [yeah, I know, pretty unimaginable right now]
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
See, thats the problem with Freddie, there is always an air of him never quite having found what he was looking for [stop humming], a sort of dissatisfaction. Can't quite put my finger on it, describe it exactly, but the boxing thing was very much part of it. :shrug:

Meanwhile the Aussies are currently 500 ahead and are conclusively humiliating the current bunch of 'greats' - any thoughts on which, if any, of the current crop might make greatness? [yeah, I know, pretty unimaginable right now]
Click to expand...

They're currently struggling to make adequacy!
 
Greatness is a much overused word. In cricket could be purely based on stats, but I'm not a fan of those. Lara and Tendulkar would be up there for me, with Lara being my desert island choice.
BUT I could watch Michael Clarke batting all day when he's " in ". His innings yesterday was a masterclass, especially as everyone was talking about his first innings dismissal.
 
ab2012 said:
Greatness is a much overused word. In cricket could be purely based on stats, but I'm not a fan of those. Lara and Tendulkar would be up there for me, with Lara being my desert island choice.
BUT I could watch Michael Clarke batting all day when he's " in ". His innings yesterday was a masterclass, especially as everyone was talking about his first innings dismissal.
Click to expand...

You could say the same for Ian Bell, one of the 'prettiest' hitters of ball around, when he is hitting and when he has some form, could watch him all day.... he will never be a great though imo.
 
It always seems to be batsmen that are classed as the greats. Bowlers seem to slip through the net. Lillee, Thompson, Marshall, Holding, Roberts. All greats.
 
Yv said:
You could say the same for Ian Bell, one of the 'prettiest' hitters of ball around, when he is hitting and when he has some form, could watch him all day.... he will never be a great though imo.
Click to expand...
No, I couldn't say that about Ian Bell, although I can understand how you might admire his batting skills. He is a few rungs below Clarke imo.
 
Gaz J said:
It always seems to be batsmen that are classed as the greats. Bowlers seem to slip through the net. Lillee, Thompson, Marshall, Holding, Roberts. All greats.
Click to expand...
No, no. Those in the know would always class the bowlers you mentioned as great bowlers. But I can see your point.
 
Wonder how the Sprinboks great players would have fared without the apartheid ban

Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Mike Procter and Ken McEwan would have been very formidable opponents
 
tijuana taxi said:
Wonder how the Sprinboks great players would have fared without the apartheid ban

Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Mike Procter and Ken McEwan would have been very formidable opponents
Click to expand...
Good point, TJ.
(Hope you're keeping well. btw. I may ask for your help again soon. Thinking of getting a tripod.)
 
I am keeping well thanks Alan, hope you are too

No problem with some help if I can, just retired so have a bit of time free, not as much as I imagined though and wonder how I found the time to go to work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top