Flintoff out until at least 2008 with another ankle problem.

FFS. Is this the end for the legend? He's become the new Simon Jones.

If his career is over now, will he be remembered as an English great? Or even as an all time great allrounder?

3,381 runs at 32.50

197 wickets at 32.02


Thoughts?

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7027689.stm

But on the flip side Saj Mahmood has announced he is back to full fitness and ready whenever England need him...

[url] www.saj-the-wonder-horse.com [/url]

Wise decision - he can't keep coming back half-arsed
I wouldn't even bring him back for the NZ tour as has been suggested.

Stats aren't good enough to be considered a great.

Very good chance he'll be around for the next Ashes.

No, he'll be remembered for a very great period. Not overall though I'd imagine.

Don't panic, this bit explains it all:

"Peirce went to Amsterdam with Flintoff last week".


He's been on the session, doesn't want to get done for a failed drugs test and needs time to get it out of his blood.

I wouldn't actually want to see him play again until next summer.

Let it heal, slowly, light rehab etc......

holcs wrote:I wouldn't actually want to see him play again until next summer.

Let it heal, slowly, light rehab etc......

I'd want to see him play for Lancs in their first 3 or 4 CC games to asess where he's at.

We keep turning him out with no county form and put him straight back in the int'l game.

Makes the decision to send him to the T20 all the more weird.

JKLever wrote:

holcs wrote:I wouldn't actually want to see him play again until next summer.

Let it heal, slowly, light rehab etc......

I'd want to see him play for Lancs in their first 3 or 4 CC games to asess where he's at.

We keep turning him out with no county form and put him straight back in the int'l game.

Makes the decision to send him to the T20 all the more weird.

Yep. Why did they risk him on a meaningless hit-and-giggle fest?

Invader Zim wrote:Stats aren't good enough to be considered a great.

Very good chance he'll be around for the next Ashes.

Since 01/01/2003:

46 Tests.

2738 runs at 38.56

64 wickets at 28.97

Those stats would surely make him a great. Sadly, his first 20 odd tests were so poor that they rape his career averages.

For that period until he got injured he was averaging 27 with the ball and 45 with the bat. 30 Tests I believe. S'awesome stuff, considering he'd played pretty much everyone everywhere in that time.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Stats aren't good enough to be considered a great.

Very good chance he'll be around for the next Ashes.

Since 01/01/2003:

46 Tests.

2738 runs at 38.56

64 wickets at 28.97

Those stats would surely make him a great. Sadly, his first 20 odd tests were so poor that they rape his career averages.

Sorry I can't agree those stats make him a great either

Why not? They're pretty damn good.

I thought it was pretty much established already that Flintoff wouldn't play again in 2007.

There was never any hope in hell of him playing in the winter Tests after he struggled with four-over spells in the T20.

Should get his arse into the nets between now and the start of the 2008 and bat, bat, bat - get his game back.

Then give the bowling another bash in the lead up to the first Test of the summer. If he still can't do it, sell him for scrap.

64 wickets at 28.97? Do you mean 164?

Ah yes. I see taipan's point now.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Why not? They're pretty damn good.

Well firstly you cannot use selective stats to prove a point.

And secondly look at Kallis or Pollock's stats.

Dello wrote:I thought it was pretty much established already that Flintoff wouldn't play again in 2007.

There was never any hope in hell of him playing in the winter Tests after he struggled with four-over spells in the T20.

Should get his arse into the nets between now and the start of the 2008 and bat, bat, bat - get his game back.

Then give the bowling another bash in the lead up to the first Test of the summer. If he still can't do it, sell him for scrap.

He'll be 30 and a half by next summer, which will be towards the end of the peak years for a cricketer.

And if he breaks down again next summer? Time to look for the "next Flintoff"? Or just go for Rashid?

End of the peak years for a bowler, not a batsman.

Pollock is an all time great allrounder, albeit, a bowling one. A bit like Hadlee.

Kallis, too, is probably a member of the all time great allrounders club.

What, Kallis-not-a-front-line-bowler-at-all-and-loves-bowling-at-Zimbabwe or Pollock-not-a-front-line-batsman-at-all-and-2-tons-in-107-matches?


Was funny a year ago at the ICCCCCTTTT when Sivaramakrishnan said Flints was currently the best all-rounder in the world and Cullinan got all sooky.


Deja Vu.

taipan wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Why not? They're pretty damn good.

Well firstly you cannot use selective stats to prove a point.

And secondly look at Kallis or Pollock's stats.

Kallis is so under-rated by some it's criminal.

I actually think Flintoffs stats for the period were 164 wickets @ 28 - I think Kallis' bowling tailed off badly during that time

Agree, he's a good player not a great player. He did have a great 4 years though...

To be fair, I'd take Pollock. Hadlee only had 2 tons in 86 Tests as well as a lower average.

Kallis is a class batsman. Was a good bowler. Now is a bit average.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:To be fair, I'd take Pollock. Hadlee only had 2 tons in 86 Tests as well as a lower average.

And Hadlee was known as a bowling allrounder too.