Daniel Brigham: Who needs Andrew Flintoff?

fred

David Cameron’s done it, Stephen Fry’s tweeted it, even Shane Warne’s joined in: praise for England’s cricketers rarely gets this exclusive.

Every one of England’s World Twenty20-winning team has bathed under showers of praise, and rightly so; there wasn’t a weak link between them. Each player is, for the time being, undroppable.

I wonder how Andrew Flintoff feels about that.

Who? You remember. Freddie. Man of the people. Cosy with Brett Lee. Not good with small boating devices. Once not bad for a fat lad, now rapidly becoming yesterday’s man.

Previously England’s bulldog, Flintoff is now wracking up massive vet bills and you have to wonder if England’s triumph may have finally, suddenly called closing time on his career. But since when has Flintoff been a man to take note of last orders?

It’s likely that he will have an eye on the World Cup in the subcontinent next February as an international swansong. But will he be needed?

There once was a time when a fit Fred would get into any team. Times have changed, teams have changed. England’s Twenty20 squad was built on power and guile. While Flintoff has plenty of power, he’s the kind of up-and-at-them bloke who thinks guile is a river in north Africa. While he’s on a par with Kieswetter, Morgan and Pietersen for sheer hitting ability, those three are far defter and far more attuned to gaps in the field. And while Flintoff can deliver yorkers and bouncers as effectively as Broad, Sidebottom and Bresnan he’s never been one to master intelligent variation, a must for Twenty20s.

For a player built on destruction and brutality, it’s ironic that Twenty20 simply isn’t Flintoff’s game. It’s impossible to overlook the roasting he got in last year’s IPL, before limping off with injury. Not only that but he hasn’t played an international in that format since September 2007. In that time, England’s new Flintoffs, Tim Bresnan and Luke Wright, have amassed 29 T20Is.

So that appears to be that for Flintoff’s short international Twenty20 career, but what about the ODI side? Flintoff is a superb one-day allrounder. His 3,394 runs at 32.01 and 169 wickets at 24.38 make him England’s best; but still 12 players have taken more wickets and scored more runs than him. There’s a real sense that injury has deprived England of one of the best one-day players of all time.

Even if he is fit in time for the World Cup, Wright (26 appearances) and Bresnan (17) have, again, had more experience in the last 24 months, with Flintoff having played 14 matches. There’s no question that, at his best, Flintoff is a better allrounder than Bresnan and, especially, Wright. Andy Flower knows this. It just depends on which he thinks is more relevant: ability and experience versus unity and the future.

Flower often talks of picking the side that’s best for English cricket, usually in reference to the number of South Africans in the side. Yet it has a deeper meaning than that – he’s happy to ruffle egos and convention to ensure he has a side that, as a unit rather than a collection of individuals, has the best chance of winning.

That said, Flower is also Mr Logical, Mr Pragmatic. If he doesn’t see a returning Flintoff as undermining the team unity – and only Flower will know this – then Freddie will get the swansong he’ll so crave. If there’s a danger he’ll be disruptive then it’s hello Strictly Come Dancing.

Daniel Brigham is assistant editor of The Wisden Cricketer

You can follow him on Twitter: WisdenCric_Dan

This entry was posted in International. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Daniel Brigham: Who needs Andrew Flintoff?

  1. The biggest reason that Flintoff’s career could be over, with the team performing well, is the effect he has on the dressing room, which has been anything but positive in the last couple of years according to the general “buzz”.

    I think a few freelance T20 tournaments will be the limit for Fred from this point on.

  2. Bob Bamber says:

    Flintoff is still has the ability to be a real part of both One Day and T20 team.

    I don’t need to sell what he can do, but I think with the weight of the attack off his shoulders, he’ll prosper in ODI/T20 cricket.

  3. Winsome says:

    I agree, GoodCriWic, if a team is really operating as a team, why bring in a known problematic quantity? What would it be worth when he probably wouldn’t stay fit anyway?

  4. Paddy Briggs says:

    Very odd article Daniel. What you say is true – but so also is the certainty that a fit and in form Fred would waltz into the England side.

    Do you really think that a fully fit Flintoff playing at the top of his form would be ignored by England? Of course not. And undermining team unity? Fred? Ha!

  5. Paddy
    Flintoff certainly wouldn’t waltz into the Twenty20 side. He hasn’t got the guile for the format – T20 isn’t just for up-and-at-them bowlers and thumping batsmen, it’s moved away from that to something far more subtle.

    As for the assumption he wouldn’t undermine team unity, that’s based on an outdated view of him as a man of the people and that everyone loves him in the dressing room. I’ve never been sure why the public regard him in this way.

  6. Paddy Briggs says:

    Conclusive evidence in the Lord’s Test about how much England misses Flintoff. The debate about whether it should be 6 batsmen + 4 bowlers or 5 batsmen + 5 bowlers is instantly solved with Fred in the team. Can anyone seriously suggest that a team as follows would not be preferable to any Flintoff-less combination:

    Strauss
    Cook
    Trott/Collingwood
    Pietersen
    Bell
    Flintoff
    Prior
    Broad
    Swann
    Anderson
    Finn

    As before I pre-suppose that Fred is fully fit, in form and up for it.