comparing symonds to flintoff is almost irrelevant. the style and roles that both these players have are almost chalk and cheese

Not sure - Symonds has not played enough international games.

Well it was both he and Fletcher that planned to protect Panesar, by not exposing him to a feared hammering, I think his lack of international experience would tell.

Fact is Flintoff was let down by the selectors - he had three top player missing from day one, Tresco THEE major blow, Harmison should only play in England, and Giles who can bat was nowhere near match ready.

Vaughan did the same with Giles as Flintoff did with Panesar - in I think it was 2004 the last ICC Trophy, England had the beating of the West Indies - but the seamers could not get the last West Indies batsmen out, England got beat with vaughan never bowling Giles even though it was obvious that Englands seamers would not take those last wickets.
I don't understand where you get your data for such a claim - Symonds stats.
Very ordinary stats indeed - lets filter the 2006 Ashes stats:-

He averaged 58.00 against a poor England in 2006 - so if you take his three matches against England away - his stats are horrible, and even if you leave them unfiltered his stats still nowhere near match Flintoff's.

In the real world it's to early to compare - Flintoff had a horrible start, but how come Symonds has not held down a regular place if he is that good?, Australia have been on the look out for a good all-rounder it is rumoured for a while.
I am not saying Symonds won't make a good all-rounder - but it's early days yet.

__________________
Ern

Ern please look at the stas on a fair comparison by looking at where they are both at after 13 matchs;

First Batting

Symonds has scored 518 runs with no not outs at an average of 27.26 runs and a high score of 156
Flintoff Has scored 396 runs with no not outs at an average of 18.85 runs and a high score of 137

At this same time Symonds had collect 2 ducks compared to Flintoff's 5 ducks.
Strangely enough they both hit there only hundreds in the same match as each other.
Flintoff will take until his 33rd match before his average is greater than Symonds.

Secondly Bowling

Symonds has bowled 180 overs for 488 runs and 11 wickets - best bowling of 3/50 at an average of 44.36
Flintoff has bowled 241.5 overs for 603 runs and 13 wickets - best bowling of 4/50 at an average of 46.38


So on this ground Symonds has performed better than Flintoff. Before you start saying "yes but Flintoff had the worst start to his career" - well going by the above you could say the same thing about Symonds.

But to make a comment like if you think he is so good then why cant he hold down a position in the team - well he would have if he was playing for England as there was no one able to force him out of the side which is why Flintoff was able to continue with the results he was getting - problem is he his playing for Australia and if you do not perform then you will be out and will not get to improve on those figures. The only reason Symonds keeps on getting into the test side is due to his performances in ODI cricket.

So the way I see it is if Symonds does continue playing for Australia in test matchs his batting average will be higher than Flintoff's, but Flintoffs bowling stats will be better - Unless they only bowl Symonds for a couple of overs and it picks up the one or two wickets each time.

To be fair A-Y I was not wishing to compare Flintoff with Symonds, look at my post in answer to pie_chucker.

Fair question.
This is true - a player who has played as many games as Flintoff can't IMO be compared with a player who has just played 13 international matches.

However by the same token Dogatlongon like I said had no data to substantiate this statement

You have played with the stat's same as I and compared a like for like 13 matches for both Flintoff and Symonds, where I played with real time stat's.
Flintoff did have a horrible start - as it appears did Symonds, so why did Dogatlongon say "Anyone with eyes can watch both of these cricketers play and see Symonds is a far better cricketer, leagues ahead",with no data to support that statement - only when Symonds has played as many matches as Flintoff could this be found to be totally accurate.
Keith Fletcher I think played for Essex, he made so many poor scores in his first matches I was convinced that there was a Southern bias, not unknown in those days - but is spite of his very poor start, he ended up captain of England.
I think the three of us should agree with Murali.

__________________
Ern

My whole point is if you stop looking at data and actually watch them play, it's pretty obvious symonds is a better cricketer, just at running around the paddock, reacting to incoming balls, throwing balls at wickets (but not bowling), slapping balls with the bat, etc.

I was comparing them because flintoff at his absolute best is not quite as good as Symonds, but in the same bracket.
So instead of being a captain flintoff should be considered a handy all rounder, whose spot on the side isn't even concrete, but I for one would argue it should be (as I do for symonds).
I don't see him as a captain kind of player, he's a symonds kind of player - better at bowling, worse at batting and fielding, not of carribean ancestry but basically in that field of naturally gifted all rounders.
Unlike symonds he's had the opportunity to prove he's a horrible captain, symonds could prove me wrong and be a great captain one day.
But I for one see no reason to make symonds captain, no indications he should have that role, and I similarly saw no reason to make flintoff captain.

Am I getting clearer?
I still don't have stats to support my theory that if you forget stats and watch them play symonds is visibly a better player, unfortunately, I think you'll find there's an innate hurdle to obtaining stats of this variety.
Maybe count the number of "marvelous" calls aimed at each player by richie benaud per game? I don't know.

Hey D - I never used stats for months - a good reason why is that they can always be countered, Like A-Y did with mine, to which I replied I was using real time stats.
So we are not a million miles appart on this one.
But we are a million miles appart on this one - so we will have to agree to not agree until Mr's Symonds and Flintoff have played more games to compare.

__________________
Ern

Is someone really suggesting that Symonds bowling can even compare to Freddie's? "it's pretty obvious symonds is a better cricketer". No not really. His bowling is way off the mark and one innings against England apart, his batting hasn't been up to too much either.

Comparing their stats after 13 matches is fairly irrelevant as Freddie was far younger than Symonds is now and had more time to improve. Symonds won't improve as much as Freddie has done. If Symonds was so good he would be a fixture in the Aussie starting XI. However, the same Aussie XI said after the 2005 Ashes that they would have loved Freddie in their side.

Exactly NE, would batsmen in either form of the game rather face Symonds' dibbly-dobblies/non-turning off spinners or Fred's 85mph reverse swingers and bouncers? Also, Flintoff is, for my money, a more cultured batsman than Symonds - I know I'm comparing two of the less elegant batsmen of the general spectrum, but once Flintoff gets going he plays a lot of proper shots. Symonds just relies on no footwork and hand-eye co-ordination, to a far lesser degree than Marcus Tresocthick and even Virender Sehwag, in leathering the ball as hard as he can. Flintoff came into a poor team and struggled to start with, whereas Symonds came into a stellar ODI side and found it easier, yet struggled horribly (bar the one/two decent innings' he has played to date) in an even better test team against hopelessly misled and demoralised opposition (yes, that includes South Africa and us!).

If it were Flintoff vs Symonds, I know who I'd want in my team. Flintoff and Kallis are in a different league to Symonds, and running barrel-chested around the covers/to the boundary won't change that for "Roy".