That's basically what Alec Stewart and others were saying on TMS this morning.

Stewart's take was interesting: he admitted that Flintoff, for him, was not (in the sense of not even at his best) any more than a no 7 batsman... but then said he reckoned Flintoff is not a good enough bowler to get away with bowling at less than 90mph.

Pretty much what I've always said: aside from the brawn there's not a lot to offer with either bat OR ball

I'm not particularly surprised that Stewart should THINK that... but I'm pleasantly surprised to hear him SAY that: he's turning out to be a lot more frank than I expected!

Well I am surprised you are taking any stock from what Stewart has to say - being you never rated HIM, and thought he was a third rate keeper.

This is an interesting paragraph, is it not a top rate bowler that can bowl at 90MPH+, and still be accurate?, and as for Flintoff's batting - he batted well as captain against India in 2006, was then injured up to the Ashes, when injury and lack of match practice caused a loss of form.
Lets compare him with Vaughan also has suffered with injuries, Vaughan has been out of form much longer with the bat than Flintoff ( and he is a specialist batsman), but is managing to get some form back in Test cricket.

The much lauded Bell was lucky to get a place in Pakistan on the last tour, his one day place was in doubt until this series against India - what did Stewart have to say about Vaughan and Bell.

A bit of running with the hare, and running with the hounds here I think, yes you have said all of the above - but IMO you often kept quiet, or gave occasional begrudged prais when Flintoff was in for, - like in 2004 when he was the best with both bat and ball, and again was as good as any until the winter in 2005.

I had a lot of time for Stewart, but with the size of his gob it's a wonder he dropped any catches.

__________________
Ern

Flintoff played in last 1 dayer against India and looked fine.
Good signs for the 20/20 world cup.

Looked fine? The way he was walking was a dead giveaway that he isn't 100%, plus he was pumped full of cortisone to keep the pain at bay!

__________________
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Yes which proves my point that he would be a better bowler than he is now, only for his ankle.(more than just brawn).

Also his batting will have suffered from lack of practice, and real match play - injury is ruining Englands best talent for 50 years or more IMO.

__________________
Ern

He isn't as good as Botham was and you know it.

Well if at first you don't succeed try try again seems to be the mantra of the great minds in the England hierarchy. Having failed in their bid to completely cripple Flintoff over the weekend they are going to make damn sure he's not in any state to make the Sri Lanka tour by refusing to withdraw him from the hit and giggle slogfest in South Africa .

Though you've got to love some of Moores's comments about this tournament being a good time to look at different braces and ankle supports and also attempt to straighten out Flintoff's landing foot in his delivery stride. Hmm here's a radical thought couldn't we after giving Flintoff a couple weeks off to let the swelling and pain subside start experimenting with such things in a less physically taxing net based setting? If only we had spent several million pounds building an all year round state of the art facility where our best players could work on such things. Oh wait.........

(And if only we had a chairmen of selectors with a spine who had the common sense to step in and overule our coach when he made a mistake. Instead of the half wit who burdened Flintoff with the captaincy for the Ashes tour )

greg - as a bowler I don't know if Botham was better or not, injury will see to it that we never find out, he is as accurate as Botham was - and has more pace.

Botham was a different bowler all together, he got wickets with wide half vollies at times, he had a lot more variation than Flintoff - but IMO was not as accurate, nor as fast.

I just don't know.

__________________
Ern

The Botham of 1977-83 was surely one of the all-time great swing bowlers: I only really knew of him from his later career... when he was perhaps no better than the best of Jacques Kallis... but in his prime I would have thought he warranted comparison with both the Simon Jones of the 2005 Ashes and the Mohammed Asif of the recent Pakistan-SA series - lively, keen to pitch the ball up, good at getting it in the business area and capable of getting significant movement into and away from the batsman through conventional swing as well as of getting movement from the pitch - and all from a free flowing, natural and attractive enough action.

Flintoff, by comparison, has always been mechanical... pretty much straight up and down... and seemingly caught between exerting control through exemplary back of a length ODI-style bowling that cramped players for room... and risking that strength by trying (often with only limited success) to vary his length.

Botham was most notable for taking advantage of opportunities to attack... but Flintoff's great strength has always been his reliability when there is no opportunity to attack... so in conditions that would suit seamers, I'd expect most judges to regard Botham as a class apart from Flintoff... but with an older, softer ball... bowling to batsmen who are in their comfort zone.. and most especially on a windy day where a rhythm bowler might struggle... I suspect Mr Reliable might reasonably warrant comparison.

The thing is... Botham was good enough to be a credible attacking seamer even after injuries had slowed him right down: he did enough with the ball to make things happen (albeit, at times, off poor deliveries). By contrast Flintoff, once he slows even slightly, seems set to be pretty innocuous: he just doesn't have the class to do a job without that extra yard of pace.

The received wisdom might be that they would compliment each other nicely in a side... but where Botham in his prime would be a candidate for recent-vintage (last 30 years) England XI on his bowling alone... Flintoff would lose out (as a specialist) to the likes of Fraser, Caddick, Gough, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones.

Of course.. being a better batsman and great second slip might well see him names ahead of such players.. but based strictly on bowling... I don't see any way that Flintoff could make an England Xi of 1977-2007.

For these select XIs we have to assume all players are at their best and at their best IMO Flintoff would walk into any England XI of the last 30 years (which is how long I've been watching) and I mean even if he batted like Devon Malcolm because he is/was a better bowler than Gough or Fraser and, unlike Caddick, he never went off the radar when the going got tough. As it so happens at his best we was a very destructive batsman. In short they would both be in easily. If I had to look at them head to head I would say Botham is the winner by a distance but Flintoff at his peak was the premier all rounder of his generation.