Actually... judging the bowlers at their best would guarantee Flintoff did NOT figure. With all the bowlers at their best... Botham, Caddick and Harmison would almost certainly get the nod as the frontline seamers.

What would bring Flintoff right back into the reckoning would be judging the bowlers on the basis of their middling performances: Harmison's stock would certainly plumett, as might Caddick's and Botham's. Suddenly, the new ball might be going to Fraser and Gough, with Hoggard coming on for Gough after 4-5 overs so the Yorkshireman could be fresh to take over from Fraser a few overs later.

Of course... picking the seamers on the basis of their utility on sub-continental pitches might offer Flintoff most hope... but Gough and Simon Jones would lead the way on such pitches... and if you wanted 4 frontline bowlers, Tuffers and Panesar would get the other spots

Botham could not really be compaired with Simon jones, for one thing Simon jones had that extra yard of pace that Botham did not have.Having said that Botham was a world class swing bowler you are right, but he also made his luck by bowling all kinds of odd deliveries, he got people out with real half vollies at times, true they were planned, he would bowl wide and full.He got wickets with a bouncer only by using it as a a shock tactic and bending his back that little bit harder.Yes he has always been mechanical, I suppose some would say he was of most use to England three years ago when he was bowling back of a length, and his econ rate was second to none.The problem was bowling in this manner was a lack of wickets, true he did not always get the rub of the green with LBW decissions, and players mainly Butcher downing catches of his bowling regularily.But his style was predictable, his captain could rely on him keeping an end tied down, but with not a lot of wickets.Only when he bowled shorter, and used reverse swing at a full length did the wickets come, but his action designed to protect his back - made his ankle injury much worse.When I compare Flintoff with Botham - I am assuming both would be 100% fit.True but he bowled some rubbish at times, he bowled long hops that ended in a catch at square leg, or a wide half volley that would be caught in the slips or gully.Botham did continue for a while as a medium pacer, he did get wickets but in the same old way.The last I saw of Botham (that I remember)was in an Ashes match, Lillee got Botham out with a wide half volley, and Botham got Lillee out with a medium pace swinging half volley, you could see it was time for both to go - but Botham was a lucky bowler right up until the end.He would have fit in well during that period IMO, if only because he could bowl accurate at 90MPH+.I am not saying Flintoff was better than Botham - I watched most of Botham's matches, and Flintoff's - and if both were fit - who was best would have been to close to call.

Both contributed to their own injuries, by being overweight - both had power, one swung and seamed the ball - the other blasted batsmen out as their main weapons, Flintoff though can reverse swing the ball - and has a decent yorker.

__________________
Ern

While Flintoff was never lean like the other big guys Pietersen and Harmison, in the past few weeks he certainly seems to be carrying a few extra kilos. That certainly cannot be helpful to his dodgy ankle but at the same time, it will be hard for him to get back to his fighting weight while resting. And at almost 30, he is not getting younger. It is bit of a Catch-22 situation.

I'm not sure weight and fitness has much bearing on how well a big man can contribute: little folk who offer athleticism clearly have serious potential... but once you start looking a blokes built like prop forwards... the best you can hope for is that they are comparatively light on their feet for their size!

Even at his least fit and carrying his most impressive beer-gut... Botham was still an outstanding slip catcher... and Inzi proved that you can be obese AND a world class batsman. Being rotund and bowling at 90mph might not be a good combination... but Warne is one of many to show that you can be portly and still bowl brilliantly if you have sufficient guile.

To me Botham was better batsmen, bowler and fielder. They were both equally poor captains.
Botham had around 380 Test wickets at a good average, Flintoff has under 200 at not an outstanding average. I don't need to go onto five wicket hauls.

Flintoff's future does seem to be in the balance. We should know by end of the winter tours.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

I think we may well know long before the winter tours are over.

He may well have to give up test cricket and concentrate on one day matches as he won't be able to bowl the amount of overs needed in tests.

The saddest bit of the whole scenario is that he has played on many occasions when he probably shouldn't and always been a willing workhorse and that fact is probably going to cut short his career.

That's 110% correct - most of us on this board could see what was happening to Flintoff long before the 2005 Ashes.
I agree in part with this, but to be honest disagree with most.

Botham was the better bat (just), but Flintoff in 2005 batted the orathadox way - and was a better prospect than Botham ever was IMO, but reverted to giving his wicket away to cheap, in part because of lack of match practice.

Botham was not a better fielder than Flintoff, IMO there is no evidence to say he was - he was not as athletic as Flintoff.

As for the bowling - had Flintoff not had a rubbish start to his career, he would have been the better bowler IMO.

Flintoff v Botham both at their fittest and best - Flintoff is/was the better bowler IMO.
Even now with his injury - I can't see a better bowler at this time in world cricket, let alone English cricket.

__________________
Ern

Hoggard is certainly a more accomplished bowler than Flintoff: that should be accepted by all. It's a far tighter call (and I'd expect objections) but I'd also put Sidebottom (and on his day even Anderson) ahead of Flintoff for any genuinely sporting pitch - and despite his lack of form at the start of the 2007 Ashes... Harmison at his best offers a challenge that none of the above can quite match.

Worldwide... the Cricket Ratings have the following at the top of the heap:

1 M. Muralidaran SL 920 920 v Bangladesh, 11/07/2007
2 M. Ntini SA 856 863 v India, 26/12/2006
3 S.M. Pollock SA 730 909 v England, 25/11/1999
4 S.E. Bond NZ 722 778 v West Indies, 09/03/2006
5 S.R. Clark AUS 720 720 v England, 02/01/2007
6 Mohammad Asif PAK 710 710 v South Africa, 26/01/2007
7 A. Kumble IND 702 859 v Sri Lanka, 26/01/1994
8 M.J. Hoggard ENG 700 795 v Sri Lanka, 28/05/2006
9 Shoaib Akhtar PAK 698 855 v New Zealand, 26/12/2003
10 Zaheer Khan IND 678 678 v England, 09/08/2007
11 C.D. Collymore WI 673 700 v India, 02/07/2006
12 W.P.U.J.C. Vaas SL 671 800 v India, 02/12/2005

Flintoff fully deserves his spot just behind that crew... as he's clearly more reliable than most... but without in any way wanting to put Flintoff down or undervalue his value to his captain in even the least promising of situations... I've no problem with the ratings listing the 10 seamers in this list ahead of the Lancastrian!

Keep dreaming Ern. In todays bowlers, Flintoff would not even make the top 10. I completely agree with Rachael. You can keep making excuses about injuries and rubbish starts to his career, but the fact remains that besides 2005, Flintoff is a nothing bowler. He does not have the ability to take wickets period. A good economy rate means nothing in test cricket. If you dont believe me , do us a favour and find out how many 5 wicket hauls he took in test cricket. I think Giles and Boje have better best bowling figures. How can the "best bowler" only have 2 five wicket hauls. That says a lot about our current bowlers. I guess Pollock, Mcgrath, Asif, Bond are just lucky and freddie is unlucky.

Its easy for anyone to just claim that a player is the best. You keep doing this with Freddie without ever backing up your claim. I used to think that you actually made some good points but you continually praise Flintoff because of biasedness. Keep it up and no one will believe anything you say. You are starting to sound like Rachael now (wr to technical this and technical that).

Sorry to burst your bubble Ern but besides 2005 (which you cannot refrain from mentioning in every post involving Flintoff) Freddie is just an average cricketer. Talented yes but never delivered.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

I happen to believe that cricket is at a low ebb at this moment in time, not that many good bowlers about.

Pollock, McGrath et al were unique - I am not denying that, Flintoff did deliver in 2004, again in 2005, he won a test as captain in India in 2006 with a good batting average I might add for that series. (before injury), he then went on to win the CB (?) series in Australia as captain.

He did not deliver in Australia in 2006, and with the squad that was selected g_f, which other captain could have done any better?.

As for your general comments can you deny he has been injured more than not since 2005?, before that were the not more catches than would be considered normal dropped of his bowling?, excuses maybe - but also valid excuses.

Again as a bowler he without injury would have been up with the best, he has got the best players in the World out - that's a fact.

Brian Lara had not a clue how to play him.

His batting has deteriated to a point where he could be considered to be a specialist bowler, don't let the fact that he had a drunken episode on a pedalo blind you to what he has acheived.

He was hailed as King (and not by me) in 2005, I always suggested that the victory parade was a disgrace - and that England underestimated Pakistan after their Ashes win.

As for being "biased", biased for what - I just write what I see, and unlike many - I don't run with the hair, and hunt with the hounds.

I believe he is a top bowler because he is hard to get away, he gets top wickets - he inspires the other bowlers.

Look at what else England have to offer, and then tell me I am wrong?.
Not true - he was the best England player in 2004, without Flintoff England would not have won the Ashes in 2005, I have mentioned India and the one day series in Australia above in 2006,

In England last tour of South Africa - he was second only to Hoggard (by a small margin in wickets), after Harmison had broke down.
Not the worst record in the world - and if he is finished that's down to his ankle (by being overbowled), not by lack of ability.

__________________
Ern