Is Flintoff really "great"?

It seems the English press is already planning Andrew Flintoff's legacy to cricket before his career has actually finished, calling him, among other things, England's best player since Botham. And as his Test career is ending after the final Ashes Test at the Oval, it seemed like as good a time as any to ask, considering his record at international and domestic level, does England's favourite son deserve to have had such an effect on world cricket? Does he deserve the accolade "great"?

In the sporting world, cricket stands alone in allowing individual statistics to tell the story of a player's career. Admittedly, statistics don't tell the whole story- Garry Sober's bowling statistics don't reflect his true brilliance as an all-round bowler alone. But could you possibly describe the imperiousness of Franz Beckenbauer by looking at the amount of goals he scored for Germany? Or can you illustrate the genius of Roger Federer by quoting his first-serve percentage? The answer is an unwavering no. But you can get an accurate idea of how good a batsman Brian Lara is because of the amount of runs and centuries he's scored. So, after hearing all the hype about him, and rolling your eyes at the English media saying he's a better allrounder than Botham, when you finally get around to perusing his Test records, one thing unexpectedly stands out: he's not actually that good.

In 78 Tests, he's made 3816 runs at 32.06, and taken 225 wickets at 32.59. A rather underwhelming record, wouldn't you say? There is only one criterion that a good allrounder must fill: he should be able to hold his place in the side as either a batsman or a bowler. With a record like that, Flintoff would be lucky to hold his place as either, and yet he is picked because he "brings an X-factor" to both the batting and bowling departments. Yet Flintoff's record becomes even more uninspiring when you consider he's made only five Test centuries, and taken only three five-wicket hauls in his 78-Test career. Now at this stage I can almost hear every single Englishman screaming at me from the other side of the world. I can hear snatches of "What about 2005?", "Statistics don't tell the whole story" and "He's always injured", so let me counter these.

The Ashes series in 2005 will forever be known as Flintoff's Ashes, mainly because it was his batting and bowling that really proved a turning point in the series. But it wasn't like he made 700 runs and took 35 wickets; he made 402 runs and took 24 wickets, which are good figures, but not amazing. And look, even though I'm writing this trying to tell you Flintoff isn't that good, in that series he was irresistible, and any Aussie would've swapped Dizzy Gillespie or Matty Hayden for Flintoff in a heartbeat.

But is a great performance in one series the basis for a legend? Should the English community be tearing down the "Our best player" plaque from over Sir Ian Botham's mantlepiece and placing it on bended knee at Flintoff's door? I'll say it again: statistics don't tell the whole story. But in cricket, if you don't make runs or take wickets, there is not really anywhere to hide.

Before the current Ashes series, I heard that Flintoff made an unbeaten 90-something in a County Twenty20 match, followed by a large amount of fawning from the British media, to the effect of "He's coming good at the right time". But a conveniently ignored fact about that innings is that it was his highest score in all top-level cricket since he made a century at Nottingham in the 2005 Ashes series (But he was injured..., Yeah, yeah, I'll get there in a minute). And look, excuses can always be made for his lack of centuries, runs, wickets, and Michelles at Test level, such as batting at 6 and 7, he doesn't get as much of an opportunity with the bat as players batting higher. But take the example of Marcus North, Australia's current No.6. In six Tests, North has already made three centuries and a 90, almost four-fifths of Flintoff's Test century tally in one-thirteenth of the Tests Flintoff's played.

And an excuse for his bowling: he's an all-rounder, he's not a frontline bowler. But he is a frontline bowler. He opens the bowling, bowls by far the most out of England's pacemen, and doesn't take wickets.

Now for the final point: But he's always injured, and look, I won't disagree with you there. But if he's been injured so much, how has he had the chance to have such an impact on the game that using the adjective "great" doesn't seem like overkill? And now contrast him to the truly great players that have earned their adjective after injury: Dennis Lillee had almost crippling stress fractures in his back such that he had to wear a full-torso cast for 12 months, and then remodel his action so he wouldn't break down again; Shane Warne had numerous shoulder and spinning finger surgeries during his career, and after a particular spinning finger surgery, had to learn how to spin the ball a totally different way; Garry Sobers recovered from a car crash that killed one of his best friends in the mid-1950's; Sachin Tendulkar has overcome a recurring tennis elbow problem throughout his career that has, at times, prevented him from being able to hold a cricket bat; Bradman almost died from peritonitis midway through his career.

Flintoff's recoveries from injury tend to pale in comparison, don't they? Even if Flintoff was to produce a match-winning performance at The Oval, it would be wrong to suggest he should join the pantheon of great allrounders that includes Botham, Miller, Imran and others. Sobers has a category to himself. But throughout his career, Flintoff's performances have been overvalued. He bowls fast, but bowls too short and too far outside the off-stump. As a batsman, his technique is inherently flawed, and his record lacks consistent contributions to an English total. Flintoff's "legend" has come not from performances on the wicket, but from his ability to gain the support from a parochial crowd, and to an extent, a nation. A nation which will forever nostalgically harp back to his performances in 2005 and say, "That Flintoff, wasn't he something?" But an underachieving career punctuated by injury, interspersed a brilliant but solitary performance in an Ashes series is not basis for a legend.