Talk:Andrew Flintoff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Andrew Flintoff is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article Andrew Flintoff, or visit the project page for more details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
7th August 2005 - what a hero. amazing stuff.
Sorry about all the edits - my bad.
Contents |
[edit] Zimbabwe 2000 quote
Looking at the 2004 Observer article and the match report on Cricinfo.com (references 1 and 2 respectively on the page's current list), the 2 sources quote Flintoff differently after the match: the former says he said "All right for a fat lad", the latter "I played all right for a fat boy". I guess he didn't say both so does anyone have any idea which is accurate? It's not the most important thing in the world but it may as well be right if it can be confirmed. I'd probably trust Cricinfo's report at the time, of the two, which is why I chose that one when I added it to the article, anyone else have any views? Jimbow25 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tatoo
What's the tatoo that Freddie has on his arm. Looks like "XI" but not sure. And does anyone know the significance of it? It should probably get a mention in the trivia section.--Ukdan999 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] England Captaincy
I added the succession box for the England captaincy. This was subsequently removed with a note 'not appropriate when not appointed permanently'. This would be fair enough except that I was only adding Flintoff to be consistent with other successions on the chain. Most notably Geoffrey Boycott who was only appointed after injury to Mike Brearley who then returned later. For consistencies sake either Geoffrey Boycott needs removing from the captaincy succession or Andrew Flintoff needs adding. My personal opinion is that the succession should be for test captains and if you captain England in a Test match then you should be included.
- Hmmm.. Bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Boycott does confuse the matter. Tintin (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it ought to be reinstated - the way the ECB statement read the other day, it sounds like his appointment is permanent. Besides, it doesn't look like Vaughan is coming back does it? Istartfires 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Vaughan has been ruled out for AT LEAST six months (probably more like twelve months), it makes sense to change the captaincy box over to Flintoff. Whatever 'the rules' say about the appointment needing to be permanent before such a step is taken, I think everyone ought to take stock of the reality of the situation. I see it thus; Flintoff (barring the first test at Lords tomorrow and God forbid another injury) will be leading the England side for at least six months, maybe twelve, maybe permanently. To all intents and purposes, he is now the England captain. It is no disrespect to either Vaughan or 'the rules' to change the captaincy box over. So I have. Istartfires 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC) - I copied this over from the Michael Vaughan page to clear up any discrepancies.
[edit] All-rounder or Genuine All-rounder?
"he is widely regarded as the best all-rounder in the modern game, rivalled only by Jacques Kallis." I think it would be better and more accurate if Flintoff was described as the best genuine allrounder in the game, because Jacques Kallis is obviously not a genuine all-rounder, and Flintoff and Kallis are REALLY different types of players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwizard1 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 17 May 2006.
- The question of whether Kallis is 'obviously' an all-rounder or not should be brought up at Talk:Jacques Kallis rather than here, I think. Since Kallis has better Test and first-class averages in both batting and bowling than Flintoff, we should probably be a bit careful throwing the 'genuine' tag around. --Nick Boalch 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As any cricket fan will tell you averages only tell you so much. Kallis is the better batsman by a distance and Flintoff the better bowler by a distance. The difference is Flintoff can win a game with either, Kallis will very rarely win you a game with the ball. Kallis simply bullies the poorer teams with his bowling to keep his average respectable, when Kallis matches Flintoff's heroics against the likes of Australia then we'll consider him on the same level, until then he can be simply considered a batsman that bowls. UncleTheOne
[edit] Brother
Can someone confirm that this edit is correct. I checked it in a book shop. From a quick glance and from the index, I found only one brother. Tintin (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
