September 3, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

Settlers and sons

From Imran Coomaraswamy United Kingdom
A response to Peter Roebuck’s “No time for back-slapping”.

	Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen and Andy Flower - none born in England © Getty Images

I’m a regular follower of Peter Roebuck’s columns for Cricinfo and the Sydney Morning Herald. The former Somerset captain is certainly one of the most eloquent and thought-provoking cricket writers around today. His most recent opinion piece for Cricinfo, however, a warning to English cricket that it’s "no time for back-slapping," strikes me as faintly ridiculous, and some of the comments in it regarding English-born Asian cricketers I find really rather disconcerting.

The Sydney-based Roebuck has long maintained that Aussie dominance in the Ashes is a fitting reflection of the contrast between (what he perceives to be) the vibrant and competitive "prevailing culture" in his adopted home and a chronic national malaise back in the old country. It seems the Australian team’s sudden fall from grace has upset his worldview. Convinced that "English culture" still lacks "vim and vigour," he looks elsewhere for an explanation for England’s recent success.

Its Ashes team was not entirely a product of English cricket, or indeed the country at large. Four of the top six batsmen were born in South Africa and raised within its traditions. The coach comes from Zimbabwe, two of the players come from the local Asian communities, and two Irishmen have fought their way into the one-day party. It’s hard to deny that Kevin Pietersen and Johnathan Trott learnt their cricket in South Africa, but including Andrew Strauss (who has lived in England since the age of six) and Matt Prior (who has represented Sussex from Under-12 level upwards) on that list is frankly comical.

What is less humorous, however, is Roebuck’s reference to English-born Asians Ravi Bopara and Monty Panesar. In what way is either of these two ‘not entirely a product of English cricket, or indeed the country at large?’ The implication here is that players from local Asian communities are somehow not really English. In fact, Roebuck goes on to articulate this opinion explicitly: “At present, counties have roughly 119 foreign-born players on their books, and that does not include Irishmen (14), Welshmen or Scots. Obviously the 23 locally born Asian players have been omitted. Of course they are a separate category.”

Why should locally born Asians even enter into this discussion? In this context, why are they a “separate category” rather than simply locals? Roebuck is on very dangerous ground here, as in the not so distant past, there have been a number of highly controversial public debates on the “Englishness” of black and Asian cricketers representing England, notably the racially charged Henderson affair in 1995. In this case Roebuck makes clear that he celebrates the success of these cricketers, but feels it disguises the fact that “Anglo-Saxon England is underperforming.” (Which Ashes series was he watching? In the one I just saw, Bopara and Panesar underperformed and were dropped.)

He notes that the rise of the locally born Asians in county cricket “says a lot about them and English society, all of it favourable.” His remarks about them in this article say a lot about him, not all of it so favourable.

It can hardly be convincingly argued that the England cricket team is a product of the system or the national will. To the contrary it consists in no small part of settlers and sons. And it's the same in county cricket. Whatever Roebuck might mean by “the national will,” I find it rather offensive that he regards recent immigrants and their children as being at odds with or excluded from it. There is also no small amount of irony in the fact that these comments are being made by someone who is one of the five million current residents of Australia who were born outside that country’s shores.

Roebuck regards the Ashes as both a Test series and a test of the relative merits of the protagonists’ cricketing systems and wider cultures. The essence of his argument in this piece is that while deserving of its victory, Strauss’s team was not really English, and hence the real England does not deserve bragging rights over Australia - the former is still morally bankrupt, while the latter “remains intact.”

That sporting success is a direct measure of national self-worth is questionable to say the least. As for the notion of “prevailing culture,” one appalled Cricinfo reader (krumb) has rightly condemned his description of England today as an “absurd caricature that bares [sic] absolutely no relation to a deep and complex society.” I might add that for all its faults, this society is a great deal more inclusive than Roebuck’s comments betray him to be.

Other Cricinfo readers have been quick to comment that elsewhere in the same piece, Roebuck manages to make ill-informed statements about the origins of Yorkshire and Geordie dialects, the history of black professional footballers in England, the previous captains of the Indian cricket team and the composition of Surrey’s playing staff. He also sounds a familiar refrain about strong fast bowlers from the mines and classical batsmen from public schools, portraying these as English cricket’s now sadly exhausted seams of cricketing talent, rather than manifestations of a class divide and stereotypes that ought to be eradicated.

Amid all this, it must be said that Roebuck makes some very valid points. There is clearly a need to examine whether the success of the likes of Pietersen and Trott is masking a lack of up-and-coming home-grown talent. The jury is still out on whether the various academies and specialist coaches are having an impact. Conflicts of interest in the selection process and the media must be resolved sooner rather than later. The England team is still ranked fifth in the world, and the ECB would indeed do well to avoid back-slapping in favour of further soul-searching.

At this point, I should also make clear that I do not believe Peter Roebuck to be a racist. I have read enough of his writings on cricketers of all backgrounds to be convinced otherwise. However, if he intends not to “belittle diversity,” he really ought to reconsider a number of his comments in this piece, and revise his perceptions of English national identity. Finally, I can understand that Surrey’s recent need to sign wicketkeeper Steve Davies from Worcestershire might give someone cause to question the county’s own youth system (though as the 23-year-old is a product of the National Academy and England Under-19s, I wouldn’t myself see this a symptom of English cricket’s ill-health).

On the other hand, that Roebuck apparently interprets the fact that “two Afghan refugees open the bowling for their Under-16s” as further evidence of Surrey cricket’s decline is pretty shocking. I should note here that I have no proof other than Roebuck’s word that there are any “Afghan refugees” in Surrey’s Emerging Players Program. What I do know, however, is that they do not have an Under-16 team. Aman Shinwari has opened the bowling for both Surrey Under-15s and Under-17s. From his name, I would guess that he is of Pashtun origin. On the Surrey website, he names James Anderson as his favourite player, and states that his aspiration is to play cricket for England. I sincerely hope that no one ever tells him his success is an indication that Surrey cricket has “run out of gas.”

Comments (54)

August 21, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

Is Flintoff really "great"?

From Jacob Astill, Australia

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.

Comments (87)

August 4, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

Cricket's pre-eminent rivalry

From Benjamin Matthews, United Kingdom

	Australia had no answer to Ian Botham's heroics in 1981 © Getty Images

Reginald Shirley Brooks earned himself a certain immortality with 40 words published in The Sporting Times in 1882. Little did Brooks know that his mocking obituary was to spark more than a century worth of bouncers, beamers, slingers, sledgers and wangers perennially being flung in disdain between two nations with the sole aim of beating each other hollow. Such a fusillade of antagonism is not present in any other series worldwide.

The Indian and Pakistani rivalry can undoubtedly be extremely intense, hostile and pressured but its roots stem from political and diplomatic unease. In purely a cricketing sense, a win-at-all-costs mentality epitomised by early characters such as Warwick ‘the Big Ship’ Armstrong and Douglas Jardine, echoed more recently by modern greats such as Glenn McGrath help stage these Anglo-Australian stand-offs as incomparable cricketing theatre. “We have come to beard the kangaroo in his den - and try to recover those Ashes”, said Hon. Ivo Bligh in 1882. Bligh was the first to speak of this glorious rivalry in terms of winning the ‘Ashes’ and it is a series which has produced wonderful cricketing quotes and jargon thereafter.

Bernard Bosanquet was the first to bowl the ‘googly’, or the ‘wrong 'un’, for instance. ‘Bodyline’ was coined after Jardine’s infamous tactics to prise out the impeccable Don Bradman and ‘sledging’ is a technique used since the inception of these biannual engagements, refined as an eminent fielding tactic in the 1990s by a poker-faced Steve Waugh. ‘Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust’, ‘if Lillee don’t get ya, Thommo must’ read the Sydney Telegraph in 1974-75 Ashes series. This grand spectacle can represent two nations colliding with malice aforethought as Bill Voce’s threat to the Australian team of 1932 to ‘knock their bloody heads off’ can highlight.

Such contempt provides a player with the necessary inspiration to stake his claim for cricketing immortality and to remould the record books. Evocable performances within Ashes matches can define careers. Jim Laker’s 19 wickets for 90 runs in the 1956 series remains a bowling record to this day, Shane Warne’s ‘Ball of the century’ to Mike Gatting in 1993 created an iconic sporting moment. Individual rivalries are created that linger in the memory; microcosms of particular series that compound the importance of the continuing competitiveness of the Ashes and more importantly, Test cricket as a sport.

	The ball of the century was the start of more than a decade of torment for England's batsmen © Getty Images

Another record that still stands today is Don Bradman’s aggregate of 974 runs in the 1930 series, surpassing Wally Hammond’s 905 a year earlier, forcing the latter, fine player as he was, into the role of eternal understudy to The Don’s leading batsman. These rivalries have helped to forge standards and inspire players to strive to play in this pinnacle of Test match cricket. “[the Ashes has] always been the pinnacle of Test match cricket ... the only thing I ever wanted to do was to be part of an England Test match or an Ashes series,” said Australia’s leading run-scorer Ricky Ponting this year.

Test cricket remains the pinnacle of the game despite the emergence of the IPL, its piles of cash and potential exodus of world-class talent to its temptations. The IPL has an understandably increasing appeal as its profile and investors become larger year-by-year, however its draw is not irresistible for all. Players such as Michael Clarke, Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Broad have rejected advances from the IPL; decisions that embody a commitment to Test cricket and highlight the importance of the Ashes. Broad sums up this importance in justifying why he chose not to travel to play in the IPL: “You can make history. People have a passion for the Ashes and I think to the nation it’s the most important thing in the cricketing world. It’s the pinnacle.” These are thoughts also echoed by Ricky Ponting, who believes that the Ashes remain the pinnacle of the game for any Australian cricketer. As alluded to by such players, the Ashes retains a competitive edge that no other series comes close to. WG Grace’s perfidious Albion through the Bradman era, the unrelenting Lillee and Thomson, Beefy’s last stand, ‘The Ball of the Century’, Waugh’s ‘mental disintegration’, right up to the return of the Urn in 2005 - these are a few of the many threads of history running through the rich tapestry of the Ashes, instantly re-callable for anyone involved with the game.

“The aim of English cricket is, in fact, mainly to beat Australia.” Jim Laker’s sentiments echo that it is a series that unites a country. Losing to the Poms is unthinkable for any Aussie captain for the backlash he will face back home. For both sides a loss will render any other successes of an Ashes year redundant. An Ashes summer can blind foresight to future series and the ecstasy of a victory can erase any memories of recent team failures. Both England and Australia were knocked out of the World Twenty20 at the beginning of this summer without so much as a whimper, no huge disappointment was evident - minds were already set on the main event of the summer. Little can equal the public euphoria stoked up by Test cricket’s most important series. Memories can be conjured from instances ranging from the ludicrous (David Lloyd’s pink sheath), to the brilliant (Bob Willis’ hostile 8 for 43 in 1981), from the genuinely unsettling (Bert Oldfield’s head fracture inflicted by a searing Harold Larwood bouncer), to moments of sheer hysteria (John Snow’s ‘come on, then’ gestures to Sydney’s Hill and the ensuing volley of beer cans). Herein lies the magic of the Ashes: an enchanting sporting institution that will forever captivate, exhilarate and provoke.

Comments (2)

July 28, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

Is Ian Bell a better fit at No. 5?

From Benjamin Matthews, United Kingdom

	Ian Bell is pragmatically the best replacement for Pietersen © Getty Images

This Test is possibly the fulcrum of the series and so momentum will no doubt be the buzz word around the England dressing-room at present. Come Thursday as two patched up teams move to Edgbaston, both sides will be looking to try to exploit weaknesses apparent within each camp.

For Australia, concerns about Phillip Hughes and Mitchell Johnson will need to be addressed, while the loss of Kevin Pietersen has posed the English team noticeable issues in the middle order. If Australia are to seize the initiative in this series, a win is pivotal at a ground where of the 43 Tests staged, England have won 22.

England have handed a Test lifeline to Ian Bell, brought in to replace Pietersen. Bell is a batsman of undisputed talent; a classical stroke-maker with a honed technique, solid enough to slot in at No. 3, possibly the most difficult of Test batting positions. Many expect Bell to be inserted at first-wicket down to allow a visibly less-than-comfortable Ravi Bopara to drop down a place or two to repair his fractured confidence by way of facing the older ball.

Bopara has looked unsettled in the first two Tests; batting at an irregular tempo without his usual verve and swagger at the crease. Bell, with his tighter technique and impressive county form, appears a sound choice to replace a player who is showing signs of mental and technical fatigue at first drop. While such an order change seems to be the consensus, England must resist the temptation to do so as this would be to the detriment of both men.

Bopara possesses the character to recover his form and succeed at No. 3 where an ability to exert one’s personality on an innings is crucial. Bopara has the potential to dictate the pace and rhythm of an innings, in a manner that no other English batsman currently does. The selectors strive for continuity and so must persevere with Bopara at three.

Bell is a batsman who tends to bat successfully in the slipstream of more dominant batsmen. Add to that, a moderate Test record at No. 3 (averaging 31) and a tendency to compound an innings in the middle order show why Bell will fit better at No. 5 (where he has unfinished business, averaging 54.4).

	Ravi Bopara possesses the character to recover his form and succeed at No. 3 © Getty Images

A steely Paul Collingwood, having scored a double-century against the Australians batting at No. 4 in 2006, should not have too many qualms about being asked to bat one position higher.

So is Bell the correct choice? He has responded to the request from the England hierarchy to show “more hunger” this season, scoring runs at an average of 64.70 across 13 innings, but have the selectors shown a lack of trust in the county game, or is there simply a dearth of talent to choose from?

Bell, with the experience of two Ashes series behind him is pragmatically perhaps the best option, but poor records in both of these series (502 runs at 25.10) have prompted a number of different names to be put forward for consideration, if only to provide batting cover for the Edgbaston Test.

Bell’s Warwickshire team-mate Jonathan Trott has lodged a firm case for selection, having scored 101 more runs than Bell over the same number of innings this season, and what with batting at No. 4, would have represented a straight swap for Pietersen.

The Kent pair Rob Key and Joe Denly are names often bandied about but both, alongside Worcestershire’s Stephen Moore, would be forced to bat out of position if selected. As with Trott and Moore, the selectors would be loathe to hand out a Test debut in the middle of an Ashes series, and Denly’s time should come. Key’s time may have passed in the longer format of the game, as may the oft-overlooked Owais Shah and the popular choice of Mark Ramprakash. If the selectors want to look towards the future, then James Hildreth and Eoin Morgan are two emerging names who could produce a big impact in the middle order and who would benefit from being part of an Ashes squad as spare batting options.

All of these opinions are heresy due to Bell’s inclusion, but Adil Rashid is a final name worth a mention. To include Rashid would require Andrew Flintoff to be shunted up the order to No. 6, and so would result in an even loftier weight of responsibility on the Lancastrian’s broad shoulders. England’s bowling attack would be strengthened, but the batting unit would suffer and the attack regained a ruthlessness at Lord’s that was absent in Cardiff.

Of the unit, Flintoff, Graeme Swann and James Anderson are certainties for the third Test but one of Graham Onions and Stuart Broad could yet make way for an apparently rejuvenated Steve Harmison. England may try to replicate the performance from Harmison and Onions when they bowled Durham to victory at Edgbaston earlier in the season. The plan to forge home the advantage may leave Broad on the sidelines as he is yet to find his true character as a bowler, sometimes appearing indecisive about how to bowl in certain situations.

Having said that, England are unlikely to tamper with an attack that produced 20 wickets at Lord’s, and with a traditionally partisan Edgbaston crowd acting as a 12th man, England remain in a strong position despite the loss of Pietersen.

Comments (7)

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

How important is Pietersen to England's chances?

From Nick Broad, United Kingdom

	Pietersen may have great flair, but he has failed to deliver when it really matters © Getty Images

Australia rejoices and England frets as Kevin Pietersen, statistically the best batsman in the England side, undergoes Achilles surgery and misses the rest of the Ashes. However, is he really that important to England's prospects? Perhaps not, especially if we use the criteria of Test hundreds and the circumstances they were made in.

To my mind, Pietersen has played only one truly great innings - his 158 versus Australia at the Oval in 2005. There, under extreme pressure, with England's grip on the Ashes marginal, he took the Australian's apart like no other Englishman since Ian Botham in 1986-87.

Since then, there have been two innings against Sri Lanka in 2006, which were big and full of exciting and innovative shots, but only his 142 at Birmingham could be justified as being 'special' to one degree or another. His runs against Pakistan, Australia, and the West Indies in subsequent series were made on either on flat pitches or against poor attacks.

His hundreds against India were good, but unrewarded. However, Pietersen did nothing against Sri Lanka. Twice he came to England's rescue home and away against New Zealand, but again while these were crucial innings given the state of the matches, both were made against woefully inadequate attacks.

Since then, there have been three centuries against very good attacks (South Africa and India) and one against an average attack while waiting for a declaration. The record in those three games where he hit a century - one England win. That makes 16 hundreds. The win/draw/loss ratio for those hundreds is seven wins, eight draws and one loss.

There are four nineties, but of those, only two are noteworthy - 97 versus West Indies at Jamaica earlier this year and a 94 against South Africa at Birmingham in August 2008. They are noteworthy because they both ended with his wicket being given away to mediocre spinners and England losing the Test. England have lost three of the games where he scored nineties.

Therefore I would argue, Pietersen is a wonderfully talented batsman who puts bums on seats, he can take any attack apart given favourable conditions and circumstances, he has a great average and an exceptional conversion ratio. However, what he has not done consistently is carry the England team on his back and win games. Sleep easy England.

Comments (4)

July 24, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

Ashes decider

By contrast, viewers of Australia's first (and only) innings at Cardiff could be forgiven for thinking they were watching the sixth test of 2007, rather than the first of 2009. After two years, it seemed that Australia had merely resumed its winning run against its old foe. Hundreds from Katich, Ponting, North and Haddin helped raise Australia's highest Ashes total since 1934. Sometimes, the roles were even reversed. Panesar and Anderson's unbroken last wicket stand was likened to Lee and McGrath's at Old Trafford four years ago. Collingwood's match-saving 74 was every bit as important as Ponting's 156.

Despite (or perhaps because of) their contrasting scorelines, the 2005 and 2006/07 series shared several important features. Reputations were tarnished. Ponting's captaincy - already questioned by some - lost further legitimacy. In Australia, Flintoff proved himself an unsatisfactory leader. Australia's narrow defeat was every bit as devastating as England's humiliating loss. Even now, the memories of both must cause the minds of many to darken. For Australians, 2005 upset the natural order. To restore that order, no simple retaliation would suffice. Nothing short of an annihilation would begin to sooth the wounds. And in being thumped five nil, England did not only lose the Ashes - it lost a little of 2005. As Gideon Haigh rightly pointed out, while England can forever claim the Edgbaston Test, Adelaide 2006 belongs to Australia.

English aspirations (to the status of an equal and the title of number one Test nation) were revealed as mere pretensions. After its 2007 triumph, another Australian win would further reduce 2005 to a vivid but regrettable stain on Australia's otherwise unblemished recent Ashes record. An English victory would not only silence Australian talk of an 'aberration', but elevate England into a frontier unconquered by Ponting's men.

For the time being at least, the current series has the air of a decider, of a final set following a first set tie break and a second set bagel. Its significance has been inflated by its remarkable predecessors. Perhaps it will help to settle the score of which of the two was the greater victory. And while some of the principle players have gone from the scene, both captains will fight bitterly for the last word.

Comments (2)

July 22, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Ashes

Fred's final fling

From Benjamin Matthews, United Kingdom

	Australia had no answer to Andrew Flintoff's fiery spell © Getty Images

The retirement of Andrew Flintoff (MBE) after the current Ashes series is sure to ignite varying forms of debate over the next few weeks. Matters of opinion from the media pack may criticise the allrounder for the timing of his announcement, while other voices will no doubt pen glowing tributes to the talismanic Lancastrian. Flintoff will continue to make himself available for England's future ODI and Twenty20 squads. The carrot of future IPL contracts looming large may cast doubts for some over the motives behind his decision to leave the longer format of the game, but none can debate the match-winning contributions he has made for the English team over the years.

Charismatic, inspiring, down-to-earth are all compliments that spring to mind for a man whose appeal transcends class and cricketing opinion. Minor antics off the pitch have at times marred an underlying focus and dedication to the game that some have occasionally overlooked. Relentless pace and a fiery all-or-nothing attitude have been drawn from honing high levels of fitness which were doubted at the beginning of his career; many focussing on his heavy set frame. Such a build, whilst undoubtedly a major asset to his stinging bowling and power hitting, has also unfortunately been to his detriment.

The reoccurring knee injury sustained while playing in the IPL flared up again after this series' first Test and after multiple ankle surgeries, Flintoff has decided to call it a day. The relentless rigours of the five-day game have proven to be too much for his body to cope with, Flintoff having missed 25 of England's previous 48 Tests. Flintoff took his bow into international Test match cricket in 1998 against a strong touring South African side. Unfortunately the prized wicket of Jacques Kallis was his only real reward of note in that series and subsequently, his county form suffered.

There were always glimpses of his destructive capabilities during this uncertain period, most notably an explosive 135 from 111 balls in the quarter-finals of the Natwest Trophy in 2000. "We have just watched one of the most awesome innings we are ever going to see on a cricket field" gushed David Gower. A Man-of-the-Match 42 not out in a ODI against Zimbabwe followed, causing Flintoff to enthuse: "not bad for a fat lad!" High praise and high jinx indeed, but it wasn't until the England management packed him off to Rod Marsh's ECB academy in 2001 that he began to realise his huge potential.

That short, sharp, shock culminated in a reformed, more dynamic Flintoff who toured India that winter; proving his startling revelation as a tight, aggressive seam bowler. The relief of his coming of age was plain to see when he ripped off his shirt in celebration after the final ball of that tour, Flintoff having bowled an exceptional over to level the one day series. His Test career really started to take shape on the 2002 tour to New Zealand, where in Christchurch on his 13th Test appearance, Flintoff scored his first international century. 137 from 163 deliveries signified a concentration and temperament well suited to Test cricket.

By 2003, he had become a consistent performer in the Test arena. A magnificent 142 from 146 balls against South Africa, followed three Tests later by a match-swinging 95 to help England save the series cemented his position as an integral part of the English Test batting unit. An ability to force such a momentum change was testament to the fact he had become a player who could not just change the face of a one-dayer, but a player who could change the face of the modern English game forever.

Despite having become England's most consistent Test bowler by this stage, 5 for 58 versus the West Indies in Barbados 2004 (including the wickets of Brian Lara, Ridley Jacobs and Shivnarine Chanderpaul) was Flintoff's first major haul. He was named the Man of the Series later that year for his performances in the home white-wash of the same touring opponents. Again, the indications of his leading influence with both the bat and ball - 603 runs and 24 wickets - were being displayed and were acting simply as precursors for yet even greater things still to come.

2005 was his annus mirabilis largely due to his performances in the triumphant Ashes series of that year. It was the series in which he left an indelible mark on Test cricket not only for his contribution towards the series win, but for his contribution to the playing of the game: hard, but always fair. The iconic portrait of Flintoff consoling Brett Lee after victory at Edgbaston is a gesture of sportsmanship synonymous with the all-rounder, as well as an image etched into the consciousness of all cricket fans forever more. Being named ICC Cricketer of the Year was his reward for averages of 40.20 with the bat and 27.29 with the ball. His 402 runs and 24 wickets won Flintoff the Compton-Miller medal and inspire some to call it 'Fred's Ashes'.

Memories of that series will linger forever in the mind of the man who inspired England to victory in that series, as they will in the minds of a cricketing nation whose love affair with the shorter modes of the game are somewhat supplanting their affections for the truest form of the game. So Freddie 2009 - one last hurrah? Reignite those final embers and bring that urn home.

Comments (11)