Flintoff plays the pillock again
Why can't Andrew Flintoff remember that he is a professional cricketer in the highly privileged position of playing for England, a role model to millions and well paid as well? Why is he unable to switch off the "twit gene" that makes him do stupid things when responsibility is called for?
Never mind the pedalo or the misjudged comments on immigration, failing to show up for a team bonding session to the Somme is inexcusable. Not least, it is grossly disrespectful to those who died in war. People call Flintoff a hero because of some cricketing feats four years ago. How does facing Glenn McGrath compare with being scared and shocked by the constant bombardment of artillery? How would Flintoff have fared in the mud of Flanders, choking on the mustard gas and struggling with trenchfoot? He is no hero, he is simply a sportsman with a strong streak of immaturity.
Flintoff, we hear, missed the team bus at the weekend and failed to join his team-mates on the journey to see the trenches at Ypres. Rumours abound and I make no comment other than to note what Andrew Strauss said today: "We had a team dinner, alcohol wasn't banned, but there's no reason to suspect that anything massively untoward happened. Fred generally recognises when the times are to drink and when not to drink."
No doubt the trip was organised with strict timetabling, but I cannot believe that the coach would not have waited for Flintoff if he was just a little late getting into the shower.
I've lost patience with Flintoff, whose supposed ability to stir the team to great achievements has not actually been seen much since 2005. They play better without him. I wouldn't mourn for one second if the ECB and Strauss decided that enough was enough and gave him the same treatment Ricky Ponting gave to Andrew Symonds.
Patrick
This is so wholesome to read from an English journalist. I didn't expect this from any English journalist - of course for all of them Flintoff is a HERO. Period.
So glad that you've made the perfect distinction of Flintoff being a sportsmen and the war dead being heroes !
I've all along being saying that Flintoff is a overhyped player. Sure he had that Ashes 2005 series, but before or after that what ? Zilch and yet folks say he is irreplacable, he has spirit, blah blah..
Shouldn't performance be the only barometer to judge sportsmen ??
Posted by: Dilip | 30 Jun 2009 18:25:07
Yes, something's definitely up with Freddie, it seems.
Generally, I think way too much is made of many a minor (and often personal) situation involving professional sportspeople. However, Freddie - like Roy - has breached his own team rules a few times too often to be given sympathy.
This is not an hysterical, over-blown reaction to the horror of a cricketer having a beer. Flintoff has developed himself a pattern of disregard for team concepts off-field. Sooner or later, this stuff alters team fabric. It will be intensely interesting to see how this last incident pans out, from an Aussie's perspective.
Roy's failing can be understood - if not forgiven - in context with his abysmal treatment at the hands of CA in 2008. Why does Freddie behave as he does? From down here, it seems he'd have the world at his feet - a lifetime of goodwill banked thanks to his efforts in 2005. What makes a man fritter away that kind of rare (especially in the UK) positive public sentiment?
Posted by: Peter McGuinness | 30 Jun 2009 21:40:46
Patrick Kidd's comments on the need to treat Flintoff in a similar manner to Symonds cannot pass without comment.At the press conference called by the ACB to formally exclude
Symonds there was Ponting, with the brewers logo on his hat,sermonising on Symond's abuse of alcohol and the chair of selectors-one David Boon holds the drinking record for an Oz to London flight - 52 cans.
The bloody hypocrisy of it all makes my blood boil
Posted by: Eddie Keane | 30 Jun 2009 22:28:05
Hi Patrick,
Thanks again for the game on Monday, and for the lift back. Thoroughly enjoyed it, and if you ever need a bowler for any of your charity matches please let me know.
Cheers,
Stephen
As for Flintoff, I think his failure to turn out for such a journey is slack, it shows a lack of respect and contrasts uncomfortably with the Aussie team's visit to Gallipoli a few years ago.
Posted by: Stephen | 1 Jul 2009 00:18:42
A very honest and refreshing assessment. Freddie warrants a place if he is playing well, but we should not forget that he might alter the team balance. New leaders in the team are emerging, like Broad, Anderson, Swann, Cook etc, and I doubt they, or Flower will be that impressed if Flintoff does not pull in line.
A mention for Sidebottom and Onions, 2 quality in form bowlers, who could easily perform a role in place of Flintoff, assuming we play 2 spinners. On that note, best of luck to Monty today. How cool would it be if Monty could rediscover some form and get back to his best.
Posted by: Rob | 1 Jul 2009 10:07:40
I agree, Patrick, with some of what you say. Yes it was inexcusable to miss a trip to the Somme, having been there myself as part of a team, the raw emotion that the sights and stories there cause individually amongst players does help to pull a team together. Fred and England really require a bonding trip like this at present.
But let’s not forget that aside from all the drinking issues what he has done for English cricket. Let’s not forget all the test centuries most notably that at Trent Bridge. We still hold all those who played at Wembley in '66 in the highest regard why not a similar feat in cricket? Fred may have issues, but who doesn't? English journalism should be (realistically) supportive of their sports stars instead of looking to scythe them down at every opportunity.
Posted by: george | 1 Jul 2009 13:28:15
Put into perspective very nicely. The 2005 TEAM won the ashes, why is Flintoff given a disprportional amount of credit for it? (Jones, Harmison, Pieterson, Giles all performed well above their abilities)- he captained the side that lost 5-0 thereafter. His individual stats are very ordinary, batting average in 20s, bowling average near 30s...its quite mediocre to 'forgive' off-field antics (if the last indiscretion is forgiveable at all). I am not British, but i would be deeply deeply insulted by his no-show! It shows a total content for true bravery, courage, selflessness and heroism (all of which Flintoff evidently now lacks!)
Posted by: Mohsin | 1 Jul 2009 14:00:40
bit self-righteous kidd, calm down and remember what the likes of botham got up to.
Posted by: Jim | 1 Jul 2009 14:32:05
agree with some of this, the evidence is starting to stack up. in the short term freddie needs to perform in the first couple of tests, in the medium term he needs a year or so of making headlines only for the right reasons. if he does feel the need to have the occasional drunken blow-out to ease the pressure valve, then he should make sure it happens in private, unless of course we have just regained the ashes.
i still feel he's unlikely to be an england test player for more than another year/ 18 months. he's 32 at the end of the year, dodgy injury record and i'm not sure he has the determination, nor perhaps the ability, to become a test batsman who occasionally bowls a few overs of medium pace when his knees/ ankles permit... shame, because he's still one of my favourite players...
he'll be able to make a very nice living playing IPL and other 20:20 cricket for a few years...
nice to think he might read this and be motivated by it...
Posted by: tom | 1 Jul 2009 14:45:42
Hi Patrick,
I must admit it is refreshing to read an article that doesn't "tow the line" and bow to popular opinion. However I must disagree with the severity of your comments.
He missed the bus. Perhaps I am being naive but I don't think it was due to a heavy night. He doesn't look hungover in the pictures (we all know what that looks like) and when he missed the bus he jumped in a taxi to meet up with the team. When he did so I sure they wouldn't be thinking about a lack of respect. I would imagine they started some banter with him and that is that.
As for a lack of respect for our great heroes. I do not think he has done this. He missed the bus. I would argue that you (inadvertently) have shown more disrespect by comparing the two situations.
The team has progressed since Flintoff last put on the shirt, we have more big hitters like Bopara. However he provides fantastic batting strength down the order.
I agree he needs to start acting like a man with his responsibility but I think it unfair to call him up and expel him from duty for this.
Posted by: Chris | 1 Jul 2009 15:44:54
Interesting to read all your views. Some quick thoughts: yes, he was (is?) a great sportsman and one of the (not the only) key architects of the 2005 win. His runs at Trent Bridge and his wickets at Edgbaston and his general ebullience lifted the team and the country. He thoroughly deserved his praise, MBE and as much booze as his liver could stand after the series.
But... we are a week away from a new series and he needs to act like a professional. I can't believe that he just missed the bus. It's not a public bus on a timetable. They will surely have called to find out where he was and no doubt when they discovered he was nowhere near ready to leave they went without him. It is unprofessional to act like that.
Worryingly, I hear that there have been a few instances of players showing up late for meetings, such as Bopara. Flower and Strauss need to clamp down on this poor attitude. Clive Woodward, who lord knows has many failings, insisted that his rugby team showed up 15 minutes before a scheduled meeting. Anyone arriving later than 15 mins early was reprimanded. It is all about respect for each other and the mission.
What a man does in private is up to him, but when he is performing for his country - and that includes the preamble - he needs to sharpen up his attitude. To do anything less is disrespectful to his team-mates, his coaches and those who pay his wages.
As for Botham, well he was a twit too on plenty of occasions and was criticised for it. As long as he was good enough to be in the XI you could forgive some of it. The question is: is Flintoff still good enough? He needs to do something special to make up for this.
Posted by: Patrick Kidd | 1 Jul 2009 16:09:40
This is a fuss about nothing. The fact its the team were sent on a daft PR stunt in a rather poor attempt at copying the Aussies trip to Gallipoli. I guarantee the players would not have volunteered to do this and it was a stupid idea that panders to people whose political correctness makes them think honouring the war dead has anything to do with being a great cricket team. It doesn't. The Aussies weren't a great side because they visited Gallipoli, they had world class players and would have been a great team anyway. This sort of spurious team-bonding exercise is hated by players and i can guarantee a few more other than Flintoff will have wanted to miss that bus!! They are cricketers and what happened in WW1 has no bearing on their performances so whatever rubbish Kidd posts about "respect and heroism etc" is just a load of sentimental waffle. The trip was a daft idea period.
Posted by: Steve | 1 Jul 2009 16:11:37
Chris..Spot on mate and well put. I think it's a real cheap shot to even attempt to compare the deaths of those in WW1 to the actions of a cricketer who oversleeps. What a total lack of perspective.
Posted by: John | 1 Jul 2009 16:15:58
Forthright views, Steve. On what basis can you "guarantee" the opinions of the England team? Sure, it might not be your cup of tea... I know for sure that it mattered to the Australians to see the graves of their war dead because I went on that trip and spoke to the players. It meant a lot to them. It was, as Strauss said at the weekend, "humbling".
But even if this is sentimental tosh, the point is that Flintoff was given an instruction and he failed to follow it. Acting like a professional cricketer is not a question of pick-and-choose, if you disrespect those who tell you to do things, including your captain, then you have no place in the team.
Posted by: Patrick Kidd | 1 Jul 2009 16:17:07
Patrick, Well i can guarantee it based on what my brother-in-law tells me and he's an ex-pro so he might have a clue..i won't say more. What Fred has done here is not a hanging offence and if he has issues with alcohol and time-keeping he's no different to many of the former greats of this game. What i object to here is your implication that being late for a PR visit to WW1 graves he somehow has less respect for the WW1 dead. That's just a hideous and unfounded allegation which isn't based on any fact. In any case i wasn't aware the purpose of WW1 was for the graves of young men to be used in "team-bonding exercises". That to me is totally disrespectful. Were men killed in WW1 so sports teams could bond over it a century later? This to me is the real disrespect. Where is our perspective here? I believe this type of visit should be undertaken by individuals privately if they feel the need to do so IMO, whatever Strauss may say publicly.
Whatever the Aussies did is a matter for them but it certainly wasn't what made them a great cricket team and it doesn't then follow that we need to copy them. My opinion is that your article, complete with terrible "mustard gas and trench" analogies and the implication that Fred has "disrespected" the war dead is deplorable. Would you make this allegation to him personally? I suspect he would be genuinely upset if you did and would rapidly convince you otherwise pretty quickly. There is no more patriotic cricketer than Fred and this article was a badly thought out hatchet job, which from you is disappointing to read as i normally regard your stuff as excellent.
Posted by: Steve | 1 Jul 2009 17:36:43
Hi Steve
Thanks for your viewpoints. Yes, maybe I did get carried away a bit but this was written in passion and anger at Flintoff's carelessness. I dislike the fact that he is feted as a hero and a great patriot for being nothing more than a talented sportsman. There were real heroes buried in the Flanders graves. Shame that he didn't want to see them - I'd have been fascinated by the experience, as I was when I went with the Aussies some years ago.
Of course, you may think this is all PR, but unlike the Aussies who took a coachload of press with them, the England team only took one photographer last weekend. I think this was genuinely meant to be a personal moment for reflection, although we can disagree on the merits of that.
Of course I was not suggesting that men died in war so that cricketers could have something to bond over. And I'm sure that Flintoff does respect the war dead. It's his team-mates and his fans that he lacks respect for by these actions. It is not as if it is the first time. And yes, he is not the first and won't be the last sportsmen to act like this. I just wish he wouldn't.
Posted by: Patrick Kidd | 1 Jul 2009 18:02:29
I find this whole trip to Flanders to be in poor taste. If the EBC think its ok to compare a test series to people dying in a war then they need to think again. They have no right to try & draw any comparison & to use war dead to try & inspire the cricket team leaves me speachless. If they want a team building exercise they should stick to paintballing.
Posted by: Tennessee | 1 Jul 2009 18:15:11
Couldn't agree more. I noticed ten years ago, maybe a bit less, that cricket had almost all of a sudden turned into a yobs game at national level. Maybe they just managed to keep it behind doors prior to that, or maybe it did change. I personally acknowledge that i don't know about that. What i do know however is that Flintoff represents most of what has gone wrong with English cricket, the Stanford debacle and all the rest of it.
The rugby team won the world cup and still managed to present themselves well publicly. That from people in a sport that until recently was amatuer and alcohol soaked.
Posted by: Robin | 1 Jul 2009 18:50:12
The only people making this whole thing into gross miscoduct are the journalists whipping it into more than it is. The guy missed a bus, on what was effectively a school trip to a battle field. I mean no disrespect to the fallen, but it's a mistake anyone could make.
The suggestion he was drunk, is pure speculation - no reporters were on the trip. But hey, Fred sleeps through alarm after a dinner where alcohol wasn't banned (rightly) and suddenly he's a disgraceful boozer who needs to kicked out of the team in the same way Andrew Symonds was...
the fact is, any other player and this wouldn't have been a story.
It was a rather odd choice for secret trip though wasn't it.
A lot of reporters it seems have an agenda against Flintoff - probably due to the fact he earns vasts amounts of money, and, through no fault of his own, plays very little cricket and when he does, it is not to the ability he once could.
Posted by: Ali McGuigan | 1 Jul 2009 19:10:07
Another dullard sees a band-wagon and climbs aboard. Grey people like you have to knock talented free spirits like Fred, it's as much in your nature as bending the rules is in his. You're the type of pseudo journo who sits in wait for those blessed with talent to transgress. It's probably latent jealousy that you possess no such talent yourself.
Posted by: Nick | 1 Jul 2009 19:30:24
Robin - Maybe you're on a wind up but Rugby is a sport full of thuggery that would see you put in prison if repeated off the pitch. Let's not use that as any sort of standard shall we.
Flintoff is an angel compared to certain Rugby players we could all mention..
Posted by: Steve | 1 Jul 2009 20:25:25
Patrick, Fair enough i agree that "heroism" when applied to any sportsman is inappropriate but i think most of us recognise that it's usually just hyperbole. Most of us know what true heroism involves. I'm sure Fred would have wanted to visit the graves as he was present on the trip on Friday. In fact why was he even in Belgium if he lacked respect for the dead? He simply overslept for this one. Let's call him lazy(or hung-over!) and leave it at that. Your original article goes a bit over the top IMO.
We'll have to disagree on the merits of this trip but for me it's inappropriate. The Aussies went before their tour, and not 11 days before the first test. At the very least the timing could have been better.
Real team-building(and not PR visits to Flanders) involves incorporating the talented and able into a greater cause. Warne fell out totally with his coach and a few of his team-mates but none of them would have wanted to take the field without him. For me as long as he's fit and in form, the good still outweighs the bad with Fred and we shouldn't lose sight of that.
Anyway if he's late next time make the fine £10000 and not £1000 and it should nip any further lateness in the bud!!
Posted by: Steve | 1 Jul 2009 21:02:16
Everyone keeps going on about 2005. Yes it was a stirring victory, aided immeasurably by McGrath's injury by the way, but the follow up was totally over the top - MBEs, drunken public adulation, heads swollen, egos stroked. We know what happened after - the wounded Aussies regrouped and totally smashed England 5-0. Plainly, Flintoff is still living in the past and is still high on the emotion. He doesn't realise how quickly it can end. Ask Symonds. I suspect both will be holding up the bar for years to come, hangers on at the elbow.
Posted by: Steve | 2 Jul 2009 00:43:37
I agree the guy is clearly an idiot and is a miracle he got the chance to captain England.
However he is unfortunately still our best bowler and if we are going to win the ashes back a fit and firing flintoff will make the difference.
I wish we were a good enough team to make an example of him but the fact is we aren't.
Posted by: Jamie Heath | 2 Jul 2009 00:50:19
It has been well known for some time that Flintoff is a drunkard. Apart from that he is also an overweight, irresponsible, and thoroughly mediocre performer not fit to play county cricket.
It only remains for us to learn in future of his divorce, gambling debts, forced sales of his 4 - yes, 4 - million-pound properties, and ultimately a spell in prison. Flintoff is a useless specimen!
Posted by: jeddah99 | 2 Jul 2009 03:47:52
I'm also completely confused by the disproportionate praise Flintoff seems to be getting these days. He hasn't really performed with the bat or the ball for a while now and, as for his "Talisman' status, the team seemed to get on quite well without him.
People always harp on about the 2005 Ashes but conveniently seem to forget that he captained the 2007 side that lost 5-0. I'll say it again - 5-0!
Surely the time has come where he's had enough chances. The fact that he expects a lace in the side on past merits is ridiculous. If he isn't performing (or if he can't follow the rules) he doesn't play. Simple as that!
Posted by: Aneesh | 2 Jul 2009 06:51:53
Andrew Flintoff has been allowed to get away with inappropriate behaviour on too many occasions because of his
reputation on the field.
He is not the saviour of English Cricket, far from it;he is a stubborn man , who refused to even attempt to change his bowling action to prevent further injury and has been lauded to such an extent that he seems to be above all reproach.
He simply isn't good enough any more.
Cricket needs a new Messiah.
Posted by: Kay Jones | 2 Jul 2009 08:12:33
Easy to shoot at this fellow Patrick from behind the safety of your typewriter. When did you last see active servive btw? I'd like to see what this chao does on the pitch. His Captains always seem to go to him first. He puts his body on the line without question. Whether he can still do it I would like to see and if he can't like so many heroes of the war he will be forgotten except by a few who appreciated that he gave everything he had! Train your sights on another easy target Patrick.
Posted by: Gvrilo Prinzip | 2 Jul 2009 08:57:47
Flintoff is an economical bowler these days. He is not a threatening bowler who will take key wickets at vital phases of the game. The apparent desperation to have him in the team reeks of defeat. Drop him. He clearly thinks the team needs him more than they really do.
As for Flanders, lets put it this way. If your boss told you to be at a meeting at a certain time and you strolled in late, you'd expect to be chewed out for it and you'd deserve it. So why do we think sportsmen should be indulged when they behave like this? Completely unprofessional behaviour from Freddie. I mean, how hard is it for him to get out of his pit in the morning?
Posted by: Hugh | 2 Jul 2009 08:59:40
When he's performing, he's a man you really want in your team. Unfortunately, right now, he isn't performing. Neither with bat nor ball. I accept he's been injured, so he's unlikely to be fully in the swing of things yet. So why should he waltz straight back into a team that's performing very well without him? My understanding of the Andy Flower regime, is that players are to be picked on form, rather than what they have done in the past. But this is a media-hype driven selection. "He's someone who, if fit, must play" scream the back pages. Except he's not is he. He was. Once. But not any more. Excellent bowler on his day. But very average batsman at the best of times now. So are we better off without him? On his day, definitely not. Right now? Absolutely.
Posted by: Chris | 2 Jul 2009 09:04:43
Nick, you are missing the whole point here. Flintoff is far from being a talented free spirit! He is now a thoroughly mediocre cricketer, long ago lost any talent he once had, and is nothing more than a waster, a loser and a drunkard...boy does he love those free spirits. The sooner, and the farther, he goes the better!
Posted by: jeddah99 | 2 Jul 2009 09:07:53
Jim, bear in mind that Botham truly was a great player. Flintoff the alkie has never been good enough to lick Botham's boots!
Posted by: jeddah99 | 2 Jul 2009 09:10:49
He's a drunk. My dad was a drunk. That's it - he's a drunk; that's all you need to know. Respect for war dead, respect for his captain, respect for his team mates - don't make me laugh. Drunks respect being drunk - everything else is just blather to them.
Posted by: Bill | 2 Jul 2009 09:35:54
My own opinion is that these problems stem from the top. English cricket's hierarchy has been woeful during the last few years with changes in policy, personnel and accountability(?). The ECB care about no more than money, the team management care about no more than covering their own asses. The players get mixed signals from above and are too often held accountable for behaviour that simply would not occur with stronger guidance from above. If those in power cared only about cricket these problems would not arise.
That said, I have no problem with a player being disciplined or dropped for letting the squad down. That should be the end of it though - personal attacks are not necessary and rather we should remember the times that this particular player has continued to bowl with 100% effort while all around had retreated to the outfield. His loyalty, commitment and effort on the pitch have never been in question.
Finally, how nice to see a Times writer return to his article to view the thoughts of the readers and courteously reply to some of them. Thank you, sir!
Posted by: Mike | 2 Jul 2009 09:43:05
Im not sure about the "disrespecting the war dead" thing but...
I do agree that that he is immature sportsman who cannot handle the position of responsibility he has been blessed with. These sort of players can ruin teams. EG Brian O'Driscall (until some much needed recent maturity surfaced) had such an apathetic approach to leading Ireland, Andrew Johns was the same in Newcastler / Australia, and Ricky Ponting, in my opinion, is no better, nor is his protege Michael Clarke, which is why we (im an aussie) are in trouble this summer and beyond.
Posted by: Dom | 2 Jul 2009 18:44:48
I understand the thinking behind your article Patrick, but really in the grand scheme of things, he missed the bus because he slept in, having done that before on a company trip I can sympathise with him, and I am now a company director so just because you miss the bus doesn't necessarily mean you have not got the ability.
I was just reading Mike Gattings article, the problem with the press in the UK is simply that it is always guided towards trying to find something wrong with the players/team and won't be completely happy even if we are winning, and your article is a perfect description of this.
Fact is, Fred is one of the most gifted cricketers in the world, that is why the IPL paid so much for him, and for England to consider going out against the aussies without him, will just generate more negative press in the UK, and you can be sure that the aussies would get a confidence boost as they are fully aware of what he can do. In fact in my experience they will happily praise any player due to his ability, the contrast between attitudes to sport in the UK and Australia once again being clear.
Like I said, I can understand why you wrote the article on a personal level, but for the good of English cricket? I do not believe so.
Posted by: Will Bennett | 3 Jul 2009 01:38:45
"A team bonding session to the Sommme???" What's next Auschwitz?
Why don't we send the lads to Iraq or Afghanistan to see some of the dead there and do some bonding?
For the sheer lunacy and poor taste of this trip alone i hope England get smashed this summer.
Posted by: David | 3 Jul 2009 01:50:23
He’s not a role model. He’s a cricketer.
Posted by: Dave | 3 Jul 2009 09:02:30
OK, let's drop an almost fully fit Flintoff and just you watch the public outcry. Flintoff in the side gives England a 12th man: the crowd. To quote David Lloyd, "He clears the bars".
We should accept Fred for his little flaws instead of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. The sporting world would be a lot less rich if the likes of Botham, Gascoigne and Best and the like had been given the boot at the height of their powers because of their indiscretions. It's part of the man. Get over it.
Posted by: Richard | 3 Jul 2009 09:06:13
"Steve," i wasn't talking about them was i? I might be mistaken but this article is mostly about how international sport players present themselves at critical times. Please try and stay focused.
Posted by: Robin | 3 Jul 2009 11:37:44
I agree with Patrick in that nothing Flintoff has done since 2005 has warranted the hero worship bestowed upon him. My instinct is that his general behaviour is poor as a senior professional but my mind goes back to Botham, who got up to at least as many schenanigans as Flintoff, and who I think was pretty harshly treated by officialdom. Perhaps it is more that he is living like the star he no longer is rather than a useful number 8 bat and economical hit the deck bowler - ie very dispensable.
BTW check out the interesting debate at Cricinfo on whether or not the trip was in bad taste - http://blogs.cricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2009/06/of_cemeteries_and_cricket.php
Posted by: David | 4 Jul 2009 20:12:06