By Gaurang - 15 Aug '02
August 15 2002

One is blonde, blue-eyed, tall, muscular and fits his nickname of Freddie (as in Fred Flintstone the Caveman) and is being talked of as a naturally gifted cricketer who draws people to the game with his flair. The other wiry, medium height, with piercing green eyes, and slightly geeky looks (he could easily have earned the nickname ducky without the unfortunate series of ducks he suffered) has been chastised, by yours truly included, as unfit for Test cricket.

Numbers don't lie do they?

OK, so one series (actually a half series so far) does not a Kapil Dev make, you say?

Let's look at their careers

---

Agarkar: 13 matches - 31 wickets - 48 strike rate in 80s and batting average of 16 and climbing (despite 7 very unfortunate ducks.)

Flintoff: 20 matches - 32 wickets - 47 strike rate in the 90s and batting average of 20 and climbing (If you look at his numbers before the India and New Zealand tour the the batting average was much lower and the bowling average much higher.)

Numbers don't lie do they?

ODI figures

---

Factor in ODIs and they even out too.

Agarkar: 150 odd wickets in 100 ODIs at 28 and batting average of 17.

Flintoff: 30 odd wickets in 46 ODIS at 29 and batting average of 24.

Overhyped?

---

Flintoff's been opening the bowling in the last two tests with Hoggard.

The English commentators I've heard have been gushing all over him, saying he is not even recongnizable as the bowler who bowled before his stint at the Aussie academy. If 72 runs per wicket is a big improvement, I shudder to think how bad he was to begin with.

And whenever Flintoff comes to bat they expect fireworks and they have been saying that he is bowling with a lot of fire and zip. But he is not in fact bowling with much more fire or zip than Agarkar, who is quite a zippy customer himself.

Whose wickets have they taken?

---

Agarkar took Hussain's wicket twice at Lords, and Flintoff's. And those of Vaughan and Harmison at Trentbridge. Of these, only Harmison is a tail ender. He also should have had Stewart at Trentbridge, but for umpire Tiffin's referral which caused Sehwag's catch in the slips to be negated by the third umpire.

Flintoff got Nehra and Ganguly at Lords, and Laxman and Jaffer at Trent Bridge. But Jaffer was NOT OUT, so in reality he should only have picked 3 wickets. Nehra is a tailender so Flintoff's percentage of tail end wickets of 1/4 (should be 1/3) is higher than Agarkar's 1/5 (1/6).

My point is that at the end of the day, results count and Agarkar is right up there - or right down there - with Flintoff, take your pick.

There is not a huge difference in the performance of the two.

What's the diff?

---

So why is one being hailed as the reincarnation of Dennis Lillee's bowling mixed with Barry Richards' batting, while the other is seen more like Mohinder Amarnath's bowling and Chandrasekhar's batting (OK not anymore, but still considered highly dubious with the bat)?

Could it be because of an art neither practice: Spin. No, not the kind you impart on a cricket ball, but rather the kind imparted on cricket fans by the so called "experts" and media soothsayers!

Only time will tell who will be the bigger force for their country, but from the objective evidence so far, Agarkar is ahead!