Talk:Andrew Flintoff

Photo

That is a terrible photo of flintoff, anybody have a better one? 124.150.76.215 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's a horrible pic. Please change. 134.159.132.27 (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Tattoo

What's the tattoo 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)

On one arm, he has a 'XI' tattooed and othe other arm, he has the names of his wife and kids (big fan of Angelina Jolie, I suppose!!)

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.

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

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)

Recent vandalism

I've removed a couple of "humorous" references to the Fredilo incident added by 89.101.44.225. Apepper 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Read his Autobiography, I think you'll find it states that he grew up supporting Liverpool Football Club and does to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.200.95 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Does it need semi-protection ? Its been vandalized quite often Wildpixs 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Can someone please fix the 'References' section? It's become messy. The footnotes are impossible to read.

Ok, looks like I've fixed it myself. It looks ok now. Hope no one messes with it again.

World Cup 2007

I've removed a reference about the Fredalo incident during the Would Cup in which Fred was stripped off the vice-captaincy (according to the BBC, Michael Vaughan was responsible for it) but it was never confirmed by anybody. So, considering it as a 'flying' story, I decided to remove it....hope Fred's learnt his lesson.-div123

Third child?

The 'Family' section says that Rachael Flintoff is expecting the couple's third child in April 2008. I haven't been surfing the net for quite a while now but I do not recall reading any auch news at all. Can someone please confirm or deny this story?? Thanks - div123. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.208.146 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Article quality

This article needs rewriting almost from start to finish. It is filled with unverified 'facts' and opinions on his performances that are wholly individual and irrelevant in such an article. Unfortunately, cricket isn't something that Wikipedia does at all well, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.204.65 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, cricket isn't something that Wikipedia does at all well" 28 FAs, 24 FLs and 61 GAs suggests your opinion is misguided. May I also inform you that article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. Frankly if you're prepared to complain on the talk page of an article yet unwilling to actually edit it then I do wonder why you're here. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can chuck all the 'FAs, FLs and GAs' at me that you want but that really means nothing to me. I did actually suggest ways to improve the article by pointing out its flaws, I'd have thought the obvious course of action from then on in is to iron out those flaws. I would edit it, as I used to do on a number of articles, but the increasingly picky and pedantic nature of editing on Wikipedia is not something I'm prepared to put up with again. I just find it astonishing that Wikipedia still has such a poor article about one of the sport's biggest stars. 90.212.204.65 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you made a sweeping generalisation that "cricket isn't something that Wikipedia does at all well" and I was simply giving the facts to oppose that misguided view. Secondly you didn't suggest a way of improving the article you stated "This article needs rewriting almost from start to finish. It is filled with unverified 'facts' and opinions on his performances that are wholly individual and irrelevant in such an article" that sounds more like criticism to me. On your criticism of Wikipedia well that's impossible for me to respond to as I don't know what IP/account you used and what comments you received but in two years of editing here I have never had similar concerns. Any negative comments relating to my edits have always been constructive criticism which is entirely lacking when it comes to your comments on this article. --Jpeeling (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I did make a sweeping generalisation. What I should have said is that in my experience of reading cricket-related articles, especially those relating to players, on Wikipedia it's my opinion that they are not written at all well the majority of the time. The fact is that the article *is* filled with personal opinions that don't or shouldn't belong here. Opinions on the quality of his performances in certain matches or series should be sourced with references to creditable media. For instance - "Flintoff's own play in the 2006-07 series, both bowling and at the crease, was generally deemed disappointing." and "Ultimately, he failed to influence an ailing English side and had a poor tournament." Neither of these are sourced. There is no mention of his first test century and the record-breaking stand it helped forge with Graham Thorpe. No mention of the 38 run over he subjected Alex Tudor to in a county game against Surrey just after the start of his international career. No mention of his controversial recent comments in a GQ interview. It's by no means a personal criticism of you as I don't pay any attention to who writes or edits articles. My point is that this article should be a lot better but that I'm not surprised considering the articles relating to cricket I've read on Wikipedia. Like I say, nothing personal, but I have no intention of editing and having some other editor(s) (not you, necessarily) delete my edits on account of some piddling discrepancy. Of course, all this time I've spent waffling and complaining about it could have been spent editing it, but there you go! 90.212.204.65 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that more constructive response and I apolgise for my earlier tone. I can't deny the examples you've given of opinions and omissions are poor however those sorts of problems are prevalent throughout a lot articles in the cricket section and I imagine the rest of Wikipedia as well. (I rarely edit/read outside the cricket project which may explain my defensive nature towards articles here) If you're looking for articles with major omissions what about the Clive Lloyd article or Curtly Ambrose, Bob Taylor, Zaheer Abbas, Javed Miandad and even the aforementioned Graham Thorpe. For POV issues look at Hedley Verity, Shaun Pollock, Wally Hammond and Sachin Tendulkar. So yes I can understand your concerns about this article especially since you've pointed to specific examples but there are lots of poor articles in cricket and elsewhere I'm sure. However it's always wise to remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer service and it's a Work in progress.

On the other issue if your edits were deleted for a 'piddling discrepancy' then it would have been best to discuss that with the other editor and if this proved unsatisfactory taken it elsewhere. As someone who spends the majority of their time undoing/reverting edits I have no problem discussing my reasoning and neither should anybody else. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Chips and beans

Whats the deal with the chips and beans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.37.187 (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.7.192.146, 18 September 2010

At the young age of sixteen, Andrew moved to Lanchashire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.192.146 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Flintoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928181225/http://worldcup.cricket365.com/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=cricket/07/03/18/manual_155822.html to http://worldcup.cricket365.com/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=cricket/07/03/18/manual_155822.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Flintoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://worldcup.cricket365.com/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=cricket%2F07%2F03%2F18%2Fmanual_155822.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015115241/http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ashes/story/0%2C26376%2C12340_5434371%2C00.html to http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ashes/story/0%2C26376%2C12340_5434371%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718113618/http://worldcupofcricket.com/cricketblog/2011/03/03/andrew-flintoff-comes-out-of-retirement/ to http://worldcupofcricket.com/cricketblog/2011/03/03/andrew-flintoff-comes-out-of-retirement/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828142839/http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-indies-stuart-838692 to http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-indies-stuart-838692

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Flintoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817013517/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?class=2%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?class=2%3Bid%3D1%3Btype%3Dteam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Freddie Flintoff.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Filmography

The TV series with Flintoff in a chippy van, Flintoff: Lord of the Fries, has had several names in the TV guides around the world. There isn't a good reference for series titles and episode lists complete with places and release dates. The episodes in Australia "Freddie Fries Down Under" may have been shown in the UK a month later than in Australia with a shorter title which adds to the confusion. Despite the name changes, they are all pretty much the same format. The changing names remind me of the Blackadder series which had different series titles each year. tygrus (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Andrew Flintoff → Freddie Flintoff – Whilst "Andrew" is Flintoff's full & real name, he goes by the moniker "Freddie" in more areas than he does Andrew. The BBC credit him as Freddie for more than they credit him as "Andrew" - for example the "high quality BBC source"[1] used to revert the last change is about a TV programme called "Freddie Flintoff: Living with Bulimia", not "Andrew Flintoff: Living with Bulimia". Top gear and A league of their own ("Freddie's Team") all credit him as Freddie, as does his own chippy series - "Freddie fries again" and "Freddie down under".

Yes, his name is Andrew, but his common name is Freddie. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose more commonly known as Andrew Flintoff overall. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a situation where the person in question has a moniker used in, generally speaking, tabloid form and his early career in particular. However, in almost all official capacity Flintoff is known by his proper name. This is different to the examples given in WP:COMMONNAME in a few ways. His match stats, player profiles, registration etc are all under Andrew Flintoff. As a writer for The Guardian and other publications he is known as Andrew Flintoff. Almost all his official accounts on social media, his website name etc use his formal name and so on. However Freddie Flintoff has, functionally, become a brand name used interchangeably even by Flintoff himself. However, per above by TRM, books and quality RS largely call him Andrew Flintoff in at least the first instance (with reference to Fred / Freddie subsequently) while basic google whacking his name 352,000 "Freddie Flintoff" to 696,000 "Andrew Flintoff". Meanwhile, the example article given "Andrew Flintoff discusses bulimia battle in BBC One documentary" clearly delineates between its usage. 1. Andrew the man. 2. Freddie the TV show brand name. Koncorde (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As TRM says, his common name in high-quality reliable sources, particularly books, remains Andrew. Obviously the Freddie nickname has been in place for many years now (back at least to the famous 2005 Ashes series), and in some circles e.g. Top Gear and maybe the more "low-brow" sources away from the cricket world, that's how he's known. But unlike, for example, Magic Johnson or Lady Gaga, this isn't a nickname which is now universally used. In high-quality sources they refer to him up-front as "Andrew". For example the pages on Flintoff at CricInfo, the BBC, the Guardian to name a few all call him Andrew. Also, although he fully embraces the Freddie name, he still refers to himself first and foremost as Andrew on his Twitter, his Instagram and his official website. Overall, taking common name and his own preference into account, I don't see a strong reason to make this move. And it certainly shouldn't have been listed as "uncontroversial" earlier today.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above reasons. StickyWicket (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to withdraw this, as per SNOW, as I'm clearly in the minority and there's no point in taking up others' time. In my defence, and as I point out, Amakuru should have been more careful himself in justifying reversion to "Andrew" by using a BBC source that supported the use of "Freddie" in the programme title, showing that it's not as clear cut as it first could seem. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.