Anonymous
Anonymous asked in SportsCricket · 1 decade ago

What is your opinion on Matthew Fleming? Was he an underrated cricketer?

Matthew Fleming was former Kent captain and all rounder. Played in a England team that won a quadrangular in Sharjah vs West Indies, India and Pakistan. Bowled medium-fast at the death, picked 2or 3 wickets in every game, kept the runs down, never conceeding more than 30-35 runs in his spell.

Scored an extremely important 38* in the final, supporting Graham Thorpe and helping England chase the target successfully.

Captained Kent for several seasons, well-respected player in counties. The last I saw of him was in in a tour match against NZ a few years later (probably 1999), he batted on Day 4, the last session, with the tail, securing a draw for Kent.

Should he have had more opportunities to represent England? I understand he did poorly on a Test series in the Windies, but in a pre-Flintoff era, should he have been the all-rounder in the ODI team? Do you feel he was overlooked and hard done by?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Its interesting to see that Fleming only played 2 ODI's in England, but thats what it was like back in the 90's. No player not even great players (Ramps, Hick) could settle into the team, if you had a bad series, or even a couple of bad performances, you were usually thrown out of the door. Thats why England never won an Ashes series in the 90's and thats why we won only 2 major series through the whole 90's.

    Anyway back to your questiona about Matthew Fleming, first of all i know you like Matthew Fleming, but he was an ODI specialist nothing more nothing less, kind of like a Dimitri Mascheranas or Graeme Swann of this era.

    He wasnt a talented enough bowler to ever play test cricket, and his batting wasnt enough to force his way into the side as a geniune all-rounder.

    Many thought of him as a player who would never play international cricket, he was just a country trundler who was a great asset to his county but not a huge gain for England, but a steady and controlled bowler like Fleming may have been exactly what England needed.

    People have to remember that Fleming wasnt an opening bowler or even a first change bowler, he came on in the middle overs, and he often got cheap wickets, when batsmen were settled and they were going for one big shot too many.

    Of course England had many "Fleming's" around the side, there was Cork, Irani, White, Hollioake and even a young Freddie Flintoff who even at that young age had more potential with the bat.

    I dont believe that if Fleming had played 100 ODI's, that he would be a world-beater, but he would have done a tidy enough job for England. So yes he was hard done by, but so many were in the 90's and maybe if Fleming had been playing it could have blocked the development of a young Freddie Flintoff

    Source(s): Star
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Srinu
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Good question. It gave me a chance to review this outstanding bowler of England.

    Matthew Fleming was a ODI bowler who batted a little. His bowling was of high class. He took a wicket every 31 balls in his 11 ODI matches, conceding 25.5 runs, indicating his cutting edge. He was not selected much for the English team, inspite of his known talent with the ball. He is on par with bowlers like Shaun Pollock, Simon O'Donnell, Ian Bishop, Germaine Lawson, BP Patterson, Ajit Agarkar, Kyle Mills and Wasim Akram in ODI. Only problem was that his talent with the ball was not recognised.

    Afterall, how many bowlers took a wicket every 31 balls or less in ODI amongst bowlers who have played atleast 11 matches ? There are only 28 bowlers out of some 622 bowlers and Matthew Fleming was the 28th best. Similarly, his 1.55 wickets per match stands at 28th best. His 25.53 runs per wicket is the 88th best average out of the same 622 bowlers. His effectiveness in bowling is better than that of Flintoff but then we know that Freddie is a better batsman than Matthew Fleming.

    He played between 1997 and 1998 during which time he was second only to Darren Gough. The bowlers in his time were: Phil Tufnell, Angus Fraser, Peter Martin, Dominic Clark, Alan Mullally, Chris Lewis, Andrew Caddick, Philip De Freitas, Craig White, Mark Ealham, Ashley Giles, RDB Croft, Dean Headley, Adam Hollioake, Ron Irani, Shaun Udal and Ben Hollioake and I feel that Matthew Fleming was more effective than these bowlers. He had one bad series (1998 Texaco trophy - a 3 ODI series with SAF) in which he took one wicket for 92 runs in 2 matches and he was rejected later.

    He did not get to play test matches. Sad but true. He should have represented England more.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • вєи
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    After having a look at his stats, I cannot say whether he is underrated or not. Yes, he was a good all-rounder in county cricket. I think he did well with his bowling in ODI's than his batting.

    And contrary to your understanding, he has not played a test match. There should be more players like this not only in England, in almost every cricket playing nation, who never got enough chances to play for their country, despite good showing in Domestic cricket.

    And I am given to understand, he has a dog named 'Wicket'. Should be extremely passionate about cricket. And another trivia is that his uncle is the legenday 'Ian Fleming' creator of 'James Bond'.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't think so. You have to remember that he was in his early thirties when he first played for England and he was on a team which had Andy Caddick, Angus Fraser and Darren Gough who were much better pace bowlers. Competing with him for the all-rounder spot was Dominic Cork, who didn't look like he was on the verge of retirement.

    He's a good player, but his age went against him. His international statistics might have been good, but he only played 11 games and I doubt that his statistics would have stayed that good if he played more often, seeing that he was pretty old when he made his internetional debut..

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Of course. He was an amazing player it seems. Any player with a record like what you've just mentioned deserved to play for much longer.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    yes i thought i watch him playing for england.. but i dont think that hes under rated cricketer

    Source(s): kashikooler979.brain
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I don't think THat.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.