Interesting point, but the idea that he should have been resting is nonsense. It's true he's not 100 per cent, but has made some useful contributions with the ball. He's England's tallisman, and the idea that replacing him with a debutant would have solved anything is, frankly, rubbish.

The problem is that cricket is a team sport, and you have to look at the side as a whole. Now, in time, I'd love Flintoff to bat at seven, with six specialist batsmen. I wonder if that will ever happen and, like you, wonder if he will ever regain his old form and preference. For what it's worth, had he been fully fit, I would have preferred England's lower order to have read: Ramprakash, Flintoff, Read, Harmison, Panesar, Hoggard. But that's not been the case, and you have to work with what you've got. Truth is, this England tail is almost as atrocious as the (in)famous Irani, Caddick, Giddins, Mullally, Tufnell debacle. We do not have a number eight, which would be OK (just about) if number seven could score Test hundreds.

Read's batting has been so poor that I wonder if he is even a Test number eight. It has been embarrassing, and one has to imagine that it will start to effect his keeping soon enough. Save a match winning 40+ in the final innings, I fear the decision is made.