Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest  True FF in a way - look at the recent form of Vaughan or for that matter Cook or Bell, not very consistent - are they?. |
No, but they still average more than the required 40.. The problem is consistency. I admit that Flintoff's overall average probably does not reflect how good he is, due to his bad start, but if you read my post, I was referring to his recent form, since the 05 Ashes, and the fact is that he has not scored enough runs, and looked awful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flanflinger The fact is that since the 2005 Ashes he has played 14 Tests, not scored a hundred and averages just over 30. We are struggling to make big scores, and having him at Number 6 could be a liability. |
I would like to see him at his best, but I don't feel throwing him back into the England set up for the first Test against NZ will help him, or the team
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest But he is well eclisped by Ramprakash scoring 118 in 205 deliveries: maybe if Ramp's was reinstated until 2009 - then Flintoff will fit in just right at 6. |
Much as I admire Ramps, he could not cut at Test level, and he is the past. I would much rather have the future potential of Bell or Cook, than a short term fix in Ramps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest A number 6 should be a competent batsman, but will never make "100's - and plenty of them" as is your wish. |
Tell that to Australia who had a Number 7 who averaged 47 and scored 17 of them. That was why they were the best in the world. The no 6 is a front line batsmen, and as such should be scoring Hundreds.