Flintoff returns for Lanashire against Surrey:16-19 April.

[Notts Exile]

Every other side in the top six or seven in Test cricket has a number six batsman scoring runs. Look at DeVilliers for South Africa. England needs Freddie batting well, or maybe we just bat him at eight and bowl him into the ground?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The fact is Ern that all of England's current top 6 average over 40

Strauss - 41.14
Cook - 43.46
Vaughan - 42.47
Pietersen - 49.74
Bell - 43.15
Collingwood - 42.54

True FF in a way - look at the recent form of Vaughan or for that matter Cook or Bell, not very consistent - are they?.

FF: Flintoff has bowled 19 overs thus far against Surrey, and has taken 1 wicket while only going at 2 runs an over. This has been needed for a while in the England side.

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.

BTW - NOT counting Flintoff's horrible start to his career, I think since 2004 he will be averaging about 40, his form only left him after India in 2006 due to lack of match practice because of continuous injury.

A number 6 should be a competent batsman, but will never make "100's - and plenty of them" as is your wish.
Flintoff fits in anyway IMO - but some of the bating with inflated averages of over 40 should make room for batsmen like Ramp's (in the short term) Bell and Shah.
Agaiin my point is Flintoff will score like a #6, when the top order batsmen don't collapse, and bring him to the wicket to face fresh opening bowlers.

Also Pietersen might has well have been an opening batsman, he also gets to the wicket to early IMO.
PS: Butcher made 214 in 216 deliveries - proper cricket like Ramp's I would say.

[flanflinger]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

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.

That's what it all comes down to, isn't it- Gilchrist! Gilchrist was unique, and it's pointless to me trying to copy that kind of success for England. Yes, there have been quite a few no. 6 batsmen who scored hundreds, NE mentioned De Villiers for South Africa. But he didn't mention Kallis. Kallis, the allrounder, who's a good back-up pace bowler who can bat at no. 4 or even 3. If Kallis wasn't in the team, I doubt that they'd have the luxury of playing a specialist batsman in that posiiton. And look at Symonds for Australia- he sin't really more successful than other no. 6's we've had in the past 10 years. But he can bowl.

Which is really what England need. They don't have a world-class specialist like Laxman or De Villiers or Doug Walters to come in at 6, as such anyone they put in will simply be dead weight. What they really need to strengthen is their bowling, and someone like Flintoff who can contribute at 6 and bowl well is far more valuable IMO than a specialist batsman like Shah or Bopara or anyone else who'll just fail when everyone else does.

[greg]

Flintoffs career is on borrowed time anyway as Adil Rashid will be our number 6 for quite a few years to come.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

That's what it all comes down to, isn't it- Gilchrist! Gilchrist was unique, and it's pointless to me trying to copy that kind of success for England. Yes, there have been quite a few no. 6 batsmen who scored hundreds, NE mentioned De Villiers for South Africa. But he didn't mention Kallis. Kallis, the allrounder, who's a good back-up pace bowler who can bat at no. 4 or even 3. If Kallis wasn't in the team, I doubt that they'd have the luxury of playing a specialist batsman in that posiiton. And look at Symonds for Australia- he sin't really more successful than other no. 6's we've had in the past 10 years. But he can bowl.

Which is really what England need. They don't have a world-class specialist like Laxman or De Villiers or Doug Walters to come in at 6, as such anyone they put in will simply be dead weight. What they really need to strengthen is their bowling, and someone like Flintoff who can contribute at 6 and bowl well is far more valuable IMO than a specialist batsman like Shah or Bopara or anyone else who'll just fail when everyone else does.

When Australia had a good enough bowling line up to play four bowlers, Martyn batted at 6. Before this, Ponting batted at 6 (or Bevan, Blewett) It was only when they lost to England (partly due to their bowlers conceding 400 in first innings) that they decided they needed an all-rounder.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Someone like Flintoff who can contribute at 6 and bowl well is far more valuable IMO than a specialist batsman like Shah or Bopara or anyone else who'll just fail when everyone else does.

The problem is that Flintoff's form with the bat has been so patchy, I wonder if contribute is the right word, and as far as the injury goes, I would like to see how he copes in County Cricket first.

Please read what I am saying -

1. I am saying that at 30 Flintoff still has a long career ahead of him
2. He is the best all rounder we have
3. I would like him back in the team
4. But I feel he needs to spend a few months in County Cricket - probably for the NZ series - to prove that he deserves his place in the team

As for Rashid, I am still to be convinced that he is the better spin option, let alone all-rounder.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The problem is that Flintoff's form with the bat has been so patchy, I wonder if contribute is the right word, and as far as the injury goes, I would like to see how he copes in County Cricket first.

In my mind, Flintoff's career has to start again. He should come in to the team if he is bowling 20 overs a day (28 overs in Surrey's innings is a good start, but will he still be doing this in one month?) and bat at 7. When/if he produces innings like he did against South Africa in 2003 we should then consider putting him up to 6 so that he can produce innings like he did in 2004/5.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The problem is that Flintoff's form with the bat has been so patchy, I wonder if contribute is the right word, and as far as the injury goes, I would like to see how he copes in County Cricket first.

Please read what I am saying -

4. But I feel he needs to spend a few months in County Cricket - probably for the NZ series - to prove that he deserves his place in the team.

That's all fair enough, especially point 4, but all I'm saying is that scoring 100s regularly shouldn't necessarily be a condition of his return.

Originally Posted by Milo

When Australia had a good enough bowling line up to play four bowlers, Martyn batted at 6. Before this, Ponting batted at 6 (or Bevan, Blewett) It was only when they lost to England (partly due to their bowlers conceding 400 in first innings) that they decided they needed an all-rounder.

Right- but you're not seriosuly comparing Australia's bowling strength back then to England's now, are you? England need an allrounder who can take wickets far more than an extra batsman IMO.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

That's all fair enough, especially point 4, but all I'm saying is that scoring 100s regularly shouldn't necessarily be a condition of his return.

If he wants to bat in the top 6, then he should be scoring hundreds in county cricket. Prior to his latest injury his last few innings were generally awful. He was a walking wicket, trying to crash almost every ball out of the ground. All I would like to see is for him to go back to what made him so good, going back to building an innings and then take an attack apart. If he can do that he will score hundreds and will deserve his place back.

I concur with Milo that in many ways Flintoff has to rebuild his career, the only way to do that is runs on the board and wickets under his belt in county cricket, so that we know he is ready for Tests again.