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

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

If he wants to bat in the top 6, then he should be scoring hundreds in county cricket.

I rememeber during the New Zealand series sugggesting that Flintoff return at 7 while Ambrose goes up to 6. I think this would be quite a good move, as I think Ambrose- and probably Mustard- are good enough to bat this high. And it would take a lot of pressure off Flintoff if he returns, as he'll be able to bat with more freedom in the Gilchrist/McCullum role.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

I rememeber during the New Zealand series sugggesting that Flintoff return at 7 while Ambrose goes up to 6.

That just seems to be a shuffling of the pack, as opposed to a solution, the problem is the inconsistency of England's batting.

We have to have six batsmen, because although they have good averages, all to often they do not fire as a unit. The result is that you need a proper batter at six, Flintoff around the time of the Ashes in 05, was good enough to play that role, but since 2005 his batting has become so hit and miss, he is as liable to become part of the collapse.

Ambrose is good enough to play there, but only if the top 5 can do the job.

The problem is with inconsistency being the problem, do you really want to make the problem worse by adding someone who is clearly not on top of his batting?

This is what I am saying, let Fred get some form in County Cricket, find his feet, and then get him back on merit rather than on reputation. We made that mistake with Jones and Giles and possibly also Harmison. It is time to make a few guys work for their place, and that includes Flintoff IMO.

[Aurelius]

Fine. I agree about inconsistency being the English batting's big problem, but adding another specialist isn't going to solve anything either. Pietersen and Collingwood are clear starters, I guess Cook and Vaughan are still the best openers and either Bell or Strauss at 3. But if Flintoff isn't ready, then they most certainly need to play some other allrounder at either 6 or 7, because you can't win if you don't take 20 wickets, and 4-man attacks don't seem to cut it.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

because you can't win if you don't take 20 wickets, and 4-man attacks don't seem to cut it.

Interesting comment coming from an Australian, which up until recently had a 4 man attack, which was the best in the world. Also England have just won a series in NZ with a four man attack.

The fact is that four bowlers should be enough, but five is a serious bonus. I agree 20 wickets is the key to winning series after series, but you can only do that with batsmen who are making decent first innings totals.

When Flintoff was at his best, he was good enough to bat in the top 6, and open the bowling. The problem is with injury and lack of form (with the bat) will you get that? I don't think so at present.

In an ideal world I would want Flintoff in the team at No 6 and bowling, but he cannot just walk back into the team, and I would like to see him prove himself in County Cricket.

Go back to what I am trying to say - I want Flintoff in the team... but not when he is unable to perform to the standard required, and I am not convinced that he will be at that standard for the first Test at Lords against the Kiwis.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Interesting comment coming from an Australian, which up until recently had a 4 man attack, which was the best in the world. Also England have just won a series in NZ with a four man attack.

As I said earlier: you're not really comparing England's bowling attack to Australia's back then, are you? Of course there are going to be some teams- like Australia or Lloyd's West Indians- who can do the job with four- but that doesn't apply to every team. And yes, England won against New Zealand with four. But for England, that's not generally the type of thing you can count on, is it? None of the English bowlers average even four wickets a game- which means that four of them seriously need to punch above their weight in order to take 20.

Go back to what I am trying to say - I want Flintoff in the team... but not when he is unable to perform to the standard required, and I am not convinced that he will be at that standard for the first Test at Lords against the Kiwis.

Okay, give Flintoff some more time in County Cricket. In the meantime, put in Rashid, or anyone else who can bat at 6 or 7, and be a good back-up bowler. Even a bowling allrounder like Swann would be all right. Or, if Harmison or Anderson show some serious early County form, play them along with Hoggard (assuming he shows good form himself), Sidebottom and Panesar, and play Broad at 7. Yes, the batting needs to be more consistent- but is there anyone in the England setup who can bat at 6 as a specialist and do a rescue job? If not, Ambrose to me would seem to be the best man for that particular job.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Okay, give Flintoff some more time in County Cricket. In the meantime, put in Rashid, or anyone else who can bat at 6 or 7, and be a good back-up bowler.

The problem is that Rashid is not ready, and I can't think of anyone else who could bat at 6 or 7 and do a half decent job with the ball. Broad has the talent, but it is not quite there yet.

back to Flintoff and the Lancashire/Surrey game. Flintoff needing to bat for a long time to help Lancashire avoid the follow-on proceeds to score 23 off 23 balls and gets out, exactly the type of innings he needs to get out of the habit of playing.

Cricinfo - Surrey v Lancashire at The Oval, Apr 16-19, 2008

This is why Flintoff frustrates me at the moment, he is just not building an innings, which he is more than capable of doing, and until he goes back to basics and starts making decent scores for Lancashire, I would not remove anyone from the current top 6 to accommodate him.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

As I said earlier: you're not really comparing England's bowling attack to Australia's back then, are you? Of course there are going to be some teams- like Australia or Lloyd's West Indians- who can do the job with four- but that doesn't apply to every team.

If England had Sidebottom and Hoggard opening the bowling and Flintoff and Panesar at first change, with Collingwood as a reserve / occasional bowler, the side would have more than enough bowling - partly because Sidebottom and Hoggard are real workshorses, but mostly because all four bowlers are (as a rule) extremely dependable.

England's long-standing concern with having five bowlers has, on the whole, been due to two things: {i} lack of confidence in the frontline spinner; and {ii} bowlers going AWOL (as happened repeatedly to Hussain once Gough, Caddick and White started missing games with injury problems).

If England were to pick bowlers like Anderson, Mahmood and Harmison to bowl alongside Panesar then you are absolutely right: the captain would need someone like Flintoff as an additional bowler.... simply because at least one of the 3 specialist seamers is likely to be hit out of the attack on any given day.

That's not true of the likes of Sidebottom, Hoggard, Broad and co... so the case for Flintoff at 6 evaporates.

[greg]

I think if you were going to try a player like Rashid at 6 the upcoming series against New Zealand would be as good a time as any but i can't see him being chosen yet.We are far more likely to throw Flintoff back in and when he breaks down for the winter then Rashid will get picked.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The problem is that Rashid is not ready, and I can't think of anyone else who could bat at 6 or 7 and do a half decent job with the ball. Broad has the talent, but it is not quite there yet.

England need a fifth bowler. It doesn't matter if that fifth bowler is Flintoff, or Rashid- hell, they could bring Bob Willis back from retirement for all I care. But they need a fifth bowler. Now, if Paul Collingwood were to become the fifth bowler, then that would be fine by me. But the problem is that he's always been underbowled, so instead of bowling the 20-25 overs per match that he's capable of, he only seems to be bowling 12 or 15- that's 6 overs an innings. In fact, you mentioned England's victory in New Zealand, and my recollection is that they only won the two matches where he did take up a significant share of the bowling. So if he were to take up that role again- which I doubt- then problem solved.

However, what is the point of having a batsman at no. 6 over Ambrose (who'll do a better job) just because he's a specialist? It just strikes me as being a very defensive move, to weaken your bowling like that in order to shore up your batting- and it seems very few teams win when they're playing defensively.

So, that's another solution. Drop Collingwood down to 6- because I think he's the only specialist batsman capable of doing that job well- with maybe Strauss at 4 and Pietersen 5. But in that case, Collingwood would defintely have to have a more significant share of the bowling.

[Rachael]

You want your best bowlers in the attack as much as possible. Look back the 2005 Ashes, when England DID have a 5 man attack.... and look at the overs bowled by Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff: no one was in a hurry to take the ball off them to share it around.

If you've an attack of (a fully fit) Sidebottom, Hoggard, Flintoff, Anderson and Panesar... do you really think Anderson or Mahmood would get to bowl enough to warrant a place? He might get thrown the ball for the odd over here and there... but Hoggard and Sidebottom would be good for at least 50 overs a day between them (3-4 spells each, starting with 8-9 overs with the new ball), Flintoff would add 20+ (a 7 over spell per session) and Panesar would be given anywhere between 20 (day one) and 40 (day 5).

On typical form (when fit), no sane captain would bother with any major contribution from Anderson / Mahmood: the other bowlers would all offer more with the ball, and none would be overly concerned with the workload.

ps. I'm all in favour of getting Rashid involved in some way, shape or form, but that's not because I see England needing "more" bowling: his case would rest on his batting (first) and the fact that he offered something radically DIFFERENT (albeit not brilliant) with the ball, and because England consistently miss a trick by not having the option of contrasting spinners bowling in tandem on days 4 and 5 of Tests.