Flintoff as skipper

[flanflinger]

Big question....

If Flintoff is fit to bat (which he will be by the time of the Champions ( ) trophy) but not fit to bowl, will he still bat at 6 for the Ashes?

With the success this season of the likes of Bell, Collingwood and Cook (in addition to Pietersen) is he actually good enough to be a specialist bat and replace one of the relatively successful top 6?

Secondly, who will he replace?

For me the radical step would be to get Cook to open with Strauss, then have Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood and Flintoff. This would mean dropping Trescothick, which with his mental state, might be the for the best...

[greg]

Flintoff in my opinion is not one of the top 6 batsmen in England at the current time so he shouldn't play solely as a bat if he is unfit to bowl but having been made captain he surely will.

[Collyisamackem]

I've never believed in the idea of Flintoff as a specialist batsman. However, it does seem that if he is to be captain then seemingly he will play as a specialist bat and we will go with four bowlers. It may have been easier to decide if Strauss had been captain, as the side which beat Pakistan in the test series could play instead. However, that is not the state of play and I think Flintoff will play even if he can't bowl.

[Mongoose]

I think Colly has judged the likely situation correctly. And I am in agreement that on batting alone, Flintoff should not get in the team at present. Bell is in the form of his life, Collingwood has played a number of good knocks under pressure, and Cook has made test cricket seem easy. KP is a shoe-in, with his runs far outweighing the odd catastrophe here and there. I suppose dropping Trescothick is the only other option. He has been so consistent for 5 years that it would be a shame, but since his ton against Sri Lanka, he has become woeful with the bat. He needs to be 100% mentally for the Ashes. You can bet the Aussies will vocally question his mental state within 5 seconds of him walking to the crease.

[Occasional Fan]

That's true - but if anyone is going to answer them with the bat rather than just with a response to their sledging, it will be Marcus Trescothick. That's not necessarily to argue for his selection: I am very uneasy about having people pick and choose the matches they want to play at this level, and if Tresco's central contract were terminated I don't think he could justifiably ask why. But it is to discount the likely effect of Aussie sledging against a man of Tresco's experience. If he's selected, he won't give a damn about the sledging: he'll just get on with the job in hand to the best of his ability. The big question is whether the ability is still there and still good enough, and signing off the ICCCT, albeit a competition I have no time for at all, is not exactly giving him a chance to prove his case.

[Ernest]

I don't think Flintoff will play if he can't bowl - I don't think he would want to play if he could not bowl.

Is he as badly injured as is thought - I think not.

I am of the opinion that yes he was injured, but the England selectors decided (at last) to rest him, same with Hoggard.

As far as he will be captain I think that is correct because in India he managed a win in a Test match that not many other England captains have, and being captain did not mean a fall back in his form, on the contrary his form (batting) actually improved.

As a batsman I think his optimum position is at 6, but he was Englands leading batsman against the West Indies, and I am not sure but his batting was of a specialist rating in the 2005 Ashes.

While his batting in the traditional sense means he is not a specialists batsman, his form in some series - says otherwise.

[John]

I would of gone for Strauss. He seemed to do well in the summer and unlike Andrew he doesn't have to both bat and bowl.
I think Flintoff's going to have increasing fitness problems with his bowling. He has played a lot of cricket over the years. So how long he is going to be leading England depends on his fitness. He might become like Aktar in and out of the side due to fitness concerns. We shall see.

[dezz]

what i want to know is why we seem to be taking at least two definately injured players who havnt played in a year (giles and anderson)? surely its just simply limited the squad to about 12 players? whats the point? take broad coz he has character and thats what we need to take those aussie ****s down. also take joyce and maybe dalrymple.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Ernest

As a batsman I think his optimum position is at 6, but he was Englands leading batsman against the West Indies, and I am not sure but his batting was of a specialist rating in the 2005 Ashes.

Actually Ern, he averaged 40.20 in the Ashes in 2005, so I think he would have qualified for a specialist rating in that series. One hundred and three fifties, and he averaged more than Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Clarke, Gilchrist, Ponting - in fact all of the Aussies except Langer! His average was the third highest of English batsmen, behind Pietersen (52.55) and (oh, look what we have here!) Tres (43.10).

So I think it was!

[Ernest]

Yes so he really has earned the right to be called a batsman, he is certainly no less than #6.