How much of a difference Flintoff makes if he was on the other side of the Ashes.

[Quagmire]

This is something i have always wanted to look at, Put Flintoff in different sides and look how much stronger different sides become

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Flintoff
Symonds
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
McGrath

Well the main thing i would notice if Flintoff was Australian he would solve the problem of who would be the third quick and also Gilchrist would be coming in at 8. That is an unbeliveable strong side. If Australia had Flintoff and England didnt they ashes would have been a white wash, thats how much stronger Australia would be with Flintoff. One real strength i have noticed would be the hitting power of Flintoff at 6, Symonds at 7 and Gilchrist at 8.

England (without Flintoff replaced with batsman)

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
GO Jones
Giles
Hoggard
Harmison
Jones

Replaced with a bowler

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Pieterson
GO Jones
Giles
Hoggard
Harmison
Tremlett/ Anderson
S Jones

The main thing i notice is that England really couldnt use there four quicks tactic due to there not being enough batsman, having GO Jones at six would be a horrible sight for any Englash fan. Flintoff is the difference between Englands success and failure. I am suprised how much of a difference Flintoff makes to the English side on paper.
The side with Collingwood is still a good side but it is just missing that little but of agression that Fintoff brings to the side.

[Ernest]

I agree if Australia had Flintoff in their side in 2005, England could have added a batsman or bowler it would have made no difference, Australia would have won.

There was so little between the sides, Flintoff was the deciding factor for England, and probably would have been for Australia also.

[greg]

To be honest if Flintoff was Australian then Symonds wouldn't get anywhere near the side.You could pick MacGill as the 5th bowler if you wanted one.

[Vrock]

I agree greg, Symonds would be used less with his medium pacers and off spin and his batting is too hit and miss to risk. You can say the same for Flintoff with regards to batting but he can be regarded as a genuine fast bowler.

Flintoff gives the England side balance, which is something that will be a problem once Freddie is gone. BUT Australia can play only four bowlers because Warne bowls at one end all day. Whereas England's forte lies in the pace department so extra backing up is required so that decent levels of rotation can occur within a game.

Australia with Flintoff would be a very, very strong side. Certainly having a lot of class all the way down the order.

[Quagmire]

With Flintoff in the side i was thinking that Symonds might not get a game but it would give him confidence having another two big hitters around him with also Hussey who really can hit the ball over the fence as good as anyone.

England have some very good cricketers in there side but with out Flintoff in the side it really looks like a weak side he brings the team together. Its not fair to say that he carries the side, but he gives the side more options. Flintoff at the moment is the closest thing to a genuine allrounder which we havent seen for decades. My point of view on an allrounder is a player that can be in the side as just a batsman or just as a bowler, Flintoff would make it in the side as a bowler if he was hopeless with the bat, but i dont think that he would make it consistently as just a batsman due to there being better batsman than him trying to get in the side.

[Trescothick]

Well if we lose one of our best players then surely to get any real degree of accuracy in this hypothetical argument we should really get one of their best players say Warne, Mcgrath or Ponting and then I feel England are well within possibly winning.

I feel it is unfair and an irrelavent point to take one of our best players without taking one of the Aussies

[Quagmire]

Ok take Warne out and put MaGill in, i still think that it would be one sided because Warne is replacable where Flintoff is not.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Rowan

i still think that it would be one sided because Warne is replacable where Flintoff is not.

I think Warne can be replaced to a higher degree than Flintoff can, but MacGill would never give everything to the Australian side that Warne does. MacGill can take the same level of wickets that Warne does but he often gets carted around and releives any pressure he has put on whereas Warne's accuracy is far superior and many of his wickets come from putting pressure on the batsmen.

The loss of Flintoff would be greater in the sense that replacing Freddie with a bowler would lose the added dynamic of the batsmen. BUT Flintoff is such a good bowler that we may not find a bowler who is as good as him, especially someone who can bowl line and length as consistent as he does. You could replace him as a batsmen but someone like Collingwood doesn't even offer half of what Flintoff is as a bowler.

Warne and Flintoff are both huge loses, but for me Flintoff is a much bigger loss to England.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Rowan

Ok take Warne out and put MaGill in, i still think that it would be one sided because Warne is replacable where Flintoff is not.

This entire discussion revolves around the misconceived notion that England NEED a 5 man attack(possibly because, post Botham, England went a long time without a good 4 man attack, frequently needing to "hide" a couple of bowlers (usually a spinner AND a seamer)).

Anyway... if the Aussie side of the last few years has revealed anything it's that one great spinner and a couple of great seamers is all a side needs: Warne, Lee and McGrath can, between them, render any additional bowling redundant - you simply can't envisage taking the ball off one of the top guys to give it to anyone else.

Even without Flintoff, England would (throughout the Ashes) have had four first rate bowlers: enough.

Collingwood has shown himself to be at least the equal of Flintoff with the bat (and a considerably better player of spin). He's also a very decent occasonal bowler: not awesome... but 5th bowlers don't have to be awesome, they need to be of use for a few overs before lunch and tea and as variation when nothing is happening for anyone else.

Also, you don't lose matches because you've lost a bowler: it's the batsmen's job to make the game safe... so a decent side shouldn't be LOSING Tests even if it can't WIN Tests.