That's not, IMO, a good example. Henman was a fine, fine tennis player. He never won a grand slam and he did, on occassions, lose matches he shouldn't have. But all in all he was a solid player, capable of beating anyone. The problem, in Henman's case, was that people only care about tennis for two weeks a year. Then, when he loses against a fine player, he's a loser and a failure. No, he wasn't. He was ridiculously overhyped - he had talent similar to Chela - but, being British, we cuilt him up just to knock him down. For further examples, see every England all-rounder from Botham to Flintoff being hailed as the next Botham, then spending the next few years being ridiculed.

There's just one major problem with the breakdown of stats you've listed there - you've only shown his statistics for the home series in each year, you've completely left out all the away statistics.

If you break down his statistics by series you see this for his entire career:

I'm sorry, but the past two years just isn't good enough for a batsman in the top 6, yes, there was a period when he was batting well enough consistently for that, but he isn't any more.

Despite them both having better batting records than Flintoff? And that's not just better batting records overall, that's over the last two years.

No, how well or badly other batsmen are averaging doesn't show whether Flintoff deserves to bat at #6 - that's determined by how well he bats, and a player who only manages to average over 30 in two series over a period of two years doesn't deserve to bat at #6.

I'm sorry but if his only method when batting with the tail is to slog, then that's quite a bad reflection on him as a batsman!

__________________
umeiV luphqhsesqe, all’ h luph umwn eiV caran genhsetai.

I've NEVER rated Flintoff as a genuine No 6 bat.. on the grounds that playing him there with just a 'keeper and 4 bowlers to follow puts too much pressure on the players above him: we saw this in the WI when Vaughan and Tresco opened and were followed by Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe: the fear of "4-down, all down" was palpable.... and I'm quite sure it inhibited a VERY experienced middle order... and the same was quite clearly the case in this recent Ashes series.

With that said... I've absolutely no problem with Flintoff playing at 6 ahead of Collingwood at 7: it would constitute an unconventional move... but I do agree with Ernest that Flintoff responded well to the responsibility of batting up the order... and I reckon Collingwood could be sensational at marshalling the tail.

The crucial thing is that Flintoff plays alongside six genuine top order bats: batting orders should be secondary to determinging the balance of the side.. and the balance of the England side should be as it was against Pakistan last summer... but with Flintoff (when fit) replacing a bowler not a batsman.

Roll on a summer Test line up as follows:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Joyce
Bell
Flintoff
Collingwood
Read
Hoggard
Harmison / S. Jones / Anderson
Panesar

That's assuming some sort of return to form on the part of Strauss and Collingwood... but we've no reason to doubt either player.

Are you really going to leave Pieterson out if fit??

Why would you not doubt Collingwood, his games been shown to be too limited against the highest quality bowling.

__________________
Mark.

I knew I'd forgotten someone....

Pietersen is clearly in, and in the short run that means Joyce is the man out... though I would prefer, in the long run, to see Joyce ahead of Collingwood (who could be the first reserve for ay missing batsman for years to come). That would, however, end my case for Flintoff at 6 - there's no way a player as gifted as Joyce should play below the big Lancastrian.

Longer term: Strauss, Cook, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, Joyce, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison / Simon Jones /Anderson and Panesar.

Alison IMO you made a better case for Flintoff batting at #6 that I did, you still fail to answer my question - who in the present England squad is good enough to displace Flintoff at 6, counting Ashes 2005 and 2007 it is not Bell Strauss or Collingwood - so who shoves him out?.

You said "in the last to years", well just add a month or so on.

Flintoff had an average of 54.00 against New Zealand in 2004 (we are just in 2007).

Flintoff had an average of 64.50 against the West Indies in 2004.

Flintoff had an average of 40.20 against Australia at home in 2005.

Flintoff had an average of 52.80 against INDIA in INDIA in 2006 (winning a Test)

Flintoff unlike Bell comes up with he goods when it matters - like in India and Australia.

Flintoff had an average of just 28.22 in this shocking series against Australia 2005, and was 4th in the averages, so who under him could claim to move him down the order.

He averaged 20s in the Super Test - in Pakistan, not good but to put this in perspective look at Vaughan record over the same period.
He failed very badly against Sri Lanka, but lets not forget he was playing with an injured ankle, and also he topped the England batting more than once in the period mentioned.
Flintoff has had a mixed career, but since 2003 he has done OK for a #6, winning or saving matches for England with partnerships with Jones - Thorpe and even Strauss, he normally delivers when it matters.
I don't agree - in Bells case he can't deliver against Australia, Collinwood's average would have been average only for his one of huge score - in Collinwoods case I think there is hope.
You are being very selective with your two years - OK lets push Flintoff down to 7 on that criteria, so what happens to Vaughan? - is he averaging 30 in the last 2 years, Englands #3.
Also Alison it's fair IMO to say this - players like Collingwood - Flintoff - Read/Jones deserve some protection from fresh bowlers - I am saying all their averages would have been better if Strauss - Bell and Cook had given the side a start, more than once, how may opening stands if any was over 50. and how many overs did Strauss and Cook take up, this matters when measuring performances of middle order players.
Well what's he supposed to do with such a long tail?, he either hit out, or would have been not out for not many.

In 2004 against the West Indies in the one day matches, without Flintoff he was injured to a point he could not run, so he was not selected to play.

So poor did the England team do against he Windies, to make things less embarrassing for England, even though injured and could not run - he was brought back into the England side with a runner - as a BATSMAN only.

He is in a poor trot I don't deny that, but not that poor anyone in the present team could keep Flintoff out, or would cause is demotion to #7, where he played his worst cricket.
A fine tennis player yes, but a great player no - he has looked at times like he could have gone on to win venues like Wimbledon, but has always seemed to lose his nerve when it mattered, and against much less ranked players at times.

__________________
Ern

Actually since all three of them have better batting records than Flintoff, any of them could, although you're really missing the point since all of them are already in the team and the whole point of moving Flintoff down to #7 would be to fit an extra batsman in the team. And the more points you bring up about how poor our batting is, the more you reinforce the need for us to do exactly that!

Why is picking two years being selective? Because it misses out the period you want to include? I picked on two years as the appropriate period before I looked at the stats. And choosing to look at the past two years as being indicative of current batting is nowhere near as selective as the stats you posted which ignored every away series!

Bat sensibly and keep the strike is the obvious answer to that!

There have been plenty of batsmen who've been able to bat well with the tail without either hitting out or being out for not many, if Flintoff isn't capable of the methods they use then that's down to his limitations.

__________________
umeiV luphqhsesqe, all’ h luph umwn eiV caran genhsetai.

England's batting was weak in the run up, and during the Ashes - so if no alternative batsman was available then, who could England bring into the team to demote Flintoff to #7.
More important is that the England seam bowling attack when fit is the best in the world (still)

Harmison
Flintoff
Hoggard
Simon Jones
Giles/Panesar.
This is the Ashes winning seam bowling line up of 2005, and in the run up to that Ashes series.
So even you would keep Flintoff in the side and keep him at #7, now you have a problem here by 2009 all these bowlers could be fit, so from the remaining 4 bowlers who would you drop from the side (in England), and which batsman would you replace him with?.
I would with respect look at the above bowling attack and think who could I afford to drop, to accommodate an extra batsman.
Would an extra batsman made any difference in Ashes 2006 Alison - I really do doubt it, because you need batsmen the calibre of Thorpe or Butcher to make risking an extra batsman work - and England at this present time IMO has no such batsman.
Yes because in some periods his stats have been distorted by injuries. But even in your two year spell - in one or two of those years (apart from a one innings knock) he was top of the England batting averages, in the series that really counted.
I don't agree, and Fletcher and Vaughan did not agree, no player can guarantee to farm the strike, lot's of players have found this put, a bouncer can stop a single or make the shot risky.
England don't have tail enders like Warne and Lee, they have Hoggard Harmison and Panesar, none of these can bat for any length at all.

__________________
Ern

Now the discussion takes an interesting turn: a scenario in which Harmison returns to bowling like an English Ambrose, Simon Jones manages to return as the English Mohammed Asif, Hoggard continues as the World top 5 bowler he is at present and both Panesar and Flintoff are fit and available for selection.

I'd concede immediately that Flintoff plays as a 5th bowler or not at all... which is not sniping at Flintoff's bowling (or to deny that he's often been England's premier bowler since the 2005 Ashes): I'd simply reason that with the other three seamers bowling to potential... Panesar would offer more as a 4th bowler (if you were merely picking 4).

The bold XI would be Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell and Joyce ahead of Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Simon Jones and Panesar with Flintoff rested.

With that said.. I think we should immediately concede that Flintoff has long been Mr Reliable with the ball... and that even if Harmison, Hoggard, Jones and Flintoff were ALL in / around the world's top 10... you'd generally have no problem justifying Flintoff ahead of one of the other three: my solution would be a rotation system based on form and taking account of pitches and conditions.

Sadly, back in the real world.. I doubt Flintoff will ever again be fit enough to play for England as a specialist bowler.. or good enough to play for England as a specialist batsman: I forsee him playing on... but as a bits-and-pieces compromise who bowls well (but not for more than 10-15 overs / day) and bats sporadically, just well enough to average 30-35, meaning he imbalances the side when playing as a 5th bowler.

Back into dreamland... if Adil Rashid could just step up as the No 7 to bat after Flintoff at 6... everyone could rest easy

Sorry Anderson is not available for Tests - he will be playing for Lancs - we want to win the CC this year.
When Hoggard retires then he will be available to open the bowling.