Well Flintoff as a 5th bowler is really not on, he was at his best if you remember when he came on 1st or second change after Hoggard - Jones/Harmison, he got less wickets but his bowling was better by a mile.

Panesar is so far from proven I believe it's just clutching at straws having him in the side - he may look like Bedi, but that's where the simillarity ends, a fit Giles brings better balance to the England side than Panesar, with respect to Alison she forgets that.
Also even Australia bowl Warne last if there is something in the pitch for the seamers, england can't afford to play only four to bolster a poor batting attack by weakening the bowling, because that would happen.
I disagree it would be bold - it could not be bold - because you are right IMO - in fact I don't think Flintoff should be playing in Australia.

He would have been better rested, he would have been better served after his operation to have eased back with Lancashre, he would have had no problem getting his place back as a recovered world #1 all-rounder.
On your first point if he was to retire from PJ cricket he could concerve what he has for Test cricket, he still has considerable pace - and in England can swing, and reverse swing the ball.
As a batsman look over the last 3 years - who can keep out a man that has topped the England BATTING averages more than once-was instimental in England winning the 2005 Ashses, and came before Strauss and Cook in this years Disaster of an Ashes series, and came just behind Bell.
I think it has to be faced Rachael England need a 5 man bowling attack to cover for the lack of batting in English cricket - forget who was captain it was the batters who got England thrashed in Australia, and also the rot set in with the collape at Multan in Pakistan - very bit as spectacular as the collapse in Adelaide.
Rachael vaughan will probably be back as captain, and over the last 3 or 4 years, he has a worse record than all the batting, yet a place will be made for him.
Yes but England have had so many false dawns - lets wait and see, Schofield and Salisbury were supposed to be the future of Enlglish spin bowling .

__________________
Ern

Maybe that's true. However, Giles is as likely to be truly fit again as Derek Underwood is to play in the World Cup. We should forget Giles for good.

And whilst we're at it probably forget Tresco and Vaughan. Tresco's demons may never leave him and Vaughan's physical condition doesn't look good (there's always somethig wrong).

Build for the future.

He's played about ten Test matches. What, excactly, do you want? And he doesn't look like Bedi.

I don't want anything from him - I would rather he made his debut in a series other than Australia, he is one for the future, rather than for now.
Players have been ruined playing in series like this, Schofield for one - to much was ecpected from him, to soon.

He has the same aura which reminds one of Bedi, I did not say he was his look alike.

__________________
Ern

You'll choke again anyway even if you had him.

Erm, Schofield played his two Tests v Zim at home. Not exactly a pressure-cooker. You're quite right to say that too much was expected of him but they are not comparable. Monty, despite his youth, has been around for a while. He had a very good season for Northants, and deserved his selection. He has been great ever since, and should (I hope) play for England for a decade. Schofield, IMO, was elevated because the selectors ears pricked up every time they heard 'leg-spinner.' It was a shame, but he was never an international cricketer.

I have to admit we are quite good chokers. A change of captain would help.

If you're referring to Flintoff - when did he last top the England batting averages? Because I've just been going through the averages for recent series and so far I haven't found a single series where he topped the batting averages.

Even if you ignore the possibility that the strategy of picking a 5 man bowling attack is partly causing the weaknesses in our batting, it really doesn't make sense to say we need extra bowling to cover for lack of batting. If the batting is the problem then that's what we need to reinforce, particularly since the 5th bowler is regularly underused.

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

Around 8 series ago, back to 2004 against West Indies, if you take out Bell's lone score of 70.

To my mind he topped the series that Pete was was on about, I did not really take Bell's lone 70 as topping the averages.
If he has not topped another, then he has been higher that specialists batsmen more than once, and that's what matters when deciding if he bats at 6 or not, you seem to be assuming he will never regain his form.

I agree with the ailment - but not with the cure.
First to reinforce the batting England need some new players, they have carried players like Vaughan for to long, also England must have a look at Bell long term, either just play him in series against subcontinental teams, or get rid altogether.
I don't agree that a 5th bowler has been underused, you are looking at the early Ashes 2006 when according to 'Fletcher', Panesar was bowled less than a lot of people thought he should be to protect him from a drubbing, rightly or wrongly, but when Giles was 5th bowler he got his share of overs so long as it was not just a seamers wicket.
Alsion if you are saying that England can keep the batsmen that failed so bad in Australia, and drop Flintoff down to 7, and add one more batsman will cure Englands ill's, than IMO you are mistaken.

__________________
Ern