What do you do with a Freddie Flintoff?

[GIMH]

I believe that Andrew Flintoff will play for England in the first Test match of this summer. It sounds like he is bowling well, if not yet at full pelt.

Assuming he does play, where do you think he should bat? It seems pretty wideheld now that he should bat at 7, even Duncan Fletcher got in on the act last week. Some, though, wouldn't even bat him that high. Certainly, I'd rather see Anderson dropped than a batsman..
So, I think the main options are:

Drop a batsman and bat him at 6

I don't think this would be a good choice. Whatever you think of his ability, his batting has showed no signs yet of getting up back up to top six Test standard (if you think it was ever there).

Drop a batsman and bat him at 7 (Ambrose at 6)

This is the option for those who agree with the above, want him in the side as a bowler but don't trust him to be in a four-man attack. Ambrose hasn't really shown that he's top-six material, though.

Drop a bowler and bat him at 7 (Ambrose at 8)
Drop a bowler and bat him at 8 (Ambrose at 7)

Essentially the same theory but where Flintoff bats depends on whether you rate him above Ambrose. It would be a nice strong tail, and an attack of Flintoff-Sidebottom-Broad-Panesar is much to be positive about IMO. Potentially you could drop Panesar for a seamer if the May tests see green tops, but otherwise I'm happy with this. I'd stick Flintoff at 7, Ambrose at 8, with broad at 9 that would make for the strongest tail I have seen us bat with in a long time. I know people have concerns about him being in a 4-man attack, but if he's not fit enoguh to bowl a full quota then he shouldn't play, simple as really.

Please vote to reflect your opinion

 

[chaminda_00]

Would play Rikki Clarke

 

[Barney Rubble]

Bat him at 7. Takes the pressure off him with the bat, but still allows him to play the all-rounder role. Also allows Ambrose a bit more free reign, and we look strong with Broad at 9.

 

[Richard]

I've always said I don't think Flintoff should play in the opening Test, much as the current signs are the most promising since... well... his last comeback.

If and when he should return to the side, which I do, obviously, hope will happen, it simply has to be in place of a bowler. If you think he won't be up for bowling his share of a four-man attack - you simply cannot pick him. It weakens the batting more to have a passenger at six (or seven) than it strengthens the bowling to have him available to bowl 10-15 overs a day.

If he is once more fit to bowl a full share of overs, then I'd have him in the side in place of either Broad or Hoggard - assuming that the opening Test lines-up with Sidebottom, Hoggard, Broad, MSP. But I reiterate: I am far from sure that Anderson won't be selected in the opening Test.

Flintoff at eight adds real ballast to the lower-order, just as having Craig White (who was, is and always will be a superior batsman to Flintoff) there did in 2000. He is not, however, a Test number-six and never has been IMO, and I don't really rate him as a number-seven either. Certainly I don't feel Ambrose needs the stigma that "promotion" in the batting-order provides this early in his career.

So hopefully there might at some point be a time when we get:
Seven: Ambrose
Eight: Flintoff
Nine: Broad \ Hoggard
Ten: Sidebottom
Eleven: MSP \ Hoggard (depending on surface)

 

[aussie]

Drop a bowler & bat him 7 & Ambrose @ 8. Againts consistently good bowling he would not make a good test match #6. Even though vs IND in 06 he really did play well in that role Freddie totally reverted from his natural insticts given the situation of the side, and thats not the kind of Flintoff England wants with the bat, England need the big hitting free-scoring Freddie.

In a full-strenght side of:

Cook
Strauss/Vaughan/Key - depending on the form of Strauss & how much Key as improved.
Vaughan/Bell - depending on form of Strauss, thus Vaughan opens again Bell bat @ 3.
Pietersen
Bell/Shah/Ramprakash - if openers fail he goes up to #3 & Shah/Ramps comes in
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

 

[wpdavid]

There's not a lot to debate, really. He's so not a test number six that it isn't funny, so it simply comes down to whether he bats at 7 or 8. I'd play him ahead of Ambrose, but it wouldn't bother me if he batted at 8. The real question is who else bowls, and that's far from easy.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Drop Monty 'I only get wickets against numpty-esque shots or on bunsens' Panesar. Shoot any groundsmen that don't create wickets that suit our new bowling attack. We'll still have 4 bowlers plus Colly to bowl a few when needed. I want a team with the potential to beat the best, not one that's efficient at bullying mediocre rubbish but would definitely get brushed aside against good teams - as what happens if you make players like Panesar a fixture in the side.

 

[silentstriker]

Flintoff is ideal at 7. The top six should be pure batsmen, and if two of them can combine to send down 10-12 overs a day, that's just great..

Gilchrist came in at seven and he was a much better batsman than Flintoff, and it worked exceptionally well.

I'd have:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose (you could flip Flintoff and Ambrose too)
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom


You could put Panesar in there for one of the pace bowlers if the wicket is going to turn a lot.

 

[ozone]

IMO, he still hasnt really shown any form with the bat since before all his injuries and so shouldn't even be considered at 6 and as we still havent got a proven wicketkeeper to bat at 6, you have to drop a bowler. I'd bat him at 8 because he has no form and I think that to have Ambrose batting that low would be a waste; if we were going to play a wicketkeeper at 8, we might as well pick the best glovesman in the country and not worry about their batting too much.

 

[aussie]

Flintoff is ideal at 7. The top six should be pure batsmen, and if two of them can combine to send down 10-12 overs a day, that's just great..

Gilchrist came in at seven and he was a much better batsman than Flintoff, and it worked exceptionally well.

I'd have:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose (you could flip Flintoff and Ambrose too)
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom


You could put Panesar in there for one of the pace bowlers if the wicket is going to turn a lot.

No way should Hoggard not be in an England XI, his axing in NZ was absolute ignorance.
While Strauss even though made that career saving innings againts & Bond-less NZ attack will have his work cut out when SA get there especially given he has blokes like Key & Ramprakash banging down the down ATM.

 

[aussie]

IMO, he still hasnt really shown any form with the bat since before all his injuries and so shouldn't even be considered at 6 and as we still havent got a proven wicketkeeper to bat at 6, you have to drop a bowler. I'd bat him at 8 because he has no form and I think that to have Ambrose batting that low would be a waste; if we were going to play a wicketkeeper at 8, we might as well pick the best glovesman in the country and not worry about their batting too much.

And who reallys is the best glovesman in Englnad ATM?. Don't tell me Chris Read

 

[ozone]

And who reallys is the best glovesman in Englnad ATM?. Don't tell me Chris Read

Yes, but as I said, I would bat Ambrose at 7, so wouldn't pick Read.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No way should Hoggard not be in an England XI, his axing in NZ was absolute ignorance.
While Strauss even though made that career saving innings againts & Bond-less NZ attack will have his work cut out when SA get there especially given he has blokes like Key & Ramprakash banging down the down ATM.

I'm amazed that I was able to understand this post.

 

[steds]

Earl-aye in the morning.

If you think he won't be up for bowling his share of a four-man attack - you simply cannot pick him.

He cannot be picked, then. You can't trust someone with his track record in a four-man attack. To do so is not so much tempting fate as walking straight up to it, dropping your kecks and ordering it to take its best shot.

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff is ideal at 7. The top six should be pure batsmen, and if two of them can combine to send down 10-12 overs a day, that's just great..

Gilchrist came in at seven and he was a much better batsman than Flintoff, and it worked exceptionally well.

I'd have:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose (you could flip Flintoff and Ambrose too)
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom


You could put Panesar in there for one of the pace bowlers if the wicket is going to turn a lot.

Agree on the most part, but Strauss opens with Vaughan at 3, and if you're going to play 4 seamers then I'd pick Hoggard over Anderson. Oh, and Anderson has to bat 11, I'donly bat him that high because I can't bat him any lower. Sidebottom is not too shabby (compared to some of our recent tailenders that is)

Something else that struck me earlier was that Flintoff's best innings for England actually came batting at 7, V the crims in 05.

 

[Richard]

He cannot be picked, then. You can't trust someone with his track record in a four-man attack. To do so is not so much tempting fate as walking straight up to it, dropping your kecks and ordering it to take its best shot.

My point precisely. I've said for the last couple of months that there's no way I'd pick him for the opening Test of the summer.

 

[Richard]

I'd have:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose (you could flip Flintoff and Ambrose too)
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom


You could put Panesar in there for one of the pace bowlers if the wicket is going to turn a lot.

Agree on the most part, but Strauss opens with Vaughan at 3, and if you're going to play 4 seamers then I'd pick Hoggard over Anderson. Oh, and Anderson has to bat 11, I'donly bat him that high because I can't bat him any lower. Sidebottom is not too shabby (compared to some of our recent tailenders that is)

Beaten to each of these points, would have said the lot of 'em. Vaughan going back to three seems, mercifully, certain; Hoggard-vs-Anderson we'll have to wait and see.

Something else that struck me earlier was that Flintoff's best innings for England actually came batting at 7, V the crims in 05.

Flintoff batted six in that series TBH.

 

[Richard]

Shoot any groundsmen that don't create wickets that suit our new bowling attack.

Preparing pitches is not so simple as "what do you want? At 5 minutes' notice". Sometimes it is not possible to get a green seaming wicket.

 

[Shoggz]

To answer your question, GismH, in simple terms, it would be great to have Flintoff at 7 or 8 as part of a 4 man attack.

01.Cook
02.Strauss
03.Vaughan
04.KPP
05. Bell
06.Collingwood
07.Ambrose
08.Flintoff
09.MSP/Broad
10.Sidebottom
11.Hoggard (5-fer today, yee-ha )

Strauss has one test to prove his 170+ wasn't a fluke. (An innings like the one against Surrey the other day would be fine!)

 

[wpdavid]

Beaten to each of these points, would have said the lot of 'em. Vaughan going back to three seems, mercifully, certain; Hoggard-vs-Anderson we'll have to wait and see.

Flintoff batted six in that series TBH.

I'm guessing that GIMH was referring to the 2nd innings at Edgbaston when Hoggard had come in as nightwatchman.