What do you do with a Freddie Flintoff?

[Richard]

Ah, I see. Well TBH I don't count demotions which occur due to nightwatchmen, unless the unlikely event of the nightwatchman lasting ages and ages has occurred. Only where a player is slated to come in.

Another reason I think nightwatchmen is a bad idea, that, actually.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Yeah, got mixed up, just looked it up now, it was his 73

I know nightwatchmen don't really count, but it still was technically at 7, and batting that position lower down gave him a little more freedom to bat the way he did. That was a fantastic innings, if not his best for England.

 

[adharcric]

Play with it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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!)

That's a bit harsh. What if he gets a good ball and then is run out without facing a ball, or two good balls, or something of the sort. Not a situation for a blanket statement. Let's just see how he goes. If he looks as feeble and loose as he has so often, then drop him and get Key in there quick-sharp.

 

[UncleTheOne]

i dunno but it sounds like some sort of prime time, saturday night show hosted by graham norton with andrew lloyd webber and that barrowman geezer judging something or other.

 

[Frobishero]

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.

Absolutely agree, Hoggard's taken the wickets of the Hampshire top 6 for 57 in his first CC innings, so hopefully he'll have caught their attention.
I think the selectors should pick the number three on form, either Strauss or Key depending who's playing better.
Maybe give Ravi Bopara another go batting at six and push the rest up a notch (KP, Bell, Colly 3,4,5) given he's hit two back to back centuries and taken six wickets in one and a half CC games so far. Also hit 99 in his first OD game, if he keeps this form up he's got to be making a good case for another chance. I'm more in favour of blooding youth than going back to ol' Ramps, he would just be a quick fix, he can't have much longer left in him now.

 

[Richard]

There is absolutely no way on Earth Bopara should play the First Test, nor should he play any Tests until Owais Shah has failed in at least 4 or 5 of them.

The attention on Bopara to the exclusion of Shah is nothing short of ridiculous.

 

[DaRick]

Well, in response to the original post, I would have:

- Cook
- Strauss
- Vaughan
- Pietersen
- Bell
- Collingwood/Shah (if Collingwood flounders)
- Ambrose
- Flintoff
- Sidebottom/Broad (depends on Hoggard's appearance)
- Hoggard/Sidebottom
- Panesar

James Anderson ought to be the nominal 12th or 13th man, for mine.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

AN Cook
AJ Strauss/RWT Key
MP Vaughan
KP Pietersen
IR Bell
PD Collingwood
TR Ambrose
SCJ Broad
MJ Hoggard
RJ Sidebottom
MS Panesar

I really really really hope that Flintoff does not return for the first Test of the summer. No reason to rush him, and particularly not as a bowling allrounder. If he can't play as a bowling allrounder, he shouldn't play at all.

Owais Shah should be putting pressure on Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell in the middle order. Bell needs to step up.

 

[Goughy]

Im not saying this is what England should do, but it is what I think would work best. There are however politics, egos and culture involved that may make it tough.

I think 7 is a key position. Often they have to take the 2nd new ball, often they have the last recognised partnership between 2 batsmen and often they need to have the skill to manouever the bowling to protect the tail.

I think in modern cricket its a job requiring a greater range and depth of skills than a #6. As such Id bat Flintoff at 6 and have Collingwood at 7 (he would hate it but it would be a massive boost to have a player like him batting in that place and taking command of the lower order). And Ambrose (or the keeper du jour) at 8.

A formidable line-up that would also allow Flintoff the freedom to play his natural game as the loss of his wicket wouldnt open up the tail and risk a collapse.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Collingwood
Ambrose
Sidebottom
Hoggard
MSP

1 or 2 places would be dependent on form and Id still be keeping an eye out for how everyones favourite high maintainance, technical mess is performing.

EDIT- All this is completely reliant on Flintoff being capable of carrying the workload of a frontline bowler. If he cant then he should not play. You cant carry players in Test cricket.

 

[Richard]

Im not saying this is what England should do, but it is what I think would work best. There are however politics, egos and culture involved that may make it tough.

I think 7 is a key position. Often they have to take the 2nd new ball, often they have the last recognised partnership between 2 batsmen and often they need to have the skill to manouever the bowling to protect the tail.

I think in modern cricket its a job requiring a greater range and depth of skills than a #6. As such Id bat Flintoff at 6 and have Collingwood at 7 (he would hate it but it would be a massive boost to have a player like him batting in that place and taking command of the lower order). And Ambrose (or the keeper du jour) at 8.

A formidable line-up that would also allow Flintoff the freedom to play his natural game as the loss of his wicket wouldnt open up the tail and risk a collapse.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Collingwood
Ambrose
Sidebottom
Hoggard
MSP

An interesting way of looking at the matter certainly. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I just can't see an inferior batsman ever being pushed up to play ahead of a superior one (never mind two superior ones).

1 or 2 places would be dependent on form and Id still be keeping an eye out for how everyones favourite high maintainance, technical mess is performing.

Not 100% sure who you're referring to here, actually - my guess is Strauss or Flintoff, but may easily be wrong.

EDIT- All this is completely reliant on Flintoff being capable of carrying the workload of a frontline bowler. If he cant then he should not play. You cant carry players in Test cricket.

Absolutely, what I (and several others, notably Camps in the post above yours) have said several times. Flintoff as batsman and bit-part bowler adds less value to the side than a fully-participating front-line bowler or another front-line batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd go as far to say that dropping a batsman for Flintoff would actually weaken the team overall.

He obviously justifies his place in the team as a bowler, but I think Flintoff at 6 or 7 with Broad at 8 would actually lead to a worse team overall than the exact same team with Collingwood/Bell/Strauss replacing Flintoff.

 

[PY]

Not 100% sure who you're referring to here, actually - my guess is Strauss or Flintoff, but may easily be wrong.

That's got to be Harmison surely?

 

[grecian]

I have a feeling I know who Goughys talking about, but I won't presume.

Anywhoo, I just wouldn't pick him against New Zealand at Lords, particularly in a three-man seam attack. Not worth the risk. I may consider him for the obliquely aforementioned, but it would be risky if the ball spins.

Flintoff reckons he's a batsman first, and he just needs time at the crease. I feel he may be wrong in this, but why not give him his head in county cricket and let him get some innings under his belt. Who knows he may be proven right and start recreating that batting form he showed for a couple of years or so. If not we'll (including himself) know that he's just the best bowler we've got, who can bat a bit.

I'm afraid if he's just one of three seamers the tendency will be to overbowl him into injury again. Because no doubt he'll look by far the best bowling option when we need a wicket, when we need to control the flow of runs, and let's face it every other damn time.

 

[Jamee999]

Cook
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah
Ambrose+
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Cook
Vaughan

Less Vaughan opening the batting, thanks. This is one of the few things I agree with Richard on.

 

[Jamee999]

If I'm playing Cook, Vaughan + 4 middle order bats (Bell, KP, Colly, OAS) I'm going to open with Vaughan.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If I'm playing Cook, Vaughan + 4 middle order bats (Bell, KP, Colly, OAS) I'm going to open with Vaughan.

Is it really worth it though? In 5 of his last 12 innings opening the batting (over the past 2 years) Vaughan has failed to make double figures. Three half-centuries in that time, but when you're failing roughly half of the time, it's just not good enough.

Vaughan is a liability opening the batting. Given how poor he has been in that role of late, I don't subscribe to the argument that he's the best option of those players you've named to open with Cook. This particularly considering how much better Vaughan has looked outside of the top 2.

 

[Goughy]

My mistake. It was meant to be obviously Harmison. My mistake in not being clear enough.

 

[Richard]

If I'm playing Cook, Vaughan + 4 middle order bats (Bell, KP, Colly, OAS) I'm going to open with Vaughan.

If you're playing Shah, Vaughan has to go, simple as.

If you want Vaughan in the team, Shah cannot play.

But if Shah is deemed essential, Vaughan has to drop from the side with Key or Strauss opening. Even the latter I'm more confident of doing a good job than Vaughan.

However, personally I'm also more confident of Vaughan's abilities in the middle-order than Shah's. And I also hate the idea of Bell batting three, FTR.