* The great Freddie Flintoff debate *

So his comeback is underway, and there is a possibility he could be back for the 1st test at Lords in a month and a half.

Interesting debate between Athers & Allott last night. Atherton saying he could only see him coming back as part of a 5 man attack batting at 6. Allott disagreed saying 'well he's fit now isn't he?' and opting for Fred taking Andersons place.

I'm close to Allotts position. For me Fred is either fit to play test cricket or he isn't. He has to be one of 3 main bowlers in the attack, complemented by Collingwoods dobbers and Montys spin.

We can't unbalance our side to leave out a batsman to play him at 6, (his form for the last 2 years hasn't warranted it) just because he 'may' break down. That would apply to anyone who we pick wouldn't it? Anyone of them could break down mid-test.

A 7-11 of

Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
SideBottom
Anderson

looks a lot more healthy too. Thoughts?

I'm leaning towards Fred coming back at seven to start with, but if he starts performing consistently with the bat, dropping a batsman and moving him up the order to six.

Is Ambrose good enough to bat at six? If so, i'd do that. A 6, 7, and 8 of Ambrose, Flintoff, and Broad doesn't weaken the batting that much, imo. It's not like it would be Flintoff followed by Read or Geraint, which was indeed quite fragile. Ambrose looks solid enough, imo.

Said it before, but unless Monty does something special in this innings, the selectors might think it's time to go with Rashid.

Panesar has contributed very little with the ball to his last three series - and that's all he's got. Can't field, can't bat.

They may well figure it's worth a gamble giving the kid Rashid a run as, even if his bowling turns out to be equally as ineffective, at least he's a top-order-quality batsman and fine fielder.

That being that case, Flintoff can slot in comfortably at six as the lower middle order has been strengthened significantly.

Flintoff (FC batting ave. 35)
Ambrose + (@ 35)
Rashid (@ 39)
Broad (@ 21)
Sidebottom
The one seam place up for grabs

And there you have a five-man attack - which eases Flintoff's workload in theory - and which doesn't compromise the length of the batting. Looks pretty sturdy to me and a sensible solution.

I suppose the question is, is Flintoff more important to the overall picture than Panesar?

Henry wrote:Is Ambrose good enough to bat at six?

No. Not yet, anyway.

He's still finding his feet - looks a nervy, proddy starter, but once set looks a decent batsman.

They shouldn't be messing around with his role in the line-up until he's settled in and locked down his place (and, you would hope, got those early nerves out of his system).

Panesar will stay for the New Zealand and South Africa series, at least. I daresay the team is pretty much pencilled in for England:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

Personally, my team looks more like this:

1. Cook
2.
3.
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6.
7. Ambrose
8. Broad
9.
10. Sidebottom
11.

Still spots to play for. Shame England selectors don't think that way.

JKLever wrote:

A 7-11 of

Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
SideBottom
Anderson

looks a lot more healthy too. Thoughts?

Fred is always welcome back - providing he's 100 percent.

I see your 7 - 11 excludes Hoggard ( genius with the ball in English conditions) and Monty.
Any particular reason for that?

I'd personally hold back Broad and Jimmy .. but always have a spinner... (Monty?) and Hoggard.

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
KP
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
SideBottom
Panesar

for me, as they aren't going to drop the top 6.

Merlin wrote:

I see your 7 - 11 excludes Hoggard ( genius with the ball in English conditions) and Monty.
Any particular reason for that?

Yeah, i'd forgot Hoggy. I'd have him ahead of Anderson anyday.

Augustus wrote:Panesar will stay for the New Zealand and South Africa series, at least. I daresay the team is pretty much pencilled in for England:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

I don't disagree that that's likely to be the team. But I'm not certain of it - are they really going to drop Collingwood? He's part of the furniture and as such seemingly 'untouchable'.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cook was the fall guy. Now Strauss is back in the good books, he'll just open again, Flintoff slots in at six, everyone moves up a place.

Cook's game has gotten increasingly ragged since Australia chipped away at some technical deficiencies and his batting these days resembles a player desperately trying to plug all the leaks rather than one who is confident enough in the state of his game to just put his skills on the table and see if the opposition can deal with them.

I don't doubt that he's going to come through the other side, but it might be considered that a spell out of the spotlight tidying up his technique could be the best thing for him in the long run.

Augustus wrote:Personally, my team looks more like this:

1. Cook
2.
3.
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6.
7. Ambrose
8. Broad
9.
10. Sidebottom
11.

Still spots to play for. Shame England selectors don't think that way.

Why is Broad in and Vaughan possibly out?

Why is ............... Vaughan possibly out?

I'm staying out of this......

Cook
Vaughan
---------
KP
Strauss
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

Strauss looks suited to the no.5 position really. Hoggard plays, so does Panesar (hasn't had much to do the last two tests).

doremi wrote:

Why is Broad in and Vaughan possibly out?

Tomorrow's man verses yesterday's man.

Dello wrote:

doremi wrote:

Why is Broad in and Vaughan possibly out?

Tomorrow's man verses yesterday's man.

Bit OTT innit?
Lest you need reminding ... yesterday's man is sexually healing for some.

Yesterday (well, yesterday in Australia) I suggested Bell to open, and the following order:

Bell
Cook
anyone but Vaughan ... Shah, Sales, or Key
Pietersen
Strauss (? captain)
Collingwood
Ambrose (or Read at
Flintoff if fit - otherwise, Plunkett, and stick with him
Swann / Panesar (or Rashid, who I forgot)
Broad
Sidebottom

Hoggard (probably outside the 11 most of the time from now on).


Panesar does seem to be struggling; on spin-unfriendly wickets you'd have Hoggard in and rely on Pietersen for occasional spin, much as Australia did occasionally with Mark Waugh.

Can't Cook or Strauss bowl at all?

Dello wrote:< snip >
I suppose the question is, is Flintoff more important to the overall picture than Panesar?

If the Fredster actually is 100% fit, that must be the daftest question on here for ages JD.

I've time and regard for Monty, but there's no comparison as to who brings more to the team overall.

Hmmm, Panesar looked pretty close to brilliant today. Sorry chappies. But you're right - he should've taken shitloads on unfriendly wickets in NZ, I mean look at Patel and Vettori. And that over he had in the first innings - what was the c*nt thinking? Should've picked up 6 at aleast.

The long hop he got Bell with was magic . . .

doremi wrote:

Augustus wrote:Personally, my team looks more like this:

1. Cook
2.
3.
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6.
7. Ambrose
8. Broad
9.
10. Sidebottom
11.

Still spots to play for. Shame England selectors don't think that way.

Why is Broad in and Vaughan possibly out?

'Cause Broad can bat. And bowl.

tac wrote:The long hop he got Bell with was magic . . .

Yeah, the way he beat his outside edge with 4 or 5 rippers was shit as well.

He morally desrved a couple of wickets, then . . .

tac wrote:He morally desrved a couple of wickets, then . . .

Well, mentioning a piss delivery taking a wicket and not mentioning the cracking deliveries that didn't take a wicket would be pretty uneven and short-sighted. I'm here to help.

Panesar stays for me, all this talk of Rashid really is just ridiculous at the moment.

He had a slump in form, however on the evidence of today he seems to have found what was missing.

He bowled extremely well, on a pitch that offered a little bit, but not a huge amount.

Plus up to our second innings in this test, I think Vettori only had 3 wickets in the whole series!!!!!!!!!!!!

holcs wrote:Panesar stays for me, all this talk of Rashid really is just ridiculous at the moment.

He had a slump in form, however on the evidence of today he seems to have found what was missing.

He bowled extremely well, on a pitch that offered a little bit, but not a huge amount.

Plus up to our second innings in this test, I think Vettori only had 3 wickets in the whole series!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree, and considering the way Vettori is creamed over by some of our commentators you would think Monty should be kissing his feet every morning!