Who will make way for Flintoff?

If England arn't making any runs then surely we need five bowlers to take wickets?? As opposed to having batsmen who dont score runs and not enough bowlers to bowl sides out cheaply. Four bowlers has only worked sporadically, and only when one of the bowlers has performed outstandingly. On the majority of days when no-one is doing this and five man attack is needed no??

Five bowlers is the way forward. Bowlers win matches. The problem is the quality not the quantity of batsmen.

This said, it's good that there's a nice pool of bowlers to choose from - we can start to pick the bowlers for the pitches a bit more, and not pick bowlers who are slightly unfit and risk injury, perhaps rotating them to reduce work load.

in my opinion anderson should be droped
it may seam harsh but i think if sidebottom was fully fit it would be him and anderson taking the wickets, not just anderson

yes anderson should come in if one is out with injury but unless that happen we have a more rounder pace attack without him

jones is something look at but i think is to old at

hoggard, harmson and tremlett are good but are they good enough

in my view the pace options are

broard
fred
sidebottom
jones
anderson

with the 3 being broard, fred and sidebottom, with panersar as spin

jones being a reves swing option was better when we had an unrelible spin option

with panasar i don't think we need 2 reverse swingers consedering fred can do it as well

drop bell and colly, bring in flintoff and bopara/shah

sorted

i dont buy we need another batsmen, we play really well with 5 bowlers

so weve got:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Shah/Bopara
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

I would pick bopara ahead of shah though...sorry mate, hes had no luck at all

With Broad shaping up so well with the bat I don't see the problem with Flintoff at 6. For 18 months, leading up to and including the 2005 Ashes, he was averaging 40+. He is a classy batsman and his early season performances should be easily rectified when he returns.

Dropping Broad seems harsh in light of his important runs in this test. I'd sooner see Collingwood make way for Freddie.

True that leaves us potentially weaker at no.6 (Collingwood's lack of form aside) but we have the extra bowler and still bat down to 8.

..... I would actually drop Bell (Collingwood will inevitably come back and make runs when it really matters). I think with the stronger SA batting line up we will need an extra seam option and I wouldn't be absolutely confident of Fred being part of a 3 man attack - could be too intense a workload.

I would leave the six batsman as they are (although Bell always does better at 3). The problem for England for years is that the number 6 has not scored consistently. Anderson should lose his place as he is not consistent enough if the ball is not swinging.

It simply has to be either Collingwood or Bell, and seeing as neither are performing right now, I don't think it matters. I might say leave in Bell just because I've got a soft spot for him, and if Flintoff can get a few runs for Lancs, then I don't think we need to worry where the runs will come from, especially now Ambrose and Broad both proved they can hit a good knock.

So it becomes Strauss, Cook, Vaughn, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff, Ambrose, Broad, Sidebottom, Anderson, Panesar.

Simple.

I would leave the 6 batsmen, although, if collingwood fails to recover his form id think about Bopara.
I don't think you can leave Broad out, hes deomnstrated today that he's the one that controls his line, he's done a fantastic job today, and his runs down the order prove invaluable (particulalry if Flintoff continues to bat like a toilet)
I would probably go for Anderson to make way as well Im afraid, I like him, but hes very inconsistent, he was amazing yesterday, and then gave new zealand most of their runs this morning as he coudn't hit a barn door!
If the ball is swinging Flintoff is perfectly capable ofmaking use of it. Can't wait for the fred to get back though, the pace he adds to the attck will make our bowling attack one of te best in the world in my opinion.
My team for first south africa test if I had to pick it now:
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Collingwood (last chance)
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar

personally id drop vaughan. yes he may have the experience factor, but id like to see someone else get a chance now. he may well be captain but for how long. has he really recaptured his form of old? is he really the right man for the job or is it time collingwood was made the captain of both one day and test matches. also, collingwood can bowl, vaughan is not a good bowler, he is a last option bowler, much like mark butcher was. in fairness they have provided us with vital wickets over the years, however collingwood is more likely to get you a wicket, and id very much like to see the day when there are say 3 all-rounders in the side, with say 2/3 more who are capable of doing both when required to do so.

It strikes me that there is a quasi-obsession over Andrew Flintoff and English cricket (mostly among those whose only taste of it was in a distant summer three years ago). Bowling hundreds of overs in first class cricket, scoring bucket loads of runs and no concerns over his fitness, is the only way he should be considered again for England. At present the balance of the team is right and the same lesson being dealt to Simon Jones (get fit and five-fors) should be applied to Mr Pedalo. Bell and Colly WILL come good; dropping future England captains is not wise. Thus it’s down to Flintoff (and Jones) to displace Stuart Broad, and on today’s reckoning that could prove no mean feat...

Clichy1 ... are you actually suggesting that we should drop not only the best captain since Brearley but a century maker from 2 weeks ago because Collingwood offers a bowling option? Ridiculous to the point of being obscene.

Flintoff needs to be 100% fit.

Assuming he is I'd play him number 8 (or even 9), not 7. His batting hasn't been good enough for some while.

I'd drop Collingwood. Let him find his form and correct his technique the way Strauss has done.

I know that's 5 bowlers but Broad has proved he can bat a bit.

My line-up:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Ambrose
Broad
Flintoff
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar

That's a strong bowling line-up and potentially a long batting line-up, if you include Flintoff.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Ambrose
Broad
Flintoff
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar

I definitely agree with resting Collingwood during the SA series. Broad has shown today he can bowl with an excellent line and so has no reason to be dropped. Collingwood has been without runs and cannot bowl, so I think the SA series is the time for him to go an have that surgery he's been needed for some time.

If he comes out leading run scorer in the ODIs vs NZ, it will have to be another batsman who goes - probably Bell if he is short on runs again.

In the long term, I'd rather see a five-man attack with a strong tail. We can do that given Ambrose and Broad's good starts with the bat.

Sure, None of Flintoff, Ambrose and Broad are really quite good enough for No. 6. The three of them together, though, should be able to make up for it.

Of course, that begs the question: which batsman to drop? It looks like Bell or Colly, really, and Colly's the one out of form, so tell him to go scratch around on the county circuit till he's got his eye in again.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Ambrose
Flintoff
Broad
Anderson
Panesar
Sidebottom

All this is only on the supposition that Flintoff successfully proves himself with both bat and ball before the South Africa series, but as an optimist I'll back him to do that. It would also be great if we could one day welcome Jones back...

Drop all 11 and put these guys in:

Flintovsky
Paughan
Fintoffle
Shah
Pie-ettersen
Bopsy
Read
Flintstone
Fintaloof
Moggard
Harmlesson

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Ramprakash
Flintoff
Ambrose (Read)
Broad
Jones
Sidebottom
Panesar

But remember that Colly is a great fielder and can bowl reasonably well. His batting will come good and he is a good team leader

I don't think people are suggesting dropping Colly 'for good,' just giving him some time to work on his game and find his feet in a tamer environment (with more frequent games).

I don't believe that Flintoff should be re-introduced to the team. All the bowlers are doing well and he had not showed himself as a batsman.

If Bell or Collingwood are to be dropped, they have to be replaced by a batsman.

I'd like Rob Key in

Good News

The old ashes fast bowlers are comming back to fitness and some form

Simon Jones 5 wks in last worcs match

Harrison 2x4 wkts in last 2 matches,little bit to go.

Freddy - hopefully fit

Hoggard


The current crop have done well in

Broad
Jamie Anderson
Sidebottom

So Bowling selection for South Africa (3-4 berths) might be very competitive. Tremlett and Mahmood on the edge. Does Monty have an in/out roll depending on the pitch/ likihood of spin, or Rashid with leg spin/ batting is another option.

Batting wise Shah (148 today )must be given a space where Collingwood and Bell haven't fired.

Let's see. Broad is scoring more per Test than Collingwood and Bell, so why are you treating him as a pure bowler? Flintoff has yet to prove himself with the bat. If one insists on bringing back FLintoff (still a shakey choice given his lack of playing time and the quality of the opposition) trade like for like; badly batting "all rounder" for another. Dumping broad makes no sense at all

Right now, I would pick a fit Flintoff ahead of Collingwood, and be looking at Bopara instead of Bell at some point. I think that would make a pretty good team, and with Simon Jones looking like he is taking wickets in county cricket as well, I don't know who would step down for Jones. But Tremlett has been bowling well for Hampshire as well. So there are plenty of bowling choices around at the moment. And with Shah as well the batting depth looks not so bad right now.

I would go for

Cook
Strauss
Vaughn
Bell
Pitersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Anderson
Panesar

To be honest I don't think I would bring Flintoff back for the SA series, I'd leave it as it is. We should keep the current bowling attac as they are doing the job.

The only issue would b that, later in the summer, the ball would not swing as much and then Flintoff would be a better option than Anderson. Then bring Flintoff in at 7 with Ambrose dropping to 8.

Flintoff "is a definite pick". Why? There are endless complaints from observers that people who aren't playing to form are not being dropped to bring someone else in and this is a fair comment. But surely the idea of dropping a player in form is as bad. The current bowlers are all bowling well so why change. The New Zealand batting attack may not be the greatest around but the bowlers can only bowl at the opponents they have. At least see how they perform against South Africa and give Flintoff some more recovery time.

Between them Broad and Flintoff offer the runs and bowling that we'd get from Collingwood. We had five bowlers when we won the ashes, I see no reason not to return to that system. It'd be very harsh to drop Broad but to leave Collingwood in the squad. Broad has not only scored more runs than Collingwood this series, but he's a much better bowling option!

Just seen lingos's comment (I was typing my comment as (s)he made his/hers). If Flintoff was brought in for Anderson then I wouldn't have Flintoff at 7. Based on form he'd have to come in at 9. Flintoff is batting fairly poorly against county level opponents while Ambrose and Broad are batting reasonably well against international opponents. And the New Zealand bowling attack is better than any county attack.

Come on england flintoff cant be roy of the rovers all the time.lets see what happens in the next test series without flintoff in the team then we will make him available for selection .come on selection panel dont be salivating at bringing flintoff back just yet ,please give jimmy anderson and stuart broad an extended run at least a years worth.but something needs to be done about colly aod bell if they dont produce during the sa series.

Why the rush to bring back flintoff, he has yet to prove his fitness or his match skills, many of you will be to young to remember,but many years ago england brought back ted dexter after he had virtually retired, it didn't work! if flintoff thinks he is up to it let him prove over a longer period don't break up the bowlers because of someones record over 2 years ago. yes i think collingwood needs a break bopara is the obvious replacment, trouble is if collingwood takes as long as strauss to recover form what happens to the one day team? might i say it is great to see strauss back and in form but please please can he stop flashing outside the off stump completely.

Against South Africa I would pick: Strauss,Cook, Vaughan,Pietersen,Shah, Bopara, Ambrose, Flintoff,Sidebottom,Jones,Panesar. 12th Man Broad

At the moment the batting is average so the last thing the selectors should do is weaken the batting line up.

For me its either Flintoff or Broad
And if Jones come back Jones or Anderson (not sure you could risk flintoff and jones in a 4 man attack)

I think that if you want to play 5 bowlers then you probably need to have Prior back as keeper seeing as he can average 40, Im not convinced with Ambrose as a batsmen yet, I think he may struggle with against a better attack.

So my team to face South africa would be

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff/Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
Monty


If the selectors feel they need a 5 man attack then


Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Anderson/jones
Sidebottom
Monty

ASHES 2009

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP

ASHES 2009

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell / Shah / Bopara (form depending, Bell probably last choice)
Prior (WK)
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson / Jones (again, form / fitness dependent, jones as no. 1 choice)
Panesar

Flintoff Broad and Prior should be strong enough with bat to mean we don't miss the 6th batter too much

When South Africa last toured here, England only managed to get the upper hand when they struck on the formula of accuracy and movement (Kirtley, Kabir and Bicknell). Stuart Clark has also exposed the Proteas' susceptibility to this kind of bowling, so let's use our brains and forget about trying to outblast them with fast bowlers whose form and fitness is questionable. Personally I'd bring either Hoggard or Tremlett (still our best long-term prospect, I think, provided he can get established and stay fit) in before Flintoff. Collingwood is an old-fashioned blood-and-guts scrapper along the lines (though not quite in the same class against pace) as David Steele - frankly he's merited his place in the last two years more than Pietersen. There's still time for him to regain form before the SA series, so don't push the panic button.

Initial point: five bowlers won us the Ashes. This is the one thing worth remembering about the Fletcher era, okay fellas? Just because three bowlers in English conditions have done for NZ, doesn't mean that will work right around the world; and more to the point, it was *five bowlers in English conditions* that won us the Ashes, once upon a wonderful time.

Flintoff (instructions to play like Sehwag or Jayasuriya--but let's not hide the fact that Trescothick is the greatest loss in recent history to English cricket)
Strauss (instructions to play like Boycott)
Ramprakash (instructions to play till he's too old to dance, followed by Key)
Bopara (instructed to play for his place against Bell, Prior, et al)
Pietersen (let him relax again at 5)
Collingwood (a match saving captain)
Read (why not, he's the best; Ambrose acceptable)
Broad (non-negotiable--needs a coach who will teach him how to bowl like Garner)
Sidebottom (non-negotiable, Fletcher's great shame)
Jones (depending on form--otherwise Hoggard or Anderson, in that order)
Panesar (Rashid could ruin this man's career, but perhaps Adil is ultimately Flintoff's replacement? Why not two spinners, if they're among the best five bowlers? And especially on the subcontinent. England would clean up.)

I agree with bantam weight. It comes down to whether selectors should focus on form or class. I personally feel that they should focus on both, meaning that collingwood and bell must be dropped. If they can't perform against a seemingly poorer test nation, why risk more inept performances against the Springboks. Form guide says keep Anderson and Broad, the latter has been outstanding, and if picking one other player on class alone, Flintoff is explosive with bat and ball. As for Bopara, his form says it all, nuff said.
My XI:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bopara
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar

PS. It did Strauss some good to be dropped, and played some good cricket in the county league. Thats what Colly and Bell need for the time being.

anderson may have been amazing in this match but he's far too inconsistant overall to warrant a place in my opinion.

I say bring a fit and firing simon jones back for the winter tours with hoggard replacing anderson for SA series

And on the subject for spinners, monty now has saqlain mushtaq as a contender for number 1 test spinner, not a bad second choice there

Cook needs a rest, so does Colly, get some runs under their belts and they'll come back better than ever

My XI

Strauss
Key
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Bopara
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Panesar

Bell should be dropped from the ODI side so that he can play some test matches in county, as there are better One day players than him.

Colly will have to try and regain his form in the ODI's. As a player he is excellent in the team, great character excellent fielder, when on song great grafter with the bat and ball, and future test captain. If he doesnt get his form back then he should take a rest like Strauss did, and have that shoulder op then return for the Winter test.

As far as Fred is concerned he still has to prove he is fit. He has looked good with the ball this season but not so much with the bat. But is he fit enough to be part of a four man attack. Well apparently the selectors thought so when they were going to pick him before the NZ test. We have a weak batting line up compared to other test sides so to reduce it would be a mistake. Flintoff brings that extra bit of pace that the bowling attack is lacking.

As far as the team goes for the SA test I think the selectors will have a headache.

I would go for

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell/Shah
Colly/Bopara
Ambrose
Fintoff
Broad/Anderson
Sid/Jones
Monty

plenty of options there.

yeah on consideration I would like to see Hoggy back in the side aswell!

i believe collingwood and sidebottom should be dropped. Flintoff should bat at 6 otherwise he may find batting with the tail on many occasions, n he will run out of partners. u probs think droppin sidebottom is mad but i think the younger bowlers need the experince for the ashes, i would replace him with simon jones for south africa. im not even sure bout panesar, i like the spinner adil rashid n he can make some runs aswell, we could bat down to number 10 if we wanted to. I also think which is so gd we have so many fast bowlers that can bat. for instance tremlett, plunkett who has been forgotten about, broad and simon jones who i think is the best swing bowler in the world. My team to play south africa; cook, strauss, vaughan, pietersen, bell, flintoff, prior, broad, rashid, s jones, anderson.

I think the team should be:

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Vaughan
4. KP
5. Bell
6. Freddie
7. Ambrose
8. Broad
9. Sidebottom
10. Anderson
11. Monty.

This argument is redundant as Flintoff has not proved himself as a capable batsman since his return from injury.

Until he shows some form with the bat he can only be considered as a bowling option.

However, if we are not confident that he can carry his weight in a three man pace attack then he should not be selected.

I would rather give him another 9 months to truly regain his fitness and form. Then if he good enough to bat at 6 he can replace a batsman. Alternatively, if he is not good enough to bat at 6 but his bowling is well and his body is strong then he can replace a bowler

Ian Bell has never consistently produced the goods (apart from the odd flash of form) - whereas all of the bowlers are pretty consistent.

So, I would hope that all of the bowlers keep their places and that Flintoff replaces the worst performing batsman.

That assumes that the selectors actually think it a good idea to mess about with a winning team. After all, Flintoff appears to be a bit fragile and has not been a (medically) reliable player of late.

There is a case to be made for leaving well alone.

the startin 11 for south africa should be.

COOK
STRAUSS
VAUGHAN
K.P
BOPARA

the startin 11 for south africa should be.

COOK
STRAUSS
VAUGHAN
K.P
BOPARA
FLINTOFF
MUSTARD/PRIOR
BROAD
SIDEBOTTOM
ANDERSON
PANESAR


bopara because the bloke cant stop scoring 100s as you will see in the ODI's

and mustard is someone who has been treated badly when he is a much better batsmen than ambrose and if not mustard prior because all you need to do is look at his test average hes the best batsmen/keeper we have and we will need an extra batsmen because flintoff isnt as consistent with the bat as he used to be

One of the things the selectors don't seem to do is pick a team on the pitch. For example this third test against new zealand was crying out for a 5th bowler.A Hard bouncing pitch with swing and moisture in the dark cloudy weather etc needed more seamers. Panesar was not needed. Collingwood on form should be dropped because he needs to concentrate on one dayers. His shoulder is obviously still bothering him. Cook is a good player but needs less pressure of the opening slot at his age. Bell works better at 4 or 5 with better batters after him, with Pieterson at 5 or 6 in a position to drive home the platform the others have hopefully built. On the sub continent two spinners might be needed. With the south africa games to come though the squad should be :
Vaughan (3)Strauss (1)Cook (4)Key (2)Bell (5)Pieterson (6)ShahFlintoff (7)BoparaBroad (8)HoggardJonesAnderson (9)Sidebottom (10)RashidPanesar (11)
Jones or Hoggard are the only ones that could creep in that for me unless someone dips in form or the pitch is favouring more spin or seam. 

Forget Flintoff as a batter.He has the batting yips and its hard to see where his next run would come from.
If he gets back it should only be if he has shown that he can perform better as a bowler than the present incumbents (fitness included).
Present form suggests he should bat at 10 before Panesar

It's a tough one.

There's no doubt that a fully fit freddie has to be in the team, and the same can be said for Simon Jones- he was our best bowler during the victory ashes series.
So who makes way?

Jones is an easy one- on a good day Anderson is one of the best bowlers in the world, but on a bad day you might as well be playing with 10 men.

Freddie is a bit more tricky. Even though his performance with the bat can't be relied upon neither can Bell's or Collingwood's. And there should only be room for one of these 2 in the team. Considering he bat's well at number three, I'd have to go with Bell, and move Vaughn down the order.

So how about this:

1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. Bell
4. KP
5. Vaughn
6. Ambrose
7. Broad
8. Freddie
9. Si Jones
10. Sidebottom
11. Monty

Decent batsmen down to 8, a spinner and 4 quicks- not bad. Plus there's a good mix of experience and youth.

Do we NEED five bowlers? No. Four bowlers can do the job, it worked for the best sides in the World for decades - West Indies and Australia.

But Flintoff is one of our best and most consistent bowlers, he needs to be fit to bowl his share before returning. He's not a Test number six and, if those who suggest he can't bowl as part of a four are correct, he can't bowl enough overs because of his injury problems, then maybe he shouldn't return at all.

Botham came back after injury and was accommodated, but he could bat. Even so his last four series (1991-1992) produced a highest score of 31 and just 81 runs at 13.50. His bowling in that time was a lot more gentle and he picked up just seven wickets at 35.00. Who knows if Flintoff will ever be the same bowler again, he may not stay fit long enough. But his last two series with the bat produced 301 runs at 25.08 which is well below the level required to bat at six. In his 20 Test series to date he has only averaged 30+ in seven series (35%) England could get away with his batting at seven, until we have a Stewart type keeper established who can bat at six then Flintoff will simply weaken the batting line up and no matter how many say "wickets win matches" the truth is you need totals to bowl at. 1st Innings leads tend to win matches more than cliches about wickets or "catches win matches", Vaughan as captain has lost only once having had the lead at half time.

What are the alternatives? Flintoff batting at six as part of a five man attack which would weaken the batting line up. Or as part of a four man attack batting seven or eight. Or not returning at all. I favour the latter two, if Panesar can win matches as he has shown capable of, and we can find a third bowler to back up Sidebottom and Anderson/Hoggard, then we shouldn't need a fifth wheel. Collingwood had taken thirteen wickets since the Ashes at less than 30 apiece so he can bowl, if Vaughan ever decides to bowl himself again then we'd have the equivalent of a fifth bowler.

They tend to underuse two of the five anyway, in the first innings Monty didn't even play a part so what would having a fifth option have meant? I always argue the case that if four bowlers can't bowl a side out for a moderate total/in 70-90 overs then the fifth best bowler won't make a massive impact. England want variety, I'd rather have four consistent bowlers than five with variety who you're left guessing which two, three or four of the five will do the job. It also gives the captain the alternative to overlook a bowler, as happened with Malcolm and several other wayward bowlers including Anderson. You end up effectively bowling with four anyway

mrsdoylespinny you are spot on.

Leave the WINNING team well alone until it actually needs to be changed.

I disagree. Flintoff has been one of our best bowlers this century to date. He brings with him pace, bounce, unstinting accuracy and a hint of conventional and reverse swing. Who wouldn't want a bowler of that calibre in their team?

Of course though, common sense needs to be exercised. He needs to prove his match fitness and his form, like everybody else.

For my money, it is not a question of which bowler gets the elbow, but which batsman. Doctors and consultants have said before that Flintoff should only bowl as part of a five man attack. I also believe Anderson should only form part of a 5 man attack because of his inconsistency. As he has proved over the last 4-5 months both in NZ and here at home, he can be irrepresible and devastating, or innocuous and innefective. Forcing him to be part of a 5 man attack allows the captain to use him sparingly when he's off colour, or full throttle when he's on song. Moreover, a 5 man attack is what did the business around 2005 - why tamper with *that* winning formula?

And speaking of the 2005 Ashes winning bowlers, keep an eye out for Simon Jones. He took another five-fer the other day - to compliment his 4 or 5 other five-fers and several 4-fers - and has looked good so far this season. In about 2 months time we could quite well be having this type of discussion again, but this time asking which bowler to ditch in favour of Jones. Now that conundrum really would cause a few headaches.

So then, the question is which batsman is told to go back to county cricket? For me, speaking as a huge Ian Bell advocate, it pains me to say this but I think it is he who needs to go. Bell hardly scores runs when the pressure is on and hasn't scored a hundred in about 25 innings. What's more worrying is he has hasn't looked close to scoring one in convincing fashion either. So I would slot Freddie into number 7 or 8 - either ahead of or behind Broad, I'm as yet undecided - and bump everybody up one. I'm not sure if Ambrose is good enough to be a number 6, but there's no harm in trying him out there at that position if push comes to shove.

Quickly, whilst on the subject of batsmen, I also think Cook needs to go back to county cricket for a while - he still hasn't convinced me of his Test cricket opening abilities, although there's no denying there's oodles of potential.

I, like many of you, have watched cricket over the years. All the speculation over who or who should not be in the team is, in my opinion, unhelpful.
The teams over the years who have done well are the teams who have had a settled line up.
Good players do not become bad players overnight nor average players become good.
Undue (and sometimes undeserved) criticism by our media does affect the form of our side.
I know these people are paid to criticize but it is not their job on the line.
Speculate all you like but while England are winning leave well alone and the men who are paid to pick the team to pick it.
If we do badly against South Africa then will be the time for all of you to pick your fantasy teams again.

We need to find or train up a keeper who can bat above Flintoff - look at the value of Sangakarra to Sri Lanka. That then gives you your 5 bowlers.

I feel that there is nothing wrong with playing five bowlers, especially if the batsmen aren't scoring - the wickets should make up for those runs. You also really cannot drop Stuart Broad after his promising bowling performances and his vital runs: 42 and 64 when England were in a bad way.

Some people are saying get rid of Sidebottom , and keep anderson. I don't agree. Sidebottom is much more consistent, will almost always be economical, so why Sidebottom would be dropped i don't know!
Still not a fan of vaughan, many other candidates for captaincy, not performing well enough either.

Strauss
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Bell
Colly/Bopara
Ambrose
Broad
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Panesar/Rashid

Sounds good methinks!

NZ series form

Strauss ++
Cooke par
Vaughan +
Pieterson +
Bell -
Collingwood -
Ambrose par
Broad +
Sidebottom +
Anderson +
Panesar par

My team for SA

Strauss
Cooke
Vaughan
Pieterson
Shah (for Bell back to Warks)
Collingwood (toss up with Bopara)
Ambrose
Flintoff (or Panesar No11/spin)
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson

Tail down to No9/10

Shah replaces Bell, unless Bell gets centuries for Warks in the next month. Collingwood has caught well and gives a useful bowling

Panesar is world class LA spin bowler,(without batting, fielding), but unless the pitch has bounce spin and high scoring where you need a spinner (Lords/Oval/Old Trafford); Flintoff would be interchangeable with Panesar if the wicket is likely to seam/ and more batting depth is requires (Headingley, Trent Bridge, Edgbaston).

I wouldn't drop any of our batsmen because of SA's strong pace attack, with Steyn and Ntini averaging in the 20's, and Steyn averaging just 21.60, with 120 wickets from 23 matches. We will need a strong batting line up, and with Vaughn, Pietersen and Strauss in form, and Cook not too far off, Broad and Ambrose in the runs recently, we have 6 batsmen who can score runs. However, with Collingwood and Bell not performing, we effectively are batting 6 batsmen.

We will need to keep Broad, as his batting is excellent, and his bowling is maturing. Sidebottom is a very effective swinger of the ball, and basically carried the team in NZ. Anderson has been in the wickets, but I believe that he is far too inconsistent, seeing as he took 6 wickets on Friday and managed only 2 yesterday. I would replace Anderson with Freddie, playing as a bowler, as his performances have been great this year. My line-up would be,

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Broad
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Panesar

If Flintoff doesn't score runs, playing as a pure bowler, we won't have sacrificed any runs by playing him as an all-rounder and removing a batsman from the side.

Flintoff is possibly one of the most overrated batsmen ever and shouldn't bat higher than 7. One good series and he's a superman. I agree he is a great bowler but his batting leaves a lot to be desired recently. Personally if someone had to go then it would be anderson. Ok we can all rave about him now for taking 7 wickets on a wicket that was frankly a bowler's paradise (as can be seen by the county scores at trent bridge this season) but he's got a lot more to prove.

As for the batting I wouldn't change it. Colly and Bell might be out of form but they have been the most solid performers for the last 3 years and will come good again. Get chris read in for ambrose also. I don't know why he keeps getting overlooked- he catches everything that goes behind and we all know catches win matches. His batting isn't outstanding but with a good run in the side i reckon he could average 25-30 and if he bats at 8 then that isn't half bad, with broad and sidebottom below him, the side would bat down to 9 or 10.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar

Four bowlers is only enough if two of them happen to be Warne and McGrath, or Curtly and Courtney.

Against Australia, with their strong batting, five bowlers will be required. So, looking at the current team, where does the fifth (which surely has to be Freddie) fit in?

I would not drop any of the current bowlers - what sort of message does that convey to players who are doing a good job? Sidebottom is the new Hoggard, and Broad looks like the real deal with both bat and ball. The jury is out on Anderson, but he certainly deserves his chance to show that he can perform consistently. If he does not, then Fred steps into his slot.

For the South Africa series I would drop both Bell and Collingwood, replace the first with Bopara and the second with Fred. Move Ambrose to six, Broad seven, Fred eight, and see how it goes. After all, if Fred hits a single, he has outscored Bell and Collingwood put together, and will more than compensate with his wickets.

How on earth can anybody contemplate leaving out Broad. He has scored lots of runs and taken some wickets in this series! If anything Collingwood should be replaced all rounder for all rounder, because Colly hasn't been batting off all cylinders lately - far from it. However, his fielding skills are an attribute to any side. I say wait for the ODI's, see if Collingwood performs in those games and then make a decision, but why fix something that's not broken?

None of England's four bowlers deserve to be dropped, especially as Flintoff still has a long way to go to prove he is worthy of a recall.

Everyone seems to be talking about how expensive Anderson is - in the three-test series just completed, he took 19 wickets for 367 runs, at an average of 19 runs per wicket. Sidebottom also averaged 19 runs per wicket, while Panesar (27) and Broad (44) were both considerably more expensive.

Panesar obviously deserves to keep his place because he we need a spinner and he is the best we've got, although he will want to start scoring a few runs to cement his place.

Broad was by far the most expensive bowler in terms of runs per wicket, but he was England's fourth highest run scorer with the bat, ahead of three specialist batsmen: Cook, Bell, and Collingwood. If anyone is to make way, it has to be one of those three. It's not going to be Cook, who is young and often scores half or full centuries when all around him are faltering, so it's between 'Belly' and 'Colly'. Personally I would drop Collingwood. He scored only 32 runs, and conceded 22 without taking a wicket while bowling, so in three matches he effectively contributed ten runs. As much as I like the guy and value him as a fielder, that just isn't good enough.

Bell has to go. He simply must. None of this tosh about "not changing a winning team". South Africa are the real deal - they are Jeremy Paxman or John Humphries, whilst New Zealand are Roy Walker from "Catchphrase". I would give Bell the push before Colly because at least Colly looks as if he's trying. Out of the current crop of replacements, Bopara seems well-equipped in terms of temperament and technique. Failing that, could Derek Pringle be coaxed out of retirement? Love you all!

The problem is that Collingwood is viewed as undroppable because he is captain of the one day team, so him them from one form of cricket while keeping him as captain in another would seem strange.

Except.... It's not - see Michael Vaughan. In my opinion Collingwood was in no shape at any stage to play in this series, have we learned nothing from the Ashes debacle in australia where we lost Flintoff and Gough without a ball being bowled.

Bopara should have started the season at 6 with colly to come back in once he had scored some runs at Durham. As it is we have had to carry him as a passenger all series.

Bell, despite not scoring much, has looked in decent nick, and has only suffered from some good bowling.

Back to the original point, when Freddy comes back it should be for Broad, or for Collingwood, with Ambrose moving up to 6 until he remembers how to bat.

I would also have Jones or Harmison as 12th man when the South African series starts as we need bowlers who can take wickets on pitches not favourable to them. Hoggard is too similar to Anderson so loses out for now IMO, but given the high level of cricket I doubt this is the last we have seen of him.

I'm afraid Anderson has to go. And unless he finds some form soon, Collingwood has to make way for Bopara, who can act as fifth bowler. Bopara, Flintoff, Ambrose and Broad at 6,7,8 and 9 respectively will give England a really good balance for the forthcoming series.

Who should make way for Flintoff? Nobody. He shouldn't be given a place just because of what he has achieved in the past. Whoever the current player is who has to give way will feel very hard-done. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Freddie, but he has to prove himself on the county circuit before he comes anywhere near the England shirt.

The only man to drop is Broad. I cannot believe no one here has seriously considered this. Look at the stats - Broad took 7 wickets in the series at 44 a piece. Before the final test it was 3 wickets at 72! And remember, this is against one of the worst batting line-ups in Test Cricket!! I was actually embarassed to see him pictured with Sidebottom and Anderson at the end of the final test. Monty won us the game at Old Trafford and it seemed like we owed everything in the series to those 3 men only, ridiculous. Just because he got a few runs in the 1st innings at Nottingham (after being dropped early at slip), mainly through the 3rd-man region, everyone seems to marvel at him, and have completely forgotton about how innocuous his bowling looks (Oram made him look very average on the 4th morning at Nottingham). He's the only man in our 11 who is not proven at Test level (with the possible exception of Ambrose) and is the only man to make way. Flintoff is a far better bowler (nobody would doubt that) and I can't imagine anyone legitimately arguing that Flintoff is a worse batter. Can everyone please wake up, look at the stats and focus on what is important...he is in the side to bowl and 7 wickets at 44 against Redmond, Flynn, Hopkins and co is a bang average return.

If Flintoff is fit then Bell needs to make way even if he is in form. He does not have the bottle to make runs in situations where they are needed, he will only score runs in a lost cause or when there is no pressure. He is a pretty batsman with good technique but also a choker.

England will need 4 front line seamers
against SA and Australia.

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pieterson
Flintoff
Bopora
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

This should be next 1 day international side if Flintoff is fit and playing well. He should only play when he gets game under his belt and starts getting a rhythm about his game.

It seems very bizarre to consider Flintoff as a batsman.A slogger who sometimes gets lucky late on.
His current form, a form that he has had for couple of years is that of a number 9 or 10.

Putting Flintoff at 7 just destroys team confidence.

As much as I like Paul Collingwood, I'm afraid he would be dropped if I was making the decisions!

Flintoff is at the moment bowling like a demon and cannot be ignored as he is the best all arounder in the country....... His batting may be less than desirable at the moment, but it's no worse than Collingwoods.

Those calling for Ian Bell to be dropped........Shame on you!! Yes he's had a stinker this series, but many of you seem to forget he was Englands most consistant batsmen last winter in New Zealand and is technically gifted top order bat............... But if he was to be dropped, I dont see either Shah or Bopara being consistant performers over the 5 day game!! I would personally re-select the big man from Kent, Rob Key. He's a guy who can occupy the crease for a significant amount of time and has proved he can bat for England!

As for Jimmy Anderson, I was witness to his career best last Friday, and he was incredible, really fast and really aggressive! I say give him a chance, but if he fails, get Simon Jones back in. Broads too good to be dropped and Sidebottom just keeps on performing day-in day-out.

Your thoughts?

This is NOT a difficult decision.

If Flintoff bats at 7 (which he should at least to start with) then Anderson is the one to go.

Yes he had one very good test, but he has been average at best in every other one for the last 12 months.

Sidebottom is the stock bowler, the new Matthew Hoggard for his reliability on any kind of pitch.

Broad should stay in the side, he looks better with each series and is a genuine threat in most conditions, plus his batting is a serious help to the side.

Anderson is good and very effective only when it swings, when it doesnt he can be lackluster and most importantly very expensive. Of the three he is clearly the weakest.

Eventually I still see Flintoff being most effective in a 5 man attack and batting at 6, however that is far too much rpessure to pile on him in his return series.

My thoughts Jamesdoughty1982 would be...what does "Broads too good to be dropped" mean and what stats have you based this on? 7 wickets at 44 a piece vs the worst top 6 produced by a test playing nation outside Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (and then only just), I presume?

Bell should be dropped? Not a chance! He is our most talented batsman (pietersen aside) and according to Colin Croft on Sky sports is the only other englishman apart from kp to be world class.

The top four look settled enough with bell at five just needing a few good innings under his belt. Collingwood if he gets no runs in the odis should be dropped for bopara as they are equally good (or bad) bowlers and Bopara is a run machine this year.

If Flintoff has to be bought in (which I don't think he should until he proves himself) then Anderson has to go as on non swinging pitches he is about as dangerous as boycott would be in a 20 over game!

Broad should be kept as he is the brightest talent we have at the moment and anyone who thinks sidebottom should be dropped needs to think again because it is impossible to deny he has been our best bowler in the last 12 months.

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Bopara
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson (Flintoff when he has proved himself )
Panesar

What do you think?

Bopara may shape up in time but this is no time to bring someone in who failed badly in their previous test efforts. I would go to Key. he scored a double century against WI, was then dropped against SA for Butcher and when Butcher was injured had to come back in to the side for two tests 'cold,' performed not so well and was then forgotten about. Selectorial consistency should apply not just to those in the team but those who previously played and did well only to be dropped unluckily. Key is about 29 annd at his peak. The extra bonus is that he could open where required - eg. if one of our lefties was injured or was to drop down to three (allowing more left-right combining).

Broad is droppable but selection is partly about messages. The message should be 'your bowling stats don't reflect your performance and although not the finished articles you are rapidly improving and thats the kind of player we want.' Conversely the message to Colly is 'you are batting very badly and have been for some time go back to your county.' The message to Bell should be 'you batted well in NZ but poorly here, if our 4 bowlers are fit and Flintoff comes back it will not be them being ousted after good performances but you after bad ones.'
well in then sidelined after two mediocre performances against SA when he came in from for

bantamweight what are you talking about honestly.
Bopara and shah cannot step up to this level, both are immature players and to be fair so is peterson but he has class underneath. There is a reason Bopara and Shah have never really pushed for the test team over the past few years...they don't have the class

Once Flintoff is in Collingwood will have to go. Collingwood is not a good enough batsman nor is he a good bowler. The only plus point in favour of Collinwood is his fielding--he is the best fielder in the England side but then he is not Jonty Rhodes. So leave him. As regards Broad he is up and coming allrounder, make no mistake about that. Bell is short of runs but to me he is the best technically sound batsman England has. With this the England team to face South Africa will be as under.

M Vaughan (c)
Cook
Strauss
Bell
Peiterson
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

People say that the reason we won the ashes was because we lpayed good aggressive cricket and sent out all the right messages, the first one for me was picking pietersen instead of thorpe was a cleas message to the aussies of 'were coming after you' the second was to give harmy (who was in good form at the time) the first over, i am a big beliver in your fastest most aggressive bowler opening up and thats exactly what he did int hat series to good effect, aggressive cricket. back to my point tho about sending out the messages, i feel that by bringing flintoff back in at the expense of a bowler almost looks a defensive move which to the south africans it will look as if were already on the back foot before a ball is even bowled. With Broad now looking good at 8 and ambrose(who im still unsure about) getting some runs at 7, i see no reason why flintoff at 6 is not a reaslistic option. one final point i would look to get simon jones back in the fold, even if its just in the squad and not playing, the guys too good to be over looked too much longer.

strauss
cook
vaughan(c)
bell
pietersen
flintoff
ambrose (w.k)
broad
sidebottom
anderson
panesar
=
s.jones

I am all for a 5 main bowler squad, the bowlers being Broad, Anderson, Sidebottom, Panesar and Freddie. So who should Flintoff replace? The choice is really from Collingwood or Ian 'Bongo' Bell. Whereas Collingwood will eventually regain form (can bowl a bit and is a good catcher), ever since Bell came into the side, he has been inconsistent: he hasn't had periods of on and off form, he bats brilliantly some matches, then blows it the next. There is no doubt he has some talent with the bat, but we really need someone who we can be sure of batting well each match. Bell is not up to this, so should be dropped. My XI would therefore be:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan (c)
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Ambrose (wk)
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

If S. Jones becomes fit again, it would be an interesting dilemma who to replace. Probably Anderson, as Broad will consistently take a few wickets, Jimmy may not do so. However, if Anderson can perform like he did at Trent Bridge again ,he will be cemented in.
The other thing not to forget is that Hoggard is still there. If Sidebottom goes off form, Matthew is the ideal replacement.

Seeing as you guys seem to think a Test average of 40 with the ball is fine as long as you score a few runs at no.8 then how about picking Ramps to bat there. I'd fancy his Offy's to put Oram in more trouble than Broad did at Trent Bridge. Smith and Kallis et al will destroy Broad's bowling and you'll all wonder why you ever rated him.

Smith, Kallis et al will destroy Broad's bowling? The bigger risk is that Ntini et al will destroy England's batting (If England don't destroy their own batting first!) and you want to drop a promising young bowler who's handy with the bat for someone who is yet to prove fitness (unlike Broad who has), can't bowl as part of a 4-man attack (unlike Broad who can) and can't score runs against County teams (Broad can score runs against Test teams). Flintoff has never, in my opinion, been good enough to bat at 6 in international cricket.

EastMidFatGuy - some bizarre statements there...
1) "yet to prove fitness (unlike Broad who has)". Broad didn't exactly display impressive fitness on day 4 at Trent Bridge when banging the ball-in two yards in front of his feet at about 78mph for Oram to pick his spot between 3 fielders on the leg-side boundary.
2) "Can't bowl as part of a 4-man attack (unlike Broad who can)". Interesting that you consider 7 wickets at 44 a piece as proving Broad can bowl in a 4-man attack. Broad bowled 22% of the overs in this NZ series, Flintoff bowled 26% of Englands overs in the 2005 Ashes.
4) "Flintoff has never...been good enough to bat at 6 in International cricket". Now here I actually agree with you FatGuy and correct me if I'm wrong but if Flintoff replaced Broad then we'd still have 6 batters so Flintoff would be 7!!
My point is (in response to Stewy's question) that if Flintoff does prove form and fitness then the man he should replace should be Stuart Broad.

Sorry but that inability to count is contagious FatGuy, points above (i think, but pls confirm) should be 1,2,3.

Just to throw a few curveballs - let the criticism commence

Team for 1st Test vs South Africa:


Michael Carberry
Michael Vaughan (c)
Andrew Gale
Kevin Pietersen
Ravi Bopara
Matthew Prior (wk)
Andy Flintoff
Chris Broad
Tim Bresnan
Charlie Shreck
Monty Panesar

My thoughts SingeonSmyth are based on

1) The lad is only 21 and is quite clearly a talent to be nurtured!

Mat Inns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ
6 11 650 16 3/54 5/132 40.62 3.06

For a guy of his age and who is still learning his trade at international cricket, I think this is quite inpressive! Secondly, I dont believe Broad to be a genuine wicket taking bowler.....YET!! Hence why he is being used as first change bowler generally!

He also has been rather unlucky not to have more wickets!

2) Batting stats

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR
6 8 1 211 64 30.14 430 49.06

Anyone with an average of 30 at number 8 is surley worth keeping in the side!!

Now I'm not saying he is the best player, but what I meant by ' Broads too good to be dropped ' is, that as a talent the lad is only getting better each series and needs to be playing at every opportunity as he will be Englands premier bowler when the others finally call it day!

Even you cannot surley fault the progress he has taken!!