Flintoff's Return Leaves England Still Looking at Sixes and Sevens

The Colossus is back. If only it were that simple. Andrew Flintoff, absent from England's Test team for far too long, will once more thunder in to bowl and rumble out to bat. But how will his return upset the ecology of a side that has been together for a record six successive matches? Whose nose will be put out of joint?

Michael Vaughan went only part of the way towards settling his side yesterday by announcing that Flintoff will bat at seven, which in an ideal world is his ideal position. When he bats well - or more pertinently when those above him do so - then he can bat one place higher; indeed, with runs on the board there are few players anywhere who are capable of inflicting such violent damage on a flagging attack. But he is not a scrapper in the strictest sense, even though he is capable of chiseling out the ugly runs in adversity. Seven is right.

In inking Flintoff's place, though, Vaughan has done little to sort out the balance of the side. In simple terms, dependent on whether there are four or five frontline bowlers and whether a spinner plays, the first set of options appears to be this: Tim Ambrose, the wicketkeeper, could be sent in at six, certainly one and possibly two places higher than his abilities warrant, or he could bat at eight, with Stuart Broad, on the basis of his 76 at Lord's, receiving rapid and unwise promotion to six - all this is on the assumption that Paul Collingwood, out of form and luck too, is omitted in favor of a fifth bowler so that Flintoff is wrapped in cotton wool.

This may seem appropriately cautious, particularly given the way Flintoff suffered a side injury when set for a comeback at the start of the international summer, but it does not stack up, given the situation.

At Lord's the game was conducted on an unforgiving pitch for bowlers, in generally good weather. Headingley, though not the unpredictable surface of old when it had yet to be relaid, is still susceptible to vagaries caused by the sort of overcast, overhead conditions and changeable weather predicted throughout the five scheduled days. In such circumstances, and particularly when it is expected that the South African bowlers, who were such a rabble in the first innings at Lord's, will be a considerably greater threat, it would be perverse to weaken the batting simply to strengthen the bowling.

England might want to protect Flintoff but it may well be a shortened game in more helpful conditions, in which case he is not going to be overworked, quite apart from the fact that Test cricket is no place to hide people. If he is fit, he is fit for everything. Collingwood should stay at six, and consider himself fortunate that a new batsman was not included in the squad in his stead - although Owais Shah can have done himself no favors by opting out of Middlesex's game against South Africa, in which Andrew Strauss participated.

However, there are further decisions to be made. If Flintoff is to be one of three seamers (and at Headingley Collingwood ought to be capable of enough filling-in if necessary) then, all things being equal, it has to be in place of Broad, whose excellent batting should not mask the fact that he has yet to look really threatening with the ball and is still green. To leave out Jimmy Anderson after his whole-heartedness at Lord's would be harsh, quite apart from the fact that it would leave the side without a new ball bowler; however, he has a sore back, and Nottinghamshire's Australia-raised Darren Pattinson was yesterday called up as precautionary cover.

Two further options exist, though. The first, assuming the weather forecast can be trusted, is based on the theory that a spinner would be superfluous and that, without Monty Panesar, Flintoff would be one of four seamers anyway. The second, which may yet prevail, is if Ryan Sidebottom is deemed unfit on account of his stiff back, in which case the sole change from Lord's would be Flintoff for him.

With a side that bats deep, this is a game that England are perfectly capable of winning. Weaken the batting potential, however, and it is not so clear cut as to whether the bowling can compensate.

Just two things at Lord's, within England's control, would have helped their cause there and need addressing now. Panesar worked his way through 60 overs and rarely threatened to take a second-innings wicket against batsmen determined to stay in at all cost. In this he showed himself to be a fine bowler technically but one without the wit or confidence to appreciate the variations of pace and flight that ought to be at his disposal and to know when he should utilize them. He is stereotypical.

A second point concerns the close catching, which aside from two misses by Vaughan and Alastair Cook, late in the final day, looked generally faultless but in reality was not. Measure this not in terms of catches dropped but in chances that were not created. The wicketkeeper Ambrose, and through him the slips, who take their cue from him, consistently stood too deep to the seamers, such that the ball was taken all too often at ankle height. England's only slip catch of the match was taken by Strauss, virtually at grass level - a fine effort, but three further potential chances were missed through the ball falling short. On such a slow pitch, both keeper and slips should have played the odds and come forward: one catch taken, say, and two dropped through being too close is one more catch than they managed.