Flintoff's retirement is not necessarily bad news for England ... discuss

Frank Praverman

Andrew Flintoff has announced that he is to retire from Test cricket at the end of this Ashes series, explaining that it has taken too big a toll on his body.

The latest problem hit him during the first Test in Cardiff when an old knee injury flared up again, making him a doubt for the second Test, which begins tomorrow at Lord's.

Mike Atherton suggested that if Flintoff is not fit for the match, it does not quite leave England in the hole that some imagine. The same can be said about England's future without him.

"Like a second-hand car with plenty of miles on the clock, Flintoff's body has become unreliable. You can give it as many MOTs as you like but it is a truism that when you set off on a long journey, you are just not quite sure whether you will reach the destination," the Times Chief Cricket Correspondent says.

Atherton explains that without him, England still have two options: "The likelier is that the selectors would rebalance the team, bringing in an extra batsman in the shape of Ian Bell, recalling Stephen Harmison and leaving the final decision between Stuart Broad and Graham Onions, there being no place for Monty Panesar.

"Less likely is that they would continue to play five bowlers, Harmison as a straight swap for Flintoff, because that would leave England's batting looking too thin, with Graeme Swann at No 7 and Broad at No 8. If, in a four-pronged attack, it comes down to a straight shoot-out between Onions and Broad, there is a good argument for siding with the Durham man, although England will be reluctant to dispense with Broad after one poor match."

Of greater note is how the team have fared with and without Flintoff since 2005. In that time, England have played 48 Tests, winning 15, losing 16 and drawing 17. Flintoff has missed 25 of those because of injury. Without him, England have won 12 matches; in the 23 games that he has played, England have won three.

Flintoff's exuberance and enthusiasm have always been part of his make-up and a huge lift to his team-mates. But will his retirement be any great loss?

Have your say now.

Comments

[Rob]

I agree 100% with Athers. At best, Fred should be rested for 2nd test, giving him time to recover.

Harmy for Fred is a simple swap. The team then gets unbalanced. Broad is a great talent, but his bowling is neither penetrative enough to open the bowling or mean enough to "sweep the floor". Onions is ideal for the latter role, and thus Ian Bell can come in at 3 or 6 to boost the batting.

6. Bell, 7. Prior, 8. Swann, 9. Harmison, 10. Anderson, 11. Onions.

Patrick, are you on Twitter yet?

@EnglandCricket

[Patrick Kidd]

Afraid I'm not part of the Twitterati, Rob. Not really seen the point. But maybe I'm a Luddite. I'll check your tweeting out though

[GoodCricketWicket]

Flintoff has not been great for England since 2005, and it is time to move on.

His presence seems to have a negative effect on the other bowlers, probably due to the number of absences. It changes the dynamic of the attack, and it is no coincidence that Anderson and Broad seem less certain of their roles when Freddie plays.

[Hammer]

Unfortunately one man doesn't make a bowling attack, especially one thet is clearly not fit and can only bowl 3-4 over spells. If the ball doesn't swing then James Anderson looks ordinary. The rest, quite simply, are not up to the job of taking 20 Aussie wickets in a game.

With the possible exception of Pieterson (assuming his form was better), not one of the others would even feature in any pundits considerations for a world 11. You can bring in Harmison, Onions, whoever you like, they are simply not good enough.

Thanks goodness for us the Aussies have their own problems with their bowling attack, but they did get close thanks to delivering with the bat.

[marees]

Replace
Broad with Onions,
Panesar with Harmison
and Flintoff with Broad.

End result you still have 5 bowlers attack and Harmy can be used effectively as an attack bowler instead of as a stock bowler

[Tim Ross]

Athers is right about Flintoff - it's a point I've made on the Standard's Ashes Blog (ross.standard.co.uk).
But why pick Bell and lose the fifth bowler?
Surely that's the most defensive mistake imaginable.
England's major worry in Cardiff was not whether the number six or seven got runs (though it was handy that they did) but why the bowlers were so utterly toothless.

[jh]

The stats are completely misleading, in recent years it just happens that Flintoff has missed all the Tests against poor opposition and played most of the time against the best sides. He's still our best bowler (which isn't saying much, admittedly) and crucial to the balance of the side. When he goes it will start another decade-long search for an all-rounder of Test quality.

As far as the potential replacement goes, four bowlers sends out a message that we're playing for a draw. Apart from the fact that I'd trust Broad or Swann more than Bell to score some runs under pressure!

[GoodCricketWicket]

It's an afternoon off, so I decided to do some research to back-up my earlier comment. Unfortunately, it has somewhat backfired on me. JH is right to a point, in that the matches Fred has missed are against weaker teams.

That's not to say that he is vital - he is hardly a destroyer of either batting or bowling lineups - but he does offer more consistent performances regardless of conditions.

See http://goodcricketwicket.co.uk/the-ashes-flintoff-anderson-and-flat-wickets for more.

[V-Man]

Why do you fools continue to select Ian Bell, thinking he'd counter the Aussies as required? Ha!

[GRAHAM TRIMMINGS]

Come on Freddie - get up and at 'em ! One last Hurrah !!

[paul mcleod]

This will prove beneficial to both Flintoff himself & the England cricket team in all forms of the game.
Flintoff will now be able to concentrate fully on performing at his maximum in ODI's & various forms of T20.
England will in turn have a (hopefully) fully fit Flintoff for perhaps the next two World T20's & the 2011 World Cup.
Perhaps most importantly however it removes the albatross from around the neck of the England Test team who can now move on without the presence of a player who was nowhere near as vital to its success as is widely thought.

[Richard S]

Its bad in that we have lost a great allrounder with huge natural talent who at his best could score centuries at 6 and bowl at 95MPH. Its good in that his batting is now good tailender standard and he can't bowl for long enough anymore.
At least we can move on now, but we will be moving on with inferior players.

[Jim]

I agree with Rob's line up: Bell at six (where he averages 50) and a four-man attack comprising Swann, Anderson, Harmison, and Onions.

That's one bowler less than at Cardiff, but arguably poses more of an attacking threat - especially if, as is being suggested, the pitch at Lords has some pace and bounce.

It also gives Flintoff time to get back to full fitness and Broad a chance to find some rhythm at Notts. Both would then come back into contention for the last three Tests, giving England the option of reverting to a five-man attack.

(Of course, the only problem with that is what do you do if Bell gets runs at six and Bopara fails again at three?)

Flintoff will no doubt be desperate to play at Lord's, but the selectors MUST learn from experience and not pick half-fit players. And Flintoff should reflect that an Ashes Test at the Oval is a better way to end his Test career than breaking down at Lords and missing the rest of the series...

[IndianFan following Ashes]

its an old saying that get your best batsman at no 3, succesful teams both in past and present have done it, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Lara and Yousuf when sent in at 3, Kumar Sanga. Bell or Bopara neither the best in the England set up, so doesnt matter. I think you have to look into KP's eyes remind him that he is the best (forget what he thinks of himself) and send him at 3. Period.

[Rod Ward]

Flintoff is overused and overated.
The other bowlers will have a weight (and wait) lifted off their shoulders when he's gone.Broad,Anderson and Harmison and Onions will relish his absence.They will probably enjoy the extra responsibility.If you want a left arm spinner who will also get runs then get Blackwell in the squad.
And Bell has had loads of chances.If we are picking on form then Hildreth deserves a mention.

[ausgloater]

Good to see the entire nation bickering over the batting and bowling line up. You could play separate batting and bowling sides and we will still have you on toast.
The aus side is nicely settled.
You rigged the pitch,cheated and won a crucial toss and only just avoided an innings defeat.
Our boys roughed up the springbocks and they are the toughest guys in world cricket.Siddle and Johnson could really hurt the soft white english lads.

[Dr Steve Hodgson (physiotherapist)]

Flintoff’s injuries and retirement (unlucky or predictable).

Last night I wrote on twitter that I thought Andrew Flintoff would not play for England again this season and following this mornings news that he is to retire from international cricket at the end of the season came as no surprise.

If you look at the list of injuries he has sustained over the last few years you end up asking is (www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6713854.ece) he vulnerable to repeated injury or just unlucky? Clearly he is not weak and I suspect he has excellent quality tissue (I always tell people it’s important to choose your parents carefully!). So why does he suffer so many problems as many cricketers submit their bodies to this type of stress without missing matches?

[Ed Ellis]

The line up should be as follows:

Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Bopara, Collingwood, Prior, Flintoff, Swann, Anderson, Harmison, Onions.

Playing 4 bowlers would be a big mistake, the aussies got 700 runs and only lost 5 wickets against 5 bowlers in Carfiff to drop a bowler would be suicide!

Broad has bags of potential and will be the back bone of English cricket for a generation but potential doesn't win the ashes. We should pick on form

[selector]

Ian Bell is the worst No.3 in world cricket.
Ravi Bopara is the 2nd worst No.3 in world cricket.

That does not make very good reading does it?