Cricinfo - Blogs - Ashes Buzz - Flintoff's role needs rethinking

Andre Flintoff is not a great batsman !he is a little better than average(look at his average), and on good flat wicket he can hit through the line and score a few good runs with a few lusty blows. But against a decent bowler on a seeming/swinging pitch he does not look very good!... He plays to hard at the ball, and his feet movement is not great!Its fare to say that Jones would be better suited at coming before him, it would do enormous good for Jones and his confidence, and would allow Flintoff the freedom to play a natural Aggressive game!

For all that concerning Steve Harmison, its embarrassing!If you would think how much time everyone has put into the bloke. And then he comes up with the excuse that he froze!..From cricket circles i hear that big Steve is arrogant, incredibly lazy and when it comes to bowling he honestly has no idea where he is going to put that ball!

England need to take a hard look at themselves. Kp and Flitoff are the only two who would make the current Aussie team! They need to be aggressive, pick Monty , drop no catches and maybe they will have a chance!... Ponting has always been susceptible to spin early on. especially the ball turning away from him!

Drop Flitoff down the order!Bring Strauss back as captain!He is more intelligent and astute for the game...

Give the guy a chance. He bounced back last Ashes from a poor first test. He needs support from the other players, and I'm sure as the series progresses he'll get it. England got beaten because they weren't good enough to put Australia under pressure. Stop jumping to unnecessary and premature conclusions.

Are there going to by any wholesale changes in England line-up for the Adelaide match.

Now that Watson is ruled out of the 2nd test also, i guess aussies will pick the same XI. Is there a need for them to play Mitchell Johnson.

What I do not understand about Freddie is why does he not bowl spinners more. He did not bowl Giles much and he certainly has not bowled Monty much before. I simply do not understand that.

"For the first ball of this match, he also found himself keeping wicket."

Steady on, Tim, talk about over-stretching! I disagree that bowling should be Flinoff's main suit. As an allrounder, he's in there for the bat and the ball in equal measure. If England are to play to their strengths, then surely Flintoff's contribution in both departments is key. If anything has to give, it should be the captaincy. In an ironic reversal of argument, one could hold that Strauss's failure with the bat was down to him being distracted by NOT being captain. I'm afraid England have got themselves in a real mess here. Having Flintoff concentrate on bowling is not the way out - asking the others to get their act together is.

Spot on. Flintoff as Captain was always a high risk strategy and the folly of the decision is now becoming apparent. With a weak tail the number six more than ever needs the freedom to concentrate on his batting. Strauss has shown that his batting is unaffected - even improved - by the extra responsibility and he should have been capatin. He also has a ruthless streak which the Aussies underestimated last time around. However, what's done is done. The way forward is clearly to field a more attacking team rather than a more defensive one. Panesaar has to replace Giles and if Monty plays then Chris Read should also. While Jones' keeping has improved, Read is still the better keeper and particularly so when standing up to the wicket. Jones has fluffed too many stumpings to risk keeping to Panesaar. Finally, Mahmood needs to replace Anderson - Mahmood can also swing the ball, is quicker and is a better batsman.

Flintoff probably should drop down to number 7 but it is a minor consideration next to the Harmison/Anderson problem. Our current bowling difficulties mean an extra batsman isn't an option because a repeat performance from whoever gets retained leaves Fintoff with nowhere to turn. Conversly, if the bowling comes right, we can probably get away with Freddie being a place too high. The answer lies in getting Harmison lined up properly and Anderson in the corridor. The only way round this would be to bring Monty in as the match winner for Giles, keeping one of Harmy or Anderson after the other drops out for Joyce at six. But does anyone see Fletcher being that lateral?

With Flintoff at No. 7, Collingwood can move to 6 and Joyce (Or Vaughan when fit) can come in at 4 to fill out the batting. Then Panesar can come in with no complaints.

It would help if we won the toss and bat on until half way through day 3 as well.

Of course, Strauss should have been kept on as captain, he did a great job against Pakistan; Flintoff's record is very ordinary as captian. You can't be best mates with half the team and still be captain.

As an Aussie with an eighteen month memory, I'm loathe to give free advice with us one up in a five match series.

However, were Aussies to select the England side, we'd put Joyce in to bat at six, Flintoff seven, Read at eight (okay, Jones if you think he can keep to Monty), drop Anderson and either Harmison or Giles (depending on the pitch) and include Monty. Back your four bowlers to do the work. Collingwood and Pietersen can bowl some fillers, but you have a stronger batting line-up, and you're not carrying underperforming bowlers for the sake of it.

Tim - You're right. Of course many of us knew all this before the 1st test. Flintoff does not need the extra stress of captaincy. I suspect Feltcher really pushed the other selectors in choosing him over Strauss because as his only other selector in Australia, he wanted an England Captain who wanted Giles and Jones not Panesar and Read. Flintoff is not a Panesar fan, I suspect he found him tricky to captain. Why else did he hardly ever bowl him against Sri Lanka? Strauss would make a much better captain and would push for Panesar's inclusion and then actually bowl the man. This is why Flintoff was handed the captaincy I believe. It's such a shame that England choose to ignore Strauss who has proved his batting is not effected by being captain. Instead Flintoff looked as hopeless at stemming the runs as he did when India gave him a fright in the winter.

A bit oblique, Tim. What are you suggesting? A move down to seven, Jones at eight, and only four bowlers in total? Surely a defensive step, not unlike selecting Giles ahead of Panesar, a decision for which you roundly castigated Duncan Fletcher? That would make taking 20 wickets even more difficult, being a bowler light, and put more stress on Freddie to bowl longer spells if he has to bear more of the workload, which is what you are hoping to lessen. Or are you proposing Jones comes in at six. He batted well in Adelaide and justified his selection but that seems a bit much. I don't believe all this rubbish about selection 'sending out the wrong messages' but I do know that the Aussies will relish it if we start messing about with Freddie's role.

Or are you suggesting Strauss takes over the captaincy and alleviates that burden?

Here's an idea: let's have a bit of faith in our skipper and best player. At least until the series is over.

I have to agree with you Tim. Flintoff is under tremendous pressure:ie Being Captain, injuries, lack of form in players, a sort of lack of cohesiveness with all the changes and relying on him to save the game. Poor guy. But who else would do the job?

I agree and have said so ever since we went to Pakistan last year. Flintoff is not a number 6 bat!

As Boycott has frequently said, he is a bowling allrounder and at the moment he is carrying our bowling attack singlehanded.

How can he be expected to captain the team and score big hundreds at 6 as well? People say - "he's a world class player" and "one of the greats" and they are right.

But who else has handled this kind of pressure? Who can you point to as a precedent for handling that kind of work load? There's no-one I can think of, past or present. Examine Shaun Pollock, Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, Ian Botham. None of these guys batted as high as six.

Funnily enough once Flintoff is dropped one place to 7 several problems look like they have been solved.

Joyce comes in at 6 to strengthen the batting and with Jones at 8 the tail starts to look quite strong.

This then allows us to choose our best spinner on bowling ability alone and obviously we go for Monty.

Giles and Anderson have missed out.

So on the plus side we are a stronger batting unit and we have been able to pick what was our best bowler over the last year.

On the negative side we have only 4 main line bowlers. But hold on, isn't that what we had against Pakistan (when Freddie was missing)? And didn't we win that series 3 - 1? Also isn't that the setup Australia just played with?

Pre tour poeple were saying that this put too much pressure on flintoff to bowl loads of overs. Well that worked! Last match he bowled more than anyone and still had to come in at 6.

With Monty in the side, even though 1 of only 4 bowlers, it seems to me Flintoff will have to bowl less for two reasons:

1) There's an extra wicket taker in the side;

2) He will bowl more overs than Giles and Anderson put together.

If we drop Flintoff down to 7, surely that means playing only 4 bowlers. If Flintoff wasn't just coming back from serious injury, we might get away with it, but surely we can't over-bowl him. If he breaks down, we're doomed. While I also feel Freddie's one place too high at 6, I'm not sure the alternatives are better. I assume we'd play Joyce as an extra batsman. Is this a good idea? (genuine question, I live in japan, and have never seen him bat).

Whether Flintoff is good enough for number six is irrelevant. On current form, we *need* five bowlers. Of course, we need a keeper. That only leaves five spots for dedicated batsmen - as Flintoff is the best of the rest, he comes in at six.

You people are little too disappointed. Australia got the same result in Ashes 2005 in very first Test.This English side is have it in it to make a strong comeback.Bowling needs to be regroup.If they reduce Australia under 350-400 run mark, then we will see some real cricket.Mcgrath 37, Clarke 31 and Warne nearly 38 years are going to be in for big trouble but for that Harmison, Anderson and Hoggard have to recharge their batteries and get rid of Kangaroos under 350 run mark.There is still long way to go for Australia and Ponting before raising that famour urn again.

Dead right about Flintoff batting too high at 6. Your number 6 has to average 40 +. My England team would be:
1 Marcus Trescothick
2 Andrew Strauss
3 Mark Ramprakash
4 Kevin Pietersen
5 Micheal Vaughan
6 Ian Bell
7 Andrew Flintoff
8 Chris Read
9 Stuart Broad
10 Steve Harmison
11 Monty Panesar

Sub in Cook For Trescothick and Collingwood/Joyce for Vaughan and i think that side would be exceptional. The selectors have a lot to answer for.

Flintoff dint appear short of Flintoff the bowler we all know, and dint seem to be far away from good form as a batsman. Its just the captaincy. Flintoff is not a bad captain as we saw in India, but sometimes not all the roles and factors a captain brings into play can be done thru sheer inspiring performance. it needs a freely thinking mind dedicatedly thinking of the factors controlling the sources(bowlers and fielders) and the target(opposition batsman). I beleive a captain doesnt play as much a important role when the team is batting, as he does when it fields. In the absence of Vaughan and given the importance of the series being played and the opposition and pressure, Andrew Strauss might be a better bet to lead from the front, much like the way he has been leading the team's off-the-field verbal exchanges thru the media so far. I think the big plus in favour of Strauss could be, he might still be able to make enough runs even if he isnt in the best of form, as he has shown in recent times against Pakistan, Srilanka and in India.

Perhaps Fred does need to drop down the order. And perhaps if England are so obsessed about spinners who won't take wickets but might score a few runs, Dalrymple could come in, bat at six and then Fletcher could grudgingly shoehorn our best spinner in twenty years into the side. I'm not actually advocating this to be honest, but it actually makes just as much sense as the pathetic, frightened, negative selection policy for the first test.

England needs to be positive, even aggressive in all departments of their game if they are to have any chance of coming back into this series.They Should also target Ricky Ponting,stifling or restricting his free scoring as much as possible.He(Ponting)shows very visible signs of weekness when things are'nt going his way in the field and should and can be exploited.

Good point Toby. Flintoff should be regarded as a bowling all-rounder, batting at no. 7, with keeper at 8. This would enable you to pick the best keeper, i.e. Read (who is not good enough to bat at 7). So the other 4 bowlers are made up from your 3 best bowlers - Panesar, Hoggy & Harmy (if compus mentus) and an allrounder, maybe Dalrymple, or a batsman.

Rob

Colour me a Crazy Optimist, but I'm more and more convinced that England's major failing here wasn't their lack of ability, their lack of desire or guts or fight, but their hopeless lack of preparation.

Most of the squad have never played a test in Australia before. They need to acclimatise to a different kind of pitch and, crucially for the swing bowlers, a different ball. They had a one-dayer (puh-lease!) and two 3-day knock arounds, one of which was a glorified net, and declared themselves set to go. The bowling attack struggled to know what to do in the absence of their main weapon - reverse swing - and floundered depressingly. Their failure to take a wicket in the second innings was worrying, but it is obvious that their line and length was improving. The batsmen showed signs toward the end that they were beginning to find their way into some form. All this points to the fact that this first test was serving the purpose of a warm up game one match too late.

I realize Ponting pointed out that they'd played less cricket than the Poms but weren't undercooked, but they were playing on a ground and under conditions that they know like the back of their hands. Not so the young England team.

I'm not sugesting a turn-around of '05 [proportions, but I fully expect England to find their stride. They may very well lose the Ashes, but they're not the no-hopers of previous Ashes campaigns.

I therefore wouldn't tinker too much - there's certainly no way Flintoff can be replaced as captain. That would be a psychological own goal that would utterly demoralise the team and our most valuable player. Harmison must be given another chance to prove himself. Now that Jones has been appointed, there's no reason to repeat the insanity of firing the keeper yet again for no obvious reason, so we must persevere with him. Only the ludicrous selection of an inferior spinner chosen for his stellar batting average of 20 needs most urgently to be addressed. Hopefully, Panesar's confidence has not been dealt too severe a blow by being overlooked by the coach who described him a few months ago as the "best finger spinner in the world." I mean, heavens, if that doesn't get you into the team, what sort of confused message is the youngster being sent? Adelaide might favour two spinners, in which case Panesar should come in for Anderson. Otherwise, Anderson should make way for Saj, Giles for Panesar and hope like heck that Freddie calls right at the toss.

For the first ball of this match, he also found himself keeping wicket. It’s just too much.

For the first time since following your blog, you brought a genuine smile to my face. This was, in my opinion, your first and obviously best bit of witty journalism. Congratulations and keep it up.

You're still dead wrong about the pitch, McGrath's wickets and Warney getting Bell with a wrong'un?

I am persuaded. Flintoff at seven it is.

But my feeling is that Flintoff is only captain because the England management could not make the tough decision to appoint Strauss, when everyone knows he would be better at the job.

I don't see any evidence that a captain should be 'leading from the front' - ie 'inspiring' the rest of the team by great performances. On the contrary, in teams that 'over-perform - due to having good captains, the captain is usually a modest performer. For example, Michael Vaughn, Stephen Fleming, Mark Taylor, Arjuna Ranatunga - these are all players whose captaincy added value. Another great first class captain was Dermot Reeve, who was a bowling all rounder of just-sub international standard: but who might well have been worth picking as a specialist captain for England due to his Ranatunga-like cunning.

The point is that none of these have minds that are remotely like Flintoff's. Indeed, I find it inconceivable that Flintoff could become a great or even very good captain - I think we can be almost certain that he just does not have it in him. Strauss just might...

I totally agree with Bruce. The right choice for captain is Strauss. Captaincy requires intellect as much as ability and all that jazz. I'm thinking of Mike Brearley here. But Mr Fletcher is nothing if not a negativist, and it's really very depressing that he squeezes this disease through the veins of our chaps. And us, of course, what are watching the whole shernannigans unravel.

Long live barmy trumpeters.

Ever since The Oval 2005 the England team has not been able to justify the winning of the Ashes. The Pakistan tour was an anti-climax and the Indian tour was drawn due to a staggering batting collapse by the home batsmen. Last summer wasn't much better with only Pakistan a win, where the final Test should have been lost. Yes, there were the injuries, but that's professional sports at the level it is played nowadays. English cricket performed well on the Test stage up and until the 2005 Ashes and then just deflated. As if in that win all had been accomplished that had been anticipated. For Harmison to perform the way he did in Brisbane (remember his below-par South Africa tour) was to be expected and he should have been dropped from the entire Tour. English batting is strong enough to keep pace with the Aussies, but the bowling line-up is just too weak. Hoggard can't swing the ball down-under and would Simon Jones have been able to had he been available? English fast bowlers are just too English.
I forecast a 5-0 white wash.

Yes. Much respect to Flintoff, a true allrounder, but I agree that he is over-exposed. I also think that this is due more to some seriously inept bowling from his strikers rather than the captaincy alone (although he has already shown some early signs of angst in that respect).

In response to an earlier posting, I hazard the opinion that Flintoff is the ONLY English player who would make it into the current Aussie team. KP would need to look seriously at his attitude (reckless, arrogant and cavalier) and technique (defensively shaky, quite prone to becoming frustrated when the runs aren't flowing and swings like a rusty gate in attack - all problems that Gilchrist is suffering momentarily) before the Aussie selectors would even consider him in the short term. A quickfire 60-90 is always a good thing, but not when your team needs its only remaining recognised batsman to knuckle down and try to pull it through a significant portion of the final day in the hope of salvaging a draw or being granted later day largesse from a darkening sky. Smash and bash just won't do.

And yet, the point is somwhat moot, considering he's actually South African.

To return to the crux of the issue; I wonder whether Strauss should have been given the role and Freddie some extended time to serve a further apprenticeship? There is no doubt Flintoff has the strength of personality, and is certainly a capable 6'er - he just hasn't been shown how to deal with the responsibility...and how not to feel as though he needs to be everybody's buddy.

In any event, by the time the next Ashes series comes around it is likely (just as the Aussie team will be significantly changed) that England will have chewed through four or five different captains. What can you expect from a cricket team where few have shown the intestinal fortitude required for the taking of such responsibility, let alone the willingness to seek it out?

I like this comment too - "For the first ball of this match, he also found himself keeping wicket. It’s just too much." Having watched the first two days at the Gabba, I'm convinced Flintoff isn't a captain. Dragging your strike bowler after just two overs on the first morning of the first test has surely just shattered any confidence he might have been able to gain. England will regroup (the "security" allowing the Barmy Army more freedom might help with this) but without a real strike bowler - well, they're in trouble.

The worry i have now is that fletcher being fletcher, he could surprise us all and pick the same team and give them the chance to put things right. this would be a big mistake. Gilo has to go as his first job is to take wickets and he failed to do that even though he bowled a more attacking line. surely bringing Panesar in cannot do any more damage. Anderson should also get the chop and in come Mahmood who at least will have the pace to trouble batsmen. Anderson is too similar to Hoggard and i felt he unbalances the attack. \

The final thing to say here is the bowlers need to learn how to bowl on flat decks. when the ball is reverse swinging you can get away with half volley dleiveries as the batsman is still unsure of how much swing there will be. On hard true Aussie decks, they need to pitch it back of a length in the corridor and be patient. McGrath and Clark took wickets by nibbling away for over after over and sooner or later as shown by the lax shots that guys like strauss played, they lose patience

Cmon England@!

Not even the greatest all-rounder of all time, Sir Garfield Sobers, excelled as a captain even though he was the west indies best bat, bowl and fielder at the time.

Why is after 1 match everyone jumps on Freddie. The guy is a champion and has got it in him to come back. The Aussies are over rated and if the poms can pick their game up by 10% it will be a real contest. The Aussie bowlers aren't much chop - Lee gets smashed most games; McGrath cannot back up like he used to, and it's obvious that Pieterson gets to Warne few players have been capable of. Get rid of Giles and this series is still on.

1 STRAUSS - capt.
2 COOK
3 BELL
4 COLLINGWOOD
5 PIETERSEN
6 JOYCE
7 FRED
8 READ - best keeper.
9 GILES
10 HOGGARD
11 MONTY.

Four bowlers. Monty and Giles to bowl 60 out of 90. Perhaps with a bit more from Hoggy, or the part-timers. Harmison can catch the next plane back with Fletcher as far as I am concerned. What's that Shine bloke getting paid for? You'd think he was the Aussie, not Cooley. God I'm miserable. The change of fortune we got at Edgbaston just ain't gonna happen, I fear.

I agree that there is lot of workload on Flintoff.How about bringing in Dalrymple for Giles and Panesar for Anderson. This way Flintoff can come in at 7 and Read/Jones at 8.Since there are some spinner friendly pitches, our attack would be definitely good enough with 2 spinners(one right arm off-spinner and one left arm leg spinner) and 3 main bowlers. I think the balance of the side would be perfect and also Flintoff need not over bowl.
Giles to 113/1 in the first match.Dalrymple certainly cant do any worse. Moreover his economy on one days is very good and he is a handy batsmen.My best 11 would be(I guess most of you would agree with me)

1. Strauss
2. Alistair Cook
3. Ian Bell
4. Collingwood
5. Kevin Pieterson
6. Dalrymple(off-spinner, economic, batsmen,better than giles)
7. Flintoff(best bowler in Eng and good batsman)
8. Read/jones
9. Panesar(best spinner in England and wicket taker)
10. Harmison(needs to find his rhythm quickly)
11. Hoggard

If I am a selector, I would select this team for Adelaide test no matter what.I am from India, but this team has the only chance of getting the ashes back)Fletcher..Giles is no better bowler than Dalrymple!!!Wake up before it gets too late

Great analysis Tim, you've been saying something I've been thinking for the last few months. England are increasingly susceptible to collapses, a fact not helped by the presence of a middle order designed to ride on the success of the openers than stage rearguards. Undoubtedly, Flintoff can bat, and very well at that, but the fact is that, in contrast to the Aussies, we appear to have what almost amounts to an aversion of great individual fightbacks.
Sure, KP's fantastic 158, Colly's 186 and Bell's brilliance are all magnificent efforts, but they are almost always the follow up to an effort up the order. We lack almost anyone, unless Bell returns to 6 and Colly at 5, who can effectively marshal the tail. We know that it can wag, we've seem it do so, what we need is someone not out for a bash, but there to drag it out to the end.
My suggestion, go with Mark; bring back Read for number 8, lower Flintoff to 7, Bell back to 6, swap KP and Colly and give Joyce a crack at number 3 and see how it runs. Granted, this reliance on four bowlers is very defensive, but so what, England need to rediscover their form, something which we can do if we have the batting reserves to stave off defeat while we readjust.
Lastly, and a definite; bring back Strauss as captain, his batting has never been better and it frees Flintoff up.

I enjoyed watching the Ashes of 2005 primarily because of England's relentless superiority with the ball. There were some good batting performances too, but in reality these were relatively sporadic. England dominated the Australian batting and, had they held their catches, would have made the often tight margins much wider.

The situation in this Ashes is different. Simon Jones, a key member of the bowling line up, is missing. His ability to maintain (or increase) the pressure as a first or second change bowler was critical. Without him and Flintoff this summer, Harmison and Hoggard have struggled with the additional pressure. Both bowlers have inherent limitations, mainly due to the reliance on the conditions: Harmison seems to need fast, bouncy pitches, whereas Hoggard comes into his own when the ball swings. Neither seem to have much to offer when the conditions are not in their favour, as seen over the last five days for example. Flintoff is a useful bowler in many conditions, seeming to ‘will’ batmen out, but clearly he cannot carry the attack on his own, especially not when remembering his other responsibilities. As for the spinner in the side, neither Giles nor the more promising Panesar should be expected to achieve Warne-like performances on Australian soil. Giles’ batting is worthy, but twenty-ish average will only swing the very tightest of games.

In other words, England’s attack suffers from a number of inherent limitations: lack of accuracy, lack of confidence, lack of adaptability, lack of depth. None of these factors can simply be remedied within this Ashes series, and the bowlers should see this series as a useful learning experience.

England’s batting improved a little this summer: Bell, Cook and Collingwood all developed into competitive Test batsmen, while Pietersen continued to improve into a world class, if fitful, player. However, it is a remarkably brittle line up, being similar to West Indies or Pakistan (or the England of a few years ago) in its ability to fall on its face. I held Graham Thorpe to be a key player able to guide England through nervous periods that might lead to collapse: none of England’s current line up hold the same quiet but effective stature, though some of them promise to (e.g. Bell, Cook). If all of England’s batting line up choose to deliver on a certain Test England can post match winning totals: if not, England will continue to be comprehensively beaten.

Ultimately, we will not win matches unless our bowlers find more conducive pitches and more confidence, which seems unlikely. England’s clear goals in this series should be to avoid whitewash, perhaps win a Test and avoid incurring too many more injuries (e.g. Flintoff over-bowling himself again). With this achieved, we may be hopeful that we will go on to develop as we did since the last Ashes tour of Australia. There are no easy fixes from the bench (Ed Joyce will have no positive impact on any of the Tests of this tour whatsoever) or in terms of juggling batting line ups (fewer bowlers = fewer wickets; fewer batsmen = more collapses). It’s going to be a massive learning experience for a depleted and mainly inexperienced team, facing a vastly more experience side on their own soil. It is sad to see England fail to compete as they did in 2005, but with a depleted and limited bowling attack, a wobbly batting line up and without burgeoning talent and experience from the sidelines, there is only so much Flintoff (or who ever is captain) can achieve.

One thing Fletcher should get his head around is having more allrounders on paper does NOT win you test matches. It should win you more one-dayers but not like England are winning those either. So what is it with his dumb theory of playing Jones and Giles because their batting averages of 25 and 20 would in some way mask the deficiencies of what is supposedly their stronger suit? If that's how you wanna play it, why not let Colly bowl first change, KP be the first finger spinner and have Harmy keep wicket for fun? That way everyone can do everything and England never lose. Right?

Picking out Flintoff isn't the solution. Freddie would need to stretch himself only because the balance of the rest of the side is so horribly skewed. If the world seems upside down, the first think to do is stop standing on your head.

More than anything it was England's bowling on first day which cost them match.Harmison is totally out of sorts and I wonder what can he really do in 3 days to regain his old form.He is really struggling at the moment.I think England will be best served by Flintoff opening the bowling with Hoggard and Harmison coming as first change.Flintoff definite has an edge over Aussies when it comes to bowling.He bowled well in first innings too.England can't afford to allow the Aussie openers to get away.They have to strike early with new ball.Panesar must play.He not only take wickets but he is very economical too.He will be definitely attacked by Aussies but this will provide England with a chance to grab wickets moreover Aussies has never played against him so he will definitely test them.

Bowlers win Test Matches.England must play bowlers which can earn them 20 wickets.

Giles is a good cricketer but he can hardly turn the ball.Someone like Pietersen turns the ball more than him.Giles is a defensive bowler and his role in the team should be properly defined.England can't rely on him to take wickets.

To me Flintoff captaincy was satisfactory in first test.He was inspirational.He took wickets when no one else fired.As far as Flintoff thinks that he can do justice with his bowling,batting and captaincy he should be allowed to captain the side.I think the captaincy was not gifted to him he earned it.Michael Vaughan will be back for third test and it will be very interesting to see that who captains the side.

Apart from first innings batting performance,I think England batted well.To me the highlight was KP taking on Shane Warne and McGrath.As always he proved to his team mates that lights of McGrath,Lee and Warne are playable.As a batsman he really has the power to intimidate bowlers and inspire batsman around him to play freely.

Flintoff should bat where he normally bats.He is an allrounder.As a batsman u make mistakes but doesn't means that your batting order should change.In the brief second innings he played some lovely shorts.He is not out of touch.Last thing you want as a player and captain is to give signal to your opposition that u r not good enough to bat at your normal position or you are out of touch.If this would have been the matter the Gilchrist should bat well below than Lee and Warne.

England's batting order and composition is right but their bowling needs serious improvements.Monty must play and among Giles and Anderson they should pick one according to the state of pitch.

Little preparation by the English, Aussies' history at the Gabba (haven't lost there since 88/89 to WI), and the injury imbalance between the sides - no wonder Australia won convincingly. It was always going to be the case. I think it has litle to do with Flintoff's captaincy. And if the recent result dosn't ignite fire in the belly in the English players, no captain will...

Wholesale changes especially to the English batting lineup will only further expose inexperience on Aussie tracks. Use the experience now gained.

So keep the batting, lose Anderson for Mahmood, Giles for Panesar and with Harmison fired up after his embarrassing start, you may find England consolidating into a formidable team on Australian wickets, hopefully before the series is over...keep the faith!

At the risk of copping a blog beating, the Flintoff legend has always outweighed the Flintoff performance. The past three seasons have easily been his best, and in these 35 matches he averages close to 40 with the bat and 26 with the ball - impressive figures for an all-rounder. However as has been pointed out numerous times above, 40 with the bat is not a number 6 of a team that wishes to remain competitive. Flintoff has won some games single-handedly for sure, but he has hardly entered the status of legend at this stage of his career. Three good years proceeding 6 mediocre ones does not propel you into greatness just yet. The “great” all-rounders have always had a batting average at least 10 runs higher than their bowling, and Flintoff will therefore need another 3 or 4 good years before his career statistics allow him this honour.

So where is the solution? Clearly the decision needs to be taken out of both his and Fletcher’s hands. Asking him to concentrate on 3 disciplines when he has not mastered two is a recipe for disaster. Why persist in asking so much of one player? As much as it pains me to say it, I think Boycott is right.

I agree, Tim. The statistics indicate the Freddy is a bowling all rounder. Bowlers (and bowling all rounders) do not have proud history of captaincy (honourable exceptions such as Benaud excluded). I think that it was an error not to give the captaincy to Strauss, who appeared to do nothing wrong last summer. Instead, we have the bizzare notion that there is an anointed captain (Vaughan)who, apparently, can have the job back as soon as he declares himself avialable, a stand in but to date not particularly successful captain (Flintoff), and a successful captain who is apparnetly 3rd in line (Strauss). The temptation for Freddy to overbowl himself (especially when Harmison, Anderson et al underperform) must be overwhelming. I just did not get the feeling that he had a plan for the Australian batsmen, and there were a few little things (nothing short to Langer in the 1st, not enough slips at a time when Langer and Hayden were clearly fragile, bowling Bell, apparently just waiting for Ponting to declare in the second) which indicate that he may not be up to doing everything required of him.

I think that Flintoff at 6 has unbalanced the entire England line-up. It appears to have been a factor in choosing Jones over Read and Giles over Panesar - both cases of the bloke better at his primary craft being overlooked to strengthen the batting. It also has meant Collingwood at no.4, which I don't think is his natural spot. They'd be better off with him at 7, especially if Vaughan is fit enough to come into the team. I don't believe they'd be short of bowling - Collingwood's bowling is not very threatening but he could bowl a few overs here and there without hurting the team. Most of the other batsmen are capable of rolling the arm over also.

I think Australia may have a lesson to learn here too. I am a Watson fan, but I've been worried about how much focus seems to be placed on his bowling. I think he IS a number 6. He keeps getting talked about as "our answer to Flintoff". We don't need a Flintoff - just a batsman who can bowl a bit. I wouldn't be concerned if he averaged 40 with the ball - as long as he doesn't get smashed around the park and
averages 40-plus with the bat. The latter is important because as the 5th bowler he needs to be worth selecting for continuity purposes even when he's not expected to bowl much.

Finally, on Flintoff as captain... I heard a good explanation recently of why not many bowlers are captains. Basically the argument is that when a bowler is bowling, he'll be focussed on his bowling, when he's between overs, he'll be focussing on his next over and when he's between spells, he'll be focussing on his next spell. I think this is as it should be - but it doesn't leave much time for focussing on the big picture of the match. I think it comes down to the fact that you may be better off with a guy with half the tactical nous and charisma than a guy who can only focus a third of his attention on the job...

Well to make the best out of the squad that's there, I agree that Flintoff should drop down to number 7. Bring in Panesar for Giles, Joyce in for Anderson, and Read back in place of Jones. Even though there's only 4 bowlers Panesar can get through a lot to ease the burden on the quicks, and Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell can get through up to 10 overs a day.

1 Strauss (c)
2 Cook
3 Bell
4 Joyce
5 Pietersen
6 Collingwood
7 Flintoff
8 Read
9 Hoggard
10 Harmison
11 Panesar

I don't disagree totally with Tim on this one, but I think the captain is being particularly soft on another of the bowlers: Flintoff.

Freddie is probably the best bowler in the world against left-handers, and yet we're bowling him second change against a team with two left-handed openers...

Flintoff has even admitted in interview that bowling to lefties is natural in his action - a little laziness in his wrist tends to take it down leg to right-handers apparently - so why not exploit that to the fullest, when half of their left-handers are at the crease?

When Harmy was on song last year, it made great sense to bowl Freddy first change (who can forget the Aus 2nd innings at Edgbaston?), but does it make sense with Harmy and Anderson spraying it all over the shop? Until Harmy gets some rhythm back, Freddie should be chucked the ball from the second over.

Freddie has said he doesn't want to open the bowling, apparently. Who cares? A tougher captain would make sure that the Australian openers have something to worry about from the get-go: Hoggy swinging it in on a length from over the wicket, and Freddie pinging it into and then away away from their ribs, changing from over to around as he feels like it.

If dropping Flintoff to #7 bat made this more likely, which I guess it would have to, because we won't have a lot of room for bowlers in the team anyway, then I would be a huge fan. But if he bats 7 and doesn't take the new ball, all we'll have done is reduce our bowling options.

The best all-rounders (who were successful captains) always had a support all rounder as well. Though not as good as the main all rounder, they were able to support the main all rounder. Imran Khan had Wasim Akram and Kapil Dev had Ravi Shastri. Hence, they could be given a license to be rash. Both the support all rounders were capable in their ow right.

A situation of 5/80 or even 5/200 is a pressure situation, and Flintoff is lost as to how long he needs to stay to solidify the status. I think he is a good batsman for the top six. England doesnt have the liberty of a support all rounder for Flintoff.

The England think tank need to probably decide where best to have him bat. I dont think it would be a bad idea for him to play at no. 3 with a license to be rash.

Problem is England's best batsman, KP is himself an exciting, but not a dependable bat. When things are down, he would take the attack to the opposition rather than play a defensive game.

I think in this regard, it would be a good option to play Freddie at no. 3 (with the license to open up) and let someone like Cook bat lower down the order.

I don't think Flintoff's captaincy is the problem - did he do such a bad job? But his batting isn't strong enough for a number six.

Surely Fintoff + Jones/Read + Panesar + Joyce

is worth more than

Flintoff + Anderson/Mahmood + Jones + Giles?

With all the talk about the parallels to Lords 2005, what are the chances England will attempt to solve this problem by harking back to their previous fairytale season - 1981 - when they started with their champion allrounder as captain, and saw him struggle through the first 2 games, only to be rescued by the introduction of a virtual specialist captain for the third game. Will Vaughan reprise the Brearley role from 1981 and does that release Flintoff to bat and bowl as he can? And does Harmison then do a Willis - going from struggler to star? I'm sure there are other possible 1981 comparisons. Luckily from an Australian viewpoint follow-ons are (rightly) out of vogue and history rarely repeats itself quite as exactly as that.

The English didn't do horribly bad for their first 1st class match of the tour. Their bowlers just didn't have a "Plan B."

If you look at the pitch map of where McGrath and Clark pitched the ball (and to a lesser extent Warne) it was an essay on the virtues of line and length and patience.

KP did the only thing he knows how to do and was good enough to put the bowlers off. Collingwood just waited longer for the right ball and had better shot selection than many of his teammates. He did have a slight rush of blood to a fairly decent dropping ball however!

Don't mistake patience for the defensive cover-point sweeper, forward-square leg sweeper, third man and hope the batter get frustrated tactics from Ashes 05. It starts with the bowler putting the ball in good areas and builds from there.

The English team and selectors must not panic here. Replacing Anderson with either Mahmood or Panesar would be a positive step, but 4 bowlers plus Flintoff is still a good team structure. The team did look a little down in the fielding department though, which is a big problem if both batting and bowling are not working 100%.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Aussie supporter, even though I want to see the English team humiliated 5-0 and RT.Ponting lifting the Urn in a couple of months time, that doesn't mean I don't respect England as a team, or begrudge them any success they have.

Unbelievable the amount of Fletcher bashing going on around here.This is the man who has directed England over 5 or 6 years from last to second in the Test Rankings.Ia he always right? No, but neither is anyone else and I think his record suggests he gets it right more often than not.
In 2005 after Lords Test defeat there were howls from all quarters : Panic! Drop Giles!Call back Thorpe!Run in all directions!
Fletcher did none of these.He remained calm, trusted his players and his game plan,worked on the lessons of Lords - and a few weeks later collected the Ashes.
It may not happen that way again - England are away from home and missing a few key players.But the best chance of turning things around is not to change everything in a blind panic as some people seem to be advocating, apparently in hope that we will maagically hit on "the answer". It is to calmly assess what is the best combination for the match in prospect and act accordingly.
I expect Fletcher will do this just as he did in Brisbane.If this results in a win ,I wonder how many of his critics will come on here to praise him?
(by the way Monty fans,don't worry : I am pretty sure your man will play in Adelaide as he logically should.Just as he was never likely to play in Brisbane)
It is a five match series and we should get behind Freddie and Fletcher for the rest of it rather than going off like a bunch of football fans.

I do agree that Flintoff is not a good enough batsman to be considered a number 6 - choosing between Flintoff against Michael Clarke in batting ability is a no brainer - but England have a severe problem with their away from home bowling, meaning they must always use 5 bowlers, hoping to get a fair performance out of 3. In South Africa Hoggard put his hand up. Harmison was scratchy. In Australia - who will it be?
As it stands, if England bowl 4 (including Flintoff, who is by far their best bowler right now), what happens if 2 out of 4 don't fire?
The answer was given by the Aussies last ashes. When 2 out of 4 bowlers don't perform you lose the series. Replace Gillespie/Kasperowitz/Tait with Anderson/Giles/Mahmood/Harmison.
So England must play 5 bowlers, hoping to get 3 good performances out of them every test, while that leaves Flintoff as the number 6. England have not yet found the wicket keeper to replace Alec Stewart as a real batting option.
Flintoff has always been the great pom equalizer, being a decent bat and a good bowler. England must stick to that formula.
In the captaincy question - I don't think it effects Flintoff's game much. I think he should be captain and I reckon he'll become a good one. The only problem is, Australia is a harsh place to serve out your apprenticeship. He'll lose this series, but England may earn a tougher, more experienced captain out of it for the next one, on home ground.
Finally - to those poms waiting for "dad's army" to retire. We have Cosgrove, Lehman's prodigee, coming in for Martyn, Jaques and Hussey replacing Langer and Hayden, Haddin coming in for Gilchrist - and all are vastly experienced players. I wouldn't count McGrath or Warne out for the next series either.
Apart from what's on show at the moment (and doing poorly) who do you have to look forward to?

Mark C, @11.56 am,
with respect, I don't think you should jump to conclusions about Duncan Fletcher's role in this.
My information - from someone very close to the man - is that he wanted Strauss to lead the tour, and maintained that position up to the very last minute.

Monty for Anderson. Mahmood for Harmison. Harmy off to Perth to chat to Lillee and Vaughan and practise (as the Pakistanis did preparing for him at Old Trafford) on a marble pitch. Fred to win the toss. Punter's back to stiffen further. McGrath's heel to hotten up. Australians to continue with their charming habit of racially abusing our cricketers. The scene set for a terrible revenge.

Oh, God. Best allrounder in the side and people are talking about replacing him with Strauss. Strauss is a damn good player, but matching him with Freddie. No match at all. He is once in a generation kind of player with superb attitude and presence to go with his talent. He can pull of matches single-handedly from anyone at any time at any place. He is a bowling allrounder undoubtedly, but his big heart to look problem right in the eyes makes him one swashbuckling character. Come on man. He did it all alone in Brisbane. He was standing right in between Ponting and hundred more runs. Give him sometime. Unnecessary cricticism cannot weigh down player like Freddie, but can backfire on all crictics.

Kutch - "The “great” all-rounders have always had a batting average at least 10 runs higher than their bowling". Do you mean, say, Ian Botham, who batted at 33 and bowled 28? Or Kapil Dev, who batted 31 and bowled 29? Or weren't these two "great" allrounders?

Great player though he is, it is too much to expect Flintoff to carry the bowling & batting as well as captain the team.

Also by not playing Panesar, surely Fletcher and Fintoff have dented his confidence. This implies that they did have faith in his ability to deliver the wickets. Now if he is thrust into the cauldron, he will feel under pressure to deliver. Consequently, his bowling can suffer.

I think that England cannot afford to play both Flintoff and Collingwood in the top 6. Neither one is strong enough as a batsman, despite Collingwood's excellent second innings, barring the ball he got out on of course.
Therefore they need to include Joyce in the team. Unfortunately they don't have any other specialist batsmen and will have to gamble on a newcomer to test cricket.

I would also "rest" Harmison in Adelaide and let him loose again at Perth. Particularly in a line up involving Joyce as 4 bowlers including Harmison would be a disaster if he continues to play as he did in Brisbane. However in a 5 bowler team, those closer to him can decide whether he should play over Mahmood.

From what I've seen up to and including Brisbane I'd play :
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Bell
4. Pieterson
5. Joyce
6. Collingwood
7. Flintoff
8. Jones/Read
9. Hoggard
10.Mahmood
11.Panesar

Which still allows Collingwood/Pieterson/bell to add a bit of variety if the 4 main bowles can't breakthrough, while providing more depth in the line-up to both take some pressure off of Flintoff, and also allowing Read to play, despite his inferior batting average. It would be nice for England to play both spinners, but I don't think the squad allows for it, and the best dual spinner team I can compile is :
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Bell
4. Pieterson
5. Collingwood/Joyce
6. Flintoff
7. Read
8. Giles
9. Hoggard
10.Harmison/Mahmood
11.Panesar

Too risky by far for the English selectors I think, but plays the better keeper, both spinners, and the aggressive Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff opening. Puts a lot of pressure on the top 4 batsmen however, as it is an even weaker batting line-up than at Brisbane. Still, it provides a lot of firepower and the two spinners can dictate the tempo of the game, by allowing a lot of overs to be bowled and force a result.

I don't think England have much chance this series, too many injuries, and too many bad decisions. Plus they've already lost the first Test. Next Ashes series will be more competitive, with Simon Jones and Trescothick hopefully returning. If I had picked the side, instead of Fletcher, I'd have gone with:

Strauss (c)
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Hoggard
Harmison
Mahmood
Panesar

They changed things round for no apparent reason. Who performed against Pakistan? Read, Panesar, and Mahmood. So for Brisbane we replace them with Jones, Giles, and Anderson?

A good and thought-provoking article. I definitely agree that Flintoff looked like a man with far too much weight on his shoulders – he appeared shell-shocked coming in to bat in the first innings, and I felt he was going through the motions when Australia were batting second time around.

I don’t think Flintoff is the right person to captain England – yes he is inspirational, and at his best, an amazing performer with both the bat and ball, leading by example…but he can do all that without being captain!

As captain, I think he is too relaxed, too laid-back, and for such an iconic figure, he seems to lack passion (Hayden’s wicket apart!). In his interview after the match finished, he sounded pretty blasé about how England had played. I would have much rather heard him talking with passion and anger about how badly England had played, how embarrassed and angry the team were and how totally focused they were on turning things around.

I also don’t think Flintoff has anywhere near the tactical genius of Vaughan (or even Strauss), but having said that, I guess we have to accept that he is, and will be, captain for the rest of this Series.

As for the rest of the team, obviously the bowling hugely underperformed, and has to improve massively for Adelaide. Panesar must come in for Anderson, but I would give Harmy another shot – he is very dangerous when his head is right. As for Giles, I’m torn between dropping him for another batsman or keeping him in. I guess that would depend on a) the pitch b) how well Flintoff can stand up to being one (the main) bowler out of just four.

I do think the batting line-up is reasonably strong, particularly if Giles is dropped. However, all of the batsmen need to spend time thinking about shot selection, getting their strategies firmly fixed in their head, and rehearsing what balls they do/don’t play.

Getting the balance right between aggression and defence – without being reckless - is the key to beating the Australians. If we don’t get that spot-on we won’t be coming home with the Ashes…

No Tim, you are wrong. Flintoff is NOT GOOD ENOUGH to bat at 6 OUTSIDE ENGLAND. Just look at his averages. In England he averages 36, outside England he averages 28. It is universally accepted that Flintoff's average is artificially deflated by the appalling start he had to his career, so let's look at a more recent sample. In his last 20 matches in England he averages 45! Outside England in his last 20 he averages 31.

So not good enough outside England, on large grounds and pitches he's not used to.

"... And yet, the point is somwhat moot, considering [Pietersen] is actually South African. To return to the crux of the issue; I wonder whether Strauss should have been given the [captaincy]..." said Odie.
That would be Andrew Strauss, born... where, exactly?

It always seems to be the McGrath/Warne show when Australia play cricket. Australia should really be worried about the future, its all very well with these two but whats going when they arent around anymore, will Pommie bashing continue? But anyway the performance from England was a disgrace, they earn about £6000.00 for a test match while many of us work hard and struggle to live, its just not good enough.

i dont agree with Tim. i think an all rounder can be the best captain. He gave Ian Botham's example but didnt give Imran Khan's example. In Imran's case he became the better player when he became the captain of pakistan. He was not only opening the bowling for Pakistan but also batting at no6. Flintoff is atleast not opening the bowling. I think he should open the bowling as well as he is the best bowler in the team and can provide early break throughs. Its very hard to bowl at the set batsman. Thats what happen, as in almost all the test match freddie was bowling to a set batsmen. If he had opened the bowling and the way he was bowling he should have taken atleast 6 to 7 wkts. there is no way he should lay back. only because he is captain. He should lead from the front. Give him the chance he can be the best captain. Rather than comparing Freddie to Botham, he should be compared with Imran Khan, the best skipper pakistan had ever produced. There is a chance that we might see change in Freddie's batting style. That is to become more orthodox and responsible batsman. Thats what he needs not what he did while pulling Shane warne at the gabba.

A few points. First of all, I've heard several commentators say that Flintoff is a technically better bat than Botham, who actually batted at 6 for most of his career. On top of this, Flintoff averages 32 in this position- the same as his career average. If he's a bad number 6, doesn't that imply that he's a bad batsman, full stop?

Second point- there was actually swing around in Brisbane. Mathew Hoggard got most of his to move, especially in the second innings, and even Anderson got some to move as well.

Third point- Iain Weatherby- "Australians to continue their habit of racially abusing our players." As far as I know, there was only one guy who called Panesar a "stupid Indian" for which he was immediately ejected from the crowd. This was despite the headline saying "Sydney crowd abuses Panesar." If you infer one fairly minor case to mean "all Australians abusing Panesar" then respectfully you should start reading the article itself, rather than just the headline.

Since Duncan Fletcher loves Giles & Jones, I suppose this is what he should play since those two are unlikely to be dropped.

1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Pieterson
4. Flintoff
5. Collingwood
6. Bell
7. Joyce
8. Jones
9. Giles
10. Hoggard
11. Harmison

Yes the bowling attack is piss- weak but it was weak in Brisbane too with the five bowlers- remember the Adelaide pitch is likely to be even easier to bat on. Wish Jones & Giles got replaced by Read & Panesar.

Guys, pls do make up your mind..initially, it was being mentioned that Freddie should bowl less..now it ie being said that he should bat lower(lesser batting respobsibility)..it is never a perfect world..

Let's Not forget Vaughan. They say he is hoping to be fit for the 3rd test in Perth. If so Flintoff can relinquish the captaincy. I dont think it is right to move flintoff down. He played in a first class match for an England academy side against the WA 2nd 11 today. If Vaughan is back in the side should look like this:

1.Strauss
2.Vaughan
3.Bell
4. Collingwood
5.Pietersen
6.Flintoff
7.Jones
8.Mahmood
9.Hoggard
10.Harmison
11.Panesar

Unfortuanetly Cook has to go if Vaughan comes back in. Vaughan played incredibly last Ashes in aus opening and i think he would help England heaps if brought back in. Leaving cook out is harsh but i find it hard to drop collingwood or Bell, especially cause both are in form. Flintoff is alright at 6 for now. If the adelaide test provides us with another Flintoff failure i think then would be the time to make the change. Fletcher also needs to see the bleeding obvious!! Panesar is more likely to win England a test then giles even if he isnt making 20 runs like giles. Mahmood has proven to be handy and i dont actually think panesar is as bad as thought. The bloke is probably the hardest worker in all of England. Dalrymple is also better then Giles, and is alot more likely to make more runs. So, if worried about the runs, play dalrymple over giles cause he is better at batting and as gooder spinner.

Im not that sure Flintoff has enough experience as a captain, i would like to see Jones dropped as a keeper, at Fletcher putting in a call to his fellow ex Zimbabwean Andy Flower who has recently qualified for England to take up the gloves for England, batting wise he has been in the form of his life for Essex this season, he has experience of Australian conditions having played Sheild cricket a few years back, and is an ex captain for Zimbabwe can help Flintoff out a bit, he can bat 6 or 7 to help out the middle/lower order.He has a shrewd cricket brain and his experience will be usefull in taking down the Aussies,just a though though!

Tim

Re:"England didn’t deserve to escape from the Gabba with a draw," I disagree. On the contrary, Australia didn't deserve to leave the Gabba with a victory! Ponting's decision not to enforce the follow on was the height of arrogance borne of a profound desire for revenge. Clearly he is tired of feeling humiliated by the loss of the Ashes in 2005 and wanted to seize the opportunity to mercilessly grind England into the dirt. However his ensuing back injury and Glen McGrath's sore foot (both probably way more serious thatt the Aussies are willing to let on) could have and should have cost him that victory.

In his absence, Adam Gilchrist's Captaincy was abject, Brett Lee's bowling pedestrian, Warne's performance as lacklustre as I have ever seen and McGrath's performance, either side of his injury interlude, far below his usual exalted standard. Only Clark held things to gether for the Aussies as England showed their true colours in many respects and started to look like competitors.

Where England failed in extracting the draw that was of paramount importance to this campaign was in mind rather than in body - Collingwood's dismissal was unforgivable. Instead of thinking about reaching his centruy in style he should have been thinking only of staying put for a draw. Flintoff's dismissal was equally shameful and completely unnecessary. Even then we should have been able to bat out three sessions but, yet again, our key batsman let us donw badly. Pieterson, was defeated by his own overblown self-confidence and just threw his wicket away. After that we had the usual England tail's attack of lead foot. Jones - out to a virtual long hop that would have gone for 4 had he used his feet. Giles - no footwork, playing away from his body. Hoggard - far from getting in line, stepped to leg. Harmison? the less said the better. The guy just doesn't have a brain.

"Pietersen departed in the first over, the last faint hope went with him". THAT is our key batting weakness. EVERY PLAYER on a Test team should be able to muster 20 runs or so, no matter what. Look at Lee and Clark for example. Gone are the days when you could just write a strike bowler off as a batsman and rely on your top order to get all the runs.

"Australia were far too good. They shrugged off the hype and found the strength to play their natural game; England didn’t."

Fair enough, but the Aussies were at HOME, for heaven's sake in front of a huge home crowd, batting first on the best batting track in the world. And we're trying to go toe to toe with them with, in the main, a bunch of undercooked ingenues (in Australian conditions).

"The team with four bowlers took 20 wickets. The team with five bowlers took only 10 wickets, one of them a run-out."

Let's not oversimplify. Two out of those 4 Australian bowlers were two of the greatest ever to have played the game, playiong ijn their own back yard. 3 out of the 5 English bowlers were coming off long lay offs from injury and were nowhere near their personal best. Of the other 2, Hoggard wasn't getting any swing and without swing he is harmless and Harmison was nowhere near ready to spearhead the attack. Had we opened with Flintoff and Flintoff had been clever enough (which he is not) to see what the rest of us saw - i.e. we could have had Langer and Ponting out in single figures had we posted two slips and two gullies - it may have been a very different story.

"When a players is given three jobs, something has to give" Agreed. Why was Flintoff handed the Captaincy? Because the selectors felt he would strike fear into the Aussies where Strauss would not be regarded as any sort of a threat. Totally wrong-headed. Strauss would have been the right choice. That way he would have batted more responsibly and Flintoff would have been deployed more sensibly.

Clearly Vaughan is hell-bent on returning for the 3rd Test and that will probably not be a moment too soon. Just his on field presence would be enough to get our guys straightening up and flying right, never mind whether he score any runs or not.

If this was an Australian team, Strauss would be dropped for having let his side down by holing out not once but twice to a fielder who was specifically placed to do just that to him, Harmison would be dropped and sent back to grade cricket for a year or two before he was considered again, Pieterson would be at 4, Collingwood at 5, Jones would be out - for good, and Read would be in, Giles, God bless him, would be finished and Panesar would be given every chance he needed to become the main man in the spin department.

Aside from that, we now see how vital Troy Cooley was to our coaching team; and let's not blame Duncan Fletcher for his departure, but ECB for faffing around over his contract extension in such an inept manner. Had his employees been able to grasp how essential he was to our bowling squad's success, they never would have let him go. Without him Harmison and Anderson are all at sea and as worthy a chap as Kevin Shine is, he is no Troy Cooley.

The fact is that the Australian's believe in themselves and back themselves. They hope for success, we fear failure. They are all mentally tough and too many of our guys are mentally flaccid.

Now our backs are firmly up against the wall again I expect we'll start fighting but until we can find some pace bowlers who can bowl line and length all day long, like the Aussies, it is unlikely we will do much beyond regaining our pride.

The pressure on Flintoff as captain will have much to do with his style of captaincy. Vaughan made all decisions himself after consulting with Duncan Fletcher. Ponting comes to his decisions by comittee, after consulting with 5 players with over 600 tests between them. Flintoff doesn't have that luxury - especially with Tres not available. All he has are Strauss and possibly Hoggard. If he takes it all on himself - yes the pressure will mount up. If he shares the load, it could help him - and will also get the other "seniors" (using the term very loosely) to take responsibility. I stick with Flintoff as first choice leader, although Strauss may very well have the better cricket brain (note - it is accepted that in the Australian team Warne and Hussey are at least as qualified as Ponting to captain the team, and barring one situation, that hasn't created any problems within the team).

I would certainly take Harmison in Adelaide - because he is possibly the only player who can win a test there for England. Heaven knows it will be difficult enough to take 20 Australian wickets there. If Harmison keeps to his Gabba form, England are lost anyway - no matter who they play. If he returns to his 2004 form, England have a fair shot at a different result.

Adelaide is a spinners pitch on day 5. However, the pitch surface is superb for tall bowlers who can skid the ball through. Brett Lee could be deadly here with his pace - and Harmison with his height.

I believe England have made a mistake in appointing Flintoff captain for the Ashes over Strauss, and his performance in the first test illustrated how the trifecta of roles in the team is too much to cope with. I don't see what he offers over Strauss in terms of ability as a captain - and I haven't read anywhere to suggest otherwise - and the pressure he came under during the game without a doubt affected his all round game. Surely it is nigh on impossible to be expected to be the strike bowler - and it was evident he was far more dangerous than any other English bowler, and also hold down the pivotal number 6 position which often requires a rescue mission. I was at the 4th day at the Gabba, and his demeanour after losing his wicket was of a broken man, and he trudged off the field as slowly as I can remember a batsman doing.
He also must be questioned for not having the team firing on all cylinders on the first morning; though he cannot be entirely responsible for his players, there was an obvious lack of control from him. I thought his decision to spell Harmison after only two overs reflected his inexperience and lack of captaincy skills. On the very first morning of the test it was akin to waving a white flag to Langer and Hayden and was a major psychological blow to them, if not the entire Aussie batting lineup. Harmison is a bowler who needs to have confidence shown in him.
There have been comparisons made with Imran Khan, who was also a genuine quality all rounder, however I think he was an exceptional and inspirational leader of people, and his subsequent forays into politics demonstrate this. That is not too say Flintoff isn't, but on an Australian tour and being the main target of the Australians, it is asking too much.
He is an incredibly gifted cricketer and is the one player who can damage Australia in both departments - why hamper his game with the captaincy?