I haven’t seen Fred play for a while, so I’m basing my opinion on the articles written. If Vaughan and Langer say he’s good enough to play, then I say the sooner he comes back the better. Sure Langer may be exaggerating (he is Aussie after all) but maybe Fred should come in as a bowler first, rather than as an allrounder. And as Marcus said, England have been the winning team because they’ve had a five-man bowling attack. Doesn’t look like Harmy’s going to be of any use in the near future.

Sidebottom should be the only certainty. So far, Hoggard has taken 10 wickets at 18, Broad 6 wickets at 29, and Harmison 4 wickets at about 20. Flintoff has taken 3 wickets at 41, from two matches. It’s madness that he should be considered as a specialist ahead of Hoggard or even Broad, both of whom have more form with the ball, and the latter with the bat as well.

Now don’t get me wrong, I hope Flintoff comes back, but it should be in a five-man pace attack, and he should earn it through strength of form. Let’s be honest here, he hasn’t earnt anything so far- all he’s done is not break down. So I really think it smacks a little of desperation that the English are willing to rush him back at so early a stage. I think that by far England’s best move- for themselves as well as for Flintoff- is to let him chalk up the wickets (and hopefully the runs) for Lancashire, and bring him back to face the South Africans- when he’s ready.

He should. Though Collingwood should also be included - meaning a batsman will need to be left out.

I think that most nations in World Cricket are still looking for the Flintoff-esque all-rounder. Symonds is a batting all-rounder, as is Watson for Australia. Pathan shines more with the ball than he does with the bat for India. Bravo is too in consistent for the West Indies.

The Flintoff from the 2005 Ashes is still the benchmark, and it might be a bar set too high, but the Flintoff of today is still worth a shot. He is one of those players who’s name preceeds him & I think that the upcoming series against as so-so New Zealand team might be the best way to see if he still has Test level cricket in him.

I’m happy to acknowledge that Anonymous’s post 2004 stats are more relevant than Flintoff’s whole career stats.

I am a bit worried by the fact that Flintoff has only two 5 wicket analyses in his whole career, and I had the feeling that Flintoff had permanently damaged himself as a strike bowler by a couple of episodes of severe overbowling (in the last Ashes, when he was captain).

But if in the last couple of years Freddie has sustained a 3.5 wickets/ match rate or better at a decent average then in that case I think he may be okay (if fit) as the fourth bowler (bearing in mind he would throw a lot of extra work on the other three).

But I think Broad is likely to be a much better prospect than Flintoff - who has had *overall* a pretty mediocre cricketing career; and has been carried by England more often than he has led by example.