Originally Posted by aussie
This is not true yo, between the the 2003 WC to now Flintoff has a very good record batting down the order
for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6
it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.
Why must he be made to bat at number 6, regardless of whether he is good enough?
He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.
Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.
Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."