Originally Posted by marc71178
I'd question if he were actually the worst number 6 in the Ashes...
Err, what? Flintoff scored two fifties in the Ashes. The Australian number 6 across the five tests scored two centuries, one for each of the batsmen who batted there, and Clarke and Symonds together scored 433 runs @ 72.17 batting at 6. Symonds 232 @ 58 and Clarke 201 @ 100.50. It wasn't even close, even given that Australia's bowlers were generally better.
In general I'd say Flintoff is probably a better test batsman than Symonds, but Symonds is really a stop-gap player, selected on his fielding and bowling as much as his batting, and because of injuries and Martyn's retirement. Granted, if he was a long term selection at 6 and didn't improve dramatically he'd probably be worse than Flintoff, but I think Australia could get away with it given the strength of the batsmen below him. Clarke is quite obviously a much better test batsman than Flintoff, so I assume you're talking only about Symonds.
Flintoff simply hasn't been good enough to be a test number 6. An average of 32 from more than 60 tests is horrible for a top order batsman, especially when he's the last recognised batsman in the order. He'd be a pretty good number 7, but it's obvious IMO that the current setup leaves England very weak from 6 and below, and that was a major weakness in the recent series.