Is Flintoff overrated as a batsman?

While watching England play these days in the World Cup, I can't help but feel that nothing much is going to happen whenever Flintoff comes into bat. To me, its the start of the English tail, which isn't exactly too great. Agreed, Flintoff is in a big slump as of late, but is he just simply overrated? Raza, who commented on my "Vaughan needs to go" post, is of the opinion that Flintoff is indeed overrated, so I wanted to check out his stats and see what's going on.

Here is Flintoff's run breakdown by year since he made his debut in 99.

Year	M	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
1999	9	6	0	1	0	50	100	16.67
2000	11	9	1	1	0	84	206	25.75
2001	8	6	1	0	0	46	144	28.8
2002	18	17	1	3	0	52	397	24.81
2003	20	20	6	6	0	*70	631	45.07
2004	14	13	2	2	3	123	633	57.55
2005	18	15	1	2	0	87	490	35
2006	7	7	0	0	0	41	102	14.57
2007	15	14	2	1	0	*72	330	27.5
Overall (9)	120	107	14	16	3	123	3033	32.61

His overall batting average falls from 32.61 to 30.81 if one removes the minnows. Here is his performance in ODI's by opponent.

Versus	M	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
Australia	21	19	1	1	0	87	519	28.83
India	21	20	1	4	0	99	580	30.53
New Zealand	11	11	1	1	1	106	277	27.7
Pakistan	14	14	2	3	0	84	443	36.92
South Africa	6	6	1	1	0	54	129	25.8
Sri Lanka	10	9	1	1	1	104	222	27.75
West Indies	11	9	1	1	1	123	295	36.88
Overall (13)	94	88	8	12	3	123	2465	30.81

It's pretty consistent and thus doesn't tell us much, but its important to put it up to indicate that its not the opponent that's the problem. What about batting position?

Position	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
Opening
No. 3	9	1	0	0	*42	143	17.88
No. 4	11	0	2	0	52	260	23.64
No. 5	40	8	9	3	123	1448	45.25
No. 6	34	3	3	0	84	808	26.06
No. 7	12	2	2	0	64	358	35.8
No. 8	1	0	0	0	16	16	16
No. 9
No. 10
No. 11
Overall	107	14	16	3	123	3033	32.61

Well, he currently bats after Collingwood at number 6, yet even this graph isn't too telling. It does show us, however, that he is uncomfortable against the new ball, which isn't exactly news either. As an aggressive stroke maker one would expect a hard seaming ball to disturb him. He has been tried at one-down with not much success.

So obviously he is in a slump in the past two years, and his confidance is shot, but he had an average of 35+ from 2003-2005, so I can't conclude that he is overrated. His average over 13 innings in 2004 was almost 58, including 3 centuries against New Zealand, West Indies and Sri Lanka. That's no fluke by any stretch of the imagination.

But his position in the lineup is what irks me most. He is no 4 down batsman, and England should get a proper middle order batsman and shift Flintoff down by 1 to 5-down. I wrote something similar a couple of weeks ago, asking for my reader's opinion. The Atheist suggested a change of approach, rather than a change in batting order. Its true, but a change of approach doesn't solve the problem of a weak late middle order. England aren't aggressive enough when they really need to grab the bull by the horns. Nixon and Flintoff just don't have the ability to last 10 overs. And KP can't be expected to do everything with regards to approach, can he? Homer, in my opinion, made more sense and suggested inserting Dalrymple up the order, as he is a grafter, and can buy England some time in the middle and save Flintoff for some big hitting at the end.

Thoughts?

England need another middle-order batsman in the lineup

And I wrote this well before they were struggling. They're lucky to get to 209, but 138/7 is a clear sign that their middle order is too brittle. My issue with their lineup is that there are not enough specialist batsmen. I feel Flintoff bats too high up. 4 down is not appropriate enough position for him. I feel that they are missing a genuine middle order stroke maker at 4 down. If they get rid of Dalrymple for example, (though in all honesty, Michael Vaughan should go), they still will have 5 bowlers, but an added batsmen. Who will that fellow be? Well Strauss obviously can then open while Joyce can then bat somewhere else.

I know a bunch of England fans read this blog. What do you guys think? Inserting another batsman right after Collingwood extends the middle order, and allows for Flintoff to play his strokes late in the game.

Strauss probably better choice for captain than Flintoff

Andrew Flintoff had finally regained some form after a terrible Ashes campaign and England finally won a game. Things were going just dandy...Vaughan was back...and there was some rumors flying around about the uncertainty of the vice-captaincy. Now Vaughan is gone again and the selectors have made Flintoff captain once again.

How unsettling it must be for the English side. Not only are the low on confidence, but their specialist captain just crumbled away (again) and they're back to square one it seems. Strauss did well against Pakistan and Sri Lanka as captain on home soil. He should have been retained. Perhaps the responsibility rests better on his shoulders than on Flintoff's.

There is no doubt that Flintoff is a most important member of the English side. He fulfill 2 very important duties already, and the burden of captaincy rests once again on his shoulders. Obviously he will say he is ready to take it on. Who wouldn't? Plus Flintoff doesn't seem like the sort to shirk away.

What are the selectors thinking? Did they not watch the Ashes like we did? Why not admit one's mistakes and realize that, though he is a natural leader within team, and may very well be the future captain, he is too important a member of this side, to young and too inexperienced to juggle everything all at once.

Hmm...Can Vaughan captain from the dressing room? Make it baseball style management...Uhh..No! Sorry I even said that.