Andrew Flintoff

Four bowlers or five? It is a fundamental decision in the make-up of any cricket team. It is a choice to be made in advance, as a matter of policy. It is not a decision to be made on the morning of a match, at the captain’s eleventh-hour whim or by command of the conditions. Yes, you might prefer an extra seam bowler to a spinner, but only within a previously agreed framework.

Of late this dilemma had not touched England’s radar. They had no choice. Five bowlers can only be entertained through the inclusion of a genuine all-rounder. With Andrew Flintoff unfit, England had no one even approaching that status. Now Flintoff is back, and confusion reigns. No question, Flintoff must play, despite worries that eternal economy is masking a modest wicket-taking strike-rate. But is he an all-rounder? If so, England can play five bowlers. If not, four. As it was, England came up with a hotchpotch of uncertainty at Headingley, not considering Flintoff an all-rounder by batting him at seven, yet playing five bowlers.

This was at the root of England’s problems there and, judging by the obfuscation surrounding the 13-man squad announcement Saturday, it will be the case again at Edgbaston this week. After their mess-up last week the selectors, through their spokesman Geoff Miller, needed to make a clear and definitive statement yesterday. Instead, in a rather shambolic briefing at the rear of a noisy Rose Bowl press box, Miller proffered a muddled miasma full of questions rather than answers.

The recall of Paul Collingwood seems to suggest a reversion to six specialist batsmen and four bowlers, but Miller could not - or would not - tell us whether this will be the case. That decision, he said, will be left to the captain, Michael Vaughan, and coach, Peter Moores. Just as it was at Headingley. If the pair have any sense they will declare their intentions as early as possible in Birmingham. Some clarity and strength of leadership need to be restored quickly.

A last-minute decision was taken to play five bowlers rather than four at Headingley because of concerns over the fitness and energy levels of James Anderson and Stuart Broad after England’s three-day marathon stint in the field at Lord’s. Such a policy was an unforgivable piece of foolhardy planning. Forethought rather than afterthought must be the mantra of any management team. There was none of the former, and now, damagingly, there is plenty of the latter. The rigours of that first Test at Lord’s were extraordinary. Most cricketers go through a whole career without enduring three full, consecutive days in the field. Sisyphus and his boulder? It was nothing compared to this.

In their initial thought processes for Headingley the England management relied too heavily on the advice of their medical staff. They should have used their cricketing nous. Cricketers have instinctive feelings not possessed of those who have not played the game.

It is the same reason why statistics alone should not be used in selection. Darren Pattinson was picked on figures as much as Headingley’s overcast conditions. The England management’s admiration of the acclaimed American baseball book, Moneyball, was manifested by Pattinson’s sudden emergence. But whereas the book’s subjects, the impoverished Oakland A’s with their unorthodox manager Billy Beane, were able to cope with the big names, Pattinson did not cope so well.

It was obvious at Lord’s that Ryan Sidebottom was going to be in no state to play a Test three days later. Nor Broad, if truth be told. The young buck should have been rested for Headingley. Instead he will probably be dropped at Edgbaston. Luckily he is made of stern stuff. He has shown that already in recovering admirably from being struck for six sixes in an over by Yuvraj Singh in last September’s World Twenty20. He will one day be, like Flintoff, a champion. He has been compared to Glenn McGrath. Personally I don’t see the likeness. He will never be a metronome. His left, non-bowling arm does not work hard enough for that.

But, while considering statistics, I thought I’d look up the comparison with McGrath after the eight Tests Broad has so far played. Broad has 19 wickets at 49.36. McGrath also had 19 wickets, albeit at a slightly better average of 43.68. And as for the batting, Broad has 371 runs at 41.22; McGrath had 15 at 2.14. No contest. There, Moores & Co. should like that stat.