Do England need Flintoff?

With Andrew Flintoff's chances of playing in the second Ashes Test at Lords rated slim, former England skipper Michael Atherton, writing in the Times, ponders the once unthinkable – do England still require his services?

"That is no longer the kind of heretical statement that would, once upon a time, have brought upon the perpetrator the Inquisition," declares Atherton. "There is now a general realisation that the talismanic all-rounder of four years ago is not as central to England's success as before."

He likens Flintoff to a second hand car with plenty of miles on the clock and reliability issues: "It is a truism that when you set off on a long journey, you are just not quite sure whether you will reach the destination."

Not only is there the question of whether Flintoff can perform, there is also the issue of how the team performs around him.

"Since 2005, England have played 48 Tests, winning 15, losing 16 and drawing 17. Flintoff has missed 25 of those because of injury. Without him, England have won 12 matches; in the 23 games that he has played, England have won three. Flintoff is a fine cricketer, who will and should play if fit, but his stamp is no longer - if it ever has been - a guarantee of success," reveals Atherton.

If the Lancashire man is not fit he advocates replacing him with Ian Bell and bringing in Steve Harmison and Graham Onions for Stuart Broad and Monty Panesar in a four-man bowling attack. ·