Should Flintoff have been playing?

I should be in a position to say I told you so, but unfortunately lack of time meant that I didn't actually get round to posting that I wouldn't have picked Flintoff for the warm up game against St Kitts. As I didn't ever write the post, you'll just need to take my word for it that this isn't just the benefit of retrospect! Now, unfortunately, there are concerns over Flintoff's fitness again after he injured his side.

My thinking in wanting to suggest Flintoff didn't play was this. There are two spots out of 3 in the order for Bell, Shah and Collingwood and it seems very unfair on Collingwood if Bell and Shah get the opportunity to score hundreds, while he is left on the sidelines. Collingwood is also one of those guys who needs time in the middle in a way that someone like Pietersen doesn't. The alternative to Collingwood instead of Flintoff would have been Sidebottom who needs lots of bowling and wickets if he's to prove himself and therefore be a realistic candidate for the Tests. England's other 10 were sufficiently "all-round" that it wouldn't have mattered greatly which of Collingwood and Sidebottom played.

Flintoff, who is pretty metronomic in his bowling (i.e. needs little practice it seems), was chosen and unfortunately the worst has happened. Personally I would have liked to see England use the chance to look at options for the 1st Test which means looking at the non-certainties. Shah has shown just how important that can be and I really hope he gets the nod ahead of Bell now for the 1st Test. We just have to hope that Flintoff is fit in time....