Are England better off without Flintoff?

The facts are these. Since Flintoff made his debut at Headingley in 1998, he has played in 72 of a possible 131 Tests (excluding the game for the World XI). With him, England win less than 39% of their matches and lose 33%. Without him, they win 45% and lose 32%. When you consider that he missed three Ashes trouncings (in 1998-99, 2001 and 2002-03) at a stage of his career when he was still some way off becoming the titan who bestrode the 2005 Ashes, it's fair to say those stats could be even worse. Again, this is not to say England should drop Flintoff. Far from it. It's simply to get a few things in perspective.

Another thing. Flintoff last scored a Test hundred and took five wickets in an innings during that 2005 series - one that marked the end of an 18-month golden spell for England's supposed heir to Ian Botham. Since then, he has averaged under 30 with the bat and not far off 34 with the ball. Even taking injuries into account, these are not the stats of a world-class all-rounder.

Panesar should take note of how Benn achieved his success (no West Indian spinner since Lance Gibbs has taken eight wickets in a Test match). This may not be the fashionable response to Panesar's problems (most crave that he magically becomes a modern-day Bishen Bedi) and it is a rather prosaic one: he needs to be more miserly, to bowl more maidens and the wickets will eventually follow.

3 The number of Tests (out of 20) that England have won since the 2005 Ashes with Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff in the side.

10 The number of Tests (out of 21) that England have won since the 2005 Ashes without Flintoff in the side. Pietersen has played all 41 Tests in that time.

13 The number of Tests (out of 20) that England have lost with Pietersen and Flintoff in the side since the 2005 Ashes.