Who should cop the blame for Flintoff injury?

Andrew Flintoff's latest injury, which has ruled him out of the IPL and the Tests against West Indies, has the the English media wondering whether the ECB should have taken a firmer line against the player, and barred him from playing in South Africa. Nasser Hussain writes in the Daily Mail that the incident is a "black mark against the administration of English cricket and the England team".

Players just cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot expect to reap the benefits of a lucrative central contract and then only be under control of the ECB when it suits them. Player power has over-ridden common sense. Someone has to explain to Morris and Clarke that good management is not about making friends. Sometimes it is about being prepared to upset people as well.

Nick Pierce, the ECB's chief medical officer, says the injury could have happened “any time, anywhere” to which Michael Atherton replies in the Times:

Pierce may well be correct to imply that Flintoff could have been injured just as easily playing for Lancashire, but would he have been tearing around the outfield at Hove, sliding on his injured knee to save a boundary, as he was on Thursday?

Derek Pringle, in the Daily Telegraph, is less harsh on the ECB, and notes the role of a powerful player union in decisions such as allowing England players to take part in the IPL.

Angus Fraser goes further in the Independent and places the responsibility for the predicament in Flintoff's hands. In the same paper, Stephen Brenkley looks at what a Freddie-less England line-up will look like.

In a balanced piece in the Guardian, David Hopps says the overriding response towards this IPL misadventure should not be resentment, but compassion.