Andrew Flintoff's decision to forego a contract with England and set himself up as an elite cricket freelancer has provoked a fair amount of grumbling in the media, with words like "mercenary" and "snub" being bandied about all over the place.

But whether you consider Flintoff's decision ungrateful or not, consider for a moment whether it might not work out to England's advantage.

As others have said, there's nothing really new in Flintoff's decision to go it alone. Other cricketers have made themselves available as players for hire in different parts of the world over a season.

The difference here is that Flintoff has made it clear that he is still available to play for his country at one-day international and Twenty20 level ... and looking at the country's recent results, how they need him.

According to recent media reports, the thought of having such a talented and marketable cricketer as Flintoff in their ranks has already drawn interest from teams in Australia and South Africa.

Fitness permitting, he will be on the auction block for the Indian Premier League and as long as his knees hold up he could follow the sun, playing some games for England (he has his eye on returning for the tour of Bangladesh early next year) and more for cash-rich teams around the globe.

Is there anything wrong with what Flintoff is doing?

It's hard to think of an equivalent in another sport. David Beckham came to Europe to play a few months at AC Milan after his season in MLS was over. That was specifically to keep Beckham in condition to play for England, but Flintoff might make the same argument, as he looks to carry on until the 2011 World Cup.

While there may be dangers, won't playing in all these high-profile, high-pressure tournaments make him a more effective performer for his country? Might England even consider that they could do with more players taking the freelance route -- getting as much experience at the business end of matches around the world? 

Wouldn't that make them more effective performers when they pull on the England pyjamas?

PHOTO: Andrew Flintoff celebrates after dismissing Australia's Peter Siddle during the second Ashes test at Lord's, July 20, 2009. REUTERS/Kieran Doherty

Heard the one about the English batsmen who just couldn't resist nibbling at balls way outside off stump? It is an all too common occurrence and is the main reason why England fell short of a good first innings total in the deciding Ashes test.

Of course, flashing away outside the off-stump isn't just a disease to afflict English batsmen, although the problem does appear to be more acute on these shores than any where else.

It's an epidemic that has spread with the invention and subsequent proliferation of one-day cricket, which encourages the batsman's need to dominate and unsettle the opposition's bowlers.

The difference in test cricket is that the bowler is not required by the laws to bowl such a tight line around the stumps and therefore has more weapons in his armoury.

Five of the eight dismals to fall on day one were through players playing loosely outside the off stump. Of the five two can be offered impunity.

Captain Andrew Strauss was undone by a ball which inexplicably held its line instead of swinging in to the left-hander.

And Alastair Cook was delivered a ball that was so close to off stump that had he left it he may well have been listening to the lugubrious sound of the death rattle milliseconds later.

In saying that, Cook's technique will always leave him more susceptible to nicking one from the right-hander bowling across his bows. Whereas Andrew Straus plays with a straight bat down the line of off stump, Cook plays with an open face and pushes out rather than down the pitch and therefore is guiding the ball directly to the gluttonous slip cordon.

He can learn a lot from his captain.

England's plight is exacerbated by the profligacy when it comes to going on and scoring big hundreds, just one in the series so far, which brings us to Ian Bell.

He was England's top scorer yesterday, yes, but he's now had 32 innings batting at number three for England and has yet to register a century and that includes playing against teams of far less calibre than Australia. It is not good enough and exposes what many see as a mental weakness.

Say what you like about Ravi Bopara, but he scored two centuries in his first two innings in that position.

England's bowlers will need to be on top of their game if they are to wrestle the initiative back their team's way.

PHOTO: Andrew Flintoff of England misses the ball during the fifth Ashes test cricket match against Australia at The Oval in London August 20, 2009. REUTERS/Toby Melville

Australia have far more limited options than England when they consider changes to their
battle-weary side for the fourth Ashes test starting on Friday at Headingley, with their main hope of fresh impetus resting on the fitness of Brett Lee.

England had the luxury of bringing in fresh blood on Tuesday, calling up fast bowler Ryan Sidebottom and uncapped batsman Jonathan Trott for the first time this series, while again putting Steve Harmison on standby in a 14-man squad.

Australia captain Ricky Ponting expects to be able to call on Lee for the first time this series, after the quick bowler missed the first three tests with a rib injury.

Seamer Stuart Clark could be another option, possibly at the expense of Peter Siddle but otherwise the skipper has little to juggle with ahead of a match they cannot afford to lose, with England already 1-0 up with two to play.

"We will keep a close eye on Brett and I would expect him to be able to bowl," Ponting said after the third test draw in Edgbaston. "We know what Stuart is capable of and we will have plenty to talk about."

Australia are again likely to be without first-choice wicket-keeper Brad Haddin again after he pulled out of the Edgbaston test with a finger injury but Ponting remained bullish.

"If we play our best cricket we will take some beating," he said.

PHOTO: Brett Lee reacts to the crowd as he delivers drinks during the fourth day of the third Ashes test against England at Edgbaston in Birmingham, August 2, 2009. REUTERS/Darren Staples

I'm still not quite sure how, but somehow England escaped with a draw from the first Ashes Test against Australia, closing out the fifth day on 252-9, 13 runs ahead of the Aussie total and with no time left for the tourists to bat.

Talk about getting out of jail. Ricky Ponting must have thought he had the match won when England were five wickets down and still facing a massive 137-run deficit in the morning sessions.

Make no mistake about it, England were outplayed comprehensively but Paul Collingwood led a memorable  rearguard action and when he was gone, the rest of the tailenders finished the job.

The key now for England will be to learn from the mistakes that got them into this mess. Australia, while they'll be devastated at not winning this, must surely go into the second Test believing that they are the better side.

What's your prediction now? Can England still win this Ashes series?

PHOTO: England's Graeme Swann is hit by a bouncer bowled by Australia's Peter Siddle during the first Ashes cricket test in Cardiff, Wales July 12, 2009. REUTERS/Andrew Winning

For a third day in row England's demoralised bowlers wheeled away with all the luck of someone who's just walked across the path a black cat and smashed a mirror while walking under a ladder.

In all honesty they didn't deserve any fortune after another day's abject bowling display and signs from Strauss early on that it was a damage limitation exercise by time wasting with field placings and underbowling key bowlers.

Australia eventually put England out of their own misery, a cricketing version of shooting a lame horse if you like, by declaring on 674 for 6, once wicket keeper Brad Haddin completed his balmy century and holed out on the attack to Ravi Bopara in the deep.

Marcus North by that point had already joined Ponting, Katich and Haddin on the Cardiff honours board, further undermining pre-series reports that he was no more than a solid county professional, much like the much maligned spinner Nathan Hauritz who took more wickets in England's first innings than Swann and Panesar combined in Australia's.

The declaration, which gave Australia a 239 -run first innings lead, was inspired from Ponting, leaving England a tricky 30 minute period to negotiate before tea or as it happened before the rains came.

England's frail top order failed to repel the burning heat emanating from the Australian fast bowlers as both Alistair Cook and Ravi Bopara missed straight deliveries and succumbed lbw to Johnson and Hilfenhaus respectively, leaving England teetering on 20 for 2 before play was finally suspended for the day.

England will need to regroup overnight and come again in the morning, but we've been saying that for the last three days.

Psychologically and physically the joyless 180 overs England have spent in the field will have left them flushed and weak and a dominant Australia will be scenting victory before tea on the final day.

Andrew Strauss will need to show his hand with a captain's innings, supported by a show of concentration and obduracy from Pietersen, Collingwood and Prior, if England are to save this test match.

More concerns for England: the amount of turn the pitch showed at times during the fourth day, though England's bowlers failed take advantage of it, and that there are only three rest days between now and the second test, leaving drained bowlers little time to refuel.

It's the last chance saloon for England's batsmen but the can they hold during a final day showdown?

PHOTO: Australian captain Ricky Ponting gestures from the pavilion as he declares at 674 runs for 6 in their first innings during the first Ashes cricket test against England in Cardiff, Wales July 11, 2009. REUTERS/Andrew Winning

What an extraordinary first day of Test match cricket, even by Ashes standards. A day that ebbed and flowed, that tormented and teased both sets of supporters and ultimately left us with the question: where does the balance of this match lie?

As Kev notes, lunch for England would have been the equivalent of trying to digest tarmac, a disconcerting affair to say the least. Having won the toss and electing to bat England were reduced to 92-3 by a persevering if unspectacular Australian attack, which left the Barmy Army cowering behind their beer snakes fearing the worst.

Tea would have been sweeter -- "two more sugars please" -- after Pietersen and Collingwood put on a hundred runs for the loss of no wickets. If Pietersen batting is like watching an artist paint a masterpiece, then watching Collingwood is like sitting through a blacksmith beating a horseshoe into shape.

Then came an astonishing final session. Collingwood played at one outside off as unconvincingly as he'd hit a boundary a few balls earlier, and was snaffled by Haddin behind the timbers.

Shortly after, the least impressive bowler Nathan Hauritz took the wicket of England's best batsmen Kevin Pietersen, who played shot that would've had Geoffrey Boycott charging for him with his stick of rhubarb, and England were again teetering on the brink at 241-5.

Cue the Prior and Flintoff show. In a blink of an eye the pendulum had swung again as the bruise brothers rocketed England to 327 with a series of blazing cover drives and thumping pull shots through midwicket, and suddenly it looked as though England would finish close to 400 with 5 wickets in hand and the game, if not in the bag, then at the till ready for packing.

But back came Australia again with the redoubtable Peter Siddle removing Flintoff and Prior in a crazy last 15 minutes to leave England 336-7 at stumps.

So where does the balance of power lie? I think Australia will be the happier of the two sides. Their bowling on the whole was ordinary, yet they managed to winkle out seven England wickets and keep them to under 350.

However, England, despite cursing the fact that five out of seven batsmen conspired to give their wickets away, will be happy with what they have seen in the pitch, despite being 25 or 30 runs short and 2 wickets down from where they would like to be.

Much will depend on how long England can bat for tomorrow.

If England can get a score of 450 they'll be cock-a-hoop and Aussies will feel the game slipping away. However 3 quick wickets for Australia and they'll rightly feel in the ascendancy.

One final point. Check out the foot marks that are already appearing outside the left-hander's off stump (3 of Australia's top 4 batsmen are left handed).

It's hard to tell how and if a pitch is going to deteriorate, but having opted to play two spinners, England will be heartened by what they've seen, which could aid them in defending a below par score.

Where do you think the balance of power lies?

PHOTO: England's Andrew Flintoff looks over at Australian wicket keeper Brad Haddin during the first Ashes  test in Cardiff, Wales, July 8, 2009. REUTERS/Andrew Winning

England cricket is in deep disarray after the decision by captain Kevin Pietersen to resign as a result of his public spat with coach Peter Moores over the direction and training of the team.

Moores himself has been sacked and the race is on to restore morale ahead of a tour of the West Indies later this month and this Summer’s Ashes series.

Several pundits this morning are saying the England and Wales Cricket Board should have foreseen that the flamboyant and abrasive Pietersen would sooner or later fall foul of Moores, a former wicket keeper who had not played at test level.

Do you think Pietersen should have stayed as captain, or was the ECB right to stamp on such public dissent within the ranks?

Australian cricketer Don Bradman was born 100 years ago — on Aug. 27 1908 in the New South Wales country town of Cootamundra.

His feats on the cricket pitch were the stuff of legend. He averaged 100 runs every three innings and by the time he retired in 1948 his test batting average was a record 99.94 — perhaps the most famous number in cricketing history.

The world has seen some remarkable records broken over the past week at the Olympics in Beijing — do you think it is likely that Bradman’s 99.94 will ever be bettered? Can any modern batsman even compare?

The best days of modern greats like Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting appear over, but could England’s great hope Kevin Pietersen catch up and overtake that magic average?

(This Have Your Say was updated after Kevin Pietersen’s appointment) Kevin Pietersen has been named as Michael Vaughan’s replacement as England cricket captain.Vaughan, England’s most successful cricket captain, stepped down after a series of disappointing performances at the crease and the loss of the current Test series to South Africa.Dubbed “Me Ego” by the South Africans for his flamboyant style of playing, do you think Pietersen is the man to take England on to regain the Ashes next year? Can he put the interests of the team ahead of his own indomitable style?The South African-born player has negligible captaining experience.Have Alastair Cook, for example, Andrew Strauss, Freddie Flintoff and Robert Key been unfairly overlooked?And should Vaughan have walked so soon?