CRICKET:THE COLOSSUS is back. If only it were that simple. Andrew Flintoff, absent from England's Test team for far too long, will once more thunder in to bowl and rumble out to bat.

But how will his return upset the balance of a side that has been together for a record six successive matches? Whose nose will be put out of joint?

Michael Vaughan went only part of the way towards settling his side yesterday by announcing Flintoff will bat at seven, which in an ideal world is his ideal position. When he bats well - or more pertinently when those above him do so - then he can bat one place higher; indeed, with runs on the board there are few players anywhere who are capable of inflicting such violent damage on a flagging attack. But he is not a scrapper in the strictest sense, even though he is capable of chiselling out the ugly runs in adversity. Seven is right.

In inking Flintoff's place, though, Vaughan has done little to sort out the balance of the side. In simple terms, dependent on whether there are four or five frontline bowlers and whether a spinner plays, the first set of options appears to be this: Tim Ambrose, the wicketkeeper, could be sent in at six, certainly one and possibly two places higher than his abilities warrant, or he could bat at eight, with Stuart Broad, on the basis of his 76 at Lord's, receiving rapid and unwise promotion to six.

All that is is on the assumption Paul Collingwood, out of form and luck too, is omitted in favour of a fifth bowler so that Flintoff is wrapped in cotton wool. But it does not stack up, given the situation. At Lord's the game was conducted on an unforgiving pitch for bowlers, in generally good weather. Headingley is still susceptible to vagaries caused by the sort of overcast, overhead conditions and changeable weather predicted throughout the five days.

In such circumstances, and particularly when it is expected the South African bowlers will be a considerably greater threat than in the first innings at Lord's, it would be perverse to weaken the batting simply to strengthen the bowling. England might want to protect Flintoff but it may well be a shortened game in more helpful conditions, in which case he is not going to be overworked.

If he is fit, he is fit for everything. Collingwood should stay at six, and consider himself fortunate a new batsman was not included in the squad in his stead.

However, there are further decisions to be made. If Flintoff is to be one of three seamers then, all things being equal, it has to be in place of Broad, whose excellent batting should not mask the fact he has yet to look really threatening with the ball and is still green. To leave out Jimmy Anderson after his whole-heartedness at Lord's would be harsh - and it would leave the side without a new ball bowler. However, he has a sore back, and Nottinghamshire's Darren Pattinson was yesterday called up as cover.

Two further options exist, though. The first, assuming the weather forecast can be trusted, is based on the theory that a spinner would be superfluous and that, without Monty Panesar, Flintoff would be one of four seamers anyway. The second, which may yet prevail is if Ryan Sidebottom is unfit, on account of his stiff back, in which case the sole change from Lord's would be Flintoff for him.

With a side that bats deep, this is a game England are perfectly capable of winning. Weaken the batting potential, however, and it is not so clear-cut as to whether the bowling can compensate.

Two things at Lord's, within England's control, would have helped their cause and need addressing. Panesar worked his way through 60 overs and rarely threatened to take a second-innings wicket against batsmen determined to stay in at all cost. In this he showed himself to be a fine bowler technically but one without the wit or confidence to appreciate the variations of pace and flight that ought to be at his disposal and to know when he should utilise them. He is stereotypical.

A second point concerns the close catching, which aside from two misses by Vaughan and Alastair Cook, late in the final day, looked faultless but was not. The wicketkeeper Ambrose, and the slips, who take their cue from him, consistently stood too deep to the seamers, so the ball was taken all too often at ankle height. On such a slow pitch, both keeper and slips should have played the odds and come forward.