The doer of great sporting deeds is a receptacle of people's gratitude and of their infatuation with the past. Now that Andrew Flintoff is back playing for Lancashire, he is a daily reminder of a glorious few months in English cricket when even football danced to its tune. This is a tonic for supporters but frustrating for Flintoff. Athletes do not like to live in the past; they want to get on, do great deeds again and so provide further memories for a time when the pipe, slippers and fireside stories replace the competitive instinct.

Caught between the public's desire to rekindle the past and the player's optimism about the future are three selectors, who met at Trent Bridge yesterday afternoon to pick over their options for the first Test match against New Zealand. In some ways Sunday's announcement represents the beginning of a new era, the first time in more than a decade that an England team will be announced without David Graveney's imprint upon it.

The new national selector is Geoff Miller and his extra eyes and ears are Ashley Giles and James Whitaker. They are a triumvirate of (in the best sense) workmanlike former Test players. In international terms they are more dandruff than stardust, but as they gathered last night, along with Peter Moores, the head coach, they had to decide what to do with the biggest star (still the biggest, KP) in the English game: what to do with “Freddie”.

They have been getting plenty of advice from other former international players. This from Stuart Law, Flintoff's county captain: “If you think you can leave him out of any England side when he's fit, you're kidding yourself.” Justin Langer, the Somerset captain, chimed in: “Flintoff could bat at No11 if it meant playing him. He must play in England's first XI.” And Marcus Trescothick, who, like Langer, got a Flintoff-inspired peppering at Old Trafford recently, said: “Bowling-wise he's as ready as he'll ever be. He's ready to go.” After all that, I am sure that the selectors will not mind advice from another has-been: for his own sake, and for the good of the team, he should not be picked - at least not yet.

Part of the reason is hidden in Trescothick's encomium. “Bowling-wise” Flintoff is ready, but what about the things that Trescothick left out, such as fitness-wise and batting-wise? After all, it is as an all-rounder that Flintoff has made the difference in the past and it is as an all-rounder that England should hope he can make the difference again. As a specialist batsman or bowler, others have better claims.

Sceptical? Well check out some magic numbers: 15, 0, 0; 24, 0, 0. Since the Ashes series of 2005 Flintoff has played 14 Test matches and has not scored a hundred or taken a five-for. In that time he has played a further nine first-class matches (before yesterday's county championship game at Old Trafford) and again has not scored a hundred or taken a five-for. In black and white, the case for Flintoff's inclusion in the first Test squad of the summer does not look so compelling.

Here are two more magic numbers: 5, 86.5. Since the last Test match of the most recent Ashes series in Australia, Flintoff has played only five first-class matches and has bowled 86.5 overs. Admittedly 52 of those have come this summer in two matches during which he has reached the kind of warp speed that caused the constabulary to spring into action recently. But that seems to be precious little evidence to go on that he is over the chronic ankle injuries that have blighted his recent past.

But come on, Flintoff means so much more to English cricket than statistics, right? Supporters do not deal in figures. They deal in myths and memories and the hope of a better future. They hanker after a return to the glory that was the Ashes 2005 and so they want to watch again the man who was most responsible for that magical summer.

But Flintoff's Everest at Edgbaston was the best part of three years ago and since then there has been plenty that even his biggest fans may want to forget: the injuries, the drinking, the humiliation in Australia, the pedalo and the patchy form.

And what is the rush? England should beat New Zealand with the most frequently invoked relative in broadcasting - Geoffrey Boycott's mum - at the helm. Why not let Flintoff continue to bowl for Lancashire so he can take time to build confidence in his body and try to find some batting form before the tougher questions that South Africa will ask in the second half of the summer? Flintoff's bowling is rock solid, but his batting is flaky and he needs matches and runs under his belt before he takes Test-match examinations again.

Beyond this, the selectors have to ask themselves what role they want Flintoff to play. From their comments this season, it appears that Moores and Michael Vaughan have settled on a four-bowler combination, Flintoff batting at No7 and playing, essentially, as a specialist bowler, any runs a bonus. Cynics may wonder at Vaughan's sudden conversion to four bowlers, given that five would necessitate the dropping of a batsman, and, on form, Vaughan would be the most vulnerable. If not Vaughan, then who would feel the cold steel of the selectors' axe on their neck? Migraines all round.

But Flintoff is at his best when used as a shock bowler, not a stock bowler. Speed and strength are his assets, best shown during the kind of short spells that a five-man attack allows. When Langer and Trescothick spoke admiringly of Flintoff's pace, they failed to mention that Flintoff was operating as part of a five-man Lancashire attack. James Anderson, Glen Chapple and Sajid Mahmood were on hand to do some donkey-work, allowing Flintoff to let rip.

If Flintoff plays for England as one of four bowlers, he may have to do some donkey-work of his own. Memories are short, but in the last Test match that he played at Lord's, against Sri Lanka, he bowled more than 50 overs in the second innings, an innings that acted as a prelude to his injury problems. We do not want to see a thoroughbred turning into a hobbling carthorse again, knacker's yard looming.

In any case, others, notably Matthew Hoggard, have better claims in a four-pronged attack. Hoggard has 51 more Test wickets than Flintoff, five more five-wicket hauls, all at a far better strike rate. This season he is taking his wickets at an average of 18, compared with Flintoff's average of 41. In early-season conditions, with swing and seam at a premium, the Yorkshireman is the more logical pick.

If the selectors want to play Flintoff as a genuine all-rounder, then his batting form does not warrant a place in the top six. Flintoff is a technically superb bowler and a technically poor batsman. Not that technique is all that important when everything else - form, rhythm, feel, balance - are in order. But these things come together only after time in the middle. Another failure - a first-ball duck - at Old Trafford yesterday means that he has had precious little of that.

Besides, sending a message that a little hard work and some good performances are needed to get back in the team is no bad thing. The post-2005 Ashes decline, by common consent, was brought on partly by an overly cosy atmosphere within the team. Star players had become too cosseted. By leaving Flintoff out, it sends a message that no matter who you are and what you have achieved, you cannot walk back into the team. It would be no bad thing to have him breathing down the necks of a top six that has lacked ruthlessness of late.

Flintoff will play for England again and has the opportunity at Old Trafford over the next three days to make this column look foolish in the extreme. But bugger this column, a second-innings hundred at Old Trafford would be the best thing for English cricket, and not even this columnist is immune to a bit of nostalgia.