When the new selection panel agreed to the dropping of Matthew Hoggard and Stephen Harmison after the first Test match in New Zealand last winter, they showed themselves to be ruthless. Had Andrew Flintoff not broken down on Friday with a side strain that, realistically, will keep him out of the first half of the Test-match summer, another characteristic would have emerged - that of reckless gambling.

Announcing his first Test squad yesterday as the new national selector, Geoff Miller unwisely fudged the issue when asked about Flintoff (what is there to hide?), but it is certain that he would have played if not for his latest unfortunate injury. In Flintoff's absence, the squad contains no surprises. The 11 names that completed the victory in New Zealand have been augmented by that of Hoggard.

The announcement is reward for the 11 who turned things around so spectacularly in New Zealand after a poor start in Hamilton - and reward, too, for Hoggard, who has started the season with his customary determination and is in decent enough fettle. His 248 Test wickets and eight years of international experience are, rightly, not dismissed lightly, despite the claims of younger bowlers such as Graham Onions and Chris Tremlett.

The choice of the final place rests between James Anderson and Hoggard. Given that Anderson is the man in possession, that he completed his build-up to the first npower Test against New Zealand starting on Thursday with nine wickets for Lancashire in the match against Durham, and given that Hoggard has been the least penetrative of the England Lions seamers against the touring team, it is likely that Michael Vaughan will captain an unchanged team at Lord's from England's most recent Test in Napier.

Naming an unchanged team is the type of thing that pleases selectors, who reckon consistency to be a prerequisite of success. They went one step farther yesterday by announcing that this would be the squad for the second Test as well.

The logic is undeniable - if these are the best players for the first Test, they should be considered so for the second - but I still do not see the point of holding yourself unnecessarily as a hostage to fortune.

It is just a flip side of the coin away from saying that the selectors do not have that much faith in the team. If two Test matches, why not three? A team, and a captain for that matter, should be selected on a match-by-match basis without any time frame attached. It allows for flexibility.

Had Flintoff been fit, he would have been deployed at No7 as one of four bowlers. No doubt it was this conundrum that took up much of the six-hour discussion that went on between Miller and his three fellow selectors at Trent Bridge on Wednesday.

Flintoff did not make things easy for those charged with making decisions as he has spent the early part of the summer in Jekyll and Hyde mood, batting like Monty Panesar and bowling like Malcolm Marshall.

But surely it is his fitness, not his ability, that ought to have been the determining factor. After only 95 overs this year, on the back of a long layoff and four ankle operations, how could the selectors have been so sure that Flintoff was not a fitness risk? Fast bowling, particularly when done by someone of Flintoff's gargantuan build, is a crushing strain on the body. All the training in the world, all the gym work and the warm-weather training in Florida is no substitute for overs bowled.

Those who advocated his immediate return before this latest setback must surely now see the wisdom of patience. In that sense Flintoff's untimely injury has saved the selectors from themselves. Privately, Miller should be giving thanks that this injury occurred before and not during this week's Test match. To see Vaughan rotating two seamers and Panesar would have been an inauspicious start to his tenure.

Only the most flint-hearted, though, will not feel enormous sympathy for the Lancastrian. Speaking yesterday, Miller sounded genuinely distressed about Flintoff's predicament, a sentiment that will be shared by all those who care for English cricket. At least this latest setback has nothing to do with his troublesome ankle, which has responded magnificently to the stresses placed upon it this season. There is time yet for Flintoff to make his mark for England this summer.

For the spectators who have bought tickets for Lord's, Flintoff's absence is a blow. There is precious little in this Test series to set the pulse racing and the sight of Flintoff charging in for England again would have been ample compensation. As it is, those who might have looked forward to Flintoff's return must be feeling like the man who has decanted a bottle of Latour '61, only to find it corked.