The word is that Andrew Flintoff will be back in business at Headingley for the second Test. It is by no means official, as Geoff Miller is keeping any such thoughts under wraps, but it presents him with a tricky dilemma, because someone will have to make way for the folk hero from Lancashire.

From what I hear, Flintoff is ready for that comeback and he is the sort of player that any captain, coach or selector wants available. There is still a chance that Miller might wait another match to allow Freddie a few more miles under the belt but the allrounder has been champing at the bit, has proved that his side strain is behind him and has also started to get some runs, with the exception of a lowly two he mustered for Lancashire in yesterday’s game against Hampshire.

The trickiest aspect is how best to accommodate him and keep the side moving forward. I am going to work on the premise that England should stick with the principle of the four-man attack they have used recently, which leaves Paul Collingwood, or conceivably another similar allrounder, at six, as someone who can bowl some useful overs.

Maybe, on Collingwood’s current form with the bat, I am being a bit optimistic in keeping him in the allrounder category but I think that is the right balance to strike, nice though it would be to eventually get back to the 2005 balance of five pure batsmen, Flintoff as one of five bowlers and a keeper who can bat.

So if Collingwood keeps his place, who goes? Sadly it might have to be Stuart Broad, who has done almost everything that has been asked of him. It sounds highly ironic to be talking about leaving him out when he has been making runs more easily than the man I have just kept in but we have to keep in mind the main tasks allotted to each individual. Broad’s runs have been impressive and very welcome, especially with the paucity of runs from the men immediately above him in the order, but his main job has been with the ball. Again he has been very good, persistent, lively and accurate but the problem is that Flintoff offers the same but with added clout - what they call in the trade a “heavier ball”. For the rest of us, it means he bowls quicker than Broad.

Both are hit-the-deck men with high actions and in the context of the bowlers currently in the frame for England the most similar. For all that energy, Broad’s wickets against New Zealand in the first three Tests of the summer cost him more than 40 apiece, whereas Jimmy Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom’s scalps came at 19 and 20 respectively. If it is any consolation to Broad, he can be very confident that he will return at the first opportunity but it would mean that Michael Vaughan would still have at his disposal the same sort of variety as before.

With England so much in command over these first three days at Lord’s it might seem strange to be also thinking of another change but I am afraid that the time has come to look at the keeper’s spot again. You might think I am being inconsistent if I allow Collingwood leeway and Tim Ambrose not. Neither has found form with the bat this international summer but the main difference is that I know a lot more about Collingwood’s capabilities.

If Miller feels that he does not want to tinker any more with a team that is doing well and has responded beautifully to the challenge afforded by South Africa then it might well be that Ambrose will be spared the chop and will in time-honoured fashion come up with a career-saving performance in the next Test. If so I would be delighted because his position is the one that seems to be the equivalent of the “Irish Question” of history; no one really knows the right answer.

All those who have sought to provide the answer in recent years, Jones, Read, Prior and now Ambrose, have had their qualities but none yet has been able to maintain standards in both parts of the keeper-batsman’s game. Maybe another week might just make the difference. Maybe.