If anyone has been able to agree on anything during this most fluctuating of Ashes build-ups, it’s the idea that Andrew Flintoff Is Crucial. The trouble is, people are agreeing for the wrong reasons. Because tempting though it is to regard Flintoff as the player Australia fear most (they, like most England fans, may be placing more weight on 2006-07 than 2005), it is nearer the truth to say that the effect Flintoff has on his own team could be the difference between victory and defeat.

Forget dodgy alarm clocks: the real issue with Flintoff is whether he has made the transition in his own mind from national treasure in 2005 to mantelpiece extra four years on. To expect a repeat of his performances in the period starting with the 2003-04 trip to the West Indies and ending with the last home Ashes series – in which time Flintoff averaged nearly 45 with the bat and under 25 with the ball – is to don rose-tinted specs. The worry is Flintoff is still wearing them himself.

The casual portrayal – and there have been plenty of those in the last few days – depicts a salt-of-the-earth northern lad who enjoys a beer, loves larking around with his mates, and generously invites his team-mates along for the ride. But that overlooks both the evidence and the whispers.

The evidence – presented often enough – says England are more successful without Flintoff. Stats should be treated with caution, of course, but to argue, as some have done, that Flintoff’s presence earns wickets for his team-mates at the other end does not bear scrutiny: if that really was the case, why do England do better without him? Defeat in the Test series in the West Indies (when he was available) and victory over the same team in England (when he wasn’t) were merely the latest examples in a long line of them.

Still, if you don’t like the evidence, try the whispers. Very well-placed sources have repeatedly told this blogger that Flintoff’s presence in the dressing room can be more hindrance than help. The undeniable charisma can become as overbearing as the need to be top dog. Kevin Pietersen’s ego may be equally large, but at least in his case the disruptive element isn’t there.

Flintoff is now regarded by the management as dispensable: the Ypres lie-in is being viewed as the last straw but one. England need the irrepressible bulldozer; they do not need a troublemaker trading on former glories. It won’t take much for the Cardiff crowd to respond to him. But his team-mates may feel they are owed rather more than one or two wholehearted spells of swing and seam. Like we said, Flintoff is crucial.

Lawrence Booth writes on cricket for the Guardian