Vaughan's contribution to Anderson's and Flintoff's improvement is non-existent Rach. Anderson, from what I have read, got wickets because for once, he actually started bowling in a way that first earned him wickets, i.e. by pitching it up - this is nothing to Vaughan's credit.

Also, as suggested before also, Flintoff is not some one you can expect to lead the side and also be on the top of his game, both his bowling and batting, at the same time. Since the Ashes the pressure of captaincy has been off him and he's seemed more like him self. Again, this is nothing to Vaughan's credit.

The line of argument that he is able to get the best out of the team as leader might be true to an extent for England's test side under his leadership, but is most certainly flawed when spoken of in terms of the England one-day side. In one-day cricket, as a matter of fact, Vaughan's captaincy has often been found wanting, his use (or lack their of) of spinners especially has been bizarre.

Today's example of Dalrymple only bowling 2 overs is not the sole one as you'll recall, the infamous ICC CT finals a couple of years ago, saw Vaughan similarly not use Giles at all, despite conditions then also suggesting he might have brought England success, and then too, England, similar to the manner in today's game, allowed the opposition back into the match from a hopeless situation. If Vaughan had given at least have as many overs he offered to Lewis over to Dalrymple, 146 for 7 would not have been converted into a total that nearly won NZ the match.

All of this, of course, is an addition to the fact that as a batsman alone Vaughan just doesn't merit a place in the side. In principle, you really cannot and should not select a player because of his supposed "affects" on the rest of the players.