Who will take over from Vaughan?

[cantplaycantalk]

Actually not a bad idea, the guy is another with a positive attitude, he has been around and seen it all, he has plenty of cricket experience. Hey I could go for that, good call.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Ernest

he has the best record as captain including Vaughan in the last 12 to 15 months.

If England choose Strauss, then that will be a very backward step.

I nearly choked, that first point and indeed the second also is an utter joke which can easily be reprojected onto Flintoff himself. Flintoff was a hopeless captain and thankfully will never be asked to do it again. Strauss did an exceptional job and is the future, you just rubbish him because you know he is a far better leader and is the obstacle to Flintoff being captain. You still somehow believe the latter would be the best thing for English cricket, unless you are only concerned with your golen boy and not the state of the national game?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Flintoff was a hopeless captain and thankfully will never be asked to do it again.

Yes that hopeless he managed as captain to get a draw in India while maintaining a batting average in the 50s, he has won the only silverware for England since winning the 2005 Ashes, winning the CB Trophy in Australia.

The team he had to work with for the 2006 Ashes - no other person could have done any better, the team was depleted to the point of being a joke.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Strauss did an exceptional job[...] and is the future,[...] you just rubbish him because you know he is a far better leader and is the obstacle to Flintoff being captain.

First when did he do an "exceptional job"?, against a Pakistan team with more problems than England, what has Strauss done as captain that is "exceptional"?.

And I don't rubbish Strauss, so please don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

You still somehow believe the latter would be the best thing for English cricket,

No - not the best "thing", if Vaughan is not available he IMO would make the best captain, so again please don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

unless you are only concerned with your golen boy

By a "golan boy" - I expect you mean golden boy, well that kind of remark IMO shows desperation, when no other argument can be put forward

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

and not the state of the national game?

And that remark is just insulting, and is not answerable.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest

The team [Flintoff] had to work with for the 2006 Ashes - no other person could have done any better.

Unfortunately we will never know. What we do know is that Flintoff is the captain who lost The Ashes 5-0 for the first time in over eighty years. Just as Duncan Fletcher had a lot of success and then paid the price for this disastrous test series, so the same can be said for Flintoff: his success - and there clearly was some - as captain is in the past. His latest test series was the second whitewash in Ashes history. That's indisputable fact. I don't want to see him captain England again: he has too much to offer in other departments and could not cut the mustard at captaincy, I'm afraid.

I'm pretty sure it will go to Andrew Strauss, and I think (and hope) he can do well. He gets my vote.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Yes that hopeless he managed as captain to get a draw in India while maintaining a batting average in the 50s, he has won the only silverware for England since winning the 2005 Ashes, winning the CB Trophy in Australia.

The team he had to work with for the 2006 Ashes - no other person could have done any better, the team was depleted to the point of being a joke.
First when did he do an "exceptional job"?, against a Pakistan team with more problems than England, what has Strauss done as captain that is "exceptional"?.

And I don't rubbish Strauss, so please don't put words in my mouth.

No - not the best "thing", if Vaughan is not available he IMO would make the best captain, so again please don't put words in my mouth.
By a golden boy, that is not answerable.

I put no words in your mouth, when did I mis-quote or mis-reference you? Please inform me and I will happily correct myself, or perhaps look for the times when you have criticised Strauss only because Flintoff is being criticised en masse.

No desperation from me, I have put forward many coherent arguments on Strauss' excellent credentials for the English captaincy and Flintoff's lack of said credentials. You are welcome to peruse the board via the search function to find them. I also apologise that the words "the state of the English game" are so insulting, and that I just had to repeat them. I humbly apologise!!!

Yes, a hopeless captain, if it weren't for Collingwood we wouldn't have won a game in the CB Series. It's amazing that a single drawn test match in India (how exciting, a draw!!!) can be superior in its importance to a test series victory against a side including several of the most prolific batsman in world cricket!

Enjoy the rest of your afternoon Ernest.

[Ernest]

The fact that you would wish to have Strauss and England captain is fair enough, I don't agree for the reason he did not seem to handle the pressure of opening in Australia without Trescothick very well, in fact IMO he batted below par when opening with Cook.

I don't care who is captain so long as the side has success.

But IMO your argument about England losing the Ashes 5-0 as being a reason for Flintoff not being captain does not hold water IMO, a player can only captain the side he has been given by the selectors.

As much a fact the England got beat 5-0 with Flintoff being captain, is matched by Vaughan captaining England to a thrashing in the World Cup, after Flintoff had got the side into some sort of shape winning the CB Trophy in Australia.

There are better captains than Flintoff, Adams from Sussex comes to mind, but I myself would not appoint a captain from within, and that includes Flintoff - because they are all tainted with failure this winter.

Flintoff is really being treated like Gower in 1987 click here , when he lost 4-0 to the Aussies in England, never knowing what side he would have to captain.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

put no words in your mouth, when did I mis-quote or mis-reference you? Please inform me and I will happily correct myself, or perhaps look for the itmes when you have criticised Strauss only because Flintoff is being criticised en masse.

I have never rubbished Strauss, I just think he won't make a good captain - what's wrong with that?, I am used to Flintoff being critisised en masse, that was the case up to 2004, when only myself Kirsty and Scott thought he would come good.
The all of a sudden he was everyones hero, then he did not play since the Sri Lanka series because of injury.Then he hit poor form with his (batting), then all the critisism comes back - honest Colly that does NOT bother me, that's the way it is.

I happen to think his being stripped of the vice captaincy was one punishment to many, and had he been warned before in Australia - and had that been made public, then I would have agreed with Vaughan.

Now you say I would put having Flintoff as captain (golden boy) before the national game, well that is putting words in my mouth, as I believe that would be good for the national game, I think an outside appoinyment would be better - like Adams, and that suggestion was rubbished.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest

But IMO your argument about England losing the Ashes 5-0 as being a reason for Flintoff not being captain does not hold water.

I'm not even sure I would make it the main reason, Ern, but surely it has to be a reason? I take your point that he can only captain the eleven blokes who are selected, but the teams which were turning out in Australia were not talentless by any stretch of the imagination, and a better captain, in my view, should have been able to turn them into a winning side at least once (at Adelaide would have been the easiest place given the match state on the fourth evening, and who knows - here I am speculating, admittedly - a win there could have put a very different complexion on the series).

To me, Ern, it's a tough old world. Maybe I am unfair, but as I see it captains have to carry the blame for disasters of this magnitude in just the same way that they often get more than their just share of credit for the good times.

(I'd also be prepared to put the pedalo fisaco into the past if Flintoff had not already captained England to utter humiliation in The Ashes; given that he did that, though, others - and perhaps I - will be less likely to overlook that moment of idiocy. He won't captain England ever again. And, for purely cricketing reasons, I'm not shedding too many tears over that. Even those that I do will be dried up pretty well if he can start firing with bat and ball again next week. Good news there: some test cricket to look forward to!)

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

To me, Ern, it's a tough old world. Maybe I am unfair, but as I see it captains have to carry the blame for disasters of this magnitude in just the same way that they often get more than their just share of credit for the good times.

That's fair comment OF - I can't find an argument against what you say.

But was not England humiliated in the World Cup - captained by Vaughan?.

Also you make a good point about the match in the 2006 Ashes that England SHOULD have won, that was on a parallel with how England were placed in Multan in 2005, when the England batsmen crashed out both times.

No neither Vaughan nor Flintoff could do anything to stop an England collapse once started.

I am not bothered about Flintoff not being the England captain, what I am bothered about is that I can't see any player other than Trescothick who could captain England any better than Flintoff.

It probably needs a captain from outside, a new broom so to speak, with new ideas.

Mike chucked Pietersen's name in the hat earlier, but like Flintoff some people think he is to arrogant, but IMO a bit of arrogance is needed in the England side.
A good analogy is in tennis.

John McEnroe was very arrogant, as was Nastasi and Jimmy Conners who won titles while players like John Lloyd, and his older brother David won nothing.
The list grows with the much talked up Jeremy Bates, Greg Rudedski and Tim Henman, Sue Barker.

Rod Laver, Billie Gene King and Margaret Court dominated the tournaments with only Virginia Wade winning anything for the UK in all these years.

Vaughan has what it takes to win, unfortunately he has been out of form for many months, so England needs a captain with the arrogance and spirit of a John McEnroe to make an impact in major Test cricket again.

I thought Flintoff was that man, however I tend to agree with you OF, he won't get another chance.
My reason for the cricket analogy was - to show how the UK can get used to losing, I have watched cricket for many years, and there have been far more downs than ups - time will tell if the Ashes 2005 was yet another false dawn.

The UK does best at amataur sports eg - Steve Redgrave (rowing) - David Broom (show jumping)

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Ernest

But was not England humiliated in the World Cup - captained by Vaughan?

Yes, indeed. And Vaughan should never captain England again in the one day game. Quite possibly he should never play the one day game again either.