This is plainly NOT fair!!!!

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Wanderer - you seem to be influenced by the headline/story writers and not Vaughan himself. How can Vaughan be blamed for headlines? "What was printed was printed" by other people over whom Vaughan has no influence!

And that's exactly what I mean Colly...there would NOT have been anything to print at all, had Vaughan just kept away from that pedalo incident.

He could just have said, like other captains (Smith for instance on the Proteas' return home) that they just played poorly. No specific incident mentioned. Not even when other players came out publicly and said they felt they were being sidelined etc. Smith kept his mouth shut. (which was a great thing indeed ) He could have said something that the media hounds would also have POUNDED on.

And this is what has happened to Vaughan now...And,to be honest, looking at the way he's now brushing it all off, is making me wonder if he's not actually getting exactly the kind of response he was hoping to get

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

And that's exactly what I mean Colly...there would NOT have been anything to print at all...

...had Flintoff not got himself plastered and fallen off the pedalo in the first place!!! Sorry, but the blame for the pedalo story being in the light of day, and worthy of comment for the effect it did have on the World Cup, lies with him and the others involved at the time. If they had exercised self control ahead of a game, as Flintoff himself admitted afterwards in apologising, then nobody would be mentioning it.

Vaughan is perfectly within his rights to mention and criticise the incident, as it clearly did undermine our World Cup campaign along with issues such as Vaughan's one-day form and poor coaching all round. Sloppy journalism and baseless speculation will not convince me that he blamed Flintoff alone for losing the World Cup at any point during that interview or since.

[Rachael]

It's in the long term interests of English cricket that the story is got straight: youngsters need to grow up knowing the extent to which this incident brought pressure to bear on the coach, captain and players... and whilst it's absolutely right for Vaughan to take responsibility for not rising to that challenge (which he does)... the message of "don't **** around" needs to be rammed home so hard that even the dimmest fast bowler registers a need for the utmost professionalism.

Rather as it was in the days when Botham, Smith and co made the team all but ungovernable, this IS a pointed message at the moment: the players appear to be divided between the professionals (led by Vaughan and Strauss) and the dabblers (led by Flintoff) with the former prepared to leave no stone unturned in the way they lead their personal lives, prepare for matches and so on... and the latter prepared to work a bit in the nets.... but basically happy to turn up and trust that talent and determination on the field will get them as far as they deserve to go (perhaps on the principle that a drink in the opposition dressingroom always beckons no matter what the performances are like).

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

...
Sloppy journalism and baseless speculation will not convince me that he blamed Flintoff alone for losing the World Cup at any point during that interview or since.

Allow me to quote Vaughan himself:

"One word changed the whole context of the article - a word which I didn't say," Vaughan said at Old Trafford, where England are due play West Indies in the third test on Thursday.
"I didn't use the word 'Fredalo'. It may have been used in the question but I didn't say it. As soon as you use that word you are pinpointing one person.''

It has been established that Vaughan had use that word...So, in his own words then, he WAS pinpointing one person...

Interestingly, he also says:

Originally Posted by Vaughan

We've all been very honest about our performances and I have, but incredibly it didn't make that article

But it did...

[Collyisamackem]

The use of the word Fredalo doesn't imply blame on Fred for losing the World Cup alone, I re-state. Vaughan did use the word and I do not deny that.

I disagree with him and anyone who says the word Fredalo implicates Flintoff alone, and maybe he used the word automatically without registering it himself? I have done a similar thing on occasions and I'm sure we all have (conjecture). I am utterly convinced that Vaughan was never trying to blame Flintoff alone. The 'Fredalo incident' involved two locations, and a number of players and staff, not just Fred - we all know that. I believe that was Vaughan's original and sustained point. The actions of other players that night were linked to the word by the press at the time, and it is only because Flintoff made a particular spectacle of himself that the incident was so-named by the press, not Michael Vaughan - thus when he mentions the word he is quoting someone else.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

So, in his own words then, he WAS pinpointing one person...

The italicised part is because that conclusion is very much inferred and not stated by a direct quote in the original article (or the second one) blaming Flintoff alone, and is thus not in Vaughan's own words.

I don't see how Vaughan's direct, spoken word (see the second interview quote in my post for the direct quote) saying that he doesn't blame Flintoff alone is overruled by your interpretation here. It is clear from the second interview that he is trying every which way to emphasise his original point that he was also to blame - maybe in his earnest to demonstrate that he had tried to share the blame himself he forgot that he had actually used the word?

Really I can't fathom why everyone is ignoring this in favour of lambasting him for supposedly blaming Flintoff alone, Vaughan mentioned his own form and leadership during the WC as contributing to our poor showing in the original article, before the fuss re: the word Fredalo and what its connotations supposedly are emerged. That is plain to see and is nowhere near an isolation of Flintoff or creation of a scapegoat, and I have yet to see this other aspect of Vaughan's original interview being properly addressed in this thread - I refer you to your own last point there as being evidential to me that you recognise the dual apportioning of blame by Vaughan originally.

[Wanderer]

Once again, the whole issue I have had from the beginning, is that Vaughan should have opted NOT to mention the pedalo incident at all. That word made all the difference to his interview, no matter how you look at it.

Trying to cover himself with 2 lies is not helping his course either. (but by tomorrow we will probably hear he was mis-quoted on that too)

[Collyisamackem]

Why is Vaughan mentioning an incident that did happen an issue? Surely the issue is with those who stepped out of line and made it an incident?

Vaughan can't be blamed for inferences made beyond his words. In the absence of a specific comment in the original interview along the lines of "I think the World Cup exit was all Fred's fault and none of mine" I will continue to believe with confidence that he never intended to say something like that and that his words were twisted by the journalist involved in the original story.

Vaughan clearly can't say anything to convince the offended among us, and I guess I should stop as well.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Vaughan clearly can't say anything to convince the offended among us, and I guess I should stop as well.

I am with you on this one Colly, it seems to me that more is being made of what Vaughan didn't say, than what he did say. Don't think he has helped his case by denying his use of the word "Fredalo" however, I do feel that he never said what the headlines state he said.

In the original interview, and in his later press conference, he said that HE was at fault. But a Headline that reads Vaughan says the The World Cup failure was my fault, and the Fredalo incident didn't help is not as explosive as Vaughan says Flintoff wrecked the World Cup...

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Why is Vaughan mentioning an incident that did happen an issue?

Because perhaps he should not have?

Vaughan clearly can't say anything to convince the offended among us

I hope that doesn't include me ...I am a total neutral here (referring to Vaughan, Flintoff and English cricket in general..) Nothing he says could offend me at all...

And as a final point on this from me too: There are clearly 2 sides to this matter. I am sticking to my side

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

I disagree with [...] anyone who says the word Fredalo implicates Flintoff alone [...] I am utterly convinced that Vaughan was never trying to blame Flintoff alone. The 'Fredalo incident' involved two locations, and a number of players and staff, not just Fred - we all know that.

Quite. Anyone whose ever taken even a passing interest in linguistics will recognise this relationship between the term 'fredalo' and the broader media frenzy created around the series of revelations that included (but was far from limited to) Freddie's personal contribution - it's commonplace and references of this type should NOT be reduced to something more literal.. or else all contextual meaning is lost!