The accidental tourists is a thoughtful article on the general theme that England are seriously missing Vaughan. The general idea is that "Where there was decisiveness in England, this time strategy has appeared negotiable and unstable."

Good article, ive always been of the mind that as a captain Strauss is way better than Flintoff. The field positions IMO left much to be desired throughout the first test. It came down to fielders being placed for bad/wide deliveries to stop "Fours" and thats as defensive as it gets. We should also keep in mind that even though Collingwood and KP battled hard and well for their scores, they were playing in a helpless situation, one in which the Aussies were maybe worried for half a session, in the first innings where it had to count noone could acheive anything!! Also ive often heard Fred is inspirational to his players.. well he didnt seem inspirational to me.. he looked like he was fuming all the time.

__________________

I don't think anyone really disputes that Strauss is the more cerebral of the two.... and he was thought to be Fletcher's choice... but the reasoning of the other selectors is generally thought to have been influenced by a faith in Flintoff's ability to get the best out of his "mate" Steve.

If the IS the case I find it bizarre: with Vaughan as captain Harmison and Flintoff could just be "mates"... and if they wanted to they could go and have a drink and bitch about the management and the captain and the field placings and whatever.... and Harmison could confide about niggles, probems with his action and his mental state knowing the latter is another player rather than management.

This all changes now: Flintoff cannot be anyone's "mate" as captain.... and needs to put professional distance between himself and his players so that he's better able to dish out a rollocking without hesitation or suspicion of favouritism. If the idea was to get the best of Harmy... the idea was therefore barmy.

Well yes if you think of it from that point of view R, however i think Flintoff was made captain because he is thought of as more inspirational on the field and one of the lads rather than Strauss who i think is from a more private school/college affluent background. However what the England Team require is not comradry but strategy at the top im sorry if i cause offence but Fletcher doesnt have a damn clue if he plays Giles instead of Panesar. What has Giles achieved... he bowled one session earlier than Warne who was ripping it around like mad while all Giles could do was bowl armball after armball on the same pitch!!!

As for Fred getting the best out of Harmy maybe he can take him to see a documentary about England or something, his mate cant find the pitch right now.

I'd say Giles bowled better than Warne: the Aussie cricketing legend played like a second rate Englishman in this match, serving up a host of half volleys and long-hops, getting his line wrong, and were it not for his reputation folk would be laying into him as much as they are into Anderson.

Technically mineded observers have been suggesting Warne's action is as off-colour as Harmison's: that his normally high action looks cramped, that the ball isn't coming out well and that he's going to struggle for his variations until he gets himself sorted in the nets.

Giles actually bowled as well as any finger-spinner could have done on that pitch: he came away with much credit (and also batted well).

well Giles certainly didnt strike as much as warne even if he was bowling long hops... he ripped through some english batting in the second innings.

First innings Giles took 1 wicket... when he was needed the most he failed... 2nd innings well he didnt take anything

Warne took nothing in the first innings in the second he took 4 wickets when he was needed the most... true he gave 134 runs.. but then Australia were not really concerned about runs they needed wickets and warne delivered.

Did Warne anticipate Collingwood's charge and adjust his length accordingly... or did he bowl a long-hop without knowing that Collingwood was going to charge and just get lucky? Because it's Warne everyone gives the benefit of the doubt!

More significantly... I don't think you can compare the performance of a leg-spinner and a finger-spinner of that pitch anymore than you can compare a seamer like McGrath with a finger spinner: the pitch served each differently.

Richie Benaud thought Collingwood's wicket was due to great bowling. Warne bowled the delivery with lots of overspin but flighted it to entice Collingwood to play forward. The ball dipped and bounced sharply away from Collingwood's bat. Apparently, he also set the fielders close up to entice Collingwood to hit down the ground. Doesn't sound like a long-hop to me even if it looked that way.

totally mike it is not easy to get a batsmen out in the 90's anyways...specially on good form.

__________________

I cant help but think that Vaughan is lurking round dressing rooms, not unlike the Harry Enfield character at certain intervals mumbling "I do not believe you wanted to do that" at alot of things freddie tries to do. Its the whole "Major in charge Thatcher really running the show" in the 90s which isnt helpful. That said, i do agree with your comments Rach about the two seamers having a bitch about management - or not as the case is now since freddie is skipper.

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!