Face it greg - vaughan's finished.
Oh dear that old poo again - look greg Flintoff does not play for Lancashire - he plays for England.

Oh was Vaughan not born in Lancashre?.

Which has the better playing record over the last two years - Flintoff or Vaughan? - what get me mad about this anti Flintoff campaign is that he has only player a handfull of games, he has increased his personal bating average as captain, Strauss has decreased is average both is Tests.

Oh and Key and Ed Smith and Crawley and Ramprakash I have advocated to be included in the England squad - are they Lancashre players greg?.

__________________
Ern

Flintoff has won 2 games out of 9 as captain and even failed to beat Sri Lanka at home in his stint as a captain.If that record means he deserves to keep the job for the one day series and World Cup then i'll eat my hat.He is lost as a captain as his tactics (or lack of them) showed on day 5 at Adelaide when he stuck everyone on the boundary and allowed the Aussies to coast to their target by pushing easy singles into the huge gaps.

Flintoff is a fantastic player but he is no captain,a bit like Botham was.I personally don't care who is captain out of Vaughan or strauss as long as it isn't Flintoff who looks set to go down in history with a 5-0 whitewash against Australia.

For a start greg Flintoff have not played enough games to judge.

He did captain England to a win in India - he did not beat Sri Lanka that's true, but the team lost that series at Lords dropping 9 catches.

Also England has had a team full of injured players, not like vaughan who had the cream in 2005.

Flintoff also has improved his personal performances with the bat since becoming captain, Strauss's batting average as captain has plumited.

Flintoff is not like Botham as a captain - Botham was to chummy with oppostition players, also I doubt he was as competative as Flintoff.

So there is no good reason to remove Flintoff as captain at this stage, although if you mean remove him from ODI's altogether - then I agree with that, but I don't think you mean that.
So England are 3-0 down in this series, well who knows what the result of the other two matches will be, and what did Vaughan do in similer circumstances 4 years ago - Vaughan captained an England side to a hefty deafeat - albeit in fairness to both captains, key players are missing.

__________________
Ern

Firstly Hussain was captain 4 years ago not Vaughan.

What win in India? I thought the series was drawn.

Strauss averaged 63.42 in his role as captain in tests so his average hardly plummeted.In one day games he averages 35.05 and as captain it was 33.41 so there was little difference.

Flintoff's batting average as captain is 33.15 less than 1 run better than his career record.

Apart from that your argument is pretty accurate.

A mistake on my part.
I said a win in India - Not a won series.
Again with pushing I got that wrong - the thread is about Vaughan in any case.
This shows the stats between Flintoff and Vaughan showing personal performanace filtered for both as captain.
Flintoff stat's -filter = Captain.

Vaughan stat's - Fileter = Captain
Which is better than Vaughans, also in Strauss stats he never captained a side against India or Australia - so no comparason.
Why the need to get rid of Flintoff yet in any case - he has been compared as captain to Botham - this is silly as both are different, Botham was very chummy with the oppostition, he was way to laid back.

So when Strauss can't at the moment get a score gets the captaincy, has a run for 9 matches than fails, then do we have Bell for 9 matches also, then Cook - who knows in a years time G O Jones could well be captain.

__________________
Ern

Performing well doesn't just make you a good captain! Having the ability to score runs or take wickets is unrelated to how you think about match situations and field placings, or simply leading a group of men! Ern, it is folly to simply consider a captain on the number of runs they score or wickets they take - their leadership credentials are paramount and both Vaughan and Strauss have those in abundance compared with Flintoff, and had demonstrated it before being made England captain.

Consider win ratios, especially Vaughan vs Flintoff. If you choose to take out Strauss, who led us to our best ODI series result since 2005 (when Vaughan was captain!) against Pakistan, then Vaughan's win record - and he captained against every team in world cricket - is infinitely better. Six series wins in a row and an Ashes reclaimation vs Flintoff's 2 wins, a series draw against Sri Lanka and an Ashes defeat (possible whitewash?!), now that is no contest!

No but again Flintoff has only played nine games as captain.

I don't think anyone else could have done any better with the players on hand that England have had in this present squad.

A captain also has got to be able to play - I was being kind conparing his decline with Flintoffs rise in batting form, in fact going back longer than that - and Vaughan has been in a long run of poor form, and in common with Flintoff is not a good one day player.

__________________
Ern

He has had nine games, and seven rubbish ones. I also happen to think that Strauss could well have done better with those players, and that a leader needs to lead, not just be another player. A leaderless team is not going to succeed, and thus the measure of a good captain should be in his ability to direct the team, think about the game and ways to gain an advantage, rather than simply looking at his batting or bowling statistics. I would much rather have a winning team with the captain being average to good in terms of his own form (Vaughan), or a winning team with the captain doing well (Strauss), than a losing team where the captain is supposedly improving his performances but averages 34 with the ball (Flintoff).

I demand a leader, not just a good player yoked with the responsibility of summoning up leadership skills that are just not there, as my country's captain. In response to your "a captain has to play" then, I contend with what I think is the far more pertinent postulation that a leader has to lead!

Dont quite agree there, Beefy was pally with the oppsition but he was ultra competetive and hated to lose anything.

IMO the problem with Flintoffs captaincy has been he's not match fit so his performances havent been great. The type of captain he is, is that he leads by example and if he's playing well it can lift the whole team (as in India), when he's not playing well the team struggle.....

In some ways his captaincy style mirrored Bothams i.e best player leading by example. The problem is both hit injuries/lost form whilst captain and playing against the best team of their generations, although Bothams results against WI were better than Freddies against AUS. ( I would say that that Windies side would comfortably see off this current Aussie side).

Flintoff has also been blamed (by Fletcher) for the team selection i.e picking Giles ahead of Panesar, which was blatently wrong, not from a team balance point of view but because Giles hadnt played for over a year and his "new" bowling action made him less effective than say, Pieterson. Then by picking Anderson ahead of Mahmood, again, Anderson has hardly bowled in the last year.

Sorry gone a bit OT there, although I do think that Vaughan should not interfere in this ashes series, as he's not skipper.

__________________
Mark.

Colly who was England playing when Strauss did so well? - Pakistan for one with heaps of troubles - if you remember England was getting well beat when Inzi refused to play.
As for your comments on Flintoffs average, that was the joke on here in 2004, Colly you don't seem to understand that Flintoff moved on from a shocking first half of his career, to as good as any other member of the team at the moment - without him England would not have won the Ashes.
Well you have a problem - who is this mighty being England have in the wings?, don't say (Strauss could only beat Pakistan by default) or (Can't score a run Vaughan).
Look at the facts - Flintoff has has Simon Jones missing - Harmison out of sorts, Trescothick of home, Giles not played in a year - and Flintoff himself barely match fir after surgery on his ankle, seems to me plenty jump on his bandwagon of success, but when the going gets tough, dump him after 9 matches.
I was thinking about the West Indies in particular, it did not seem right him laughing an joking with Richards and co, it just seemed wrong, anyway England took a hiding.
This is were colly went wrong in chucking Flintoff's bowling stats - Flintoff is a grafter, he will work at a part of his game until it was perfect.
In the bad old days he was plump, he was in danger of losing his place he woke up and got himself fit, (just the sort of qualities needed in a captain) and never looked back, it was his early stats that will spoil the look forever.
Colly forgot to mention he is on the verge of taking 200 wickets - on top of any runs he has scored.
When he was injured he went (fell running) on his own to get match fit, and it worked - a good grounding for captain I would have thought.
In a way - but Botham was forced to resign after a draw at Lords (if my memory serves me right the following summer) 1981, and went on to re-write history with Bothams Ashes.
But to me their styles were different - Flintoff is much more arrogant.
Well did Flintoff so that? - Fletcher and Flintoff are co selectors along with senior players we hear, I don't know - I suppose if true they were trying to keep the side as close to the 2005 ashes winning side as possible, pair enough - but it might have backfired - but at least it was a plan.
Good points here - Anderson was ruined under Vaughan/Fletcher - he toured with England for to long, was 12th man to long - he needs a year in County cricket - Vaughan takes the blame for Anderson.
Should Giles have been picked let alone played, I think mistakes have been made, but in order to try an keep some sort of continuity, Mahmood should have played from day 1 - but that's history.

__________________
Ern