Firstly, getting one's facts right is key to winning an argument - you threw in Flintoff's bowling stats as captain and I merely made reference to them. Have a good read of what I said (and what you said in bringing in the stas to compare him with Vaughan!) and you'll see what I'm referring to, and that is not his whole career.

You also forget that Flintoff captained poorly and got a poor result against Sri Lanka, lesser test opposition than Pakistan, through his poor use of Monty Panesar (the one thing he did learn in Australia, by time he was picked!). The quality of opposition they both faced is thus balanced, and Flintoff's record is appalling.

You also don't count ODIs but the rest of us do, and Strauss recovered from a start lent to him by the shocking Pakistan and India away series to post an excellent result against Pakistan, the third best ODI team of the past year for me.

First I copied those stats and pasted them here. I posted the whole to save me time as they had beed coded - I thought it would have been obvious I was NOT comaparing Flintoff (a bowlers) bowling with a none bowler vaughan - it was for the batting.
Forget the bowling that was incidental - look at the batting for batting, as Vaughan is a batsman only.
You rubbished Flintoff against Sri Lanka, remember the 9 dropped catches at Lords? - can any captain help that?.

Did he? are they?- you don't give much credit to Sri Lanka do you?, I thought they played well.
Who says he used Panesar poorly?, people who have probably never seen Panesar play - Sri Lanka I doubt would have lived in fear of any spinner England could have played, in fact how many County Games has Panesar played?, he should not even be in the England squad yet.

To say Flintoff's record after just 9 matches is appalling is just plain silly IMO.

So I don't count ODI's - well are you blaming Flintoff for years of rubbish one day results?, The games Strauss captained is a drop in the ocean compared to Englands overall record, remember the one day series in 2004 England v West Indies - Flintoff had to be forced into the side injured - just to stop England being further humiliated, he had to bat with a runner.
Talking about misuse of spinners - remember the ICC trophy final of 2004 - England v West Indies, England should have won- could not prized out the Wndies tail with the seamers - Vaughan never gave Giles a bowl, he let the game drift and England lost, but guess what - he got the Ashes back.

__________________
Ern

Are you sure about this Ern? Most squads have at least 2 spinners. Which 2 do you want in front of him?

I think it was to early for Panesar to be playing in Australia - he would have developed more with his county, like I say how many first class seasons has he completed?.
I have nothing against Panesar at all - IMO he should have been given time to develop.

If I am pushed England don't have many (if any) world class spinners, I suppose a fit Giles would have been the pick of the bunch.

Also rans are Udal - Batty - Dawson, no disrespect to these players, they just are not world class.

On the captain front to clear this matter up, I am not bothered if Vaughan or Strauss is captain in ODI's, I think Test should remain with Flintoff.

__________________
Ern

Of course he used Panesar poorly, he was bowling well at Lords but neglected to use him often - ran himself into the ground and let the game drift. Sure, all 9 dropped catches weren't his fault - but he still let the game drift. And Panesar has played more first class games than your favourite Mahmood.

The game would have been over had one of the nine catches been held.

I don't think either Panesar or Mahmood should really have gone to Australia , but there was little other choice but to play Mahmood being he had been taken being that Anderson under Vaughan had been underused for two years, then was just expected to play an produce the goods.

Panesar was not underused by Flintoff - he as bowled sparingly, easing him into the game - that seems reasonable to me, also it seemed reasonable but with hindsight right to play Giles - keeping the side as near as possible to the 2005 wining side, had to be desirable IMO.

__________________
Ern

Ive heard people saying that the england team miss Vaughans absence on the field, so whats the problem with having him on the field?

After all, he is English, and should surely have the teams best interests at heart?
As for there being three possible captains in the dressing room, i dont think that that will be the case.
Flintoff, and Strauss both know that they are just stand-ins for Vaughan, and he would still be the captain had he not suffered his unfortunate injuries. Who gets the vice-captaincy should be interesting though...

__________________
...said outswing

Interesting article, especially when it was preceded by the one where Vaughan said he hadn't been a distraction or wasn't interfering. Load of balls if you ask me. Looking to the past has failed us this series, we need to move on and build a new side from the current members of the side and the up n comers and leave the likes of Vaughan / Giles etc,. in the past.

__________________
Six and Out: Fine cricket journalism: http://www.sixandout.net/

I suppose it is Vaughan's fault we batted first in Melbourne.

Subsconsciously, perhaps - Flintoff knew he was under the cosh in terms of his captaincy, with Strauss and Vaughan breathing down his neck... perhaps he felt he needed to assert himself and took the risk.

Besides Ponting said he would have done the same thing.

Having said that, considering the way we're playing I don't think it would have made much difference at all. We'd still be staring 4-0 in the face.

__________________
Six and Out: Fine cricket journalism: http://www.sixandout.net/