The selectors didn't give Freddie the right squad to begin with. Much of that can probably be blamed on the arrogant Zimbo. Who is to be blamed for changing the side that finished our summer well is another question. Hindsight suggests that Monty, Read and possibly Mahmood should all have started at the Gabba. Some of us suggested that at the time. Others disagreed, Fletcher and Flintoff went with Giles, Jones and Anderson - three of those Ashes failures.

Anderson and Flintoff both needed more bowling and proper preparation. Giles needed leaving at home, full stop. Jones needed the confidence of some runs under his belt from his spell in county cricket, he had none and no confidence.

Freddie performed brilliantly in 2005. He wasn't captain and didn't have to worry about everyone elses games. Strauss did a great job with a depleted side against Pakistan and scored lots of runs. I like to see Freddie doing well, let him go back to being in the ranks. It's not his fault we've lost so badly but he hasn't helped in the way he could have done.

Yes it is his fault. By all accounts, Flintoff, and not "the Zimbo" was the one who wanted his mates Giles, Anderson and Jones in the team.
He had the team capable of beating the Aussies but due to unbelievably poor man-management, and inept tactics on the field, he and his team were blown away. Ponting (rightfully so) copped much of the blame for 2005 for the same reasons.
This test, Mahmood, Panasar and Read finally were in the team and they got their worst flogging of the tour. I think no matter who was selected in the team, Flintoff would have lost.
Deep down everyone knew Strauss was the right man for the job - even before the tour started. They should have kept him. Now England are in a bind. Flintoff has been humiliated enough - dumping him from the captaincy might be the straw that breaks his back.

__________________

Late joining in here.

I'm afraid I take exception to the comparison of Botham to Flintoff as captain.
Botham is apparently a bit of a dumbster as a commentator, but as a captain, he skippered England to three match defeats, out of nine (one-nil in England and two-nil in the Caribbean) against one of the best Test teams of all time.
Then he lost one and drew one against Kim Hughes Australians over here before resigning - and we all know what happened next... and some of us saw some of it.

England were not great then, but the West Indies were fabulous, and to compare those two narrow defeats to Flintoff's England's utter humbling is extremely unfair.

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

Did I say anything about Vaughan bowling? Ernest, you really do miss the point sometimes and make silly assumptions. Do you really think I consider Michael Vaughan's bowling in terms of his possession of the captaincy and performance therein? I note that you cannot deny that Flintoff's bowling as captain has not improved, whereas Strauss' batting did.

Regarding the second statement - for my Sri Lanka read your Pakistan, as you gave them even less credit. I however, and the ICC and many on here, hold Pakistan as more challenging test opposition than Sri Lanka and I will continue to.

I think nine tests, given that they are five days long, is definitely adequate to judge a captain's ability with some considerable clarity. Ten, after Melbourne, is very much enough to decide if the future lies with a captain, and it does not with Fred - his game and the prospects of overcoming testing opposition mentally will decline apace if Strauss is not given the job.

I am not blaming Flintoff for one day results prior to his captaincy. However, it remains that he has lost the vast majority of ODIs in which he has led, and Strauss has a series draw against Pakistan under his belt. In terms of achievement I rate that highly, whereas hammerings in India (in a bilateral series and the ICCCT) fall lower down on my scale. It may irk you but Flintoff can do no wrong I suppose, it's always someone else's fault.

Vaughan led us to the ICCCT final, Flintoff did not. I'm very unsure as to whether Giles would have finished off the Windies as Browne and Bradshaw inched to victory - I'm quite inclined to think they'd have thrown their bats at him, but that game was also very unique in light of the hurricane in the Windies days earlier. Regardless of that, Vaughan took us past Australia to that final and I'd back him to achieve considerably more than a jaded and overloaded Flintoff could in the VB series approaching, injuries or not!

I have always worried about England's method for choosing the captain.

It's generally a flavour of the month issue. A bit like the media's assumption of who should be the next England Association Football coach. Manchester City win three games: "Stuart Pearce for England coach." City lose a game, and Bolton win three in a row: "Sam Allardyce for Engand coach" "Oh but he's never won anything" and neither did Alf Ramsey... Bolton lose a game, Middlesbrough win two matches: "Gareth Southgate is the best young manager" "Alan Pardew" "Alan Curbishley" etc.,

Apart from Tony Grieg, Mike Brearley, Chris Cowdrey (who should never, ever have been skipper - and at the time it was suggested that had his name not been Cowdrey but Barnett instead then he probably wouldn't've got the captaincy at all) John Emburey and Nasser Hussain, the captaincy in recent years seems often to have gone to the team "MVP."

That is dumb. The "Most Valuable Player" maybe the most confident player, but in England (all those smokers, nailbiters and general neuroses) something like the England captaincy with all that associated media pressure, is enough to dash even the greatest confidence trickster.

Boycott, Gower, Gatting, Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Vaughan and Flintoff.

For me, the only player apparently unaffected by the captaincy - in recent years - has been Andrew Strauss.
His second coming may not be so successful, and indeed it may not happen at all.
But he definitely should have been allowed to grow into the job, and Michael Vaughan if he is ever fit would make a superb deputy. Flintoff could be a superb allrounder again, if all he has to concetrate on is his batting, his bowling and his slip catching.

And I am beside myself with rage over this Ashes defeat. I don't really believe that the Australian attack is as good as we have made it look. Time will not tell, as their two main bowlers will have retired before they next get to play Test cricket.

We have had a weak batting order, with woeful keeping and bowling. That Harmison only conceded 69 off twenty-eight overs in the Australian innings, strikes me as incredibly irritating after his opening to the series. What the hell were they doing? They should have refused to play in the unnecessary ICCT.

That Read, who can't bat, was second top scorer in England's second innings, that Panesar took five wickets in the first innings at Perth. That Fletcher and Flintoff can always see "the positives."

I did suggest once that somebody should take his head out of his bottom. Open your eyes Flintoff.

Take a long walk in the sun, have a couple of beers. Talk to some good mates.

And resign.

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

I'd settle for the "we've been awful, nothings worked and I havent got a clue what I'm doing and I've forgotton how to bat" rather tha than everythings coming up roses blair-like speech which annoys the hell out of me. And stop bl00dy smiling when doing interviews after you've just been hammered in 3 DAYS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Well I don't think it's long enough, and all this series the batting has been poor, no captain can do anything about that.
No I think the squad was wrong - simple as that, when Trescothick went home I expected England to lose the series, but not capitulate, also I don't agree with the Flintoff knockers who were more than happy to jump on the Flintoff bandwagon in 2005.
The point is Colly that we will never know - Giles was not given an over even when it was clear that England were not going to bowl out the Windies with the England seamers.

The England side has not performed with the bat - the bowlers have been ok, but all England needed was a draw - and what could Vaughan or anyone have done about Englands second innings collapse - that was the day the England lost the Ashes.

To be honest I don't care if Flintoff is captain or not, but I don't like the constant knocking as though he could go and hold a bat for everyone.

And as for Strauss being captain - he fell to peices without Trescothick, there is only one possible candidate, and that is Giles - but he is out of form.

__________________
Ern

If you mean me Ern. You have the wrong end of the stick. I think Flintoff is a superb player. He simply should not be captain.

I do hope you are pulling our legs there. What possible evidence have you that that would be a good idea?

Definitely the answer to go into every Test match with a balanced attack including two left-arm spinners.
Or do you just want to drop Panesar now that he didn't take ten wickets in Australia's second innings?
Hardly Monty's fault, that Australia didn't have to bat twice.

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

Ern, the difference between you and the rest of us is that you cannot separate Flintoff as player from Flintoff as captain. The question here hangs over his captaincy, which has also affected his game but in difference to it is not the issue here. Many of the team and management are attracting criticism and rightly so, but that does include Fred and when he deserves criticism I will give it in proportionate measure. As I see it Flintoff is an unfit captain but the responsibility for us finding that out lies with Fletcher and Graveney/the quieter selectors who give Grav the job of press officer, though still Fred must be accountable for the decisions he makes as captain and his record in charge. That is not the same scenario as in 2005 when he was not captain - I would rather he were just batting and bowling like he was then, and believe he would be in that same form now, but my praise of him then and in that situation does not exempt him from criticism regarding his captaincy now.

As for Strauss - try taking apart any world class opening partnership and see what happens to the remaining batsman. It is naive and slightly singular to say that Strauss only did well because of Trescothick and I'm surprised you said that, though it is not to say that Strauss did not play a couple of dreadful shots at Brisbane amongst the awful umpiring and nervous batting from his parter, Cook. Strauss also did pretty well without Tresco against Pakistan, both as batsman and captain. It would be interesting to have your analysis of Flintoff's batting, if you can consider him as an isolated case and not blame the players around him for his shot selection, for instance.

No I was meaning in the main the radio commentators who blame everything on Flintoff, he has been knocked on WAT also, but if a reason is given - that constructive.
What I am saying is that Flintoff is getting stick for a poor team, and let's be honest this team/squad is a disgrace.
Strauss is mentioned over and over again - I myself don't think he has the balls to be England captain, looking down the list of England players, most are not experienced enough - Harmison has the experience but is no captain.
Giles I think with his experience is the best candidate for captain - he does not flap, it won't happen though because Panesar has took his place.
I think Flintoff is the obvious choice - not his fault he got lumbered with the worst England squad since Gower in a home series against the Aussies, while certain ex england players were recruting for the rebel tours to South Africa, also he has been playing with pain killing injections daily - one thing he's no quitter.
Well I don't agree because when he was first made captain his batting improved, his form in Australia has been caused to some degree by injury - fact is he has been playing with pain, also I don't think he should be playing.
The one thing I think is that out of the players in Australia, he is the best captain on offer - I can't go along with Strauss.
To be honest I don't care if he is not captain, but if he is to be replaced - then lets have someone who is better.
Of course he is accountable - but let me ask you Colly, who could have captained this squad any better?, who is accountable for picking this squad? - that's just as important.
Well on your first point you seem to some degree to be agreeing with what I said, he is struggling to form a successful partnership with Cook - then this is no time for him to be captain IMO.
On your other point I was suggesting that since Trescothick went home - that fact has effected Strauss's form, Trescothick and Strauss was a formidable opening partnership.
I agree that Strauss has had no luck - I also agree that he has not had the rub of the green from the umpires, i think Pietersen also has had a bad call or two, but he has really looked at ease on this tour, I think even without the rubbish umpiring he would at least one of the times gone sooner - rather than later in any case.
Bell also did well in Pakistan - but has not really worried the Aussies, Pakistan does not have Warne in their side, that's a huge difference.
Flintoff is off form with the bat - the Ashes where lost at Adelaide, all the England players except Flintoff and Pietersen were out in the second innings to real timid shots, at least Flintoff and Pietersen got out to attacking shots, unlucky because the first shots of this nature went straight to hand.
But his batting has been poor - like most of the team, as captain he did his best with an inexperienced squad, IMO though Flintoff should not have been in the side until fit.

__________________
Ern