If it was anyone else other that Flintoff I might be inclined to agree, but Flintoff is no ordinary player, the ECB knew that long before they appointed him captain.
Flintoff said at the time he was made captain in India.

The ECB knew he had said this, they knew the type of player they had picked for stand in captain.

They also know how comitted Flintoff was to England, compared with others.
He goes on to say:-
My point is that Flintoff was up front saying he would not change, he was that proud to be England captain, even though he knew Vaughan would return - that he put his own personal life at one side.

I am not saying this gines Flintoff the right to do what he wanted, I do think he should not have been given the captaincy knowing what he had said.
For if we are to believe that there have been numerous occasions of drinking, then he was not the man for the job in the first place.

I believe this has been blown out of all proportion, also I don't believe he should have been humiliated in the way he was, his loyalty to England should at least have seen he was releived of the captaincy with some dignity.

__________________
Ern

Firstly, I agree 100% with what OF said, and I think that is pretty much what happened. This shows that the management is professional in it's approach. The fact that they have kept it private, until now, is probably to protect Flintoff, can you imagine what the press would have said if any of this had come out while Fred was skippering England in a losing Ashes series?

On your point about Read.. as I recall the decision to dump him at the start of the Test series was made by the then captain Flintoff.

Secondly, the world cup squad was picked by the selection committee, lead by David Graveney, which I don't think Vaughan is on.

Finally, what has Read's omission got to do with this anyway!!

I was talking about when Read was dropped in the West Indies with one Test Match to go in 2004 .
I was making a point that Vaughan and Fletcher are capable of consipracy, Vaughan was repremanded for exceeding his authority.My post click here

I don't get your point - I have been talking about the tour selectors "Vaughan and Fletcher" - and their treatment of Flintoff, not the lousy squad that David Graveney was involved in selecting, we are at cross wires here.

This IMO does not make any sence at all, the World Cup has a far higher profile than the Ashes, for the simple reason the whole cricketing world is involved.

In fact I think the fact that England lost the Ashes 5-0 has as much to do with Flintoff being dropped as vice captain as the drinking, Flintoff just IMO handed Vaughan and Fletcher a reason on a plate.
Also I don't believe Vaughan has ever been happy with Flintoff as stand in captain.

__________________
Ern

Do you feel it is because Vaughan sees Flintoff as a rival??? The only thing that stops Vaughan captaining the side is his own Knee!!

The fact is that even before the Ashes tour Flintoff was only ever filling in till Vaughan came back. Vaughan doesn't need to go about ensuring that his rivals are subdued - he is not Robert Mugabe!!

I think you have watched too much Midsomer Murders mate, and are looking for clues that are not there!!

http://www.world-a-team.com/showthre...575#post133575

In an interview quoted on the BBC Harmison (Fred's best mate) says three key things

1. Fred does not have a drinking problem - but the timing of the night out was poor
2. He felt the punishment was a little bit harsh
3. He felt (like me) that the result will be a positive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/6473895.stm

I can't put a date on what I am going to say but it was when Flintoff was interviewed at the Oval after being made stand in captain.

Flintoff said something like I am looking forward to doing the job, even though I know I am just keeping the seat warm for Michael. (I have not used quote marks because I am not sure after all this time what the exact wording was).
The camera shifted to Vaughan who had a face like thunder - he was not a happy chappie at all, and I feel sure he did not want Flintoff as captain, could have been he would rather have had Strauss than the man from accross the Pennines "Who Knows".

Well on your first point we know that Flintoff would have to give way when vaughan was fit, but we also all know that Vaughan will never really be fit - had Flintoff had a good Ashes, Vaughan would have been history, in fact Vaughan did his best to hinder Flintoff by hanging around when he was neither wanted, or needed .

This is a good read.

__________________
Ern

I was having a few drinks last night watching News24, and every half hour they were reporting the Flintoff affair.

And every half hour I heard it reported that Vaughan was instrumental in Flintoff being removed as captain, that makes sense as Fletcher is still saying he will always support Flintoff.

Harmison (I know Flintoff's mate) has come out in defence of Flintoff, well in being critical of the severity of his punishment(s).
And it has been blown out of proportion, the crime I don't think in this case fit the punishment.

Was I imagining that Atherton was smirking when Flintoff was mentioned during the highlights last night?,
click here

__________________
Ern

He does also say this:-

Yes he did, but:-


Flintoff is popular amongst the players (except maybe the candidates for the now vacant vice captains job) - so if I was Morgan.Vaughan/Fletcher I would tred with care, the players are obviously behind Flintoff.

__________________
Ern

Ern,

Harmy also happens to be Freddie's best mate. I imagine that he is closer than all of the others, so I wouldn't read to much, or try and second guess what all the players think.

Many of them owe their careers to both Fletcher and Vaughan. I don't think there is such a big division as you may think.