I agree that the ECB let the gloating victory parade get out of hand, but has nothing to do with Flintoff's batting.
In fact he batted well in India (as captain).
Well I will choose my words with care - but Boycott is the last person on earth to tell anyone how to behave!!!

Enough said.

__________________
Ern

But didn't bat well in Pakistan, or at home against Sri Lanka or away in Australia. 3 bad series outweigh one good series.

No he was not captain in Pakistan - Vaughan was, point being that any captain can lose a series.

And Captain Vaughan looks like losing this WC series also.

He did not bat well in Australia - then which player did?.

I expected England to be beat in Pakistan - I knew they would underestime them, also looking at that victory parade - Flintoff's head was that big he would have had to change hus cap.

After India he was injured and underwent surgery, so it's not surprising he did poor against Sri Lanka.

His batting picked up in the one day series though - if my memory serves me right,

__________________
Ern

A bit of an unfair comment, Ern. You can't lose a World Cup competition - or actually, if losing means not winning, you are very likely to, since only one team out of 24 can win it. Losing a two horse race and losing a 24 horse race are not really comparable.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

The "rumours" of warnings were in the official ECB press release, so I would assume they are more than "rumours"

Your theory of some consipracy to remove him is so manic Ern, I would not be surprised if you soon claim that Vaughan was in the club spiking his drinks, while big Dunc was down at the beach strategically placing the Pedalo!!

I think you do Ern, you really have trouble seeing that on this occasion Flintoff messed up.

The first offence that we know of, but it is clear from the ECB that there have been others, but these have been kept private, and dealt with that way. But Flintoff went too far, and they could not keep this one in the ranks, due to the fact that it was all over the Tabloids

They did try and nip it in the Bud, but clearly Flintoff did not understand that they were trying to protect him. Maybe they should have made it public before, but they didn't, probably for his own good.

Further confirmation can be found hereHad Vaughan been at the helm I suspect this pattern of behaviour would have been dealt with very firmly at an early juncture but Vaughan was determined to keep a low profile during his absense and would certainly not have felt comfortable getting involved, and Fletcher's own authority to act would have been severely constrained by his own commitment to playing no 2 to the captain.

Fletcher is completely committed to giving the acting captain the scope to mould the team in his own image.... and the last thing he'd have wanted during Flintoff's brief tenure was a further breakdown of an already strained relationship!

No - we were never told until now it seems.

Yes that's what I meant, but I don't see how my comments are not fair if England do poor in this World Cup, and lets be honest we played poor against New Zealand, and Canada.

Then answer me this - why did the ECB not let us know what was happening in Australia?, if the "rumours" are true, then the ECB are worse than Flintoff for allowing damaging rumours to remain unanswered.

They got rid of Read out of the blue as Test keeper in 2004 , am I right?, that was (act1), softening us up for the final blow, (act2) sacking Read as England one day keeper.

I would say that Fletcher and vaughan are very capable of a consipracy, Flintoff captained England to a 5-0 defeat, to sack him would have shown they were wrong to pick him, to sack him for behaiour problems would be far more acceptable to the ECB/vaughan/Fletcher.

Had they been serious about nipping Flintoff's alleged antics in the bud, the ECB should have gone public in Australia fining and warning Flintoff at the time, not waiting until weeks later.

It seems the pedalo was the final straw, because the ECB had done nothing to curb Flintoff in the past.

__________________
Ern

Rachael I had not seen this here - it just proves IMO that I am right, Vaughan had bided his time.

You say Vaughan did not want to get involved, what a short memory some folk have, the press, the rumours in Australia was that Vaughan presence was undermining Flintoff, well why was the injued vaughan there?.
vaughan was never un-involved IMO, well he was never far away.

I don't understand this paragraph at all.
For England this worls Cup is an even bigger farce than the last one, and I thought things could never get worse than that.

__________________
Ern

Ern, with respect, I disagree completely with all your comments on how the ECB is handling Flintoff and his (factual, as it is now admitted, not alleged) history. Of course you don't go public on first offences, and not even on second or third offences when you are dealing with the captain of the side. First of all, a good manager - Fletcher in this case - would ask one of the miscreant's colleagues to have a quiet word with him: "Let him know we're watching, will you: I don't want to get too heavy with him just yet, so try to get him to change a bit and save us all some trouble".

Second time, the boss has to get involved - so he takes the chap off to lunch, or for a coffee, or just for a quiet word in the office: "Fred, I want to go over the bowling plans before we put them on the internet or give them to the local press or however we publish them these days ... but while we're here, about that beano the other night: you really need to cut it out, you know, otherwise you're forcing me into a corner and I'll have to take action".

Third time, it could still be a private meeting - and if there are still two test matches to go and no-one else who can take the captaincy on, it probably would be: "Fred - you're pushing me, and I don't like it. You know and I know that I've got my back to the wall and I can't fire you today because there's no-one else here who can do the job. Now, get on with it, and keep your nose clean - because I'm telling you now, old chap, that the next time you step out of line I'll have your job."

See what I mean? None of the above needs to be public - and in fact none of it can be, not in cricket and not in any other line of business. I don't know what Fletcher and the ECB have said to Flintoff over the last couple of years, and neither does anyone else other than them - and that's exactly as it should be. If we did know, Fred would already have been sacked at stage one of my series of hypothetical conversations (and if you knew some of the conversations I've had with my bosses over the years I'd also probably be on my tenth or twelfth job instead of my second!).

It's the fourth time that things have to happen - because the boss has already promised it will. And if he doesn't act now, he has lost his authority forever. "Fred - I've asked you once, I've advised you a second time and I've promised you a third time. I don't break my promises. You're fired." And that one has to be made public because he's in the public eye and not coming out to play as captain any more.

Whether the break point is the third, fourth or fifth incident doesn't matter for the purposes of my argument: the point is that The Public Does Not Have A Right To Know - certainly not about the history until the break point is reached. That, to answer your short question with a lot of words, is why the ECB did not let us know what was happening in Australia.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan