Of course they are behind flintoff, he's "one of the lads" and failure byt management to put boot to ass is as much as saying "of you go lads - do what you want as long as you turn up on the day" !!!!!

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

Fair comment - however if what has been said about Flintoff recieving private cautions by Fletcher is correct, then the tour selectors did not have a clue how to handle Flintoff.
All this pedalo nonsense could have been avoided, had Flintoff been given a fine and a public warning at the time he did whatever he did in Australia.

True - but Vaughan was made to look a good captain by these players, in the main Flintoff Pietersen and Simon jones and other.

These players won the Ashes - not Vaughan, not Fletcher, also I doubt their will be any kind of rebelion, but IMO a lot of players would follow Flintoff.
Also this team is to dynamic to be that loyal to Vaughan - most have never been captained by him.
I'll tell you what what leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I watched Flintoff being interviewed last night, and he looked cowed, beaten, whatever you like.

He looks far from confident, he will probably be to keen to please, to be able to play properly.

Vaughan should also IMO remember that the England team carried his throughout one of the longest patches of bad form ever.

__________________
Ern

He could just be hung over

Does that mean you are now admitting that it was Flintoff that lost the Ashes now? Because as they say, you cant have it both ways.

I will admit that the record books will show that Freddie Flintoff captained England to defeat in Australia 2006, by a margin of 5-0.

The record books won't show the truth as to why Vaughan had he been captain would have captained England to the same 5-0 defeat.

I will agree that Flintoff like any other player can lose some form, and compared with 2005 when his form in the main won England the Ashes, he did not carry that form to Australia in 2006.

Like I say in 10 years time, anyone looking at the stats will just see that England not only lost to Australia, but suffered a whitewash 5-0 with Freddie Flintoff as captain.

History will not concern itself with circumstances, just the fact of defeat.

__________________
Ern

If Vaughan had captained, the Ashes would have been closer.
There is of course no way of knowing this, but I believe Vaughan would have made better decisions about his bowlers, and the lack of pressure on Flintoff would have led to better batting contributions from him.

Flintoff's captaincy during the Ashes was flawed, especially the bowling decisions.

__________________
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

I can't think why Moss considering he would have been adding his own bad form, the the players like Strauss and other.
I don't agree with either - what bowlers did Flintoff have?, he was missing Simon Jones, he was appointed captain in the hope being Harmisons mate, he could get him to focus on his bowling - rather than his homesickness.

Flintoff IMO was right to use Panesar with care at the beginng, players like that have to be eased in.
Flintoff managed to win a match in India which not many captains do )and with an inproved batting performance), compare that with Vaughan's series before that in Pakistan.

__________________
Ern

You do have a point there the only fit experienced bowler he had was Hoggard, but he didnt handle Panesar well and ignored Mahmood.
With the benefit of hinsight I think he realises that he handled both of these situations poorly. Yes he wanted to protect Monty but the negative fields he set ended up with him getting milked with ease, a more experienced skipper would have set better "in / out" fields. As for the handling of Mahmood well.....

Yes, if we had our full strength team out and Flintoff skippered that we wouldnt have lost 5-0, probably 3-1. If Vaughan had skippered 2-1 or 3-2 but we would have lost anyway.

P.S Harmison wasnt homesick, unfit definately. - If you've ever been to Ashington you'd know why he wouldnt be homesick! - ( Sorry to all residents of "Airshington " .)

__________________
Mark.

I think that any skipper handling Mahmood had to be very brave indeed, he is he type of player you have to persist with, and not be afraid to concede runs.

The reward will be wickets.

I think with both Mahmood and Panesar there was a planned stratagy, in fact had Giles been fit - Panesar would not have played.
I think Flintoff had instructions concerning both.

Remember the the ICC Trophy final against the West Indies in 2004?, well Vaughan was accused of doing the same with Giles - England lost that match, and though it was obvious that the pacemen would not remove the last couple of wickets - Giles never bowled a ball.

__________________
Ern