He bowled close to his best on a number of occasions during the Ashes... most notably when he was entrusted with the new ball at the WACA: see http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ausve...ch/249221.html

Oooh.. look at the scorecard there: it seems one Andrew Strauss was captain....

Vaughan's return seems to have released the shackles and today's excellent ODI performance has looked ever more likely since that date: he looked stacks better in the last game and the final boost came with an excellent catch and then a good wicket - after which he just looked like a bowler who believed he belonged (and could rip a side apart) rather than (as he did under Flintoff) like a guy the captain included under sufference and didn't really trust (and who was expected to get carted).

Rachael - that was against Western Australia, oh and Mahmood bowled well also, no mention for him.

And: Rachael today Flintoff was captain, not Vaughan.

In the 20/20 under Vaughan, and the 1st ODI against Australia - England got slaughtered, today with the rub of the green, England could have won under Flintoff.
This was the first really competative game of the tour so far, and it was because of a right handed opening bat - Mal Loye, instead of the two left handers that have not made a 50 partnership thus far.
Oh and did you see how soon Strauss went when Loye was out?, that's the norm these days.

__________________
Ern

Hmmm... look more closely.... If Mahmood had bowled as many overs as Anderson he'd have gone for 84.48!

He still got wickets Rachael - and that's what has been missing from the England bowlers.
Most captains don't bother about a bowler going for runs, so long as he gets wickets, that was a commentator on TMS during England last match.

__________________
Ern

Most bowlers who get wickets don't go for runs: sure, there's a difference between a bowler like McGrath who builds pressure by keeping it tight and a bowler like Donald who built pressure by always looking likely to take wickets... but for all that Donald would serve up the odd loose delivery and present scoring opportunities... he still ended his career with an economy rate of 2.83!

Sure... if a bowler is consistently beating the bat you don't mind the odd boundary... but that still needs to be within reason: 5/155 off 25 overs in a low scoring game is likely to concede the match in a way that 3/60 off 25 overs will not!

To compound matters... 5/155 one week could easily be 2/155 another week.... which is catastrophic... but 3/55 one week becoming 1/60 the next means the bowler has still done his job.

On those two weeks combined... the "strike bowler" ends with a wicket every 50 balls... and the "tight bowler" ends with a wicket every 75 balls... but the former ends with an average of 51.67 and an economy rate of 6.2 whilst the latter ends with an average of 30 and an economy rate of 2.4!