[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

So you think he should've been made captain even though around that time you were arguing that he was barely good enough to be in the side?

He never came close to being dropped from the England side though, it certainly wasnt even going through their minds. At the end of the day you choose from your options. No one expected Strauss to take the responsibility of captaincy as well as he did and play in the manner which he did, but after he did it should have been an easy choice to decide between the 2.

Originally Posted by Richard

Flintoff was picked ahead of him because he was more established, and once that was done the only way Strauss could captain was when Flintoff was injured.

Err much like Strauss was a stand in captain, Flintoff was too. Clearly neither captain was settled in stone. If you get injured and someone performs better than you did then you get replaced, we've seen plenty of players replace players that get injured, it happened with butcher and its not much difference with the captaincy.when someone is a injury hazard it makes that case even more favorable.

Originally Posted by Richard

I said might just, not might well. Big difference.

The point I'm making is that choosing the captaincy for this tour could never have been described as a poor decision because there was no obvious candidate - the selectors (and there are more than 1) had to take a punt whoever they chose (they could've chosen Alastair Cook and it'd have been the same), and for that reason I don't see that they deserve any real criticism for who they gave the captaincy to.

There was an obvious candidate in Strauss.

Originally Posted by Richard

I said it a million times then - dropped catches were no shortcoming of Flintoff. You can bowl whoever you want, it won't make an iota of difference if you put down as many catches as England did that game.

Err bowling himself for 51 overs in the final inning(which incidentally was more than everyone else in the side)? especially when he had panesar at his disposal on the last day. It was a clear absence of logic

Originally Posted by Richard

You've provided reasons why Strauss might - and only might - have done a better captaincy job than Flintoff. You've provided no reasons as to how that might have changed the scoreline, and you certainly haven't provided reasons why appointing Flintoff as captain was a mistake, because there cannot be any. As I said, whoever the selectors picked as captain they were taking a gamble, and whatever happened the captain was likely to be made to look foolish, because all captains make mistakes and all mistakes get magnified when the team you're captain of gets beaten badly. And England getting beaten badly in this series was pretty close to inevitable.

As said earlier, there are mistakes and there are things which are out of this world stupid. Flintoff was about as wise as a retarded 2nd grader in that series. all captains make mistakes, but most make some good decisions as well, some like flintoff instead seem to try and enlarge their mistakes as far as possible.

Originally Posted by Richard

As for why do I care about the masses of cricket fans? Because they're the ones making the comments like the "Vaughan outwitted Ponting at every turn" nonsense that eminated time and again from last summer. And they're the ones who turn on the selectors for no good reason when they make a marginal line-call and a very bad loss follows.

except that to any ordinary person vaughan did outwit ponting last summer and vaughan is quit clearly a superior captain that ponting and any aussie would admit it.

Originally Posted by Richard

As for giving-up the captaincy mid-series when you've been appointed on a short-term basis - for me that's the ultimate admittance that you haven't been good enough and one I don't expect any cricketer to possess the humility to countenance.

Im sorry what? What on earth is wrong with being man enough to admit that you are not good enough at a certain skill? Flintoff is a damn fine player, a brilliant bowler, a good captain and usually an excellent fielder and for him to think of himself as a failure because he couldnt excel as captain would be downright stupid. Ian Botham had no problems relinquishing the captaincy in 81 so it certainly disproves your last sentence completely. you could see for yourself that Flintoff was clearly sullen and completely out of it during that series as a result of the burden of captaincy(Certainly compared to the last ashes) and it was quite depressing just to have to watch him reduced to such a pitiable state. Flintoff had more than enough on his plate to worry about, his own form tailed and really he should have been focussing on the more important aspects of his own game rather than worrying about his 'best mate' steve harmison and the rest