With Vaughan - I don't feel he's offered enough with the bat recently. People seem to harp on about his 3 150's but that was four years ago , and for me he hasn't done alot since (granted his 150 at Old Trafford). With the captaincy , they selected Flintoff off 3 good matches in India , and three pretty poor ones against Sri Lanka. I think Strauss captained well and his batting improved while he was captain. I disagree about your selection of a captain. A captain should be selected from the team , not put in, And I don't believe that Vaughan has the quality with the bat.
Nixon - When I said 2 ODI series I meant the Commenwealth Bank Series and the world cup.
I think we should put him there. He's looked decent with the bat and he can stick around when needed (the 60 he put on with Collingwood in India). I don't see any other choice. I definatly agree with Tremlett , but if Jones isn't fit , which I hope he is , then Tremlett would fit well at number 8.
I believe Vaughan is one of the best captains in the world, if not the best. And given the likes of Pietersen, Cook, Strauss and Bell aroud him (and Collingwood, I suppose), England would benefit more from a very good captain who contributes 35 or so runs per innings than a mediocre captain who contributes 40+.
order for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6 it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.
He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.
Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.
Overall your point is valid here, but the thing is that i've been saying is that i really can't see England breaking up the 5-man attack once all of Harmo/Oggie/Jones/Monty + Freddie are fit. So in that case Flintoff should stick @ 6.
Flintoff @ 7 does look good no doubt, but as i told you in the other thread, the keeper problem & # 8 dilemma comes up again. You are advocating Read but he's got to make runs regardless if his keep is good. The days of picking a keeper based on on glovework & disregarding his efforts with the willow are LONGGGGGGGG gone yo.
The idea of Freddie batting @ 7 depends on the fitness of Jones & the quality of the keeper.
Absolutely ridiculous Ashes series for England.. Surely Saj Mahmood needs to go never to return, as do Read and Jones.. But who on earth could replace them? (Apart from Lewis for Mahmood as I've been saying for ages and ages)