Love sport? Try betting on your favourite team and win!

 


Twitter

 

Recent Posts

Cricket news



Fantasy Cricket

Honestly, Michael

By Ian 3 years ago, at the start of June Add your comment below

Just read the piece on Cricinfo about Michael Vaughan implying that the Fredalo incident ruined England’s chances at the World Cup and it got me thinking. There has been plenty written in the last few months that Vaughan should not be skipper; his ego hurts the team; he’s not worth his place etc etc. While his classy hundred against the Windies at Headingley may have bought a little respite from the nay-sayers, it wouldn’t take much for them to get tetchy again.

What this article tells me is that he is still the right man for the job. Vaughan is basically saying that Fred was a bloody idiot and messed it up for everyone by attracting every tabloid paper to the hotel lobby. Fair enough, he did. He also went on to criticise himself and admit that his ODI record sucks. It does. But given how guarded interviews tend to be nowadays until the sportsman has retired, this was pretty candid. A new skipper might not have been so forthright, but Vaughan is about the only one who can say boo to a goose like Freddy or his buddy Harmy for that matter. And we need those two loons back to full throttle if we’re going to threaten the Aussies next time round. Which, if I’m really really honest with myself, is all that matters in the longterm. Vaughan, 32, is still the man to do that.

As for ODIs, I would let him continue as skipper. I’ll admit I am a big fan of his (the Michael Vaughan extra cover drive marks the start of my summer), so this is subjective as ever, but given nobody else is nailing down a place in the top three, what harm is he doing….?

Tags: , , , , , , , |

13 Responses to “Honestly, Michael”

  • Caroline wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 1.18 pm

    Hmmmmmm . . . seem to be misleading headlines on this interview. He doesn’t blame Freddy for ruining it for everyone; what I think he says is that as a result of the press/fans’ attention before Fred fell off, the players felt that they were unable to let their hair down at all. Thus they were feeling very tense and scrutinised, and it showed on the field as well. He seems to be attributing the change to the press/fans’ scrutiny, not exactly to Flintoff’s behaviour. Agree with Ian – he has definitely let the ego out of the cupboard a bit more in the last year (ironically enough). Is this a bad thing? I don’t know. I think he’s entitled to it after the battling he’s done this last year, but I admit it is bound to ruffle feathers, particularly if his form is less than spectacular. However, he is still the man for me (did I say that out loud?!!), as Ian said first (hasten to point out . . .) and should be Captain assuming he’s fit. He seems to be a superb man manager and motivator – should be a bloody sport psychologist, the way he thinks.

    Oh, I’m biased to the hilt, too . . .

  • JF wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 1.23 pm

    Good point. You have to admire his candour. And at least he backs himself and has a plan, unlike Mr Harmison and his ‘I’ll see what Fletch says’ comment.

    To be on top in world cricket you need to be relentlessly positive, even in defence – cf 2nd test capitulation. Vaughan’s attacking instincts always balanced Fletcher’s pragmatism. I wonder if Monty would have got such a raw deal with Vaughan as skipper even if Gilo is his bezzie mate.

    JimF

  • The Bear wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 1.53 pm

    Caroline – I think that Vaughan was blaming Flintoff. He was saying that yes, it was the resultant media storm that turned our brilliant one-day performers into a bunch of clueless losers by keeping them cooped up indoors all day and all night, but the media storm was Flintoff’s fault, and as such he was right to lose his position as vice captain.

    I’d probably give Vaughan the ODI series against the Windies, and if he doesn’t seriously improve his appalling one-day stats against one of the worst touring teams we’ve had in years, then sack him. We should also remember that various players have been left out recently because of perceived fielding weaknesses – Panesar, Cook and Blackwell – so why isn’t Vaughan dropped on this basis? His ground fielding is downright shoddy, and if the ball is in the air then I’d always put money on him shelling it.

    He can stay in the test team though. I like watching those cover drives too, and in the long game he still looks a truly classy performer. It would just be nice to see him batting against some proper bowling. I hope the Windies pick Fidel Edwards and even Tino Best (who is playing league cricket over here I think).

  • Steve wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 3.33 pm

    Personally can not see a reason to drop Vaughan. Alot of people have jumped on the “drop Vaughan” bandwagon yet pretty much noone has come up with a suitable replacement.

    The one player I feel deserves a run in the ODI at the top of the order is Benning. But then, I’d drop Bell or Strauss before Vaughan.

    If you do drop Vaughan, you not only have to replace his batting but also his captaincy. Strauss and Flintoff have been adequete, but not done enough to convince you. The suggestions of KP as captain are ludarcris, and Colly has no experience what so ever.

  • ceci wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 6.14 pm

    I’m all for strong captaincy but within a team setting, not spouting off in public – especially when the object of your venom is just out of hospital. Flintoff was an idiot – but Vaughan has just made an idiot of himself. Still think he should be captain though – he’s the loveliest of players to watch when on song and an astute leader on the field but perhaps he should concentrate on building up the team’s confidence to the levels achieved in 2005, rather than sowing discord.

  • Justcoz wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 7.31 pm

    I cannot help feel that people are missing the point.

    Vaughan never said “Freddy lost us the cup”.

    What he did say was that off the field incidents made it harder for his team to deliver on the field – which you would have to say is highly likely.

    Now we have the ensuing media storm – attempting to create a brew-ha-ha where there is none… and you have to say that the media are, once again, piling-on in the own interests.

    Long may Vaughan be the Captain…

  • Wraye wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 9.32 pm

    Vaughan is a Yorkshireman and they have never been know for calling a spade “implement, earth moving, for the use of”. Nuff said.

  • Kathy wrote:
    June 5th, 2007 at 10.16 pm

    I don’t think the headlines “Fred ruined World Cup, says Vaughan” are particularly accurate. I think Vaughan covers a lot of ground in that interview and is critical of many things, including himself. It’s actually gratifying to see a captain actually say something honest, rather than mouth platitudes. But considering the misleading headlines and resultant kerfuffle, you can understand why they don’t.

    I’ve read in many places that this is Vaughan consolidating his position by keeping Flintoff out of the captaincy but that makes no sense, since it’s hardly likely the ECB would let Fred anywhere near the captaincy again.

  • Innocent Abroad wrote:
    June 6th, 2007 at 12.22 am

    Well, what about Jim Cumbes’s point that Alex Ferguson always keeps criticism “in house”? Vaughan could have said “no comment” on the Fredalo affair – yes, he’s been misrepresented by the headlines, but that’s what headline writers do. It seems a funny way of getting 101% out of Fred in Tests to come.

    I’m not so bothered by Vaughan’s fielding – Hutton and Boycott were at best average fielders, it’s obviously a Tyke thing :) We don’t have another captain for the Test side, and as for the one day internationals I suspect Vaughan himself might agree with The Bear. Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.

  • Alex Holland wrote:
    June 6th, 2007 at 11.31 am

    If I were Vaughan, I’d be a bit miffed at the spin put on this interview. There was more than Flintoff involved in Fredalo – plenty of other players were out on the razz the same night. I interpreted his point as being that the team felt they couldn’t let their hair down because they knew ‘fans’ would sell camera phone pictures to the tabloids.

    The real story about Fredalo wasn’t England players going out on the piss; this has happened before. It was about cricket being surprised that it’s now subject to the same tabloid exposure culture as footballers, and the resultant creepy feeling of lack of privacy and trust.

    As for Vaughan, the interview also suggests that he may retire after the 2009 Ashes, which I found interesting. Personally, I think they should keep him as ODI captain, but appoint Collingwood or (God help me) KP as Vice Captain with a view to taking over in the long term. Both are first names on the ODI team sheet, and will be around for the next World Cup. Given as we’re in the era of seven match ODI series, there’s plenty of scope to swap the captain/vice captain roles on a per match basis, with a view for the VC to take over completely after two years or so.

    If by then Vaughan is averaging 54 in ODIs and his knee is holding up, then it’s a moot point.

  • Caroline wrote:
    June 6th, 2007 at 2.48 pm

    Spot on, Alex. I totally agree. I notice the ECB website have better things to report on than sensationalist headlines . . .

    . . . mind you, they’re not going to sink their own Captain, I suppose!

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    June 6th, 2007 at 6.49 pm

    The only thing that bugs me about Vaughan (apart from the pathetic referring to yourself in the third person habit that I thought was only the preserve of second-rate US celebs) is his insistance that because having different ODI & Test captains didn’t work before it won’t work again.

    Two points

    1) It DID work. When Atherton was test captain and Holioake did the ODIs England actually won a tournament – more than anyone else has ever done. It only fell apart when Colonel Stewart took over the test reins and decided he couldn’t cope with having to answer to Hollioake in the one dayersso he wanted to do both. Result? (see 1999 World Cup)

    2) One failure doesn’t mean continued failure. I thought Vaughan was clverer than that.

  • Justcoz wrote:
    June 7th, 2007 at 6.06 pm

    Please note that the Holioake tournament is regarded with suspicion due to match fixing…

    • Comments

     


    Receive email updates on new comments


    « | Main | »