No sooner had things seemed to be looking up for England, than Michael Vaughan's untimely injury has created unrest once again. The selectors have been forced to make the one decision they didn't want to, that is to choose once more which one of Andrew Flintoff and Andrew Strauss will take the reigns in Vaughan's absence. In reappointing Flintoff they have shown a refusal to learn from what has happened this winter, a lack of leadership themselves and an inordinate lack of guts. The appointment is to cricket what the choice of Steve McLaren over Martin O'Neill and Sam Allardyce was to football.
The decision appears to have been based more on a desire to not risk upsetting Flintoff than on any sound logic, much as it was before the Ashes, when Strauss could also have been given the job. The argument seems to be that to demote him from the role for a second time would be to make him a scapegoat for the team's failure, and the selectors want to show he has their backing. However, they should think more about Flintoff's long-term wellbeing and that of the team, rather than his appeasement in the short-term.
The Flintoff who attended today's press conference looked shattered, understandably, after the mauling both he and his team have been subjected to this winter by not only the Australians, but the media. He is already the scapegoat, regardless of the management's support. It may simply be coincidence that he produced his best performance of the tour on Tuesday, freed of the responsibility of captaincy. Regardless, such is his importance now to England's cause in Pietersen's absence, as their one world-class one-day player, it seems madness to over-burden him further.
The selectors have backed themselves into a corner now, much as they did at the start of last summer. By so prematurely appointing Flintoff as Vaughan's stand-in for the duration of the summer, they had little room for manouevre when it came to choosing the Ashes captain. Strauss' success in orchestrating a whitewash against Pakistan had made him the more viable option, but to appoint him would have constituted a massive snub to Flintoff. Similarly now, where can they turn when the captaincy becomes an issue again after Vaughan is gone? Will they again seek to protect Flintoff's ego, or make a decision based on the facts?
Flintoff had enjoyed success in India, galvanising a young team to victory in Mumbai. However, the cracks in his command shown when India briefly threatened at Nagpur were widened to chasms in Australia. He could not deliver on his promise to get the best out of Steve Harmison, and was unfortunately dragged into the selection mud-slinging by Duncan Fletcher. Tellingly, the team did not pull together under him when things went wrong. Splits emerged, accusations were thrown and performance levels dropped.
This is not to chastise Flintoff as a man, more to recognise that captaincy is an art in itself. It is an art that no amount of charisma can bluff you through. Charisma is of minor importance compared to a shrewd tactical brain, a knowledge of how to get the best out of individuals and an immunity to criticism. Vaughan, somewhat surprisingly, soon showed himself to possess all these qualities, and his strength as a leader of men is in stark contrast to Flintoff. Flintoff is cricket's Kevin Keegan, full of blood and guts and passion, but found lacking when it mattered most. That is why his re-appointment is a backward step.
There will soon come a time when there is no prospect of Vaughan returning to clear up the mess, and England's failure to draw a line under Flintoff's captaincy, to admit that it didn't work, is disturbing indeed. Strauss deserves his chance to stake a claim. He may not be the answer, but this winter has shown that Flintoff isn't either.
The decision appears to have been based more on a desire to not risk upsetting Flintoff than on any sound logic, much as it was before the Ashes, when Strauss could also have been given the job. The argument seems to be that to demote him from the role for a second time would be to make him a scapegoat for the team's failure, and the selectors want to show he has their backing. However, they should think more about Flintoff's long-term wellbeing and that of the team, rather than his appeasement in the short-term.
The Flintoff who attended today's press conference looked shattered, understandably, after the mauling both he and his team have been subjected to this winter by not only the Australians, but the media. He is already the scapegoat, regardless of the management's support. It may simply be coincidence that he produced his best performance of the tour on Tuesday, freed of the responsibility of captaincy. Regardless, such is his importance now to England's cause in Pietersen's absence, as their one world-class one-day player, it seems madness to over-burden him further.
The selectors have backed themselves into a corner now, much as they did at the start of last summer. By so prematurely appointing Flintoff as Vaughan's stand-in for the duration of the summer, they had little room for manouevre when it came to choosing the Ashes captain. Strauss' success in orchestrating a whitewash against Pakistan had made him the more viable option, but to appoint him would have constituted a massive snub to Flintoff. Similarly now, where can they turn when the captaincy becomes an issue again after Vaughan is gone? Will they again seek to protect Flintoff's ego, or make a decision based on the facts?
Flintoff had enjoyed success in India, galvanising a young team to victory in Mumbai. However, the cracks in his command shown when India briefly threatened at Nagpur were widened to chasms in Australia. He could not deliver on his promise to get the best out of Steve Harmison, and was unfortunately dragged into the selection mud-slinging by Duncan Fletcher. Tellingly, the team did not pull together under him when things went wrong. Splits emerged, accusations were thrown and performance levels dropped.
This is not to chastise Flintoff as a man, more to recognise that captaincy is an art in itself. It is an art that no amount of charisma can bluff you through. Charisma is of minor importance compared to a shrewd tactical brain, a knowledge of how to get the best out of individuals and an immunity to criticism. Vaughan, somewhat surprisingly, soon showed himself to possess all these qualities, and his strength as a leader of men is in stark contrast to Flintoff. Flintoff is cricket's Kevin Keegan, full of blood and guts and passion, but found lacking when it mattered most. That is why his re-appointment is a backward step.
There will soon come a time when there is no prospect of Vaughan returning to clear up the mess, and England's failure to draw a line under Flintoff's captaincy, to admit that it didn't work, is disturbing indeed. Strauss deserves his chance to stake a claim. He may not be the answer, but this winter has shown that Flintoff isn't either.
No comments:
Post a Comment