Rahul Dravid, who found captaincy comfortable at first, has hit a rocky patch two years in, but will surely be given another chance. Sri Lanka went through a spell of not knowing who to have as captain, but now Mahela Jayawardene, who took over a year ago, has made the job his own
with three good series results in a row. Which leaves England.

When England changed their captain at the weekend, it was the seventh time they had done so in just over a year. Michael Vaughan handed over to Marcus Trescothick, who handed back to Vaughan, who handed back to Trescothick, who handed over to Andrew Flintoff, who handed over to Andrew Strauss, who handed back to Flintoff, who has now handed over to Vaughan. At first the changes were enforced, by injury or illness, but the last two have been the selectors' choice.

So far only one has resulted in a series win - when the buck passed to Strauss, who pulled off a good, if Hair-assisted, win over Pakistan. By definition, England have been without key players, and not just captains: Simon Jones may have been missed as much as any of the above.
But the record is still a ropey one, which, since that dismal day in Adelaide, is now verging on the catastrophic.

The selectors' response has been highly unusual. In bringing Vaughan back at this stage, they have in effect picked a specialist captain. Vaughan is a fine, at times scintillating Test batsman, or was, but there is no way that he has proved his fitness yet after a year out with serious knee trouble. He has played three or four gentle warm-ups with a highest score of 27. The only time he made runs in the past year, with a score of 99 for Yorkshire, he ached so much that he realised he needed further surgery. The only time he played for England, his captain (Strauss, standing in for Flintoff in Perth last month; do try to keep up) didn't think it was worth giving him a bat. It's great to see him back in the frame, but there is no doubt about what he has been picked for: his captaincy.

This is something selectors around the world hardly ever do any more. Only two cases in point come to mind from the last decade, both of them batting captains who were allowed to carry on while severely out of form. One was Australia's Mark Taylor, who went through a nightmare run
of 11 Tests without a fifty in 1996 and 1997. It cost him the one-day captaincy, but he clung on in Tests and made a career-saving hundred at Edgbaston, just in the nick of time. Something similar happened to England's Nasser Hussain in 2000-01. Both men were excellent captains:
if they hadn't been, they would have been dropped.

Over to you, Tres. Back to you, Michael © Getty Images

On those occasions, the selectors concerned were letting a reigning captain be. This time, David Graveney and co. have brought one back after a year out, which is more of a stretch. Graveney has been consistent in saying that Vaughan is the England captain, and he is now
cashing in on that investment. It allows him to replace Flintoff without sacking him. England seem anxious not to offend Flintoff (what do they think he will do? Join another country?). This little fiction has allowed them to bring off a bloodless coup.

The decision prompts mixed feelings. Graveney is in a certain amount of denial about the Ashes, refusing to accept that it was a mistake to appoint Flintoff ahead of Strauss. But it's to his credit that England have become a nation reluctant to sack Test captains: in Graveney's
stint as chairman, nearly ten years now, only Alec Stewart has been pushed. It's a big improvement on the bad old days of heads-must-roll. And it's refreshing to find selectors prepared to treat captaincy as a specialist skill, which it clearly is. To play his primary role,
Vaughan doesn't have to be fully fit. Darren Lehmann revealed recently that Steve Waugh had sometimes captained Australia while carrying injuries, by "hiding himself at gully"; and that worked out pretty well.

The problem is that, for the umpteenth time this winter, England are taking a risk on a half-fit player. Waugh, in his dotage, had less to lose than Vaughan. It would be a crying shame if Vaughan's chances of a Test renaissance were scuppered by rushing him into the form of the
game he struggles at anyway. The second problem is that Vaughan himself said he wouldn't countenance a comeback until he was fully fit. And the third problem is that Graveney has refused to say who is now vice-captain, which presumably means it is Strauss: if it was Flintoff,
there would be no awkwardness about saying so. The selectors have made a bold move, but they don't seem to have matched deeds with words. It is all a little too English for comfort.

Great article! Captaincy is a skill/art that is pretty under-rated I think, what with the game's focus on power-hitting batsmen and 90+ mph bowlers. I would have added Steve Waugh to the list of players who made the team whilst out of batting form though... which, given the way he shook up the game and led the Australian team, he could have had Glenn McGrath's batting average and he still would have been picked.

On England and it's Captaincy, I think the domestic cricket competition has a lot to answer for. There are a number of foreign County captains, which can't help their captaincy development all that much, and there seems a lack of aggression in county cricket, which can't help either. Someone needs to develop a Captaincy Academy - Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor would be superb, with Stephen Fleming as well.

Good article Tim. Over the years Captaincy has been different things to different times and different countries. Australia has made a living out of making its best player (usually a batsman, eg Border, Chappells I and G, Bradman, Armstrong) captain. Poms generally choose their best captain (also usually a batsman) and form the team around him (Brearly, Gatting, Jardine, Vaughan). Each time they venture outside the mould they get burned. Batsmen (generally) make the best captains because batsmen save games, bowlers win them. The folly of promoting Flintoff was he is a bowling alrounder without the capacity to save a game. He is a great bowler with the ability to win but he has very limited defensive skill. The team should always feel as though no matter what the circumstances the captain can save thier game.

I've never cared for Vaughan's personality but I thought he looked comfortable and far more accomplished then his team mates at the 20/20 match and showed a good attitude on the field and honesty at the interviews afterward. Likewise Nixon, who could be an example of right attitde doing more for a side than undisciplined talent, like Pieterson. I hope England can show a bit more spirit for the rest of their tour - even I am sick of seeing them collapse and listening to their half-baked excuses afterwards.

i think its a good move. i thought he should have batted in the warm up before the 3rd test. on the basis of that he should have played in the 3rd test as well. thats what england was missing in the ashes. in the twenty 20, the way he was batting it looked as if he started from where he left in the last test in sydney 2003. to some players class is a permanent thing. his technique is ideally suited to australian wkts. if england could take chance with giles, anderson and flintoff injury then why not with Vaughan.

The day of the speciaist captain was surley when Mike Brearley led Engalnd in 1981. A test average of 22.8 with the bat, didn't bowl and won the series!(OK with a bit of help from Botham & Willis.)

Is Vaughan really as good a captain as he's talked up to be? Last night he made a couple of seemingly bizarre decisions. For example after the fall of both Gilchrist and Hayden, Dalrymple and Panesar bowled a few tight overs in a row (including consective maidens). Understandably the 2nd powerplay was then used. Then on came Collingwood, who is slightly better than a mere-part timer. With the fielding restrictions in place, the predictable happened: 10 runs off the over and Australia, having wresting momentum back, never gave England another chance. Obviously you can't condemn a captain based on one poor decision but it, along with several almost Ganguly-like bowling changes, certainly raised questions.

Why wouldn't England follow Australia's lead (of the past) and appoint a different one-day captain to the test captain. I agree that Vaughan is an excellent test captain and player but his scoring capability in the one-day form is not as effective as in the test arena due to his low strike rate. England could have kept Flintoff as captain of the one-day side as the tactics required are not as intense as in the test arena. This would have shown that the selectors have kept faith in Flintoff as captain material but also given Vaughan back his captaincy where it is most needed, in the tests.

I think that replacing Flintoff with Vaughan for the one-day series in Australia will do more damage to the team.

Tim, what a great piece! You have hit the nail on the head. It's English diplomacy at its best. Vaughan is an average one-day player, but has the runs on the board in tests. He shouldn't be opening in the one-dayers, but at No.4, especially since Pietersen has gone, and promote Joyce to open now. Strauss should be declared the vice-capatin - I think most think that. Let Flintoff do what he does best - bat and bowl pretty well. It's Ian Botham 1981 all over again and we know how that turned out when the right decision be made. Captains are not neccesarily the best players.