Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - From Stan to Ollie

Let's do the maths. That Vaughan has led his country's largely feeble limited-overs combo a record 60 times and posted a winning ratio of 53.33%, superior to all bar Mike Gatting among those who have led England in more than 30 ODIs, masks a number of less flattering truths.

For one thing, of those 32 victories, more than half, 17 to be precise, have come against a clutch of sides of whom Bangladesh tower highest in the global pecking order. Which means that, in the other 43 games in which he has captained, England have prevailed 15 times, a 34.88% share. Nor are a highest score of 90 not out in 83 innings, an average of 27.15 or two man of the match awards irrefutable proof of an indispensable cog.

Heaven knows Vaughan has plenty to be immodest about. As a captain, the figures confirm him, statistically, as the Pom King. Under his stewardship, England have gone from revivalists to No.2 on the planet. Few would dispute his stature as a father-figure, motivator, strategist and placer of fields. The 2005 Ashes triumph may have owed more, on paper, to Andrew Flintoff, but he needed a captain willing to lengthen the leash, a friend who knew how to draw the best from him.

As a batsman, Vaughan has been a right-handed Gower, a sumptuously elegant, infuriatingly enchanting chancer but preferable to 99% of all rival brands. In terms of converting 50s into 100s, only Don Bradman, George Headley and Bill Ponsford bettered Vaughan's 53.33%. Among scorers of 2000-plus Test runs, only Bradman (29 to 13) enjoyed a bigger positive differential between centuries and half-Monties than his 16 and 14. Graham Gooch, Geoffrey Boycott, Walter Hammond, Len Hutton, JackHobbs you boys took a hell of a beating.

However. And it's a big however. Since returning to camp during last winter's Ashes tour (gatecrashed would be the more accurate verb), Vaughan can scarcely be said to have exerted a wholly positive influence. First, by very dint of his presence, he undermined Flintoff's captaincy, however doomed that may have been from the moment David Graveney and chums decided that further burdening the team's overworked and recuperating talisman was the canny option. Then he presided over a World Cup campaign that might have been less calamitous had Mal Loye or Owais Shah been picked in his mostly unproductive stead.

Compounding all this was last week's barney with The Guardian, in which Vaughan accused Flintoff of fatally undermining team spirit during the World Cup with his Fredalo shenanigans. This did not seem entirely unreasonable. Unless, that is, one remembered the role Vaughan himself played by sapping Flintoff's authority in Australia. To then deny having said such a thing fuelled in part, no doubt, by a pang or two of conscience was surely evidence of a man ill at-ease, for all his self-portrayal as a "pretty chilled" sort of bloke. That the paper prompted an apology by rapidly producing the (entirely accurate) transcript was even more damning. And even more indicative of a man at odds with self and muse.

There is one exceedingly obvious explanation. In September 2005 Vaughan was at the top of his world; no-one, in John Lennon's immortal words, was in his tree. By Christmas it looked as if a recurring knee injury might prevent him from ever playing seriously again. To have to rebuild confidence - in his surgeons, in himself, in his charges, in his bosses - was no small ask. Is it all that surprising that he should over-compensate for the self-doubt by demonstrating that a superiority complex knows few bounds? If you can't walk the walk, at least you can talk the talk.

No other captain has been indulged the way the England selectors have indulged Vaughan, maintaining his job title and salary during a year in which he did not fasten on a chest protector in anger. Then again, not every England captain gets to regain that infernal urn. Wherein lies the tragedy. In his defining hour. Vaughan doubtless imagined himself unbeatable, unsinkable, invincible, only to be swiftly reminded of the perennial fallibility of anyone who feeds his family with his body.

When Atherton interviewed him at Chester-le-Street yesterday, in the emboldening glow of victory in the first Test series of the second phase of his career, Vaughan was asked to reflect on how far the wheel of fortune had turned his way. He responded by moving on swiftly, reiterating his misgivings about separate captains, revealing that the decision to step down for ODIs had been made weeks ago, stressing his desire to carry on as Test captain for as long as humanly possible. He probably didn't want to be reminded of that dice with athletic death, reminded of vulnerability and impotence, reminded of the indiscriminating capriciousness of fate's fickle finger. You could still see, in that ever-so-slightly glazed countenance, a man thanking his lucky stars, but also one hanging grimly on to the reins lest they fly from his grasp again.

The first time I saw him bat for England, I saw Stan Laurel in him, the same rebellious tufts of hair, the same vaguely bemused expression, the same understated command of his craft. These days he reminds me increasingly of Ollie Hardy: all front and affront, self-righteous and self-aggrandising, begging to be pulled down a few pegs. And yes, a wee bit sad.

I am unstinting in my admiration for Vaughan pre-2006. If Atherton made England harder to beat and Hussain restored the smell of victory, Vaughan forged them into a class act capable of duffing up the best. It is hard, though, not to believe he wouldn't have been better off had those surgeons been less capable at their jobs.

This is a nasty and petty piece Rob. Vaughan was majorly responsible for one of the greatest summers of our cricketing lives, has been one of the most attractive and successful English batsmen of recent times, and a great captain. I think he deserves more than this very English hatchet job, a classic of scything tall poppies (a bit late too, given revent events have rammed his critics barbs right down their throats.)

For a start, there is no proof his presence fatally undermined Flintoff's captaincy in Oz. At least no more than Fletch's underlying belief Strauss was a better option, fatal selectorial mistakes, injuries and Flintoff's own inability to come to terms with the responsibilities.

As for The Guardian interview, you perpetuate the myth that Vaughan slagged of Flintoff. He didn't. Anyone with a half a brain could see the Guardian got a hard-on and spun the story way beyond its proportions. 'Flintoff Ruined our World Cup, says Vaughan' screamed the resulting news piece, inaccurately. Nowhere in the interview - an honest and fascinating piece - did he say anything such thing. The rest of the media did their dog at a bone thing, some numpty from Lancashire did the rentagob thing, he was in turn misrepresented in calling Vaughan 'despicable' and before you know it all hell was unleashed. Vaughan's attempt to wriggle out was ill-advised, although it did show as a lie the belief that the interview was in some way calculated to harm Flintoff and re-assert his authority. The Guardian should have apologised for its tabloid-style behaviour and Donald Macrae, the interviewer, who seemed to assume Mother Theresa style status afterwards in being free from criticism, should have been fuming that an essentially good piece was twisted and bent out of all shape by the desk. The upshot will be guarded, cliched interviews rather than honest illuminating ones, because the Guardian's behaviour confirmed every sportsman's worst fears. Hacks only interested in good copy, twisted and spinning. Of course, Vaughan tried to fight back, got it wrong, said sorry, but still we have these irritating character assassinations. Never met any pompous. self-aggrandizing hacks in the press box Rob? People, glass-houses etc...

Vaughan might not be everyone's cup of tea, and the first person comments a bit odd. But he deserves more than sniping from the side of the dancefloor like this. He worked his balls off to get fit after a career-threatening injury and for that he deserves our admiration. England are a better team with him. I fail to see what Atherton did as captain, other than retrest into sullen depsondency and ground down in defeat, though Hussian did make us more difficult to beat. However, it has been Vaughan who encouraged us to play the free-flowing, attractive cricket that helped us reclaim the Ashes. Funny how when he got injured we stagnated, isn't it. But no, let's forget the good stuff and have a dig because he's fair game now, isn't he?

Funny, yet illuminating, that you lump him with Steve Waugh by the way. Another confident, self-assured man who knew how to run a good cricket team and will be well-remembered long after petulant and pointless rants such as this are long-forgotten.

A really bizarre piece from a writer for whom I've always had a lot of admiration. I think Dan's comments (above) sum things up aptly, so I've little to add other than that England were a rudderless rabble without Vaughan, Flintoff's inability to accept off-field responsibilities forced Fletcher into a more prominent position than he was comfortable with, and the first hint of a turn-around came with Vaughan's return in the Commonwealth Bank Series. The "back to basics" World Cup strategy was clearly a failure, but it's easy to see where it came from. England had been so poor for so long at the one day stuff that there was probably a belief that going for the power plays would have resulted in the team being 40 for 6 off 7 overs. I can also understand Vaughan's initial reluctance to surrender the one-day captaincy - he surely remembers the affect it had on Hussain. He has little to worry about, though, and I think the right decision was ultimately made. A relatively fragile body should be saved for Test cricket and kept away from more frenetic forms of the game. As for references to oneself in the third person, Hussain was the first person I heard to that when under similar pressure. Michael Clarke has done similarly, with less excuse. Oh - and I agree totally that a fascinating interview in 'The Guardian' was totally undermined by a sensationalist and inaccurate headline. Ironic, when the media had been crying out for a little more than self-deceiving platitudes from England players all winter. Oh well, back to the banality of the ghosted column with nothing beyond the old "the boys tried really hard" sentiments.

Some good points, but arranged somewhat illogically and unable to distinguish between the two Michael Vaughans: the top-class Test captain and fine batsman, and the unsuitable, inflexible and misguided one-day player and captain.

Nobody should have a problem with England doing everything to help him back to the top by maintaining his contract and captaincy in the Test arena. While his batting has faded since early 2003, his captaincy record is second-to-none - quite literally now.

The one-day game is a different kettle of fish though. He was arguably never a good enough limited overs batsman to get in the side in the first place, let alone play 80 or 90 times! He's never looked at home and his hitting into the V - without the power or inclination to hit over the top - is so horribly predictable, top one-day bowlers could bowl maidens at him in their sleep.

Vaughan is smart enough to know this and his comments at press conferences have been, undoubtedly, rather self-aggrandising. In this sense, Rob is right. He is a failure as a one-day captain and player but his ego is utterly loathe to admit it. Some may say he has gracefully stepped down, but those people are extremely naive. He was undoubtedly told that his batting, his strategies and generally very dated outlook on one-day cricket were no longer required. It was a case of be dropped or save face and fall on your sword now. The earlier comments about not believing in split captaincy etc were all delivered before he was given this ultimatum and his subsequent cover stories claiming to have made the decision weeks ago won't wash with me. It's a de facto sacking and is absolutely the right thing to do if England's one-day side is to move forward with attacking batsmen at the top of the order.

If anyone wonders why England consistently choke against stuff competition like the Aussies, just read a piece like this where it's considered a bad thing to be compared to Steve Waugh. Most elite sportsmen are arrogant and cricket captains even more so. You don't have to bring Vaughan home to meet your mum, you want him to win test matches, which he has done in the past and continues to do.

Captaining a cricket team isn’t an honorary title like in other sports. You have to be tough with friend and opposition alike, make the hard decisions and follow your own vision. Something that drunken oaf Freddy (love him though I do) couldn’t manage. You need to be something of a bastard, like Waugh and like Vaughan.

Sure, he's not perfect. He's useless in ODIs and, despite a better than average (in terms of sportspeople) ability at dealing with the press, managed to stuff up royally in that Guardian interview. That doesn't mean that anyone with any sense wouldn't want him back captaining the test team. All good captains have made mistakes throughout their careers but you don’t ditch them at the first sign of infallibility. Vaughan remains by far the best candidate for captain at this time and remains the best chance for regaining the urn.

Besides, the recent test matches show how badly England needed a proper no. 3 and Vaughan has slipped in nicely.

Just a quick reply for those who say the wins against the West Indies mean nothing. As others have said (including Australian captains of recent vintage - are their wins meaningless?), you can only beat the opposition put in front of you, and it's important to do this in style. England have achieved that with Vaughan. One of the problems with England during the period of his injury was that they couldn't finish off games. The Sri Lanka series last year should never have ended up shared, England wobbled against Pakistan at the Oval until the ridiculous ball-tampering episode stopped the game, and - again - England plucked a draw from a winning position at Lord's this year. The simple, statistically incontestable fact is that England win more often with Vaughan in charge and if his runs in this series are somehow meaningless, the same applies to the rest of the top seven on whom the jury is also presumably "out". Going back to the split-captaincy issue, there was another bit of unworthy manipulation of fact in the original article. Yes, it did work well between Taylor and Waugh for Australia, but at the time if Taylor was not exactly disgruntled by the arrangement, nor was he entirely gruntled either. Steve Waugh was possibly even less delighted when forced to abdicate in favour of Ricky Ponting. So, yes, the situation can work well, but no captain is going to approach it without reservation. And, as we know, Hussain very quickly found it untenable.