To err is human. To dig your heels in is very England cricket. The decision to reappoint Andrew Flintoff as captain for at least three CB Series matches while Michael Vaughan recovers from his latest injury is one of England's most stubborn of the winter. And there has been some pretty stiff competition.
First, it's hands-up time. A few months ago the Spin argued that Flintoff was the right man for the Ashes job. It was wrong. Flintoff was a poor captain during the Tests. It also affected his batting and bowling: no hundred, no five-for, no Fred circa 2005. To some wiser creatures, this was clear in advance (so please, no emails). But when Vaughan tore a hamstring at Hobart, England were faced with another in-advance situation. And - this is the really criminal part - they have got it wrong again.
Before we discuss the machinations, here's a snippet from Simon Barnes's intriguing new book The Meaning of Sport, in which - following the 2005 Ashes win - Barnes asks Flintoff about the captaincy. "Flintoff had said that he could only ever take on the captaincy 'as one of the lads'. I winced. A captain can never be one of the lads. Whatever else, I thought, don't give Flintoff the captaincy." Barnes goes on to say that he was wrong, using England's win at Mumbai as evidence. In fact, his gut instinct was correct: Flintoff, it turns out, is unable to see the wood for the trees, which is one of Vaughan's great skills. In wanting to remain popular, Flintoff sacrificed ruthlessness, another of Vaughan's attributes.
But back to the latest decision to re-award Flintoff the captaincy. Mike Atherton claims that the selectors offered him the job in the hope he would turn it down, which - despite, apparently, some quite reasonable misgivings - is precisely what he did not do. This reflects badly on everyone. The selectors should have had the strength to by-pass Flintoff, who was starting to score runs again, and go straight to Strauss, whose last deed as an England captain was to beat Pakistan in a Test series and - a minor miracle, this - draw with them in the one-dayers. And Flintoff should have had the strength to say no, to look beyond the kudos and the ego, and to consider the best interests of the team.
A pattern is emerging whereby the selectors seem petrified of offending Flintoff. What do they think he'll do? Go and play for Australia? Almost the same thing happened with Vaughan, who remained England captain throughout his enforced absence as a reward for winning the Ashes. As Atherton pointed out, the captaincy is not something to be held in reserve for previous triumphs. Now they are making the same mistake again.
The irony in all of this is that an important committee will soon be considering what went wrong with the England team in Australia, as if we don't already know. How about considering what is going wrong? Because if and when Vaughan gets injured again - probably at a crucial stage of the World Cup - this question will arise once more. And to make the same mistake three times would look distinctly Wildean.
Extract taken from Lawrence Booth's weekly email The Spin.
