Was Flintoffs captaincy to blame or was the teams strategy flawed?
I thought at the time that Flintoff was the right choice, and he did a fair job up to Melbourne, but England undoubtedly missed Michael Vaughan’s adaptability. We’ve heard a hell of a lot about these wonderful plans pinned up in their dressing room – well, they’re no bloody good in the dressing room. Sure, you’ll have an outline but the best players aren’t stupid. They adjust to your plans, then you as a captain adjust to their adjustments. It’s a battle; that’s why captaincy is so interesting. From what I’ve seen here from England their plan is: “We have a plan, those are the field placings.” And they’ve been exactly the same in the fourth Test as in the first. If you aren’t a couple of overs ahead in this game, you’re way behind. What have you made of Monty Panesar and would it have made a difference if he’d played from the start? It’s not so much the difference he might have made as a player, it’s the difference in mentality he’d have brought to the rest of the team. There must have
