Were Vaughan's comments justified?

[Piper]

And Pietersen

Oops forget about KP..

 

[roobarb]

How can you blame one man or one incident? They all played crap.. well instead of Collingwood. He is just looking for someone/incident to blame and it's wrong. They should all put their hands up and say ''we messed up''. Not blaming one person/incident. Grrrr Vaughan is really getting under my skin lately.. in a negative way

Been thinking about this now and although I don't think this should have come out (at least fro Vaughan's lips- although I suspect he was railroaded by the interviewer) it is reasonable insofar as it WOULD have had a negative effect on morale. We were still sh*te, though as I witnessed first hand from the 3 Ws stand in the Kensington Oval in the processs of capitulating to the Saffies.

 

[FBU]

This was dealt with at the World Cup. Flintoff paid the fine, lost the captaincy, was suspended for one match and apologised. They moved on. There was no need to go into it again. Vaughan could have just said we all didn't perform. Moores was asked the question, when he became coach, and sidestepped it.


Scorpio's always have a sting in their tail.

 

[Jono]

Not that I agree with him saying what he did, but if people are going to give stock-standard responses like that, there's little point in them being interviewed at all IMO.

I quite like the fact that the likes of Smith, Ponting and Vaughan tell it like it is - it makes it worth reading. Again, I don't agree with him lumping the blame on one for an off-field discretion publically, but equally I don't agree with the notion of the captains just acting like walking media-release-regurgitaters.

No I'm sorry but that doesn't fly when you're dealing with an issue like this.

You want characters in the game, and not robots, then allow the Akhtar's, Afridi's and McGrath's to do what they usually do, and give the papers something to write about, and you something to read about.

But at the end of the day the team comes first, and if the captain "telling it like it is" is going to be detrimental to the team, then they simply give a diplomatic answer and get on with it. In the end, the fans would rather see their team be successful on field than have a desire to open the papers the next day and have something to talk about to their friends.

There's not being a robot, and there's being a dickhead. For example, people criticised Freddie for his interviews during the recent Ashes series, and sure he could have been less diplomatic at times, but the fact is he wasn't willing to leave his 'men' out to dry in the public, and that's the way it should be.

The public's desire to always have to "read" something and get their tabloid fix is often disturbing. Whether it be celebrity based, or in sport.

 

[cover drive man]

They were true and fair but Vaughn hadnno right to go to the press about it he knew they would love it he should have just had a quiet word with Flintoff and the other team mate's.

 

[sohummisra]

Although I feel that Vaughan was probably led into his comments, I have to agree with most of the people here. This reminds me of the Ganguly-Chappell saga where Ganguly came out with his dirty laundry in public and said Chappell had asked him to step down.

It's a similar situation here. There are certain things that you are supposed to leave behind in the dressing room and within the folds of a team and not bring to the public. I would still like to see a transcript of the interview, though.

 

[Dasa]

No I'm sorry but that doesn't fly when you're dealing with an issue like this.

You want characters in the game, and not robots, then allow the Akhtar's, Afridi's and McGrath's to do what they usually do, and give the papers something to write about, and you something to read about.

But at the end of the day the team comes first, and if the captain "telling it like it is" is going to be detrimental to the team, then they simply give a diplomatic answer and get on with it. In the end, the fans would rather see their team be successful on field than have a desire to open the papers the next day and have something to talk about to their friends.

There's not being a robot, and there's being a dickhead. For example, people criticised Freddie for his interviews during the recent Ashes series, and sure he could have been less diplomatic at times, but the fact is he wasn't willing to leave his 'men' out to dry in the public, and that's the way it should be.

The public's desire to always have to "read" something and get their tabloid fix is often disturbing. Whether it be celebrity based, or in sport.

Agree completely.

 

[Flem274*]

To blame it all on Flintoff is a bit silly IMO. He's one of the only real ODI standard players in England and one incident.....Thank god they didn't have to deal with Chris Cairns as their allrounder. Vaughan is certainly right when he says that Flintoff's behaiviour didn't help but the main problem was that players that should be test specialists were playing ODI's.

 

[Prince EWS]

No I'm sorry but that doesn't fly when you're dealing with an issue like this.

You want characters in the game, and not robots, then allow the Akhtar's, Afridi's and McGrath's to do what they usually do, and give the papers something to write about, and you something to read about.

But at the end of the day the team comes first, and if the captain "telling it like it is" is going to be detrimental to the team, then they simply give a diplomatic answer and get on with it. In the end, the fans would rather see their team be successful on field than have a desire to open the papers the next day and have something to talk about to their friends.

There's not being a robot, and there's being a dickhead. For example, people criticised Freddie for his interviews during the recent Ashes series, and sure he could have been less diplomatic at times, but the fact is he wasn't willing to leave his 'men' out to dry in the public, and that's the way it should be.

The public's desire to always have to "read" something and get their tabloid fix is often disturbing. Whether it be celebrity based, or in sport.

As I said, I don't think Vaughan should have made the comments he did. You seem to be rebutting as if I think he did the right thing in this particular instance when I clearly stated otherwise.

However, as I said, I hate the diplomatic stock-standard responses. They serve little to no purpose, and defeat the purpose of the interview in the first place. I agree with people saying Vaughan shouldn't have said what he did, but I don't agree with the people saying "He should have said X" - if it's not true, he shouldn't say it. In a case like this though, his personal beliefs essentially put the blame on one person which, at this point in time, was quite clearly wrong. If he had said it immediately after England's World Cup had ended, I wouldn't have had such a problem with it. Obviously he was asked about it for whatever reasons - and I would have been much happier for him to decline to comment at all than give an answer we've all heard a million times already. The captain is not a media release regurgitator - he has opinions, he makes judgements - this one wasn't particularly appropriate at this time, so he should have just said nothing IMO. Telling us all something that glossed over the issue would have been almost as bad as doing what he did though.

 

[Matt79]

TBH, I think Vaughan had as much to do with England not progressing as Freddie. If he's an ODI standard openers, then to quote Boycs, I'll go he.

Saying "the boys couldn't play well because they couldn't have no bevvies" sounds like code for "I'm scrambling for excuses to avoid admitting we're actually rather shite..."

Regardless of whether he's been misconstrued or not, it was entirely predictable what the media and public's reading of this would be and it smacks of pettiness for Vaughan to have said it. Not impressed.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I think Vaughan had as much to do with England not progressing as Freddie. If he's an ODI standard openers, then to quote Boycs, I'll go he.

Hopefully Vaughan's in ODI's are a long gone stories.

 

[Mahindinho]

Was Vaughan correct in his assessment? Possibly.

Was he right to bring it out? Not a chance.

I was highly impressed with Vaughan pre-2005, and even more impressed at his captaincy during that Ashes series. Since then, things have been going downhill. He genuinely seems to have let it all go to his head, and has started to believe that he is bigger than this England team.

Some of the comments he's been making are more suited to belligerent ex-playing pundit (Hussain, Beefy, Sir Geoffrey of Boycott) than to someone at the very heart of the England team. Perhaps his long spells on the sideline have shifted him into that mentality?

Either way, there's no way he should have said that. Freddy's a big man, and (I'm convinced) a top lad -- he may be able to take it on the chin, play Vaughan a little chin music in the nets, no harm done and that's it...but it's got to rankle slightly that he's being singled out by someone who did naff all during the WC, whether with the bat or as captain.

 

[Richard]

Some of the comments he's been making are more suited to belligerent ex-playing pundit (Hussain, Beefy, Sir Geoffrey of Boycott) than to someone at the very heart of the England team. Perhaps his long spells on the sideline have shifted him into that mentality?

Haha. Interesting thought...

 

[Poker Boy]

No. Even if he felt that, he should keep it private rather than giving the scum of hte UK press a juicy story (which of course they've made the most of) just before a Test.As I wrote on another thread, a period of silence from Vaughan would now be a good idea IMO. Let the bat do the talking Michael - as you did at Headingley.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

I voted yes, and I think it would have been dangerous to keep it private, as the general cricket-loving public could easily have got the message that it was ok for Flintoff to behave in the way he did because he's 'Freddie', and arguably our best player. The punishment that he got and Vaughan's assertion that the pedalo incident contributed to our poor performances in the WC sends the message that irresponsible behaviour won't be tolerated, which I for one find quite reassuring.

 

[Matt79]

If you guys don't like Freddie, we'd love to see him come live in Melbourne and play for the Bushrangers... tbh.

 

[Dasa]

I voted yes, and I think it would have been dangerous to keep it private, as the general cricket-loving public could easily have got the message that it was ok for Flintoff to behave in the way he did because he's 'Freddie', and arguably our best player. The punishment that he got and Vaughan's assertion that the pedalo incident contributed to our poor performances in the WC sends the message that irresponsible behaviour won't be tolerated, which I for one find quite reassuring.

Haha geez. He was castigated for the incident and punished for it. What sort of 'general cricket-loving public' would have missed the furore surrounding the incident when it actually happened?

 

[viktor]

He referred to himself in 3rd person again!!

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/297142.html

 

[PY]

To be honest, I've been pondering if this was a tactical move. Freddie is going to be spitting blood about this, I wouldn't be surprised if you see a particularly narked Flintoff later on this summer.

I'm not that bothered about the comments to be honest, Flintoff is a big lad and can take things on the chin but I can understand why people think it's unappropriate.

I do agree partially that Vaughan has lost the plot a little recently with his team management and media work. He seems to think he's the be-all and end-all of the England side whereas he's actually a small cog in the machine IMO.

 

[Richard]

Haha geez. He was castigated for the incident and punished for it. What sort of 'general cricket-loving public' would have missed the furore surrounding the incident when it actually happened?

Indeed. Should be in the past now and it's best forgotten IMO. No sense flogging a dead horse.