Michael Vaughan jumps before he was pushed

The England team are becoming ever more sophisticated in their management of the press. In politics, before you announce a policy-change or a Big Move, you must “prepare the ground”. That is, leaking the story to the media, spreading rumours etc. to allow people to get used to the idea.

Yesterday morning, Graham Gooch published an article on the BBC website, calling for Vaughan’s resignation in ODIs and for Paul Collingwood to take over.

Later on, the gimp-like commentator on the “live update” section mentioned something about Vaughan’s impending resignation. I had my doubts, but I was used to the idea by the time it was finally announced in the evening.

I’m not sure that announcing a major decision in the middle of a test match was great timing, but their professionalism is improving.

I continue my opposition to this whole “dual-captaincy” business. It undermines the authority of the captain. It inhibits their creativity and limits their scope of action in man-management.

Every time it has been implemented, it has been in the context of a transition: from Hussein to Vaughan; from Taylor to Waugh; from Waugh to Ponting. The take-over period between Hussein and Vaughan was three months. Two captains is unsustainable. The problem is: who will replace Vaughan?

Andrew Strauss appears to be falling apart; Flintoff is utterly discredited; Collingwood is untried as a captain; Kevin Pietersen seems unhappy about the prospect. We have no idea where we are going or what we are doing.

To be honest, I think that Vaughan’s one-day batting was subject to the lunacy of the “go-slow” tactic, and seemed to improve when he cut lose. Moreover, he seems to be going because everyone is criticising him, with considering the consequences of destabilising the side further and without reference to any long-term plan. It’s a rubbish idea.

Ah well. No one listens to me.