Without wishing to be too harsh on a man who has done well as a captain for his country but who has not pulled his weight as a top order batsman for far too long. My own view is that Michael, and the selectors, should have taken the decision for him to stand down before this season began, irrespective of his hundred at Lord's against New Zealand. Any batsman who has only that one 'ton' to his name in his last 23 Test matches does not deserve a top-order batting slot, good captain or not, and players such as Matthew Hoggard have not been afforded the luxury, like Vaughan, of being given a place in the England side when out of form.

In Hoggy's case, he was dropped after one poor performance in New Zealand whilst Vaughan has hung on for two years or more without doing much at all with the bat.

I have always taken a keen interest in Vaughan's career, with both England and Yorkshire (when he sees fit to play). Fellow players like Gough, who think he should have battled on a bit longer, or any Yorkshire fan or official who thinks he is suddenly going to produce runs galore for the county ought not to hold their breath until he does! Michael Vaughan has not scored a century for Yorkshire for five years and he will have no appetite for county cricket after a successful Test captaincy career you can be sure. It is more likely, I think, they'll find him a job coaching somewhere or other in the not too distant future, either in an England capacity or for Yorkshire.

As for electing Kevin Pietersen as England's new captain – he has no chance of emulating Vaughan as a captain. Few batsmen combine leading with heavy run-scoring at Test level (certainly not for England, with the possible exception of Graham Gooch) and the fear now is that our top run-scorer will also go off the boil now he has the cares of 10 others to take account of. He is simply not captaincy material and the selectors should have looked elsewhere, not necessarily within the current cosy central contracts set-up of players who no longer have to earn their place but simply have it handed to them, irrespective of their form. What a farce that system has brought about!

Tim Mickleburgh, Grimsby.

I am disappointed that Kevin Pietersen has been appointed the new England cricket captain.

Not only does he set a poor example to the rest of team with his arrogant manner, he isn't really English at all.

For he only decided to qualify for our country when he felt that he was being unfairly treated by the South African quota system.

In other words, Pietersen is a privileged whinger, a late cricketing developer, who would almost certainly have played for South Africa if only he had waited a year or two. A far cry from Vaughan, as I'm sure you will agree.

JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

GOOD LUCK to Kevin Pietersen, of the current crop of players he was the obvious choice.

It is a shame that Michael Vaughan has been unable to regain his form with the bat, but these things happen and he leaves the job with the knowledge and satisfaction of being the most successful England captain.

England must also look carefully at the bowling situation.

Anderson and Sidebottom are not a good opening pair, they are too much alike.

They do not make a new batsman play at enough balls and allow him to settle in to the pace of the wicket with absolutely no chance of getting him out.

If he has to play the ball or defend his wicket they just might have a chance.

How often have we heard "Sir" Geoffrey use the term "line and length" and he faced enough great bowlers to know what he is talking about.

I have always thought the best opening pair to be in the style of Truman and Statham, one full of menace and one deadly accurate. It certainly is not good enough to expect Flintoff to bowl all day to get them out of trouble.

It needs more than a change of captain to improve the fortunes of the team.