The English media and the cricketing public have colluded in a wish-fulfilment exercise ever since Michael Vaughan gave up the Test captaincy in August of 2008.
The grumbles had been growing about his failure to contribute with the bat at number three against South Africa, but his emotional resignation after the Edgbaston Test put into focus his achievements as England skipper.
Vaughan was not only the architect of the 2005 Ashes win, but the most successful captain ever, winning 26 of his 51 games in charge. His description of the pressure he faced as England skipper, in that tear-filled press conference, shamed many a hack and many a supporter who days earlier had complained about his string of low scores as England’s first man down.
Since then, all of English cricket seems to have been rooting for him. The expectation levels of what would be an acceptable minimum of scores in county cricket to earn a Test recall was embarrassingly generous.
It is generally accepted that he just needed a ton before the end of the season for Yorkshire, and he would have been on the plane to the West Indies.
Yet, Vaughan managed only 43 runs in four innings for Yorkshire at the end of last summer.
This spring, it seems he would have been selected for the West Indies game at Lords if he had managed a decent score, but his scores of 12, 43, 24, 20 and 82 in all competitions were just not good enough.
The 82 came in fine style, on Sunday at Headingley in the Friends Provident Trophy, but the time to impress was in the County Championship match against Durham in front of selector James Whittaker.
He did not take it, scoring 24 and 20 as he got a start in each innings but failed to convert.
It is not as if the target of a county ton was that great. Andrew Strauss hit a 150 during the week for Middlesex. Ian Bell hit 172 for Warwickshire at Somerset. Jimmy Anderson went back into county cricket with Lancashire last week and got 11 wickets.
County cricket should be no more than an extended batting practice for a top Test batsman, a turkey shoot for a Test match pace bowler. That Vaughan has failed to impress in that arena suggests that his game is no longer good enough for international selection.
Moreover, the rationale for the selection of Vaughan in this summer’s Ashes is at best shaky, at worst counter-productive.
If he is scoring runs at number three, it goes, he will give a calming and experienced presence for the psychologically gruelling demands of an Ashes summer.
But, does it not work the other way? If he gets cheap scores at three, does it not spread panic amongst the rest of the side? Look at the way the Australians seemed to suffer in 2005 after the England team targeted the woefully off-form Damien Martyn at four.
The other rationale is that Vaughan can be an on-pitch sounding-board to current skipper Andrew Strauss.
But this is the time where Strauss has to impose his own imprint on England. After a sound enough time as skipper in the Caribbean, making mistakes but continually learning from them, now he is finally growing into the role.
But what will the effect be on Strauss’ authority if Vaughan is standing at mid-on? Won’t some of the players be looking, at least subconsciously, to Vaughan if an Australian wicket hasn’t gone down for two sessions?