Michael Vaughan's decision to retire finally gives his situation closure; before his decision the former captain's reputation loomed over the current squad. It simply had to be resolved.

What he hoped would be a glorious season for Yorkshire and England has not turned out how he would have wished.

He can have no regrets, which is a nice feeling for anyone choosing to retire. He gave it his best shot and had every chance to succeed to earn one more run-out against Australia, but it did not work out.

I think he has made the right choice:is fitness has been a doubt all season, and his lack of runs proved to be the crucial factor in his decision to retire.

Obviously it is slightly disappointing that he has chosen to retire so early in the season, but it is very understandable.

What this decision does is give clarity to the team selections, and enables the current leaders to plan and prepare properly, purely based on current form - because the last thing the England squad needed going into the Ashes was the former captain's name pencilled in the selectors' notepads.

By walking away when he has, Vaughan has ensured that he will be remembered as he should be: as a very fine batsman, and a tremendous leader and captain.

As a player, there was a period of a year to 18 months in 2002/03 when he was quite clearly the best batsman in the world.

Over that period he was simply unstoppable, and when we look back at his career that time will be fondly remembered.

Many people will inevitably highlight the Ashes series in Australia in 2002/03 as being his peak, but that was only a small part of his dominance with the bat.

He plundered 177 runs on the first day in Adelaide alone during that series, 145 runs in the Boxing Day Test, then 183 runs in Sydney a week later.

Personally, though, I'll always cherish the memory of his exceptional knock in Kandy, Sri Lanka.

Vaughan batted for the entire fifth day to save the Test match, facing Muttiah Muralitharan, who was then in his prime: it was an incredible effort.

After scoring a solid 52 in the first innings, he kept England afloat in the second with a 448-ball 105.

That innings tends to get overlooked because there were so many fine innings around that time: he scored runs wherever he went.

Then there was his captaincy. In England's recent history, Vaughan and Nasser Hussain were by far the best captains.

Vaughan's record was the best in terms of victories, and he was a delight to play under. On paper, he was the most successful captain we have had.

The Yorkshireman was a very fine leader, and every player under him relished the experience of following him, and was better for it.

He brought a certain calmness to the whole England setup, and that was his unique style of leadership.

Hussain and Vaughan were equally effective and, although they were very different characters, they were each instrumental in rejuvenating England's fortunes.

Vaughan had the better bowling department under his stewardship, and a more settled squad, but it was how he marshalled them that spoke volumes of the man.

Nasser was punchier in his style, whereas Michael was as collected and level-headed as they come.

I played 23 Test matches under Vaughan, and we won 21 of them: that is an astonishing period of sustained success by anyone's standards. We also won every single series over that time.

The culmination of his era as captain was clearly the 2005 Ashes win, but people forget that we had been winning consistently for a while before that series.

Put simply, Vaughan belongs right at the top of the pecking order of cricketers who played in my generation.