Where do England go from here?

[Prince EWS]

How can you ignore his performances of the last few years?

He hasn't been playing, quite obviously. It's impossible to judge his form at the present time. What he did two years ago is just as irrelevant as what he did in 2002-03 really.

If that was the case, Damien Martyn would still be Australia's no.4

No he wouldn't - he retired.

Vaughan has been in deep decline for a no. of years and cannot command a guaranteed position on the basis of, in sporting terms, what amounts to ancient history.

Much as his so-called poor performances two years ago do. You can't argue that he's in poor form, because he hasn't played a test since 2005, and you can't argue that he's rubbish, because he his overall record says differently. You can't say that a small pocket on matches holds more significance than any other timeframe just because it's the most recent when it was almost two years ago anyway. People bring up recent performances for form-based arguments - and Vaughan's form two years ago is highly irrelevant.

 

[Prince EWS]

and why should that be the case when Owais Shah has the most compelling case for selection? Everyone who saw him play against India was not just impressed but fascinated by the way he approaches his cricket and if anything he looks to have the Pietersenesque drive to succeed.

Strauss and Vaughan both have more convincing reasons for being dropped than Owaish shaw ever did and given that Trescothick(if fit) and Cook are both openers he doesnt even have a case for opening the batting.

Shah doesn't have the most compelling case for selection though, given he has only played one test. If you have guys in your side that are either proven test quality or performing to the standard required, you don't drop them for players who have only played one test match until a form-based case that is more recent than a year and a half ago emerges.

 

[tooextracool]

He hasn't been playing, quite obviously. It's impossible to judge his form at the present time. What he did two years ago is just as irrelevant as what he did in 2002-03 really.

Much as his so-called poor performances two years ago do. You can't argue that he's in poor form, because he hasn't played a test since 2005, and you can't argue that he's rubbish, because he his overall record says differently. You can't say that a small pocket on matches holds more significance than any other timeframe just because it's the most recent when it was almost two years ago anyway. People bring up recent performances for form-based arguments - and Vaughan's form two years ago is highly irrelevant.

If hes in poor form why pick him? You say his form from 2 years ago isnt relevant, yet you go back to his form from 2002-03 to suggest that hes a test class batsman. The point is exactly what you mentioned in your first argument- He hasnt been playing recently. and if he hasnt he shouldnt start that first test against WI, nor should he start at any point until he has shown everyone that he is still good enough to play international(or rather FC) cricket

 

[tooextracool]

Shah doesn't have the most compelling case for selection though, given he has only played one test. If you have guys in your side that are either proven test quality or performing to the standard required, you don't drop them for players who have only played one test match until a form-based case that is more recent than a year and a half ago emerges.

Well clearly we have different opinions about 'performing to the standard required'. I firmly beleive that failing for 2 years and 5 years respectively(Strauss and Vaughan) is not performing to the standard required.

At least the Australian selectors have no problems dumping players after 2-3 poor series, which is why players like Langer, Martyn and Hayden were always under pressure to perform. England on the other hand are alright with players failing for years together before they actually even consider dropping them.

By the time Owais Shah actually gets his chance at the test match level, one would think he would be in his early 30s and well past his prime only for him to come in and fail and for the Graveney and co to say, " see we told you we were those other 30 year olds were better". If you dont pick players when they are in their prime, then when the hell do you pick them?

 

[Prince EWS]

If hes in poor form why pick him?

That's exactly it though. The form he was in two years ago has basically no bearing on his current form. We just don't know what it's like.

You say his form from 2 years ago isnt relevant, yet you go back to his form from 2002-03 to suggest that hes a test class batsman.

Yes, and that is the difference between a form-based argument and an ability-based argument. A form-based argument takes in recent performances to suggest what a player might do in his next outing, while an ability-based argument takes in career achievements to establish what a player is capable of on average. You can't make either argument against Vaughan though, because his form is unknown and his ability cannot be questioned.

 

[tooextracool]

That's exactly it though. The form he was in two years ago has basically no bearing on his current form. We just don't know what it's like..

You dont know what its like? Do you honestly think Vaughan is currently in the form of his life given that he hasnt played any cricket in 1.5 years? If he is in form like he claims hes been in the nets, then surely he should have no problem scoring runs against FC sides before the WI series.

Yes, and that is the difference between a form-based argument and an ability-based argument. A form-based argument takes in recent performances to suggest what a player might do in his next outing, while an ability-based argument takes in career achievements to establish what a player is capable of on average. You can't make either argument against Vaughan though, because his form is unknown and his ability cannot be questioned.

The problem with that is:

A) it was 5 years ago! Get over it, hes not shown anything since to suggest hes remotely even the same player let along a good enough player to score at the international level. At 32 if you are still expecting him to reach those levels, then you have to be deceiving yourself. All good players decline, and yes Vaughan's injuries may have played its part but surely at 32 you have to be deceiving yourself if you expect him to hit those highs again.
B) 1 year does not make a career. Vaughan like Strauss had one year at the top and since then you could also claim that maybe just maybe hes returned to the level player he actually is.

 

[Dasa]

You can't make either argument against Vaughan though, because his form is unknown and his ability cannot be questioned.

Can't it? I understand that Vaughan has the ability to make runs, but he basically had 1.5 years of excellent form and did very little before and after that period. He doesn't have a brilliant FC record either...it seems like that period of brilliant form was the exception rather than the norm.

 

[social]

That's exactly it though. The form he was in two years ago has basically no bearing on his current form. We just don't know what it's like.



Yes, and that is the difference between a form-based argument and an ability-based argument. A form-based argument takes in recent performances to suggest what a player might do in his next outing, while an ability-based argument takes in career achievements to establish what a player is capable of on average. You can't make either argument against Vaughan though, because his form is unknown and his ability cannot be questioned.

Unfortunately, we do know what his current form is like and it's bloody horrible - he played as an opener in the WC on good pitches and was consistently rolled over when trying to do nothing more than defend his wicket.

Going back to 2005, he had been in a deep trough for a few years and interspersed long runs of failures with the occassional unconvincing score.

Anwer this question - "is he one of the 6 best batsmen in England?"

Unfortunately, he's not and hasnt been for quite some time.

 

[marc71178]

The only reason Cook would ever be left-out would be if Trescothick played. No-one's suggesting he'd fail to find a place unless both Trescothick and Vaughan were available (and happily it seems Vaughan is well on track to be so).

I can't see Cook missing out even if Vaughan and Trescothick are both selected to be honest.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately, we do know what his current form is like and it's bloody horrible - he played as an opener in the WC on good pitches and was consistently rolled over when trying to do nothing more than defend his wicket.

No, that demonstrates nothing as to his form in the longer game. All it demonstrates is that he's not very good at the shorter game.

 

[Richard]

I can't see Cook missing out even if Vaughan and Trescothick are both selected to be honest.

TBH I don't think Trescothick is very likely to play at the start of the summer but if both did it would indeed be an interesting call.

 

[Richard]

BTW Richard, all you've proven is that Vaughan's form has been crap and he doesnt deserve to be in the team

No, I haven't. His most recent Test performances have been perfectly acceptible.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan's average of 34 is hardly anything special, if anything his First chance average would be miserable given that the 166 makes a sizable difference in that average.

Yes, it does indeed - I've never once said Vaughan was not very poor in 2005 and in the 1 game he played as a middle-order batsman in 2005\06. But I've also said that he was just fine in 2004 and 2004\05, and before that he was opening for ages, something I said when he was very first promoted there he should not be doing. This is the difference between you and me. I could not care less about Vaughan between the New Zealand tour of 2001\02 and the West Indies one of 2004 - because AFAIC he was almost exclusively poor in that period (he made 3 massive centuries at the end of series and did virtually nothing besides apart from get let-off hundreds of times). As far as I'm concerned, I go from India 2001\02 (when he was just starting to look like he was coming of age) to summer 2004, where he was excellent. And I feel he has enough credit in the bank from such things to be very much still in consideration.

And how on earth is someone who hasnt played a single FC game in the last year supposed to be put as a shoe in for the opening test against WI ?
I agree with Social on this one, picking Vaughan is everything that is wrong about England( that is picking players based on personal biasness and performances from decades ago) because the basic fact is that Vaughan's performances, yes even the one from 1.5 years ago, are not good enough for him to put his place down as a batsman alone. In the unlikely scenario that Vaughan went back and scored a plethora of runs in FC cricket before the first test( given that has happened in god knows how long we can almost certainly rule it out) then and only then should he put down as a certainity to start the first test.

Vaughan has actually scored a hell of a lot of runs in English domestic First-Class cricket. Since 2000 IIRR his average for Yorkshire is in the 50s. I too would very much like him to go back, play 4 or 5 games at the start of this current season and score a stack of runs. But sadly, the schedule does not allow for that, and like it or not him not being picked for the First Test against West Indies would be a huge thing, because it would be the man who is designated as England captain not being picked when he's available. And it DOES mean that, say he came back into the Second or Third Test as captain, it would feel very, very strange indeed, to all concerned, not least the man (presumably Strauss) who had captained in his absence.

It's a conondrum to which there is, sadly, no real way to win. There are big problems whatever route you take.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, it does indeed - I've never once said Vaughan was not very poor in 2005 and in the 1 game he played as a middle-order batsman in 2005\06. But I've also said that he was just fine in 2004 and 2004\05, and before that he was opening for ages, something I said when he was very first promoted there he should not be doing. This is the difference between you and me. I could not care less about Vaughan between the New Zealand tour of 2001\02 and the West Indies one of 2004 - because AFAIC he was almost exclusively poor in that period (he made 3 massive centuries at the end of series and did virtually nothing besides apart from get let-off hundreds of times). As far as I'm concerned, I go from India 2001\02 (when he was just starting to look like he was coming of age) to summer 2004, where he was excellent. And I feel he has enough credit in the bank from such things to be very much still in consideration.

He was excellent in the summer of 04? Well thats news to me. He had one good test in the whole summer and was by and large poor against NZ. In the winter of 04/05 and the summer of 05, despite batting in his favored position was still ordinary. By and large he was easily the worst batsman playing for England in that period from 2004-06/7

Vaughan has actually scored a hell of a lot of runs in English domestic First-Class cricket. Since 2000 IIRR his average for Yorkshire is in the 50s. I too would very much like him to go back, play 4 or 5 games at the start of this current season and score a stack of runs. But sadly, the schedule does not allow for that, and like it or not him not being picked for the First Test against West Indies would be a huge thing, because it would be the man who is designated as England captain not being picked when he's available. And it DOES mean that, say he came back into the Second or Third Test as captain, it would feel very, very strange indeed, to all concerned, not least the man (presumably Strauss) who had captained in his absence.

It's a conondrum to which there is, sadly, no real way to win. There are big problems whatever route you take.

What is wrong with him not being picked? I ahve always believed that 'fit' is a lose term, and you are only really 'fit' when you are 'match fit'. Even the dullest of people will realise that Vaughan is not match fit. He hasnt played an FC game in a year and hes barely had any batting in shorter format. If he wasnt picked it would only suggest that they were waiting for him to find some form before he actually played.

Further England need a new captain anyways, because its highly unlikely that Vaughan who has suffered multiple new injuries is likely to play on a consistent basis anyways. I would not be too discouraged with him not playing as captain either, because England need him to score runs far more than they need his captaincy.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unfortunately, we do know what his current form is like and it's bloody horrible - he played as an opener in the WC on good pitches and was consistently rolled over when trying to do nothing more than defend his wicket.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. He quite obviously has always been completely horrid at one day matches - even when he was in the form of his life as a test batsman. So to judge his form on them would be completely unfair and ridiculous.

Anwer this question - "is he one of the 6 best batsmen in England?"

Yes.

 

[Prince EWS]

A) it was 5 years ago! Get over it

And the stats you brought up were from 2 years ago! Get over it! Both of them fall under the category of "ability", not form, and hence both have equal weighting.

 

[tooextracool]

And the stats you brought up were from 2 years ago! Get over it! Both of them fall under the category of "ability", not form, and hence both have equal weighting.

I wasnt the one who brought up those stats, it was Richard who brought them up and suggested that he has actually been quite competent in recent years which i think is not true.

The point i have been trying to make is that Vaughan isnt ready to play test cricket yet, he needs to get form and experience under his belt before he should be considered.

 

[adharcric]

TBH I don't think Trescothick is very likely to play at the start of the summer but if both did it would indeed be an interesting call.

Cook certainly should NOT miss out. Not as long as Strauss is around and Vaughan isn't scoring runs.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Home.

 

[Richard]

James.