Nasser Hussain vs Michael Vaughan

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Who is (was?) the better captain?

 

[Richard]

In terms of what they became - impossible to split them.

However, Hussain, from the first time he so much as took the helm, looked the part. It took at least 6 months - at least - for Vaughan to do likewise.

For this, rather flimsy, reason, I'd put Hussain ahead.

As I say, though - compare Hussain in 2000 and 2000\01 to Vaughan in 2004 and 2005 - nothing, absolutely nothing, between them.

EDIT: PUBLIC POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skipper]

Nasser. Vaughan seems a better captain if you look at the W/R ratio. But, Vaughan captained mostly at home, mostly against weak BD & WI.

 

[Richard]

if you look at the W/R ratio.

One of the worst ways to judge a captain.

 

[Perm]

One of the worst ways to judge a captain.

silenstriker to rebut in 3,2,1...

 

[burr]

wasn't it nasser who was responsible for that decision to bowl first at the gabba in 2003.

 

[readie]

captain of the last side to beat australia in a test series, and was a reasonable part of why they won that series as his plans were quite effective. whilst nasser was the wanker who chose to bowl first at the gabba in 2003 lol

 

[Perm]

wasn't it nasser who was responsible for that decision to bowl first at the gabba in 2003.

It was 2002, and yes it was Hussain's decision.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I voted Vaughan, for 2005 if nothing else. Yes, obviously a lot of it was down to time & place, but the fact is that we actually did it; we not only stood toe-to-toe with the best test side in the world, we bloody well beat them. Seems more impossible with every passing day tbh, but there you go. Winning in SA is also a serious impressive achievement.

When things are going well what a captain does looks like genius; when it's all turning to dust he looks like an interfering martinet. I love Nasser, he gave us our self-respect back as a cricketing nation from our lowest (below Zimbabwe!) point, but there is a suspicion at times that he possibly over-captained his bowlers. In some matches he seemingly had a word with them between every ball. I think it was Vaughan's more relaxed man-management, coupled with a tactical acumen that was at least the equal of Nass’s, which helped us ascend the heights.

We're at an important juncture in Vaughan's reign now for mine; he's had his first serious home reverse (one could argue that circumstances conspired against him just as they had for him in the 2005 Ashes, but I think it was Napoleon who said give me a lucky general ahead of a brilliant one every time) and he failed in Sri Lanka on his first tour. If we don't at least emerge with one series win from the (English) winter it might start to look like a terminal decline.

 

[Richard]

I voted Vaughan, for 2005 if nothing else. Yes, obviously a lot of it was down to time & place, but the fact is that we actually did it; we not only stood toe-to-toe with the best test side in the world, we bloody well beat them. Seems more impossible with every passing day tbh, but there you go. Winning in SA is also a serious impressive achievement.

So was beating Zimbabwe for the first time ever, beating West Indies for the first time in 31 years, and winning back-to-back series in the subcontinent. Possibly a greater achievement even than 2004\05 and 2005, but probably, shock-horror, equally good.

When things are going well what a captain does looks like genius; when it's all turning to dust he looks like an interfering martinet. I love Nasser, he gave us our self-respect back as a cricketing nation from our lowest point

I'd argue that that was actually Graham Gooch that did that TBH.

but there is a suspicion at times that he possibly over-captained his bowlers. In some matches he seemingly had a word with them between every ball. I think it was Vaughan's more relaxed man-management, coupled with a tactical acumen that was at least the equal of Nass’s, which helped us ascend the heights.

Only when the bowlers were rubbish though; when Hussain had his best bowling-attack in 2000 and 2000\01 there was nothing of the sort. Vaughan couldn't turn crap bowlers (Harmison) into good ones either. Added to the fact that several bowlers actually came-out and said they liked the continual chat.

Hussain took England to the same sort of heights that Vaughan did as far as I'm concerned. Sadly, Hussain is seemingly more remembered for 2002 (when he got some decent stuff from a poor side) than 2000 and 2000\01 (when he scaled the heights with a fantastic one). Vaughan, on the other hand, will only ever be remembered for 2004 and 2005, unless something else happens in the next few years while he stays fit.

We're at an important juncture in Vaughan's reign now for mine; he's had his first serious home reverse (one could argue that circumstances conspired against him just as they had for him in the 2005 Ashes, but I think it was Napoleon who said give me a lucky general ahead of a brilliant one every time) and he failed in Sri Lanka on his first tour. If we don't at least emerge with one series win from the (English) winter it might start to look like a terminal decline.

Even if you obviously want a lucky general ahead of a brilliant one from the POV of winning games, surely from the POV of judging who's the best general you pick the brilliant one no?

I don't especially think things conspired in England's favour in 2005, no more than things often do in favour of the side that ends-up winning. And I also think the conspiring-against in 2007, while there, wasn't quite as bad as some hyped it up to be.

 

[Richard]

wasn't it nasser who was responsible for that decision to bowl first at the gabba in 2003.

It was him (though it was in 2002) and it was, as far as I'm concerned, the right decision.

 

[Manee]

I can't split them, they are two of the great tacticians that the game has seen.

 

[Jono]

Even if you obviously want a lucky general ahead of a brilliant one from the POV of winning games, surely from the POV of judging who's the best general you pick the brilliant one no?

Yeah I agree here.

Its a good Napoleon quote, but can't help but think its irrelevant when discussing who was actually better. Not who had more success (which is different of course when it comes to captaincy, no matter what SilentStriker says).

I think Hussain was the better captain.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So was beating Zimbabwe for the first time ever, beating West Indies for the first time in 31 years, and winning back-to-back series in the subcontinent. Possibly a greater achievement even than 2004\05 and 2005, but probably, shock-horror, equally good.

Beating the Windies for the first time in an age & series wins in SL & Pakistan are impressive, yes. I'm not for one second doubting that Nasser was a very good captain for us. The fact is that he came badly unstuck against the best in the world. 2-1 (and the "1" makes one embarrassed to type it) wasn't a reflection of the South African's dominance over us on our 1999/2000 tour either.

This feeds back into my point about us standing at an important point in Vaughan's reign. Wins in SL & NZ will cast an even rosier glow on what has gone before.

I'd argue that that was actually Graham Gooch that did that TBH.

He hadn't been our captain for a good few years then tho &, even at our nadir in 1989, I don't think we were ranked last. Although I may be wrong.

Only when the bowlers were rubbish though; when Hussain had his best bowling-attack in 2000 and 2000\01 there was nothing of the sort. Vaughan couldn't turn crap bowlers (Harmison) into good ones either. Added to the fact that several bowlers actually came-out and said they liked the continual chat.

That's passed me by I have to say. Any links to articles?

I don't especially think things conspired in England's favour in 2005, no more than things often do in favour of the side that ends-up winning. And I also think the conspiring-against in 2007, while there, wasn't quite as bad as some hyped it up to be.

McGrath's injuries, Dizzy's utter loss of form (& his retention beyond the point this was obvious), Hussey's (baffling) absence, Warne's drop of KP & the 9 (IIRC) hours play lost at The Oval were important factors IMHO. As equally was us being able to play (for about the last time) our best 4 seamers.

Same with 2007:the first test was ours but for rain (& a very adjacent looking LBW not being given), the Trent Bridge toss was crucial as the pitch completely changed its nature after the first innings & we were without any of our seam-attack from 2005.

 

[Richard]

Beating the Windies for the first time in an age & series wins in SL & Pakistan are impressive, yes. I'm not for one second doubting that Nasser was a very good captain for us. The fact is that he came badly unstuck against the best in the world.

He didn't, though - the injuries and dropped catches, which is what cost England most in all three of 1998\99, 2001 and 2002\03, cannot be blamed on the captain. Not in the slightest.

Vaughan was simply less struck by misfortune when he faced Australia.

2-1 (and the "1" makes one embarrassed to type it) wasn't a reflection of the South African's dominance over us on our 1999/2000 tour either.

No, it wasn't, but 2-0 (the accurate scoreline) was far worse than it could have been: I for one was expecting every Test to be lost, and we more than held our own at PE and even utterly dominated for a time at Kingsmead.

He hadn't been our captain for a good few years then tho &, even at our nadir in 1989, I don't think we were ranked last. Although I may be wrong.

We weren't ranked - ranking systems didn't exist. Mark my words, though, had they done we'd have been last and how. We had lost every single series bar two, one a draw in New Zealand that I'll never understand how they didn't win and one a win in Australia in 86\87 when they were even worse than us.

That's passed me by I have to say. Any links to articles?

I'll admit that I only remember one case of someone really making a big deal of it, but I seem to recall others making noises of assent after this. "Hussain saved my career, says Harmison"

McGrath's injuries, Dizzy's utter loss of form (& his retention beyond the point this was obvious), Hussey's (baffling) absence, Warne's drop of KP & the 9 (IIRC) hours play lost at The Oval were important factors IMHO. As equally was us being able to play (for about the last time) our best 4 seamers.

Hussey's "baffling" absence was clever hindsight nothing more; the lost play at The Oval ended-up being more likely to cost England victory than Australia; and I'm yet to be convinced that McGrath's fitness would have changed that crazy Edgbaston opening or anything else. Equally, Warne's drop was one of (by some - likely OTT but even so - estimates) 42 drops in the series from both sides I don't believe you can say it more than any other was good fortune. Certainly, being able to pick your best side is categorically NOT good fortune, rather not being able to is misfortune.

Granted, Gillespie's inexplicable loss of form impacted hugely and I've said that all along.

Same with 2007:the first test was ours but for rain (& a very adjacent looking LBW not being given), the Trent Bridge toss was crucial as the pitch completely changed its nature after the first innings & we were without any of our seam-attack from 2005.

As I (and Shankar) have said ad nauseum, the rain aspect of Lord's is overrated as we would very possibly not have been in a position to win but for the same thing that caused the rain, though two (Dhoni being caught behind on 46) bad decisions do leave a bad taste. We may have been missing Hoggard but there's no evidence any of the other bowlers would have made a difference, and even if we were missing him Sidebottom, Anderson and Tremlett hardly disgraced themselves.

The only thing you could make a case for (which certainly doesn't qualify as India being lucky, merely the way the cookie crumbled on that occasion) is that England's seamers' play-and-miss:nick ratio was far, far smaller than India's.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He didn't, though - the injuries and dropped catches, which is what cost England most in all three of 1998\99, 2001 and 2002\03, cannot be blamed on the captain. Not in the slightest.

Vaughan was simply less struck by misfortune when he faced Australia.

Luck played a part, but there was more to it than that. Vaughan was braver than Hussain at crucial points and several of his bowling and/or field changes seemed to bring about a wicket.

We weren't ranked - ranking systems didn't exist. Mark my words, though, had they done we'd have been last and how. We had lost every single series bar two, one a draw in New Zealand that I'll never understand how they didn't win and one a win in Australia in 86\87 when they were even worse than us.

They didn't officially exist in 99 either, I meant that if the formulae used today were applied retrospectively we may or may not have been last.

I'll admit that I only remember one case of someone really making a big deal of it, but I seem to recall others making noises of assent after this. "Hussain saved my career, says Harmison"

Fair enough, but if you're reduced to using a quote from Harmison to support your argument you must be pretty hard up!

Hussey's "baffling" absence was clever hindsight nothing more;

Cobblers. SL certainly called for him at the time & others may've done too. He carved things up in the ODIs beforehand.

the lost play at The Oval ended-up being more likely to cost England victory than Australia;

I'd disagree. We ended up with a tiny first innings lead because Oz still had to play attacking cricket despite the conditions. When Hayden & Langer were carving us up we were looking down the barrel.

Equally, Warne's drop was one of (by some - likely OTT but even so - estimates) 42 drops in the series from both sides I don't believe you can say it more than any other was good fortune. Certainly, being able to pick your best side is categorically NOT good fortune, rather not being able to is misfortune.

Precisely my point & thanks for reiterating it. I said "one could argue that circumstances conspired against him just as they had for him in the 2005 Ashes" which covers both good fortune and misfortune for the opposition (which are the same thing in my book, but CBA to argue that point).

As I (and Shankar) have said ad nauseum, the rain aspect of Lord's is overrated as we would very possibly not have been in a position to win but for the same thing that caused the rain, though two (Dhoni being caught behind on 46) bad decisions do leave a bad taste. We may have been missing Hoggard but there's no evidence any of the other bowlers would have made a difference, and even if we were missing him Sidebottom, Anderson and Tremlett hardly disgraced themselves.

Well obviously there's no prima facie evidence because they didn't play! I think it's fair to say that Flintoff's form (when fit) would suggest he's a loss to out best XI tho. Jones too, although I think we may have to write him off as a test force soon given the length of his absences.

So, Hoggard & Flintoff; I make that 40 or 50% of our attack depending on whether we're looking at a 4 or 5 man attack

The only thing you could make a case for (which certainly doesn't qualify as India being lucky, merely the way the cookie crumbled on that occasion) is that England's seamers' play-and-miss:nick ratio was far, far smaller than India's.

The only thing? The toss at Trent Bridge: made a difference to the result - yes or no?

Tosses: dumb luck - yes or no?

 

[Poker Boy]

Nasser because you have to remember how bad England were when he took over. With Fletcher's help he turned them from a shambles into a side that could compete with anyone bar Australia. Vaughan took it on from there, but without Nasser 2005 wouldn't have happened - he was England's Border. And taken together, the away wins in Pakistan and SL in 2000/01 might have equalled the 2005 Ashes as an achivement - and Vaughan has not emulated either feat to date.

 

[Jamee999]

captain of the last side to beat australia in a test series, and was a reasonable part of why they won that series as his plans were quite effective. whilst nasser was the wanker who chose to bowl first at the gabba in 2003 lol

Even if you're joking, that sort of language is not acceptable on the forums.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nasser because you have to remember how bad England were when he took over. With Fletcher's help he turned them from a shambles into a side that could compete with anyone bar Australia. Vaughan took it on from there, but without Nasser 2005 wouldn't have happened - he was England's Border. And taken together, the away wins in Pakistan and SL in 2000/01 might have equalled the 2005 Ashes as an achivement - and Vaughan has not emulated either feat to date.

Don't really like to dominate threads like this as I know how tiresome I find it, but with regards to Nass being England's Border: I think most people would argue that Taylor was a better captain than Border.

 

[Poker Boy]

My point is that if Nasser (and Border) had not rescued their teams from rock bottom (with help from Fletcher and Simpson) could Vaughan and Taylor have done what they did? And I think its easier to turn a decent side into a good side than inherit a crap team and turn it into a competent one.