Nasser Hussain vs Michael Vaughan

[iamdavid]

Tactically I actually consider Hussain the better skipper, however I've gone for Vaughan mainly due to a couple of Nasser's flaws.

Two things really annoyed me about him as a captain, both of them during the 02/03 Ashes, firstly the way he bolted from the kitchen by bowling first at Brisbane, some people will say aw c'mon it was just a wrong call in hindsight. But I found it an extremely negative move which set the tone for the whole series, the track was clearly nothing but a belter and England's top order had been in superb form against India, should have taken the bull by the horns and gone in first. But he seemed intimidated by the prospect of facing Australia's bowlers (who'd recently dismissed Pakistan for 107 or something in the whole test) first up at Brisbane.

Secondly the way he mothered the bowlers (mainly Harmison) in that series when things were going wrong, walking over and barking instructions 5 times an over, robbed the bowlers of any remaining confidence. Steve Waugh's take on it was "sometimes you need to be discreet to be kind".

Nasser's batting was also very hot and cold while captain, he was pretty good towards the end from about 2002 onwards, but 99 - 2001 he was woeful.

Vaughan on the other hand has always appeared very positive in everything he has done while in charge and has seemed more composed under the pump than Nasser did, not loosing his head ala Hussain with Harmison in 02/03.

I dont read anything into Vaughan's superior Win ratio or the 2005 Ashes, as simply Vaughan has had a better, more settled team than Hussain did for the majority of his stint and in 2005 he had an awesome seam attack and for once a good run with injuries, and I'm sure given the same circumstances Hussain would've done just as well.

 

[Richard]

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.

Disagree. It's easy, and very common, to perceive the more successful as "braver". Former causes latter perception IMO, not latter causes former scenario.

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.

We were. By a fair bit.

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

I thought exactly that TBH.

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

SL being Slow LoveTM? (CBA with the small-font) So the fact that Jesse said he should have been playing means his was an inexplicable exclusion? No. No-one really thought he had a case - because he didn't. The side was set in stone because all the players (Brett Lee excepted and his love-child status was always going to get him the eventual nod) had unequivocal cases for selection. Including the two weakest links, Clarke and Katich.

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.

That was to do with the conditions, not lost play. Obviously, had the match been conducted in bright sunshine throughout things might have been different, but you can say that about far more Tests in England down the years than not.

Had lost time been able to be made-up - ie, had the game been played until 450 overs were bowled - England, not Australia, would have been the likely victors.

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).

I don't think dropped catches, as far as teams are concerned, are good or bad fortune. Dropping catches is poor, and makes you - massively - a poor team. Both sides dropped catches that series, England's bowling was good enough to make it an irrelevance, Australia's wasn't.

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

I don't think Tremlett bowled that much worse than Flintoff would likely have done, and while I hope Hoggard would have done better than Anderson I think it's a 50\50 chance.

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

Tosses: dumb luck - yes or no?

Don't think it made as much difference as you're suggesting. Had the cookie crumbled differently England could easily have bowled India out for not-much too, just the nicks didn't come for them where they had for the Indians.

 

[Richard]

Two things really annoyed me about him as a captain, both of them during the 02/03 Ashes, firstly the way he bolted from the kitchen by bowling first at Brisbane, some people will say aw c'mon it was just a wrong call in hindsight. But I found it an extremely negative move which set the tone for the whole series, the track was clearly nothing but a belter and England's top order had been in superb form against India, should have taken the bull by the horns and gone in first. But he seemed intimidated by the prospect of facing Australia's bowlers (who'd recently dismissed Pakistan for 107 or something in the whole test) first up at Brisbane.

So was Stephen Waugh intimidated by England's bowlers when he decided he'd have fielded first had he won the toss?

IMO Hussain made the logical and sensible decision - England's best chance in that match was to get in the field first. Had they batted first there's a substantial chance they'd have been knocked-over cheaply, because McGrath and Gillespie tended to do that regardless of the pitch at that time. And let's not forget the decision would almost certainly have paid greater dividends than it did had the fielders been able to catch, which you always take for granted regardless of anything. You cannot make a decision at the toss because "we might drop catches".

Nasser's batting was also very hot and cold while captain, he was pretty good towards the end from about 2002 onwards, but 99 - 2001 he was woeful.

Hussain's batting for the first year of his captaincy was excellent, in 1999 he was in probably the best form of his life. 2000 was wretched and so was early 2001, but from mid-2001 to the end of his career he was most certainly one of the best batsmen in the country.

Really, it was just that period between January 2000 and April 2001. Other than that year-and-a-bit his record between 1996 and 2004 is top-shelf, captain or no captain.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Disagree. It's easy, and very common, to perceive the more successful as "braver". Former causes latter perception IMO, not latter causes former scenario.

I don't know how you can seriously say that. Nasser brought us success, but it was mainly from a base of attritional cricket. England under Hussain, particularly on tour, adopted a safety first attitude. That's not to say it was wrong, far from it, but we played some pretty mundane stuff at times. We certainly never saw any counter-attacks like we produce in our first innings of the 2nd Ashes test in 2005.

SL being Slow LoveTM? (CBA with the small-font) So the fact that Jesse said he should have been playing means his was an inexplicable exclusion? No. No-one really thought he had a case - because he didn't. The side was set in stone because all the players (Brett Lee excepted and his love-child status was always going to get him the eventual nod) had unequivocal cases for selection. Including the two weakest links, Clarke and Katich.

*sigh*

This is why I generally can't be arsed debating with you. You present you own opinions as fact: "No-one really thought he had a case - because he didn't.", when the actuality doesn't support your contention at all. You're seriously suggesting that a man who had a freakishly good start to his international in ODIs had no case at all to play in the test series? I think I'm right in saying his average was over 100 at that point & Australia have used ODIs as a bit of a breeding ground for potential test players in the past. Moreover, if someone suggested his inclusion beforehand there's no way that bemoaning his omission is just hindsight.

That was to do with the conditions, not lost play. Obviously, had the match been conducted in bright sunshine throughout things might have been different, but you can say that about far more Tests in England down the years than not.

It's both. If the play hadn't have been lost Australia wouldn't have had to play such attacking cricket in overcast conditions that were tailor-made for Hoggard.

Either way it worked to our advantage as we were ahead in the series.

I don't think Tremlett bowled that much worse than Flintoff would likely have done, and while I hope Hoggard would have done better than Anderson I think it's a 50\50 chance.

It's obviously conjecture either way, but what is indisputable (although I don't doubt you'll try) is that Flintoff & Hoggard would've played if fit so it would be considered misfortune for the captain not to have them available.

Don't think it made as much difference as you're suggesting. Had the cookie crumbled differently England could easily have bowled India out for not-much too, just the nicks didn't come for them where they had for the Indians.

The sun came out & dried the pitch up! It made a massive difference to the outcome of the game.

Anyway, I don't doubt you can come up with Jesuitical arguments that black is white until the cows come home; most reasonable observers would say that England had the rub of the green in 2005 & that India did in 2007. Neither point really being that germane to my original argument that Vaughan is the better captain, either, for that matter.

 

[subshakerz]

A rough analogy for Hussain and Vaughn could be Allan Border and Mark Taylor.

Border stopped the losing trend, but Taylor made them a winning force.

Taylor was the better captain. So too Vaughn.

 

[wpdavid]

Much as I like Nasser, I can't hep thinking that some of his achievements have been overplayed here. First captain to beat Zim? True, but he was the first to play them in England, and only the second after Atherton's debacle in 1996. First to beat WI in 31 years felt great at the time, but they were already dire overseas and we were dead lucky to stay in the series at Lord's. Plus that crucial second test was captained by Stewart, of course. Pakistan/SL tours - agreed, absolutely his finest hour, and one of the finest achievements by an England cricket side in the last 30 years. OTOH his two Ashes series were massively hampered by injuries against quite magnificent opponents, so I wouldn't criticise him for them at all. However, his debut series against NZ seems to have been completely forgotten by some posters here. Oh, and I don't completely get the idea that we were hopeless before he took over. We'd beat SA the previous summer, and came within a 3rd umpire doing his job properly from having a decent shout at drawing in Aus in the series immediately preceding his appointment.

Vaughan's an interesting one. Again, there's a lot that I like about his captaincy, but I do think that his god-like-genius tendencies have been somewhat overplayed. Even in 2005, I thought he sometimes overcomplicated things in the field, such as in the final innings at Old Trafford when edges were flying through a slip cordon that had been weakened to try and catch Hayden in the covers. Plus his criminal failure to bowl Jones on Day 4 at Edgbaston. And of course we were just as lucky to win the crucial 2nd test in that series as had been the case against WI in 2000. Obviously that doesn't change the bigger picture that he was very good indeed, but I'm just trying to introduce a bit of perspective.
I think he sometimes injected a bit more confidence that Hussain, who on occasions seemed too worried about the opposition to see them off (e.g. at home to India in 2002).

Obviously there's no point in comparing their respective series in SA given the relative strengths of the sides in the two series.


EDIT
I meant to add that I initially thought the question was about their batting, which, imho, would be a closer call than their test averages might suggest.

 

[Richard]

I don't know how you can seriously say that. Nasser brought us success, but it was mainly from a base of attritional cricket. England under Hussain, particularly on tour, adopted a safety first attitude. That's not to say it was wrong, far from it, but we played some pretty mundane stuff at times. We certainly never saw any counter-attacks like we produce in our first innings of the 2nd Ashes test in 2005.

Not with the bat perhaps, but with the ball countless many times, never more so than in the second Lord's Test in the summer, or at Kandy in the winter. When Hussain's teams had the chance to attack, they did, it's just (as I said before) that he's more remembered for the later time of his tenure when he led a moderate side than when he led the exceptional one earlier on.

*sigh*

This is why I generally can't be arsed debating with you. You present you own opinions as fact: "No-one really thought he had a case - because he didn't.", when the actuality doesn't support your contention at all. You're seriously suggesting that a man who had a freakishly good start to his international in ODIs had no case at all to play in the test series? I think I'm right in saying his average was over 100 at that point & Australia have used ODIs as a bit of a breeding ground for potential test players in the past.

I'm saying you can't put a square peg in a round hole. Unless there is a place in the Test team, no amount of averaging 100 in ODIs can get you into it. Had Hussey crashed and burned in Test-cricket in 2005\06, no-one, and I mean no-one, would be saying he'd have made a difference in the 2005 Ashes. And there was no case - not a small one, none - for dropping any of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Katich or Clarke. Even the worst of these, Hayden and Clarke, had had enough form in the lead-up to be guranteed a place. To have dropped any would have constituted woeful selection.

Moreover, if someone suggested his inclusion beforehand there's no way that bemoaning his omission is just hindsight.

If one person said something that's not exactly a compelling case, excellent a poster as Jesse is.

It's both. If the play hadn't have been lost Australia wouldn't have had to play such attacking cricket in overcast conditions that were tailor-made for Hoggard.

Either way it worked to our advantage as we were ahead in the series.

It's obviously conjecture either way, but what is indisputable (although I don't doubt you'll try) is that Flintoff & Hoggard would've played if fit so it would be considered misfortune for the captain not to have them available.

The sun came out & dried the pitch up! It made a massive difference to the outcome of the game.

Anyway, I don't doubt you can come up with Jesuitical arguments that black is white until the cows come home; most reasonable observers would say that England had the rub of the green in 2005 & that India did in 2007.

I wouldn't, though, and obviously I'm as reasonable as anyone going around.

I think most Englishmen would probably argue that India had the rub-of-the-green in 2007; not many Indians on here have done so, in fact several have done precisely the opposite. Obviously, there were things that went the way of each team, but there always will be, and if the team concerned wins the series they'll be perceived to have had an input on the output.

But yes, I will come-out with continuing arguments until the cows come home - there'd be no point in saying what I said were I not to do so.

Neither point really being that germane to my original argument that Vaughan is the better captain, either, for that matter.

No, but evolution of conversation is one of the joys of life.

 

[Richard]

A rough analogy for Hussain and Vaughn could be Allan Border and Mark Taylor.

Border stopped the losing trend, but Taylor made them a winning force.

Taylor was the better captain. So too Vaughn.

And both of those are the most simplistic and ridiculous analogies one could wish for.

 

[Perm]

No, but evolution of conversation is one of the joys of life.

Not when you are involved.

 

[Richard]

 

[Goughy]

Nasser did a great job for Enlgand and was the man required at the time. He had drive and direction and brought a desperately needed tough streak to the England team.

However, in the bigger picture, he was never the best on field tactician and didnt know how to deal with his quicks and get the best out of them.

Nasser (in combination with the coach) was the right man at the right time to rebuild English Test cricket.

However, a captain like that can only take you so far and Nasser was lacking in the refined areas of captaincy.

Vaughan, may not have been able to have done the job Nasser did, but he was perfect to take the team to the next level.

Handled his players better and showed greater improvisational skills and tactics.

Overall, as well as Nasser did, Vaughan is clearly the better captain for all occasions

 

[Richard]

How, for you, did Vaughan handle the Flintoffs, Hoggards, Joneses better than Hussain handled the Goughs, Caddicks, Corks and Whites?

 

[Goughy]

How, for you, did Vaughan handle the Flintoffs, Hoggards, Joneses better than Hussain handled the Goughs, Caddicks, Corks and Whites?

Its generally considered that Nasser didnt really understand the mentality of the quicks and how best to cajole them and work with them.

Vaughan had a better relationship with them and worked with them better

 

[Richard]

Is it? Reading his book he seemed fantastic, TBH, at knowing how to get the most out of Gough and Caddick especially, and in that year of 2000 and early 2001 when he had the one truly formidable attack he ever possessed, his bowling-changes were, to me, perfectly done. Caddick (and Giles in the winter) usually got long spells, Cork and Gough shorter ones, White either way depending on how he was looking.

Have you read his book, out of interest?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Have you read his book, out of interest?

I've read his autobiography, and I agree with Richard on this one.

 

[Goughy]

I have not read his book. But if I understand this correctly, you are using a guys own testimony on how good he was? Thats hardly impartial is it? And if he didnt 'get' the quicks then he will not get it when writing about it.

 

[Richard]

I'm saying that he talks, at length in fact, about the psychology he used to handle his bowlers, and Gough and Caddick in particular.

I wonder if your opinion of him being not the best at "getting" the quicks might maybe be different had you read the book. AFAIK, he's never mentioned such things elsewhere.

I mean, he's hardly going to make stuff up is he? Nor is he remotely one to boast. If he thinks he was crap at something, he'll say; if he thinks he was better than someone at something, I for one would believe him.

 

[Goughy]

He has mentioned a number of times in the booth that he felt the quicks were a different breed that he never got atuned to.

Waugh was scathing of his ability to handle the quicks.

etc.

I think he was like many captains, he knew what he wanted the quicks to do but didnt appreciate what it took out of the bowler or what it required from the guy with the ball in his hand. He also didnt use the knowledge of the bowlers in certain situations. More dictatorial that man management

Maybe Im doing him a disservice, but even if I am he was not as good as Vaughan in this area. Vaughan used his quicks brilliantly.

 

[Perm]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1339925&postcount=65

 

[Richard]

Remember what I said after that? (I CBA searching for it)