No, most of those out there don't have as good an understanding of the game as those already in position. A decent few CW posters do though - this place enjoys a higher calibre of discussion than almost anywhere.Guess, ECB should resort to Gallup poll for next Ashes regards to strategy and selections.
I do agree with that. However, to suggest that we are in a better position to comment than the players themselves is taking it a bit to far.No, most of those out there don't have as good an understanding of the game as those already in position. A decent few CW posters do though - this place enjoys a higher calibre of discussion than almost anywhere.
I don't agree that Vaughan didn't deserve a place in the Odi side when he was appointed the captain as he was the best man to lead England in both forms of the game at the time Hussain stepped down, but one thing i would like to add is that Vaughan should have never opened in Odi cricket, he would have been much better off batting at no.5 or 6.Richard's right, one of the weaknesses of the ODI side was that Vaughan himself should never have been there. He was hardly going to use that as a reason for failure now, was he?
But he wasn't. His domestic OD record was always poor and he was picked for ODIs as a player, before he was even given the captaincy, purely because he was a good Test batsman (well actually he hadn't even established himself as that yet) and that is always a stupid thing to do.I don't agree that Vaughan didn't deserve a place in the Odi side when he was appointed the captain as he was the best man to lead England in both forms of the game at the time Hussain stepped down, but one thing i would like to add is that Vaughan should have never opened in Odi cricket, he would have been much better off batting at no.5 or 6.
I at least agree with you on that point.Vaughan was always a rubbish ODI batsman, never deserved selection and was only in the team because of his captaincy and Test batting.
You are telling me had Vaughan not been the part of the English Odi set-up, they would have done any better, the whole talk of Vaughan being a good test player also never went down too well with me, he had a tremendous Ashes series down-under, but other than that he has hardly had a good series, he performed well enough now and again in a few test's, but if his overall impact on the English batting line-up is looked upon as a batsman then he has hardly done enough to prove he was good test batsman, he was way too inconsistent, for me he was more or less there in the English side due to his role as captain more than anything else.But he wasn't. His domestic OD record was always poor and he was picked for ODIs as a player, before he was even given the captaincy, purely because he was a good Test batsman (well actually he hadn't even established himself as that yet) and that is always a stupid thing to do.
England caused their ODI prospects so much harm over such a long period of time by insisting on having Vaughan in the team simply because he was a good Test batsman.
Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? First you say Vaughan wasn't a poor ODI batsman, now you are doubting his credentials at Test level.You are telling me had Vaughan not been the part of the English Odi set-up, they would have done any better, the whole talk of Vaughan being a good test player also never went down too well with me, he had a tremendous Ashes series down-under, but other than that he has hardly had a good series, he performed well enough now and again in a few test's, but if his overall impact on the English batting line-up is looked upon as a batsman then he has hardly done enough to prove he was good test batsman, he was way too inconsistent, for me he was more or less there in the English side due to his role as captain more than anything else.
Nah, Vaughan had plenty of other good series outside 2002. He was always - rightly - regarded as promising between his debut in 1999/2000 and the series in India in 2001/02, up to which he averaged 34. Unfortunately, he was then pushed up to open the batting and despite luck-fuelled massive run-scoring between May and December, that luck soon ran-out and he accomplished little more as an opener thereafter. But after moving back into the middle-order in June 2004 he's certainly had his moments, it's not like he's done nothing. The trouble has been that he's often had 1 big game per series and not much (sometimes virtually nothing) else.You are telling me had Vaughan not been the part of the English Odi set-up, they would have done any better, the whole talk of Vaughan being a good test player also never went down too well with me, he had a tremendous Ashes series down-under, but other than that he has hardly had a good series, he performed well enough now and again in a few test's, but if his overall impact on the English batting line-up is looked upon as a batsman then he has hardly done enough to prove he was good test batsman, he was way too inconsistent, for me he was more or less there in the English side due to his role as captain more than anything else.
That's what i am saying, he never ever came anywhere near the performance he had in the Ashes series he played in Australia, he scored runs now and again but neither he was he consistent, nor as impactful a player that he was before he was made the captain.Averaged 51 before being made captain, 36 as skipper, great batsman tttt
So you are saying he was just able to score all those runs before being made captain, due to sheer luck, he virtually demanded captaincy when he was having his golden run, but as soon as he got the captaincy, he started taking things easy, as he no longer had to worry about saving his spot in the team.Don't feel the captaincy made any difference myself TBH - it was purely that his luck ran-out at near enough the exact moment he took-on the captaincy.