Guess who's back? Back Again

[Uppercut]

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?

 

[Richard]

Guess, ECB should resort to Gallup poll for next Ashes regards to strategy and selections.

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.

 

[Precambrian]

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 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.

 

[Richard]

We aren't always, but in that case we were for mine.

 

[pup11]

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?

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.

 

[pup11]

Coming back to the topic, Asif would take heart from the fact that if Akthar can come in and out of the side after being banned so many times, so going by that he has nothing to worry about.

 

[Perm]

Vaughan was always a rubbish ODI batsman, never deserved selection and was only in the team because of his captaincy and Test batting.

 

[Richard]

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.

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.

 

[Ahmed_Tariq]

Vaughan was always a rubbish ODI batsman, never deserved selection and was only in the team because of his captaincy and Test batting.

I at least agree with you on that point.

 

[pup11]

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.

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.

 

[Perm]

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.

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.

And yes, it's quite conceivable that if a better player was picked instead of Vaughan that England may have done better in ODI cricket. That is not to place the blame solely on him for England's failings, but it is a strong possibility.

 

[Uppercut]

The point though, is that a lot of reasons can be thrown up for England's failure in that world cup. Vaughan would suggest Flintoff's antics, but the fact that Vaughan's mere presence is a much more convincing case for their failure makes his words somewhat unreliable.

Personally I think England were a very ordinary team, and while I agree with Perm and Richard that Vaughan should have been nowhere near the ODI side, it's not like there were several top-class ODI batsmen vying for his place.

 

[Richard]

Well there was at very least 1 who was patently obviously better, in Usman Afzaal, and it's a travesty that Vaughan played as many ODIs as he did (and it would've been many more but for injury) while Afzaal played a sum-total of 0.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[GIMH]

Averaged 51 before being made captain, 36 as skipper, great batsman tttt

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[pup11]

Averaged 51 before being made captain, 36 as skipper, great batsman tttt

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.

 

[Richard]

But for most of the time before he was made captain he was the same too.

It's just his as the book put it "year in the sun" came straight before the captaincy. But it was never going to be realistic to expect that this was going to continue, captaincy or no captaincy.

 

[pup11]

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.

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.

 

[Richard]

I'm saying he played exactly the same way all the time all his career and mostly that produced middling to good results. On one brief occasion (May 2002 to July 2003, 13 Tests) he got an abnormal amount of good luck and this made the results spectacularly good. When this luck ran-out, people unreasonably expected he continue to score the mountains of runs which he'd scored for such a brief time - and that was simply never going to happen.