***Official England in India***

[Precambrian]

It's not like Vaughan's performances have been universally poor the last 5 years. He had very fine performances in the summers of 2004 and 2007 and averages 37.14 (and that was 41.22 before this summer) when not opening the batting from 2002 onwards.

He could quite easily at any minute produce several superlative innings that would make it foolish to leave him out of the touring party. And I for one hope he does. But time is running-out.

And a test average of 37 is what you expect a premier batsman to have to want him direly in your side when he tours? With such experience? It will be a criminal waste of young talent if Vaughan manages to comeback despite an away average of 30.59 in 20 matches in last 5 years.

 

[Richard]

He's also been a lot better against it at other stages in his career than he is now, though.

I'm not really sure he has TBH. Flintoff as a batsman, over the long-term, hasn't changed all that much. He's broadly exactly the same batsman now as he was in 2003. He's had, as I say, odd series where he's played way above himself but there's never been any form of long-lasting gradual improvement in his batting.

He is more than capable of playing above himself again this India tour and if he does he'll have my full applause for doing it - but I think if one was expecting him to, they're expecting rather a lot.

 

[Precambrian]

It depends whether you're talking about batting or bowling. Between 2004 and early-2006, Flintoff fully achieved his potential with the ball for mine.

But I've never rated his batting as much more than a lower-order biffer who'll make good against poor bowling and sometimes (not all that often) come good against good-quality stuff. I saw The Ashes 2005 and India in 2005/06 as him playing above himself - for which he deserves full credit - rather than any form of fulfillment. I never expected it to last, because it never has. He's had so many poor series against good bowling: India 2001/02, Sri Lanka and India 2002, Sri Lanka 2003/04, West Indies (away) 2004, South Africa 2004/05, Pakistan 2005/06, Sri Lanka 2006, Australia 2006/07, South Africa 2008. I don't see him scoring runs against good attacks as anything more than something which will be a sporadic bonus. If anyone is expecting it with any great regularity I think they're going to be disappointed.

Nope. I don't expect him to average him 50 with the bat. But around 37-40 is what I expected him to average as his career draws to a close. Gradually shifting his focus from raw fast to medium pace and batting to middle order batting with seam bowling (like imran Khan progressed)

 

[Richard]

And a test average of 37 is what you expect a premier batsman to have to want him direly in your side when he tours?

No, it's not - the reason you want him in the side is because you know he can do better than that and believe he can.

With such experience? It will be a criminal waste of young talent if Vaughan manages to comeback despite an away average of 30.59 in 20 matches in last 5 years.

Given the only viable alternative to Vaughan (ie, the only batsman anyone can realistically expect to do significantly better) is 29 nearly 30, I hardly see that it's a waste of young talent. The batsmen who may one day be good enough to do a job at Test level are currently not good enough - so in fact it'd be a waste of young talent to play such batsmen now.

In any case, Vaughan has played a whole 6 Tests away from home in the last 5 years as a middle-order batsman. This is nothing to be making sweeping statements based on.

 

[Richard]

Nope. I don't expect him to average him 50 with the bat. But around 37-40 is what I expected him to average as his career draws to a close. Gradually shifting his focus from raw fast to medium pace and batting to middle order batting with seam bowling (like imran Khan progressed)

I think an average of 37 to 40 is expecting rather a lot. If, that is, the bowling is above basement standard. He's shown he's well capable of such performances in New Zealand in 2001/02 and at home to New Zealand and West Indies in 2004.

 

[Precambrian]

Season Averages of Micheal Vaughan Last 5 years (ignoring Bangladesh)

Season	Matches	Innings	Runs	HS	Avg	100s	50s	0
2003	4	8	140	33	17.50	0	0	0
2003/04	7	14	466	140	35.84	2	1	1
2004	6	10	414	103	46.00	2	2	0
2004/05	5	10	246	82*	30.75	0	2	1
2005	5	10	326	166	32.60	1	1	1
2005/06	2	4	82	58	20.50	0	1	0
2007	6	11	546	124	54.60	2	1	0
2007/08	6	12	338	87	28.16	0	3	0
2008	6	9	240	106	26.66	1	0	2

Clearly apart from one Home season in 2007, there is absolutely nothing to speak about. Not even one season.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not really sure he has TBH. Flintoff as a batsman, over the long-term, hasn't changed all that much. He's broadly exactly the same batsman now as he was in 2003. He's had, as I say, odd series where he's played way above himself but there's never been any form of long-lasting gradual improvement in his batting.

He is more than capable of playing above himself again this India tour and if he does he'll have my full applause for doing it - but I think if one was expecting him to, they're expecting rather a lot.

I may be hazy-eyed about how he was before perhaps, but watching him bat against Sussex in June, he struggled horribly against spin early on. Again against South Africa at times he managed (somehow) to make Paul Harris look their most threatening bowler, specifically early in his innings. I hate to think what Harbajahan and Kumble will do in India if he continues to do so, and with Pietersen intent on having him at 6 it doesn't bode well for England.

 

[Precambrian]

No, it's not - the reason you want him in the side is because you know he can do better than that and believe he can.

Given the only viable alternative to Vaughan (ie, the only batsman anyone can realistically expect to do significantly better) is 29 nearly 30, I hardly see that it's a waste of young talent. The batsmen who may one day be good enough to do a job at Test level are currently not good enough - so in fact it'd be a waste of young talent to play such batsmen now.

In any case, Vaughan has played a whole 6 Tests away from home in the last 5 years as a middle-order batsman. This is nothing to be making sweeping statements based on.

Only viably alternative? Surely there must be some batsmen (Bopara, etc) who can be given an extended go.

 

[Richard]

There is absolutely no way on Earth Bopara deserves a chance ahead of Vaughan, even if Vaughan scores nothing of note in the remaining games this season.

Shah does deserve a chance, massively so, but he's nearly 30 now as I say and it would be more a case of rewarding someone who has been bashing down the door for many years than giving young players a chance and being completely unsure how they'll go.

 

[Richard]

Season Averages of Micheal Vaughan Last 5 years (ignoring Bangladesh)

Season	Matches	Innings	Runs	HS	Avg	100s	50s	0
2003	4	8	140	33	17.50	0	0	0
2003/04	7	14	466	140	35.84	2	1	1
2004	6	10	414	103	46.00	2	2	0
2004/05	5	10	246	82*	30.75	0	2	1
2005	5	10	326	166	32.60	1	1	1
2005/06	2	4	82	58	20.50	0	1	0
2007	6	11	546	124	54.60	2	1	0
2007/08	6	12	338	87	28.16	0	3	0
2008	6	9	240	106	26.66	1	0	2

Clearly apart from one Home season in 2007, there is absolutely nothing to speak about. Not even one season.

Much of it is irrelevant however as he was opening the batting in the time in question. It's as a middle-order player that counts.

 

[Richard]

I may be hazy-eyed about how he was before perhaps, but watching him bat against Sussex in June, he struggled horribly against spin early on. Again against South Africa at times he managed (somehow) to make Paul Harris look their most threatening bowler, specifically early in his innings. I hate to think what Harbajahan and Kumble will do in India if he continues to do so, and with Pietersen intent on having him at 6 it doesn't bode well for England.

No it doesn't - but as I say, it's been like that for much of his career. It's only in brief interludes that he's played above himself against high-quality spin. In fact it's only happened twice - Warne in 2005 and Kumble and Harbhajan in 2005/06.

It's not like he got better then got worse then got better again, or vice-versa. Even in between these two cases named above he struggled well enough against the wholly moderate Danish Kaneria on not-especially-helpful surfaces.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm of the opinion that Vaughan's a pretty average batsman (and excellent captain, but that's irrelevant now). 41 as a career average looks about right to me.

 

[Richard]

There's no refuting the fact that Vaughan has not achieved the highs so many predicted back when he emerged in the mid-1990s. It's always been the same. David Byas, speaking to Nasser Hussain in 1999, said it best. "He always looks good. But he always gets out".

However, like so many, the career average just doesn't tell any story of note. There's Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe, though he batted just twice against them), there's the opener\middle-order split, there's the incredibly lucky year of 2002, there's other things besides - most notably that he was never all that far from changing position, sometimes through his own choice.

Vaughan's career is a deeply complex one, just like most others.

 

[Precambrian]

Much of it is irrelevant however as he was opening the batting in the time in question. It's as a middle-order player that counts.

And how the stats justify his inclusion as a middle order player? He averages 38 at No. 3 (a position he cannot occupy anyway) and 35 at No.4. Again the averages are ballooned up by just one season in 2007 (6 matches - avg 54). But for that he's been consistently mediocre even at No. 3 and No. 4.

 

[Uppercut]

There's no refuting the fact that Vaughan has not achieved the highs so many predicted back when he emerged in the mid-1990s. It's always been the same. David Byas, speaking to Nasser Hussain in 1999, said it best. "He always looks good. But he always gets out".

However, like so many, the career average just doesn't tell any story of note. There's Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe, though he batted just twice against them), there's the opener\middle-order split, there's the incredibly lucky year of 2002, there's other things besides - most notably that he was never all that far from changing position, sometimes through his own choice.

Vaughan's career is a deeply complex one, just like most others.

Oh yeah, that's all true. But looking at his career on the whole, i think 41 neither flatters nor undersells him, it's his level.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Test squad announcement delayed basically to give Vaughan time to get in form

They are still seriously considering Vaughan has an option at the moment?

Honestly, one step forward 3 steps back.

I wouldn't have him in contention myself. In fact, since the 2002/3 Ashes tour he's been on a gradual downward trajectory as a batsman. We don't know how much his knee is inconveniencing him but, whilst one might feel for him, I don't think sentiment should play a big part in selection.

There's also the possibility that KP might not want the ex-skipper hanging around like Banquo's ghost either. One shouldn't rush to hasty conclusions, but judging by results so far there's maybe a case that Vaughan had lost the dressing room to some extent.

 

[Richard]

The only conspiracy-theory worth listening to would be that Vaughan had lost something he essentially never had - the Twenty20 International captaincy.

 

[Richard]

And how the stats justify his inclusion as a middle order player? He averages 38 at No. 3 (a position he cannot occupy anyway) and 35 at No.4. Again the averages are ballooned up by just one season in 2007 (6 matches - avg 54). But for that he's been consistently mediocre even at No. 3 and No. 4.

He hasn't really been consistently anything though - aside from 2004 and 2007 (when, irrefutably, he scored well) he's only had another 3 full seasons (2004/05, 2005 and 2008). In essence, that's 2 good seasons and 3 mediocre to poor ones. Not the closed-case you present it as.

 

[Precambrian]

I wouldn't have him in contention myself. In fact, since the 2002/3 Ashes tour he's been on a gradual downward trajectory as a batsman. We don't know how much his knee is inconveniencing him but, whilst one might feel for him, I don't think sentiment should play a big part in selection.

There's also the possibility that KP might not want the ex-skipper hanging around like Banquo's ghost either. One shouldn't rush to hasty conclusions, but judging by results so far there's maybe a case that Vaughan had lost the dressing room to some extent.

Yep, KP will want some time to himself and some autonomy to himself to try and develop his brand of team. And for him presence of an ol timer like Vaughan might not fit in his scheme of things.

Nope, for me Zimbabwe's readmission to test cricket looks more likely than Vaughan's comeback atm.

 

[Richard]

It's of no enormous relevance, but there was a time when I thought something similar about Sourav Ganguly's return - as well as Vaughan's at a previous time, 2006.

I was delighted it turned-out I was wrong in both cases.

Even more doubt fell on the case of Simon Jones, and there's still a chance all those who doubted he'd ever play again (which was pretty well everyone - it was the only sensible conclusion to come to) might be wrong too.