Vaughan not picked for India tour

[Richard]

Bopara for Shah would be the only alteration I could see (his call for the 4th test seems to suggest he's again leapfrogged the unfortunate Middlesex man), unless Tiny Tim's perceived failure with the bat has dropped him a few places back in the queue and AN Other keeper (hopefully Foster, but more likely to be Davies or Mustard) goes along if a second stumper is deemed necessary. Suspect it will be too as there's a v quick turnaround between the two () tests and we might be forced to field a non-specialist if Prior breaks a finger or something.

If Mustard gets in the Test squad ahead of Foster or Ambrose, both of whom are so much better batsmen than him it's untrue, I honestly might be firebombing the ECB offices.

 

[fredfertang]

If Mustard gets in the Test squad ahead of Foster or Ambrose, both of whom are so much better batsmen than him it's untrue, I honestly might be firebombing the ECB offices.

Mark Vermuelen has a lot to answer for

 

[Woodster]

I don't necessarily agree that because Vaughan (or any of the players) has a central contract he should automatically be selected in the squad, irrespective of his form. The contracts are for the period of 12 months, this is only one tour, which I believe he will be best served by sitting out, and returning fresher in preparation for the Caribbean tour.

There are plenty of series ahead where the decision to give Vaughan a central contract may be vindicated.

 

[zaremba]

I don't necessarily agree that because Vaughan (or any of the players) has a central contract he should automatically be selected in the squad, irrespective of his form. The contracts are for the period of 12 months, this is only one tour, which I believe he will be best served by sitting out, and returning fresher in preparation for the Caribbean tour.

I agree. But it would have been cheaper not to have given him a contract until after this tour.

 

[Uppercut]

It also tends to assume the failure of his replacement as inevitable. They may as well say:

"Well, he's not worth a place in the side now... but none of those lemons are likely to keep him out for long."

 

[Woodster]

Such things can obviously not be predicted, but there are few better players than an in-form Michael Vaughan, it's a case of if he can rediscover that form. I think should Bopara be selected, he can perform to a standard that would make it difficult for Vaughan to win his place back.

 

[Furball]

Such things can obviously not be predicted, but there are few better players than an in-form Michael Vaughan, it's a case of if he can rediscover that form. I think should Bopara be selected, he can perform to a standard that would make it difficult for Vaughan to win his place back.

He's been in form since 2003 though. His test average since assuming the England captaincy and his career first class average are identical.

 

[sledger]

He's been in form since 2003 though. His test average since assuming the England captaincy and his career first class average are identical.

To suggest Vaughan has been in good form for the past 5 years is simply untrue.

 

[Furball]

To suggest Vaughan has been in good form for the past 5 years is simply untrue.

I'm suggesting the form he's been in since 2003 is the norm for Vaughan, as opposed to the purple patch fluke of a year previous.

See also: Harmison, Steve.

 

[tooextracool]

To suggest Vaughan has been in good form for the past 5 years is simply untrue.

To suggest that 1.5 years of someone's career is more indicative of a player's ability than the the other 5 is more untrue. Equally the logic behind suggesting that 19 tests is more indicative of a players ability than the other 62 is baffling to say the least. Im sorry, but no can be 'out of form' for 5 years, the idea itself is rather ludicrous to say the very least.

If Vaughan were averaging in the 40s or 50s in Fc cricket and was underperforming by that standard in international cricket, I can somewhat understand your argument. But when someone has been mediocre for 80% of his FC career, it makes little sense to suggest that he should be selected because of what he did for the tiny minority of his career (at the start of this decade).

I do also think that Vaughan's performance in NZ, both during his purple patch as well as most recently provide clear evidence of his weaknesses against the moving ball. Hes always been shockingly poor against it and the majority of his test runs have come on flat batting wickets.

Im very very surprised that anyone can possibly be stunned as to his non-selection for the tour to India (whether it was his own suggestion or otherwise). To expect him to make the tour having barely managed to make double figures since the NZ series would be a joke in itself. If he manages to score a few runs in SA or NZ or whereever he chooses to play, then perhaps his experience might come in handy in India, but otherwise there is little point in selecting a player whose career average and '***y' cover drive flatter his overall playing ability.

As far as the selection for the India tour is concerned, if Swann or worse Bopara, make it ahead of Samit Patel, I will be disgusted to say the least.

 

[NUFAN]

To suggest that 1.5 years of someone's career is more indicative of a player's ability than the the other 5 is more untrue. Equally the logic behind suggesting that 19 tests is more indicative of a players ability than the other 62 is baffling to say the least. Im sorry, but no can be 'out of form' for 5 years, the idea itself is rather ludicrous to say the very least.

If Vaughan were averaging in the 40s or 50s in Fc cricket and was underperforming by that standard in international cricket, I can somewhat understand your argument. But when someone has been mediocre for 80% of his FC career, it makes little sense to suggest that he should be selected because of what he did for the tiny minority of his career (at the start of this decade).

I do also think that Vaughan's performance in NZ, both during his purple patch as well as most recently provide clear evidence of his weaknesses against the moving ball. Hes always been shockingly poor against it and the majority of his test runs have come on flat batting wickets.

Im very very surprised that anyone can possibly be stunned as to his non-selection for the tour to India (whether it was his own suggestion or otherwise). To expect him to make the tour having barely managed to make double figures since the NZ series would be a joke in itself. If he manages to score a few runs in SA or NZ or whereever he chooses to play, then perhaps his experience might come in handy in India, but otherwise there is little point in selecting a player whose career average and '***y' cover drive flatter his overall playing ability.

As far as the selection for the India tour is concerned, if Swann or worse Bopara, make it ahead of Samit Patel, I will be disgusted to say the least.

Nice post, I agree exactly.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, makes sense.

 

[Uppercut]

I was shocked, but only because they gave him a central contract. I thought that meant he was on the way to India for sure. Definitely don't think he should be in the side.

 

[Goughy]

Does it make sense from a cricket POV? Possibly

Does it make sense in the context of the central contracts? No

We can now say Vaughan is no longer a premier England batsman. If he was then he would be selected. If he isnt then he shouldnt have got a central contract. Very confusing

It makes no sense that things can change in such a short time since the contracts were given.

Current form should have nothing to do with it. India is in a different season and a different continent. Form isnt set to transfer after a break. In form players could be out of form by India and out of form players may be in form.

This selection basically says Vaughan has a golden handshake (a season of parachute payments) after losing the captaincy. If that was the case and wasnt tried to be hidden then I could understand it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Hmm no Patel in either squad... baffling.

Perhaps if he wore a turban, made himself into a useless fielder and got himself a cult following he'd be inked in for the next decade.

 

[Uppercut]

Learn to bowl off-spin to a standard above part-time and you're onto something.

 

[silentstriker]

Hmm no Patel in either squad... baffling.

Perhaps if he wore a turban, made himself into a useless fielder and got himself a cult following he'd be inked in for the next decade.

Learn to bowl off-spin to a standard above part-time and you're onto something.

I've never seen Patel but I thought he was primarily a batsman who is also useful with the ball and not a front line bowler?

 

[sledger]

This is England we're talking about, anyone who can bowl slow will be considered for a test birth on a tour to the subcontinent.

 

[Uppercut]

I've never seen Patel but I thought he was primarily a batsman who is also useful with the ball and not a front line bowler?

Ye, absolutely right.

 

[Woodster]

Vaughan averages over 40 in Test cricket, a benchmark for very decent batsmen, especially when you consider the quality of English batsmen that have failed to reach this average, ie Atherton, Stewart, Hussain, etc.

I think he was rightly left out for India, but with runs under his belt in NZ, SA or wherever he can get a first-class game, he will rightly come back in contention for the WI series.