Taking a punt

[BoyBrumby]

Aye. Unless he was picked as a specialist captain in advance there's nothing in his test career that screams "big success of left-field selection" at me. There was a reason he didn't score more runs than he did in CC, and those same reasons prevented him scoring more runs than he did in tests.

Averages 4 runs per innings more in tests than in FC cricket generally. Figure would obviously be more pronounced if those test runs were removed from his FC figures too.

Difference is too great just to pass over, for mine. Selectors must take some credit.

 

[GIMH]

And it's always worth taking a look at his record without the armband as well (in Tests)

 

[Richard]

You must be joking. Our most successful captain for god-knows how long, the heart of our batting order for a good few years - yes he's had patches where he hasn't performed to the levels we would have expected, but all Test batsmen do.

Vaughan has only had two good summers in the Test middle-order - 2004 and 2007. He also had 6 months of being good (not outstanding as dropped catches made him look) as an opener in 2002 and 2002/03.

For a player as talented as he, two good summers and one good summer-winter combo (and, let's be honest, next to sod-all else) is a collossal disappointment. I cannot believe many people will look back at Vaughan's batting career (forget his captaincy, that's a different matter) and not think he failed to really come close to justifying his talent.

 

[Jamee999]

Surely if he's so talented then he was a good selection.

 

[Richard]

Averages 4 runs per innings more in tests than in FC cricket generally. Figure would obviously be more pronounced if those test runs were removed from his FC figures too.

Difference is too great just to pass over, for mine. Selectors must take some credit.

Between 2000 and 2005 (which was the time which comprised most of his Test career) Vaughan also scored plenty of runs for Yorkshire when he appeared (which was not extraordinarily often).

Vaughan's disappointing domestic First-Class form came very early in his career, in 1999 and more recently (2006 onwards, in which time he's again rarely had much of a run).

 

[Richard]

Surely if he's so talented then he was a good selection.

Vikram Solanki is little less talented. Are you telling me he'd have been a good Test selection as well?

No, of course he wouldn't have. Solanki was an even bigger let-down than Vaughan. Both should have averaged 50+ in county cricket, yet the best both have managed is mid-30s. And they're both in their 30s now, so don't have much time left to turn it around.

In any case, you're changing tack as quickly as light stops when it hits a barn door - Vaughan has been a disappointment with the bat for most of his career.

 

[Uppercut]

Averages 4 runs per innings more in tests than in FC cricket generally. Figure would obviously be more pronounced if those test runs were removed from his FC figures too.

Difference is too great just to pass over, for mine. Selectors must take some credit.

Well, he had his biggest run of form (and luck) when playing for England, which also happened to be his peak years. Vaughan's average is actually almost precisely the "average average" for a specialist batsman in his era so he's hardly a shining beacon of success anyway.

 

[Richard]

The only way to measure whether your expectations were correct is to judge whether or not they were fulfilled. By definition that is a fact.

I don't see how. The only way to judge whether your expectations were viable and reasonable is to look at what they were based on. Any fool can exercise hindsight. It's what happened while the expectations were being made, not after, that counts.

Was it wrong to expect Mark Ramprakash to average in the 40s (or even 50s) in Test cricket in 1990? Of course it wasn't. No-one could remotely reasonable have foreseen the difficulties he was going to have for most of his Test career. It's unrealistic to say they should have, same way it's unrealistic to say anyone should have expected Collingwood to be more than the rank-road bully he was in Tests until recently.

 

[Richard]

And BTW, as far as "most successful captain" (in reference to Vaughan) is concerned, judging a captain's "success" is notoriously difficult. To judge it in terms of wins and losses is clearly plain wrong, as that is to do with the players (a good captain cannot turn poor players into good ones and a poor captain will have a hell of a hard time turning outstanding players into a poor team - though it is possible). Captains' success should be judged in terms of what they had the ability to control - and there's no black-and-white way to sum that up.

Vaughan was indeed a very good captain and had many successes, but I'd say it's extremely debateable that he was more successful or better than his predecessor. In fact I'd say he wasn't, though he wasn't that far behind.

And both of course fall behind Brearley for me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, he had his biggest run of form (and luck) when playing for England, which also happened to be his peak years. Vaughan's average is actually almost precisely the "average average" for a specialist batsman in his era so he's hardly a shining beacon of success anyway.

No, but so few English batsmen ever are. Vaughan was, at least, test class and his FC career figures before his selection didn't automatically suggest this would be the case. His career average was about 33 when selected and had actually averaged a distinctly shoddy 27.12 in the season before he was picked to tour SA.

One or more of the selectors must've seen something above and beyond his brute stats.

 

[GIMH]

I don't see how. The only way to judge whether your expectations were viable and reasonable is to look at what they were based on. Any fool can exercise hindsight. It's what happened while the expectations were being made, not after, that counts.

Was it wrong to expect Mark Ramprakash to average in the 40s (or even 50s) in Test cricket in 1990? Of course it wasn't. No-one could remotely reasonable have foreseen the difficulties he was going to have for most of his Test career. It's unrealistic to say they should have, same way it's unrealistic to say anyone should have expected Collingwood to be more than the rank-road bully he was in Tests until recently.

You specifically said the below:

If they expected Collingwood to perform as well as he has, their expectations were, in my view, erroneous.

You might consider that their expectations were unrealistic, unlikely, whatever, fair enough. But the only way expectations can be erroneous is if they are unfulfilled.

expectation - when you expect something to happen

The selectors picked Collingwood presumably expecting him to score runs. He has done this in Tests four three years now (don't know why you said 9 months??), their expectations were therefore correct. What they expected to happen happened. They were right.

 

[Richard]

No, but so few English batsmen ever are. Vaughan was, at least, test class and his FC career figures before his selection didn't automatically suggest this would be the case. His career average was about 33 when selected and had actually averaged a distinctly shoddy 27.12 in the season before he was picked to tour SA.

One or more of the selectors must've seen something above and beyond his brute stats.

Or alternatively they may have picked him at the worst possible time (just after his very poor 1999) but gotten very lucky that he upped his game (which was always very possible, so talented a player was he) not long after they made the first selection.

Of course, if you're striving to credit people for "looking beyond the numbers" then you'll refuse to countenance this thought, but it's very, very possible.

If Vaughan's Test debut had come in 2000, that'd have been quite fair enough and all this ludicrous "the selectors looked beyond the numbers in Vaughan's case" nonesense that's echoed down the last 10 years would never have been heard.

 

[Richard]

You specifically said the below:

You might consider that their expectations were unrealistic, unlikely, whatever, fair enough. But the only way expectations can be erroneous is if they are unfulfilled.

expectation - when you expect something to happen

The selectors picked Collingwood presumably expecting him to score runs. He has done this in Tests four three years now (don't know why you said 9 months??), their expectations were therefore correct. What they expected to happen happened. They were right.

Collingwood between 2005/06 and 2007/08 scored runs only on rank roads (Nagpur and Karachi 2005/06; Adelaide 2006/07; Riverside 2008) - he never, ever looked like scoring them on any surfaces with the slightest bounce, seam or turn. It's just when he scored runs he scored them so big that they gave him a high average despite the fact that he failed far, far more often than he succeeded. And he also had plenty of let-offs in the 2006 and 2007 summers.

As for expectations, they were erroneous, because they were unrealistic. They may have come to pass, but expectations coming to pass and being good (ie, well-founded and made with good reason) are different things.

 

[GIMH]

Richard, the definition of expectation is what I posted above - what you expect to happen. this isn't my definition or an arbitary definition, but the dictionary definition. Therefore if what you expect to happen happens then your expectation was correct, and cannot, whatsoever be referred to as erroneous. This is a fact and is not open to opinion or interpretation. You could still say that the expectations were unrealistic, fair enough (I don't necessarily agree but can see where you are coming from with that). But you cannot call it erroneous, to continue to do so would be, well, erroneous.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Or alternatively they may have picked him at the worst possible time (just after his very poor 1999) but gotten very lucky that he upped his game (which was always very possible, so talented a player was he) not long after they made the first selection.

Of course, if you're striving to credit people for "looking beyond the numbers" then you'll refuse to countenance this thought, but it's very, very possible.

If Vaughan's Test debut had come in 2000, that'd have been quite fair enough and all this ludicrous "the selectors looked beyond the numbers in Vaughan's case" nonesense that's echoed down the last 10 years would never have been heard.

Yeah, you win at the internets again, Dicko. Lolz.



Maybe you're just talking out of your arse again tho, eh? What are you suggesting, seriously? His selection was wrong because he went on to score runs in test cricket? Only Hussain & Stewart averaged more in SA, so sholud we conclude Butcher's & Atherton's selections were at an even more worsest time?

You're utterly beyond parody, I think you're just a piss take persona invented by someone to wind everyone up.

 

[Richard]

Richard, the definition of expectation is what I posted above - what you expect to happen. this isn't my definition or an arbitary definition, but the dictionary definition. Therefore if what you expect to happen happens then your expectation was correct, and cannot, whatsoever be referred to as erroneous. This is a fact and is not open to opinion or interpretation. You could still say that the expectations were unrealistic, fair enough (I don't necessarily agree but can see where you are coming from with that). But you cannot call it erroneous, to continue to do so would be, well, erroneous.

I don't think so. An expectation being correct to me infers that it was well-grounded and realistic.

A dictionary definition doesn't define "correct expectation", merely "expectation".

 

[Richard]

Yeah, you win at the internets again, Dicko. Lolz.



Maybe you're just talking out of your arse again tho, eh? What are you suggesting, seriously? His selection was wrong because he went on to score runs in test cricket? Only Hussain & Stewart averaged more in SA, so sholud we conclude Butcher's & Atherton's selections were at an even more worsest time?

You're utterly beyond parody, I think you're just a piss take persona invented by someone to wind everyone up.

Well there's a surprise - you're wrong yet again when you make a comment about me. Same as pretty much every single other time.

Vaughan in South Africa in 1999/2000 could be described as promising. Anything beyond that is, well, wrong. His selection came at the worst possible time, and it was no surprise that it paid no particular immediate dividends. Vaughan should have been picked for the first time in 2000.

Atherton was indeed unsucccessful (though he certainly wasn't a bad selection); Butcher was indeed terribly unsuccessful and was indeed a dreadful pick (IIRR he'd already gone 15 straight Test innings' without a 50 or something).

 

[Uppercut]

You're utterly beyond parody, I think you're just a piss take persona invented by someone to wind everyone up.

All jokes aside, my Dad spends some proportion of his spare time posting intricate wind-ups on GAA boards through false personas. Next time you think someone's a bit of an eejit online, just think- it could be a cheeky middle-aged Irish fellow (with not a lot to do) looking to extract some urine after an evening at the pub.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think so. An expectation being correct to me infers that it was well-grounded and realistic.

A dictionary definition doesn't define "correct expectation", merely "expectation".

The definition of expectation is 'what you expect to happen.' Therefore if you have an expectation and it happens, your expectation is correct. I don't see how nyou can possibly argue against this one. Opinion doesn't even come into this.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well there's a surprise - you're wrong yet again when you make a comment about me. Same as pretty much every single other time.

Vaughan in South Africa in 1999/2000 could be described as promising. Anything beyond that is, well, wrong. His selection came at the worst possible time, and it was no surprise that it paid no particular immediate dividends. Vaughan should have been picked for the first time in 2000.

Atherton was indeed unsucccessful (though he certainly wasn't a bad selection); Butcher was indeed terribly unsuccessful and was indeed a dreadful pick (IIRR he'd already gone 15 straight Test innings' without a 50 or something).

Vaughan could be described as "our third most successful test batsman on tour."

That's a quantifiable fact. So no, anything beyond "promising" isn't, well, wrong, you sanctimonious twerp.

So who would you have picked, given Chris Adams & Darren Maddy did even worse than Butcher? Quick glance at the averages would do it, I'm sure.