how good did Vaughan used to be?

[open365]

i first started watching cricket after his golden Australia tour when he scored 3 big hundreds,then he seemed to rated as the best in the world.

Captaincy has almost defintely affected his batting and personaly,i wouldn't mind if he gave it up.

so just how good is he potentialy if he got back to his old self?he looks so didgy now,i just can't trust him to play any kind of innings under any circumstance.

 

[Hazza]

Well Vaughan was a wonderful player and still has the potential to make high scores (for example his 166 vs Australia in the Ashes). Although the captaincy has prevented him from scoring as big consistently, I still think he has the potential to be one of the highest ranked players in the world like he was in the Australia tour 2003.

 

[greg]

What people sometimes forget is that it wasn't just his performances in Australia that gave him his status. It may have been what gave him respect in Australia, but for sheer beauty the Indian summer that immediately preceded it was to many English eyes even better. And don't forget the immediate test preceding his captaincy where he scored a match saving 150 vs a rampant South Africa.

 

[social]

i first started watching cricket after his golden Australia tour when he scored 3 big hundreds,then he seemed to rated as the best in the world.

Captaincy has almost defintely affected his batting and personaly,i wouldn't mind if he gave it up.

so just how good is he potentialy if he got back to his old self?he looks so didgy now,i just can't trust him to play any kind of innings under any circumstance.

Never rated as being best in the world.

Dodgy technique has been found out and until he addresses it, it wont matter whether he's captain, vc, or orange boy, he wont score runs as consistently as in the past.

 

[marc71178]

Never rated as being best in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/2946867.stm

 

[Barney Rubble]

Vaughan, against India in 2002, and against the Aussies, was absolutely outstanding. Bowlers couldn't bowl to him anywhere. His cover drive was even better then than it was now, and the sight of him swatting length balls over backwards square leg for six on one leg was regular. There weren't many around better than him at the time.

Different story now, though.

 

[aussie]

big Michael form lords 2002 vs Sri Lanka to edgbagston 2003 vs SA was absolutely superb has barney rightfully said bowlers couldn't bowl to him anywhere. But definately his series down under was the bomb, it proved to me that when he is in form he is the most elegnat bastman of the last decade with that cover drive & that pull shot

I am sure of this because i saw two other series when Tendulkar in 98 & Lara in 99 where in top from againts the aussies & even they didn't look has good as Vaughan in 2002, hopefully he will get back that touch soon...

 

[Tim]

He's not a particularly good fielder either.

 

[Blaze]

He's not a particularly good fielder either.

That's being generous.

 

[Tim]

Well I mean, surely as Captain it must hit you hard when you mis-field or drop a catch. Everyone looks to you to lead by example and it never looks good when the Captain is making mistakes in the field.

Since becoming Captain, he's under the spot-light more when it comes to fielding & on-field captaincy.

 

[James90]

The only two people to really impress my with consistent performances in Australia have been Laxman and Vaughan

 

[social]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/2946867.stm

So we should trust the credibility of dodgy ICC rankings (which, BTW, rank Kallis as world's leading all-rounder at present)?

 

[James90]

So we should trust the credibility of dodgy ICC rankings (which, BTW, rank Kallis as world's leading all-rounder at present)?

So you're saying Kallis isn't the leading all-rounder at present?

 

[Burpey]

So you're saying Kallis isn't the leading all-rounder at present?

I'd say Freddie is a better all-rounder than Kallis at present

 

[greg]

He remains one of the best players of spin in world cricket. It will be interesting to see how he does if, and even in India it's a big if, he can get past the medium pacers in India.

 

[marc71178]

So we should trust the credibility of dodgy ICC rankings (which, BTW, rank Kallis as world's leading all-rounder at present)?

The all-rounder ranking is cobbled together.

The batting and bowling are far and away the most accurate of rating players against each other.

 

[Slow Love™]

So we should trust the credibility of dodgy ICC rankings (which, BTW, rank Kallis as world's leading all-rounder at present)?

Regardless of how dodgy the ICC rankings are (are they really any more dodgy than any other player ranking system?), I don't think it was that controversial (or uncommon, for that matter) that Vaughan was talked about as the number one player in the world around that time. Didn't he make around seven centuries around 02/03?

A lot of people speculated that it might be a purple patch (and the passage of time might well be bearing this out), but at the time he was looking superb and on top of the world.

 

[marc71178]

Regardless of how dodgy the ICC rankings are (are they really any more dodgy than any other player ranking system?)

I'd say they're far more accurate than any other system - they take into account the level of opposition and also the ease of scoring runs/taking wickets in the match as a whole.

 

[Jono]

Vaughan still is one of my favourite batsman to watch when he's going, and in 2002/03 he was absolutely brilliant. He scored 3 tons against India during their tour to England, including two times out in the 190s, averaging 102.50. Added to that he was absolutely superb in the Ashes later that year despite England getting belted in 4 of the 5 tests, again scoring 3 tons in the series, this time at an average of 63.30.

Maybe it was a purple patch, or maybe captaincy has been detrimental to his batting. Either way, he's a shadow of his former self. It's a shame, but a great batsman manages to continue being great despite the pressures and obstacles they face. That's why I believe Vaughan was simply a very good batsman, who is now falling further and further. So is that average.

Regarding whether he was the best in the world, well I can see why people thought it. He had an amazing 2002 and start of 2003, but I never believed him to be the very best. Rather I saw him as the best in form batsman of 2002, sort of different. I think Tresco and Inzy have been two of the most dangerous and in form batsman of 2005, but I wouldn't call either of them the very best batsman currently in world cricket. They're just very very good.

 

[greg]

For a set of ratings that are updated as often as possible, it is fair enough that they reflect current form. Their only weakness, IMO, is that they can overreact to large performances against minnows. Tresco's rating benefitted as much, for example, from his runs against Bangladesh than those against Australia. If a batsman needs 80 runs in an innings to "break even", then in any system scoring 200+ will help him.