Hussain vs Vaughan

[Pratters]

The better captain?

I would say both have their advantages. While Hussain was great with tactics and converted an ordinary side into a good side, Vaughan is turning the team into world beaters. Both exceptionally difficult jobs.

Cant decide between the two. Hussain but only just.

 

[Swervy]

The better captain?

I would say both have their advantages. While Hussain was great with tactics and converted an ordinary side into a good side, Vaughan is turning the team into world beaters. Both exceptionally difficult jobs.

Cant decide between the two. Hussain but only just.

Hussain certainly was a factor in Englands turnaround..I like Vaughans willingness to try different things.On the whole I think vaughan is a more attacking captain..how he deals with the Aussies will show how good he really is

 

[aussie]

After the ashes i'llbe able to really say who is better skipper, but one certain advantage in Vaughan's favour is that he seems more inspirational.

 

[badgerhair]

The better captain?

I would say both have their advantages. While Hussain was great with tactics and converted an ordinary side into a good side, Vaughan is turning the team into world beaters. Both exceptionally difficult jobs.

Cant decide between the two. Hussain but only just.

I doubt either of them could have captained each other's side as well as they do themselves. Vaughan is the captain he is because he believes England can win games and he has a side that can. Hussain was the captain he was because he was fed up with England losing and after a bit he managed to forge a team which wouldn't, or at least would do it a lot less often.

It's probably more of an achievement to win respect for your captaincy when you have a relatively poor side, as Hussain did for most of his time in charge, than when you have a relatively good one, which Vaughan has had basically from day one (even if they played horribly in his first game as skipper).

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Sanz]

Nasser Hussain gets my vote. England didn't have good team then and still Nasser ended up winning a series in Pak, SA, drawing one in India and moreover rebuilt a team for the future.

Vaughan has an excellent team, he has world's second best bowling attack at his disposal, pretty decent batting line up (at least in ODIs) and a great allrounder, and probably reaping the benefits of Nasser's work. (as Ricky Ponting is doing and SRW did after Border and MArk Taylor retired)

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nasser Hussain gets my vote. England didn't have good team then and still Nasser ended up winning a series in Pak, SA, drawing one in India and moreover rebuilt a team for the future.

Vaughan has an excellent team, he has world's second best bowling attack at his disposal, pretty decent batting line up (at least in ODIs) and a great allrounder, and probably reaping the benefits of Nasser's work. (as Ricky Ponting is doing and SRW did after Border and MArk Taylor retired)

Was going to say the same thing - much like the Aussie dynasties, they're different skippers tackling different situations, so difficult to compare. Both doing/did a bloody good job though!

 

[Barney Rubble]

Personally, it's Vaughan for me every time. Hussain did a fantastic job - but establishing a winning habit is one of the hardest things to do, and Vaughan has done it almost overnight.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm a big Nasser fan; he gave us our respectability back as a cricketing nation. Now with us trading ODI blows with the Aussies as the number two test side it's easy to forget that it was only 6 summers ago that we were ranked below Zimbabwe as the world's worst.

Nasser didn't have the pace attack that Vaughan had at his disposal & his team played dogged, attritional cricket. He achieved some notable successes, most memorably winning in Pakistan for the first time in 40-odd years, coming from behind to beat Sri Lanka away & conquering the Windies for the first time in nearly 30 years. He came unstuck against the Aussies, of course but he's far from alone in that respect as an England skipper &, I suppose, one must concede the possibility that Vaughan still might.

Vaughan is a more laid back captain (reflecting his own slightly diffident nature I guess) but ironically seems to play the more attacking cricket too. This is probably the result of simply having a better team at his disposal now. He was, of course, defeated in Sri Lanka, but if one looks at the personnel for the third & decisive test & compares it to today's (probable) XI one can see how far we've come in 18 months & also how England now is very much Vaughan's England.

All-in-all I go for Vaughan, but a sound thrashing in The Ashes (God forbid) may cause me to alter that opinion in the coming weeks & months.

By the by, it is to Sir Duncan's (come on, when he wins The Ashes back it's only a matter of time! ) great credit that he has formed working relationships with two such markedly different chracters.

 

[archie mac]

I will give my vote to Hussain, he seemed to bring the best out of his troops, and was prepared to back some players whom he rated.

I think both players batting ave. has suffered since they became captain. (just a gut feeling have not done the research)

 

[vic_orthdox]

It is almost eerie the similarity...

Border <---> Hussain
Taylor <---> Vaughan

 

[archie mac]

It is almost eerie the similarity...

Border <---> Hussain
Taylor <---> Vaughan

Which begs the question

Waugh<---> ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Flintoff?

Not impossible - Flintoff gets a bit injured, concentrates on batting, reins in his shot making (a la Waugh). Vaughan retires - who is the natural successor?

What are the English thoughts on Flintoff's cricket brain? Despite his current liking for hitting catches to fielders in the deep?

EDIT: He also experienced some of the dark times of English cricket, and took a long time before he started to really develop as a player. Both of which are characteristics shared with Waugh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Which begs the question

Waugh<---> ?

Strauss?

 

[cameeel]

Trescothic maybe?

 

[Scallywag]

Strauss?

Dont know about Strauss, england prefer someone who cant bat as captain.

 

[Prince EWS]

So Vaughan's test average of over 45 is what?? Generous??

Trescothic maybe?

He's only a year or so younger than Vaughan, so it wouldnt work.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Waugh was only 10 months younger than Taylor when he retired. (And still is)

 

[Mister Wright]

I like Vaughan's captaincy. He doesn't like things to drift and will move a fielder or make a bowling change. Whenever the camera is on him in the field he always looks like he is thinking.

Hussain was a good captain - when he lost the toss... He had good ideas and a mentality needed by an English captain - it was a shame he didn't have a team to back it up.

 

[Steulen]

Did you hear Hussain discussing Vaughan at Sky yesterday (during the storms)?
He talked about his own failings as a #3 batsman, and said Vaughan needed to make a lot of 100's from that position, as he himself should have done. He was very frank about his own failings. Good words, I thought.

Sometimes I think Vaughan is "over-captaining" a bit. Field changes after nearly every ball. Yesterday he had an Ozzie edge flying to the slip position just vacated the ball before. It happens, but I didn't really understand the field change in the first place. But, he's definitely not a "laissez-faire" type of captain and for the moment that's a good thing, I'd say.

 

[Mister Wright]

Did you hear Hussain discussing Vaughan at Sky yesterday (during the storms)?
He talked about his own failings as a #3 batsman, and said Vaughan needed to make a lot of 100's from that position, as he himself should have done. He was very frank about his own failings. Good words, I thought.

Sometimes I think Vaughan is "over-captaining" a bit. Field changes after nearly every ball. Yesterday he had an Ozzie edge flying to the slip position just vacated the ball before. It happens, but I didn't really understand the field change in the first place. But, he's definitely not a "laissez-faire" type of captain and for the moment that's a good thing, I'd say.

I'm not sure if he's had any experience as a captain before taking the helm for England, but that can happen if you are inexperienced. A good captain can feel how a game is going and whether patience or change is in order. However, I would always prefer to play under a pro-active captain than one that waits for something to happen.