Michael Vaughan - The Special One?

[Bob Bamber]

Taken from: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvw...ry/295701.html

Vaughans press conference today made some very interesting listening. He's acting as if he thinks hes the special one. He thinks just because hes been "Captain" over the past 18 months.

He's really frustrated me. Because as the article goes on to say , what if Flintoff had of been fit. Then they'd have dropped either Bell or Collingwood. Vaughan has no form coming into this , and is riding on things that have happened in the past. "What I do have is a lot of fond memories". Exactly Michael , Memories. I just feel sorry for the man who gets dropped for Flintoff when he comes in.

[Richard]

Everything is the past. The performances of Cook, Bell etc. are all in the past. It's just a question of how far in the past.

IMO, Vaughan was injured with credit still in the bank - most significantly, as captain. There is no reason he should not return to the team when fit.

I'm not at all surprised that Andrew Miller wrote that - I was thinking before I even clicked the link that it would be him, it's just the sort of thing I'd think he'd say. IMO he sometimes goes OTT on the "looking forward" issue. Something I'd really like to say to him sometime is "why not pick the unborn children for England, after all you've got to look to the future". Fact is, in Test cricket the only future that matters is the next game and the next series. You pick your best team with that and that only in mind, and if you don't (whether that's viewed as excellent unsentimentality or other such rubbish) then it's poor selection, nothing else.

I'm very happy to have Vaughan back and I fully back him to score runs batting at three for England in Test cricket.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Bob Bamber

Taken from: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvw...ry/295701.html

Vaughans press conference today made some very interesting listening. He's acting as if he thinks hes the special one. He thinks just because hes been "Captain" over the past 18 months.

He's really frustrated me. Because as the article goes on to say , what if Flintoff had of been fit. Then they'd have dropped either Bell or Collingwood. Vaughan has no form coming into this , and is riding on things that have happened in the past. "What I do have is a lot of fond memories". Exactly Michael , Memories. I just feel sorry for the man who gets dropped for Flintoff when he comes in.

Even if it's one of our quicks? Can't say I'd share that particular sentiment. tbf to the selectors, they've stood firm about not picking Fred just as a batsman, and all credit to them for that. Not quite as spineless as some folks will have you believe.

As for Vaughan's lack of form, it's pointless looking at his performances in the WC as there's always been a difference between the five day and one day game where he's concerned.

[four_or_six]

It's all irrelevant now, whether he should come back in or not. It would only have been a real debate had Flintoff also been fit. If/when that happens and if/when vaughan doesn't score runs in the intervening period, that's when there's an interesting discussion for places.

[PhoenixFire]

Played really well today, hopefully he will shut most of his doubters up (including me).

[Richard]

Haha, Bob B is another decent Greigy shout.

[Bob Bamber]

Originally Posted by Richard

Haha, Bob B is another decent Greigy shout.

Ooh 100 against the west indies , stop me while I s*** myself. Do it against some decent attacks first before I start making reconsiderations.

Originally Posted by wpdavid

Even if it's one of our quicks? Can't say I'd share that particular sentiment. tbf to the selectors, they've stood firm about not picking Fred just as a batsman, and all credit to them for that. Not quite as spineless as some folks will have you believe.

As for Vaughan's lack of form, it's pointless looking at his performances in the WC as there's always been a difference between the five day and one day game where he's concerned.

With the Flintoff thing, he wouldn't have replaced a bowler , and even if fully fit , I don't think that they'd risk him in a 4 man attack incase his Ankle went again.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Bob Bamber

Ooh 100 against the west indies , stop me while I s*** myself. Do it against some decent attacks first before I start making reconsiderations.

Even doing it against this distinctly average fare that we saw yesterday was, some would have had us believe, beyond him. He's unlikely to face anything a great deal better in the immidiate future, either.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

Haha, Bob B is another decent Greigy shout.

I disagree. He didn't make a prediction - he just questioned why Vaughan was brought back in without any form behind him and given somewhat special treatment. He never said he was going to fail. The Greigy isn't a "someone's performance made this post look stupid" award IMO - it's a bad prediction award. Can't see any predictions here.

[Matt79]

Its pretty clear that Flintoff doesn't deserve one of the specialist batsmen's slots at the moment. Thus, in my eyes they need to select him as, or at the expense of, a specialist bowler. If they don't think he's fit enough to bowl out the match he shouldn't be selected at all. And credit where its due, that seems to be the thinking at the moment.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I disagree. He didn't make a prediction - he just questioned why Vaughan was brought back in without any form behind him and given somewhat special treatment. He never said he was going to fail. The Greigy isn't a "someone's performance made this post look stupid" award IMO - it's a bad prediction award. Can't see any predictions here.

Quite true. Not really sure why I said it was Greigy-worthy, TBH.

[Piper]

I think Vaughan has become too powerful in the England team. I'm not taking anything away from him making his hundred yesterday but I don't think he should have been picked without being proved he was in form. He (apart from yesterday) is living off his reputation from a few years ago and from what he did (captain-wise) during the 2005 Ashes. I thought Strauss did well as captain in the first test so I don't think they really needed Vaughan as captain. Vaughan seems to be picked on the ''what might happen'' and I think that's wrong. I'm happy Michael made his hundred (first player to do it on his home ground in the country for 30 year I might add) but picking players on the what might happen basis isn't fair on the players who have proven that they are in form at county level but don't get a look in for of Vaughan. I think they should have waited a while before the picked him.. Sent him back to Yorkshire have a few matches there, see how he's playing and going from there. But like others have said - It's in the past now.