• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's weird because most batsmen who have Vaughan's elegance and talent also make fine natural fielders. I can't think of any who don't.
Nathan Astle? Was a decent-ish catcher but a pretty moderate outfielder from what I remember. Like Vaughan he suffered some chronic injury woes.

Plenty go the other way though - Hussain and Collingwood to name a couple.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Most disappointing that he's turned into something of a rentagob so soon in his post-cricket media career too. I expected rather better from such an instinctive and wily captain.

As an aside it's typical of the happenstance approach we seem to have towards long-term planning in this country that it was his batting form that secured him the captain's armband and ultimately his captaincy comfortably eclipsed his batting. We occasionally stumble into success despite rather than because of our system.
Good points well made
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
It's weird because most batsmen who have Vaughan's elegance and talent also make fine natural fielders. I can't think of any who don't.
Muhammed Yousef. But I agree with the general point you make. Vaughan was not an assured catcher. His autobiography acknowledges that he never corrected the dodgy catching technique he had since he was a kid.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Not all that often, but when he did it looked so horrendous that it stuck firmly in the mind.

Anyway as those who've been here for a while know I wrote an article on Vaughan upon his retirement which those who haven't read it and wish to can find here. Basically says much of what has been said so far - he was viewed as a once-in-a-generation player at age-group level because when he played well he looked sensational, and ended-up nothing of the sort at higher ones because of the fact that he couldn't play well anywhere near so often as he was believed to be capable of by many.

I for one don't believe the England captaincy remotely affected his batting as what happened throughout his captaincy had been happening for years beforehand as well. But the captaincy allowed him a second string to his bow and means he'll rightly always be recalled with great fondness by those who supported England during 2004 and 2005.
We have had this argument before & you know how it goes. I certainly think captaincy & his knee injurry post Ashes 05 affected his batting ever so slightly. For me Vaughan started to look a different player after his 156 vs SA @ Birmingham 03.

I've always been of the view if he never became captain & was allowed to play mainly as batsman he could have easily had 25 hundreds & averaged close to 50.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Most disappointing that he's turned into something of a rentagob so soon in his post-cricket media career too. I expected rather better from such an instinctive and wily captain.
Yes, was very disappointed with his commentary on TMS. Didn't find him that insightful, compared to say, Nasser or Athers.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
For me Vaughan started to look a different player after his 156 vs SA @ Birmingham 03.
If the player he looked after that knock didn't so closely resemble the player he looked up to September 2002 I'd be less sceptical of the captaincy's impact.
 

L Trumper

State Regular
Well I think once his purple patch is over he is in the middle of building a team that might have hindered his concentration towards batting and might resulted in him not being attain the heights of 02-03 although he did have a good innings time and again and after knee injury he had to concentrate more on lot other things and by end of 08 seaason he kinda lost it.
Still averaging more than 50 with out captaincy make one think that captaincy did effected him whether its true or not.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If the player he looked after that knock didn't so closely resemble the player he looked up to September 2002 I'd be less sceptical of the captaincy's impact.
Indeed. He just reverted to what he'd been for his entire career.

The real question is why he was so good for that short period of time. And personally, I don't think there's any need to look for a reason for that either. It would be an incredible statistical phenomenon if he played at exactly the same level for his entire career.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
If the player he looked after that knock didn't so closely resemble the player he looked up to September 2002 I'd be less sceptical of the captaincy's impact.
Would have to disagree with that since Sept 2002 was part of peak period.

Vaughan test career went like this IMO:

- SA 99/00 to NZ 01/02: Decent young bat who was showing glimpses that he could be a good top batsman for ENG in the future. I was actually at OT when he scored to ***y hundred for Pakistan 01.

- SRI 02 to SA 03 (the Birmigham test). As soon as he began opening he peaked & for this period he produced argubably the best batting by an Englisham in the last 20 years.

- Then he became captain & he tended to blow hot & cold as a batsman. Certain odd technical flaws crept in i.e him being bowled off-stump alot, then came his knee injury post PAK 05 & Vaughan never was the same again.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I think the captaincy affected his batting, but not to any great extent. I'd have backed him to average maybe 40, as opposed to 37, in the period where he was skipper.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Would have to disagree with that since Sept 2002 was part of peak period.

Vaughan test career went like this IMO:

- SA 99/00 to NZ 01/02: Decent young bat who was showing glimpses that he could be a good top batsman for ENG in the future. I was actually at OT when he scored to ***y hundred for Pakistan 01.

- SRI 02 to SA 03 (the Birmigham test). As soon as he began opening he peaked & for this period he produced argubably the best batting by an Englisham in the last 20 years.

- Then he became captain & he tended to blow hot & cold as a batsman. Certain odd technical flaws crept in i.e him being bowled off-stump alot, then came his knee injury post PAK 05 & Vaughan never was the same again.
I'd say more thus:
1999/2000-2000/01 - promising but still plenty to be done.
2001 summer and Indian leg of 2001/02 winter - looking like building on promise but interrupted by misfortune.
2001/02 NZ tour to 2003/04 winter - opening the batting and wasted there (even though he played some good innings in the summer of 2002 and winter of 2002/03 and one in the summer of 2003).
2004 summer - pretty good
2004/05 winter, 2005 summer and the 1 Test in the middle-order in 2005/06 winter - pretty poor
2007 summer - good (in fact as good as I ever saw him)
2007/08 winter - wasted opening the batting again
2008 summer - poor

So in short Vaughan, like Ian Bell so far, never really got a proper shot at fulfilling his best role for very long, but because people expected him to be more than he probably could be (due to the attractiveness of his strokeplay). But on the few occasions he got the chance in his best role he didn't really convince quite enough to make it look obvious that he was wasted elsewhere.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
Just watched the highlights of his Sydney 03 innings on youtube. The way he pulled Gillespie through the onside, on the front foot from balls wide of off. That was sublime stuff.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I'd say more thus:
1999/2000-2000/01 - promising but still plenty to be done.
2001 summer and Indian leg of 2001/02 winter - looking like building on promise but interrupted by misfortune.
2001/02 NZ tour to 2003/04 winter - opening the batting and wasted there (even though he played some good innings in the summer of 2002 and winter of 2002/03 and one in the summer of 2003).
2004 summer - pretty good
2004/05 winter, 2005 summer and the 1 Test in the middle-order in 2005/06 winter - pretty poor
2007 summer - good (in fact as good as I ever saw him)
2007/08 winter - wasted opening the batting again
2008 summer - poor

So in short Vaughan, like Ian Bell so far, never really got a proper shot at fulfilling his best role for very long, but because people expected him to be more than he probably could be (due to the attractiveness of his strokeplay). But on the few occasions he got the chance in his best role he didn't really convince quite enough to make it look obvious that he was wasted elsewhere.

Well this comes to ideology since i dont agree that Vaughan wasn't suited to opening. I have always seen Vaughan best role as an opener (although he could have made an equally good #3 as well). His decline for me was always down to captaincy & injuries post PAK 05.

You say the 2007 summer was as "good as you ever saw him". Uncle i struggle to see how you can equate his batting that year with "best you ever saw him" (which i would presume would be 2002/03 vs IND & AUS & vs SA @ Birmingham) mate. Can't side with you on that one at all..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Vaughan's proper runs (ie, those not scored with help from early let-offs) were all made during the latter part of series', sometimes in dead games, on flat decks against moderate bowling attacks (featuring such luminaries as Agarkar, Zaheer Khan, Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Brett Lee, Bichel and MacGill). In 2007 on the other hand he scored runs right from start of summer to finish; all right West Indies' attack wasn't much (that one astonishing spell from Darren Sammy aside) but India's was damn good at that point, the decks pretty much all summer had something in them for seam, the ball swung properly that summer for the first time in ages, and he did not get a single let-off all summer UIMM.

I'd certainly rate Vaughan's batting in 2007 ahead of that in 2002-2002/03.
 
With all the controversy surrounding the possibility that his team were involved with match fixing and his flouting of the moral obligation to walk coupled with ball tampering Vaughan was a disgrace.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Am working in Yorkshire today, went to find some lunch and could only find a Greggs ( I think there is one per 50 inhabitants in this town). The guy infront of me order some pasties and sausage rolls, then he said, 'Can I have an ice finger as well love....with some butter on it'....apparently this was normal cos she didn't bat an eyelid.:blink:

Anyway, the inability to fulfill his potential is clearly Yorkshire's fault.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Vaughan's proper runs (ie, those not scored with help from early let-offs) were all made during the latter part of series', sometimes in dead games, on flat decks against moderate bowling attacks (featuring such luminaries as Agarkar, Zaheer Khan, Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Brett Lee, Bichel and MacGill). In 2007 on the other hand he scored runs right from start of summer to finish; all right West Indies' attack wasn't much (that one astonishing spell from Darren Sammy aside) but India's was damn good at that point, the decks pretty much all summer had something in them for seam, the ball swung properly that summer for the first time in ages, and he did not get a single let-off all summer UIMM.

I'd certainly rate Vaughan's batting in 2007 ahead of that in 2002-2002/03.
Ha oh dear. Well both us have a similar POV on how we judge batsmens output in bowler friendly conditions & quality attacks vs flat decks & poor/average attacks (pace attacks).

But you stretching here yo. Under no circumstances regardless of the fact the the summer of 07 vs IND the conditions where more bowler friendly than in AUS 02/03. Was his runs vs IND 07 & his form then better than vs AUS 02/03 & throughout 2002. Just watching him bat their that was pretty obvious.

Plus your running the FCA average thing as usual to justify your position. So this argument has just run into a road-block unfortunately son, so i'm gonna have leave you on this POV of yours since i know you not going to budge.

NOTE: BTW i sent you a email about the stuff about the ENG team circa 96-2001, you haven't responded..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Ah yes, I don't check my em@il that often, will do so shortly... anyway, I watched pretty much every Vaughan innings with fairly clear attention-to-detail in both 2007 and 2002-2002/03, and as I say, I've never seen him look better than he looked in 2007. It was one of those rare periods where he never looked remotely like he was going to get out and went ages without getting out repeatedly. And that, as I say, despite the fact that India's attack was a pretty damn decent one.
 

Top