Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

[four_or_six]

His statuesque fielding surely deserves a mention

Oh goodness, had almost forgotten about that.

[Richard]

Not surprising either - it's easily forgotten. Vaughan was never, even when his knees were at their worst, the sort of bad fielder whose bad fielding was obvious apart from when the ball went into (and often enough straight out of again) his hands. He was not a classically inept fielder like Tufnell or Malcolm, merely someone whose hands were woeful. His arm was OK and he was, while far from swift over the ground, certainly not slow.

[four_or_six]

Not surprising either - it's easily forgotten. Vaughan was never, even when his knees were at their worst, the sort of bad fielder whose bad fielding was obvious apart from when the ball went into (and often enough straight out of again) his hands. He was not a classically inept fielder like Tufnell or Malcolm, merely someone whose hands were woeful. His arm was OK and he was, while far from swift over the ground, certainly not slow.

I didn't mean it like that. He was a terrible catcher and just looked completely uncoordinated that made you wonder how on earth he was a sportsman.

[zaremba]

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.

[BoyBrumby]

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.

[Richard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 sexy 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.

[GingerFurball]

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.