Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

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.

[Streetwise]

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.

[_Ed_]

[Uppercut]

Hahaha that's so good.

[superkingdave]

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.

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

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

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.

[aussie]

Well i disagree with that position & your overall summary of Vaughan's career uncle & you know i have all people have payed close attention to Vaughan's rise as a test batsman. I believe i saw all this tests live (although i admit vs SA 99/00 is a bit blury these days). But its all good...

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

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).

Richard you really are funny when you go off on one of your weird ones.

He "played some good innings in the summer of 2002 and winter of 2002/03"? This was one of the most glorious run of form that any England player has had in recent decades, and probably the best since Gooch at the start of the 1990s. Gooch "played some good innings" during that period too. And Leonardo da Vinci painted some nice pictures.

And how he was "wasted" opening the batting during that period?

[Richard]

I would indeed describe it as playing some good innings, they being thus:
195 at The Oval, 2002
145 at the MCG, 2002/03
189 at the SCG, 2002/03
156 at Edgbaston, 2003

Most of which as I say came at the end of a summer, all against weak bowling attacks on flat decks. Make no mistake, the runs still have to be scored, but almost any innings of that size will be cashing-in when the going's easy and not scoring any really nitty-gritty stuff.

I myself believe, assessing Vaughan as a batsman, that he would have produced better in that period - cashed-in to a greater extent - had he been batting at four, with Butcher and Trescothick opening and Hussain at three. I believed that before, during and after it, even though I knew full well during it that while he had runs like that against his name opening he was going to remain there for a fair while - and he did, and only via a chance circumstance (ie, Strauss' emergence) did he go back to four.

Once Vaughan's outstanding form ebbed and the considerable luck he enjoyed during that outstanding form dried-up, he produced precious little as an opening batsman bar cameos (think he averaged about 29 as an opener from Lord's 2003 onwards) and was much more successful when batting at four or three.

[Sir Alex]

I always felt he was a mediocre cricketer who will be remembered for ever just because he had his greatest moments as a player as wel as captain against Australia.

[GuyFromLancs]

Originally Posted by Richard

I would indeed describe it as playing some good innings, they being thus:
195 at The Oval, 2002
145 at the MCG, 2002/03
189 at the SCG, 2002/03
156 at Edgbaston, 2003

Most of which as I say came at the end of a summer, all against weak bowling attacks on flat decks. Make no mistake, the runs still have to be scored, but almost any innings of that size will be cashing-in when the going's easy and not scoring any really nitty-gritty stuff.

I myself believe, assessing Vaughan as a batsman, that he would have produced better in that period - cashed-in to a greater extent - had he been batting at four, with Butcher and Trescothick opening and Hussain at three. I believed that before, during and after it, even though I knew full well during it that while he had runs like that against his name opening he was going to remain there for a fair while - and he did, and only via a chance circumstance (ie, Strauss' emergence) did he go back to four.

Once Vaughan's outstanding form ebbed and the considerable luck he enjoyed during that outstanding form dried-up, he produced precious little as an opening batsman bar cameos (think he averaged about 29 as an opener from Lord's 2003 onwards) and was much more successful when batting at four or three.

I was one of Vaughan's greatest critics as a batsman towards the end. I felt that his batting was not fit for purpose in test cricket after 2005 (as opposed to his ODI batting that was never fit for purpose) and only is captaincy and an admitted 166 at Old Trafford saved him in that particular year. I actually thought of his 2007 spell as what should have been a fond farewell. He put in long overdue confident performances against India but you must remember Richard that people were seriously suggesting at the time the West Indies (whom he also played well against) should "take a break" from test cricket.

Their fielding in the England tour of 2007, in particular Old Trafford, would not have passed in the local pub leagues. I honestly thought the ICC might have fined them for bringing test cricket into disrepute it was so bad.

02/03 was his peak, and that of any England batsman in my own living memory.