Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Uppercut]

Chances are put down while every batsman is batting, it's part of the game, but a lot of the big drops in Vaughan's career happened over a very short period of time. Looking fantastic before giving a chance to the fielding side on 35 was pretty standard for Vaughan's career, but for a little while, a lot of those chances weren't taken, and hence he has a crazy record in that period.

 

[Richard]

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'd argue that for much of his career it was in fact not fit for purpose. What kept Vaughan in the side was the belief, and I for one always wholly shared in it, that he could do better.

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.

I feel that's a slight exaggeration - and although, yes, it was indeed very poor funnily enough Vaughan was not actually dropped once in that series - all of his runs were fully earned.

Either way Vaughan's performances against West Indies in themselves wouldn't be worth much but in combination with his against India I think that makes for a fine summer's work. I'm surprised anyone would seriously contend that Vaughan did not bat very well indeed in Tests in the summer of 2007.

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

I obviously don't know how old you are, but I'm just old enough to remember some of Gooch's of 1990-1993, and that comfortably surpasses it. It is indeed difficult to think of anything else to compare to Vaughan's 2002-2002/03, however much the calibre of his play in that time was exaggerated by dropped catches, but that simply says that England batsmen in recent times have not been given to more than the odd Test at a time of real excellence.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

But what about the standard of West Indies Bowling in 07? Compared to Gillespie, Mcgrath and Mcgill in their own back yard, in the Ashes, and in the pressure cooker of Aussie stadiums.

Fair enough, you mention dropped catches but at the end of the day if the Aussies in their own backyard drop you on 20 and you make 145 that's still 125 to be made against the very best team in the world in front of thousands of their fans. Even the Aussies themselves thought him brilliant.

If Vaughan scored 1000 runs in 1 series at home to the West Indies, it still does not equal 600+ in Australia with 3 big centuries. No way.

 

[Prince EWS]

... did someone really just create second-chance-average?

 

[Richard]

But what about the standard of West Indies Bowling in 07? Compared to Gillespie, Mcgrath and Mcgill in their own back yard, in the Ashes, and in the pressure cooker of Aussie stadiums.

Most of Vaughan's runs in 2002/03 were made after McGrath got injured, and some after Gillespie did as well. MacGill, like Brett Lee and Bichel, the other replacements he faced, was a poor Test bowler - yes, better than the likes of Daren Powell, Jerome Taylor and Fidel Edwards, but poor nonetheless.

If Vaughan had made three chanceless centuries against McGrath, Gillespie and Warne then yeah, fair enough, but he did nothing of the sort. The runs he made in 2002/03 were worth more than those in 2002 and 2007, but not by anywhere near as much as some like to think.

Fair enough, you mention dropped catches but at the end of the day if the Aussies in their own backyard drop you on 20 and you make 145 that's still 125 to be made against the very best team in the world in front of thousands of their fans. Even the Aussies themselves thought him brilliant.

Of course it is, and the 158 more he scored after being caught on 19 and being given n\o at Adelaide Oval was still a damn good performance, but nonetheless, had he been given out when he should've been, he'd not have made it. And it was the only time he scored many runs in that series against truly good Australian bowling - as I say above, the later innings' in dead Tests, though chanceless, were against not-all-that-good bowling.

If Vaughan scored 1000 runs in 1 series at home to the West Indies, it still does not equal 600+ in Australia with 3 big centuries. No way.

As I said - if Vaughan had done well only against West Indies and not India, fair enough, his performances in 2007 would not be worth all that much, but he didn't.

 

[Richard]

... did someone really just create second-chance-average?

Nah, there's really not a possibility for such a thing to exist. First-chance makes sense; all-chance makes sense; second-chance, well, what would it mean? Runs scored up to the second chance of an innings? Not possible - most innings' don't even involve a second chance because the first one is taken. It'd basically differ from the scorebook record only in innings' where a batsman was let-off more than once, which as I say really doesn't happen that often.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, there's really not a possibility for such a thing to exist. First-chance makes sense; all-chance makes sense; second-chance, well, what would it mean? Runs scored up to the second chance of an innings? Not possible - most innings' don't even involve a second chance because the first one is taken. It'd basically differ from the scorebook record only in innings' where a batsman was let-off more than once, which as I say really doesn't happen that often.

Nah, it'd measure the runs scored after the first chance but before the second. For example..

Fair enough, you mention dropped catches but at the end of the day if the Aussies in their own backyard drop you on 20 and you make 145 that's still 125 to be made against the very best team in the world in front of thousands of their fans

That'd go down as 125.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Richard- Black. Me- red. (Just getting used to quote function)


Most of Vaughan's runs in 2002/03 were made after McGrath got injured, and some after Gillespie did as well. MacGill, like Brett Lee and Bichel, the other replacements he faced, was a poor Test bowler - yes, better than the likes of Daren Powell, Jerome Taylor and Fidel Edwards, but poor nonetheless.

I honestly wouldn't call Lee and Mcgill poor. Lee has had his problems with control and has never really reached the status of world class, in tests anyway, but he would walk into any West Indian team post Ambrose/Walsh.........probably as an all-rounder because they are so poor at the moment.

Mcgill lacked control but was a massive spinner of the ball and his 200+ wickets at 29 is a very decent record for a leggie who was in Warne's shadow all his career. Bichel was run-o-the-mill, granted. But as you say, that trio was still a clear division above the Windies 07 seaming trio.

If Vaughan had made three chanceless centuries against McGrath, Gillespie and Warne then yeah, fair enough, but he did nothing of the sort. The runs he made in 2002/03 were worth more than those in 2002 and 2007, but not by anywhere near as much as some like to think.

Runs on the board is runs on the board mate. You have 2005 down as your location. Good on you, greatest series ever. But what about Pieterson dropped at the Oval by is old mate Warney on route to series clinching 158?

Of course it is, and the 158 more he scored after being caught on 19 and being given n\o at Adelaide Oval was still a damn good performance, but nonetheless, had he been given out when he should've been, he'd not have made it. And it was the only time he scored many runs in that series against truly good Australian bowling - as I say above, the later innings' in dead Tests, though chanceless, were against not-all-that-good bowling.

He can hardly be blamed for the tests being dead. And I still maintain that a dead rubber in Sydney is bigger than any home game to the Windies at this particular time.

As I said - if Vaughan had done well only against West Indies and not India, fair enough, his performances in 2007 would not be worth all that much, but he didn't.

Fair enough, he did play India well. I was in Tenerife watching that series and recall it well.

 

[Jono]

Vaughan was quite overrated on this board

 

[zaremba]

... did someone really just create second-chance-average?

I can see the logic in Richard's beloved FCA but one of its weaknesses is that it ignores any runs scored after the drop. Which is why GuyFromLancs' point is valid. How you cope after being beaten by the bowler or given a let-off can be incredibly important.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Vaughan was quite overrated on this board

Did score oodles of runs against one of the best dozen or so test teams ever & looked bloody handsome* doing it, so it was probably understandable that he was.

*handsome as in stylish and fluent; Mick never did it for me physically, always thought he had a disappointingly weak jawline for an England captain.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I can see the logic in Richard's beloved FCA but one of its weaknesses is that it ignores any runs scored after the drop. Which is why GuyFromLancs' point is valid. How you cope after being beaten by the bowler or given a let-off can be incredibly important.

Of course it is. Some might say it sets apart the men from the boys. You can go into your shell among all the self-doubt and heckling from the fielding team or stand up, back your technique and take it to them. Again, think KP at the Oval 2005, dropped on 15 I think it was then utterly destroyed Brett Lee and clubbed a fantastic, destructive 158 to win the ashes for us.

 

[zaremba]

*handsome as in stylish and fluent; Mick never did it for me physically, always thought he had a disappointingly weak jawline for an England captain.

He has a disturbing facial likeness to Sven Goran Erikkson

 

[Richard]

Nah, it'd measure the runs scored after the first chance but before the second. For example..



That'd go down as 125.

I'd call that "a rather odd thing to do", rather than a second-chance scoring system (more accurate would perhaps be first-to-second-chance because it ignores all before the first) myself TBH.

Such a system would show one nothing about a batsman.

 

[Richard]

Richard- Black. Me- red. (Just getting used to quote function)

It's much easier to do this than what you did. Just change what you had as COLOR to QUOTE and bang, you've got it.

I honestly wouldn't call Lee and Mcgill poor. Lee has had his problems with control and has never really reached the status of world class, in tests anyway, but he would walk into any West Indian team post Ambrose/Walsh.........probably as an all-rounder because they are so poor at the moment.

Walking into a West Indian team since 2001/02 is not difficult. Being able to do so does not prove one a high-calibre player. In any case, Lee between 2001 and 2006/07 was really not as good as some of the better WIndians - Dillon, Collins, Collymore. Granted he was, as I say, probably a bit better than Taylor, Edwards et al.

Lee was a very poor Test bowler for almost his whole career - it was just a couple of sensational periods at the start and near-end of it which, to some extent, camouflage this.

Mcgill lacked control but was a massive spinner of the ball and his 200+ wickets at 29 is a very decent record for a leggie who was in Warne's shadow all his career..

MacGill's record for most of his career, again, is poor - it was only the odd good game here and there with him, plus the fact that his record is improved massively by Bangladesh and ICC World XI games. Even just knocking those out changes his average to, IIRR, about 31-32; when you look at things on a game-by-game basis rather than just looking at the average, you see that he really wasn't that good. Again, granted, though, better than most of the WIndians of 2007.

Runs on the board is runs on the board mate. You have 2005 down as your location. Good on you, greatest series ever. But what about Pieterson dropped at the Oval by is old mate Warney on route to series clinching 158?

Haha, my 2005 location is only partly to do with that sensational Ashes series - it was just one of the many highlights of what was a great year for me. And yes, without question, had Warne taken that catch England would not have won that series. Runs on the board is all that counts in terms of the result, but in terms of assessing the calibre of batsmanship, how they were got is far more important than just the numbers in themselves. You yourself are arguing precisely this, in terms of the calibre of WIndian bowling.

He can hardly be blamed for the tests being dead. And I still maintain that a dead rubber in Sydney is bigger than any home game to the Windies at this particular time.

Not sure about that, under general circumstances - though in this case there is actually the fact that avoiding a whitewash was at stake. Of course he can't be blamed for the games being dead, and of course dead games or not they were fine innings', but he can be "blamed" for his performances when the series was live being notably down on those when it was dead.

Fair enough, he did play India well. I was in Tenerife watching that series and recall it well.

I think "well" underdoes it. As I say, I've never seen him bat better than he did that summer.