• 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
Quality player I'll have you know... essentially, he's the Dominic Cork of football. A middle-of-the-road player who was real quality for a year when I was getting into the game but sadly largely disappointed me thereafter.

Nonetheless, he was a bloody brilliant goalscorer in 1991/92 and nothing will ever change that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I disagree. 29 average, over 4 wickets per test and a 54 strike rate are good per sa by anyone's standards.
But as I said - an average doesn't give anyone much of a picture. Apart from anything that isn't his average in serious Test matches - you yourself have acknowledged that Bangladesh are not Test-standard and the ICC also ludicrously gave Test status to that World XI match. I've now looked it up, and his average in serious Tests was 32.75, his SR 61 and he played 38 games, 25 in which he bowled poorly, 8 in which he bowled decently and just 5 in which he bowled genuinely well. That to me indicates a decidedly on the poor side of average bowler, not a good one.
So Warne missed two and Mcgrath 1 and a half.
Yup - and funnily enough that was the time in which Vaughan scored most of his runs - and played his only two chanceless knocks of any size - that series.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Uncle Richard Vaughan scored 177 in Adelaide when both McWarne played. Although yes he was given a life when he was caught in the gully by Langer of Bichel, but replays had showed it wasn't conclusive that it carried.

But this is where the ideology of your FCA theory as i said before runs this argument into a road-block. You may place emphasis on that chance, but i & most others just see it as part of the game. Vaughan played fantastic after that chance & really thats all the matters.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Uncle Richard Vaughan scored 177 in Adelaide when both McWarne played. Although yes he was given a life when he was caught in the gully by Langer of Bichel, but replays had showed it wasn't conclusive that it carried.
It was about as conclusive as anything ever is. No-one on the field had any doubt that it carried, and it should've been given out, either before or after being referred to the third-Umpire.
But this is where the ideology of your FCA theory as i said before runs this argument into a road-block. You may place emphasis on that chance, but i & most others just see it as part of the game. Vaughan played fantastic after that chance & really thats all the matters.
It's not "all" that really matters at all, but yes, he did indeed play very well from 19 to 177. It's interesting, nonetheless, to think how people might view Vaughan's series had that catch been given out as it pretty obviously should've been. Of course, the rest of the Adelaide Test would've taken a completely different course because that was the first morning there, for starters.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
You seem like an intelligent guy Richard and I look forward to many tussles with you in the future but FCA is not everything. It's too clinical and forgets every shot, no matter how brilliant, made after a drop and that simply isn't............well..........cricket.
.
If anything it proves that some batsman need warming up but when they get their eye in they are brilliant.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And being vulnerable early on can be a considerable disadvantage... either way, yes I know that first-chance records are not the be-all-and-end-all and have stated so more times than I can possibly count; the point, however, is that neither are scorebook records.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
It's not "all" that really matters at all, but yes, he did indeed play very well from 19 to 177. It's interesting, nonetheless, to think how people might view Vaughan's series had that catch been given out as it pretty obviously should've been. Of course, the rest of the Adelaide Test would've taken a completely different course because that was the first morning there, for starters.
A butterfly flaps its wings, etc, etc, etc. There are so many variables that could reshape history so very easily that it's unwise to attach undue significance to any particular event, be it a missed chance or whatever.

Personally I have trouble seeing any logical difference between the stroke of luck you get when (1) you edge a ball behind but survive due to an umpiring or fielding error, and when (2) you play and miss at a ball. Richard's FCA treats these two events very differently, but when he's tried to explain the distinction before I've been unpersuaded.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
It was about as conclusive as anything ever is. No-one on the field had any doubt that it carried, and it should've been given out, either before or after being referred to the third-Umpire.
I just went back to check my tape i had with that innings apparantley i dont have that catch on tape. But i have on tape him being dropped on 57 & 151 again haa

But i do sort of remember that when he was first dropped on 19, the replay of Langer catching, was one of those close to ground catches where replays rely couldn't tell IIRC. But i could be wrong somewhere there..

It's not "all" that really matters at all, but yes, he did indeed play very well from 19 to 177. It's interesting, nonetheless, to think how people might view Vaughan's series had that catch been given out as it pretty obviously should've been. Of course, the rest of the Adelaide Test would've taken a completely different course because that was the first morning there, for starters.
If Vaughan had indeed was given out on 19 along with his 41 in the second innings, I probably would have taken your approach & would have written of his performances like how i dont rate Sehwag performances againts a McWarneless AUS attack on flat decks in 03/04.

But he wasn't & as you said he was brilliant from 19 to 177 playing McGrath/Dizzy/Warne as good as anybody ever did.

I see no merit in FCA as you know since thats not a way batting performances should be judged. Do you keep track on the FCA of batsmen great or good in test history or rather in the time you have watched cricket uncle?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
A butterfly flaps its wings, etc, etc, etc. There are so many variables that could reshape history so very easily that it's unwise to attach undue significance to any particular event, be it a missed chance or whatever.
I'm a big believer in the butterfly-hurricane theorem (it's the reason I find the notion that some things are pre-ordained and others mould around these pre-ordained things so utterly ludicrous) and thus I have no time for those who argue that the significance of a single let-off is trivial - one let-off can change the course of an entire series. Nonetheless, the first-chance theory is not any attempt to reshape history, merely a way of reflecting important events that scorebook records alone do not adequately show.
Personally I have trouble seeing any logical difference between the stroke of luck you get when (1) you edge a ball behind but survive due to an umpiring or fielding error, and when (2) you play and miss at a ball. Richard's FCA treats these two events very differently, but when he's tried to explain the distinction before I've been unpersuaded.
I'll try again - under no circumstances, EVER, can a play-and-miss be out if the laws of cricket are followed correctly - there is no provision, anywhere, for a play-and-miss to legitimately result in dismissal (about the only time they can be out is if the Umpire hallucinates an edge or is fooled into believeing there's been one by a flick of the shirt etc.); however, when a chance is given, under normal circumstances this will result in dismissal. Equally, expecting an innings of any great size to be constructed without some sort of false stroke (be it play-and-miss or attempted leave that hits the bat or anything besides) would be an utterly unrealistic expectation; on the other hand expecting an innings of substance to be constructed without let-offs is not remotely unrealistic and it happens all the time.

Thus I see it as reasonable to view a play-and-miss as a minor stroke of luck which is inevitable in any innings and will never result in dismissal, and a let-off as a major stroke of luck which should and normally would have resulted in dismissal.
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I'll try again - under no circumstances, EVER, can a play-and-miss be out if the laws of cricket are followed correctly
Agreed but I don't see the relevance. You can't be out either, EVER, if the fielder drops the ball.

I see it as reasonable to view a play-and-miss as a minor stroke of luck which is inevitable in any innings and will never result in dismissal, and a let-off as a major stroke of luck which should and normally would have resulted in dismissal.
If you play and miss you've probably done worse as a batsman than the chap who, as they say, has been "good enough to edge it". So to me it's far from clear that the batsman who has been dropped has had a bigger slice of luck than the chap who played and missed.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Agreed but I don't see the relevance. You can't be out either, EVER, if the fielder drops the ball.
But the fielder dropping the ball happens after the batsman has done his bit and the batsman has no power to influence it (unless of course he wilfully obstructs the field) - the batsman missing or hitting the ball is the batsman's bit.
If you play and miss you've probably done worse as a batsman than the chap who, as they say, has been "good enough to edge it". So to me it's far from clear that the batsman who has been dropped has had a bigger slice of luck than the chap who played and missed.
He certainly had a bigger slice of luck - he evaded dismissal by something that would normally result in it. Someone who plays and misses has evaded dismissal in a manner which is not remotely unusual - in fact no closer to being unusual than prodding forwards and getting a forward-defensive smack in the middle of the bat so that the ball drops dead on the pitch.

The notion that someone who's played and missed has played worse that delivery than someone who's edged one has plenty going for it, but would you then propose the premise that a play-and-miss results in dismissal while a nick does not? I doubt it. Cricket doesn't work that way. A batsman has to hit the ball to be out caught.
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
We've done this one before Richard - and neither of us has changed his view since then. We could waste thousands of words on this topic, and you'd still be wrong at the end of it :ph34r:, so let's agree to disagree.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I'm a big believer in the butterfly-hurricane theorem (it's the reason I find the notion that some things are pre-ordained and others mould around these pre-ordained things so utterly ludicrous) and thus I have no time for those who argue that the significance of a single let-off is trivial - one let-off can change the course of an entire series. Nonetheless, the first-chance theory is not any attempt to reshape history, merely a way of reflecting important events that scorebook records alone do not adequately show.

I'll try again - under no circumstances, EVER, can a play-and-miss be out if the laws of cricket are followed correctly - there is no provision, anywhere, for a play-and-miss to legitimately result in dismissal (about the only time they can be out is if the Umpire hallucinates an edge or is fooled into believeing there's been one by a flick of the shirt etc.); however, when a chance is given, under normal circumstances this will result in dismissal. Equally, expecting an innings of any great size to be constructed without some sort of false stroke (be it play-and-miss or attempted leave that hits the bat or anything besides) would be an utterly unrealistic expectation;on the other hand expecting an innings of substance to be constructed without let-offs is not remotely unrealistic and it happens all the time.

Thus I see it as reasonable to view a play-and-miss as a minor stroke of luck which is inevitable in any innings and will never result in dismissal, and a let-off as a major stroke of luck which should and normally would have resulted in dismissal.
:-O. Wow haha. After 5 years i think i actually may agree with this FCA theory stuff son. This makes perfect sense & i dont recall you ever explaining it this well ever before.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
:-O. Wow haha. After 5 years i think i actually may agree with this FCA theory stuff son. This makes perfect sense & i dont recall you ever explaining it this well ever before.
Oh no! Please don't provoke me into a 3-way multiquote marathon with both you and Richard. I don't think I have the strength...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
We've done this one before Richard - and neither of us has changed his view since then. We could waste thousands of words on this topic, and you'd still be wrong at the end of it :ph34r:, so let's agree to disagree.
Well I'd not still be wrong, but the objections of the objectors would remain in place, so yes, fair enough.

Maybe one day. :)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Oh no! Please don't provoke me into a 3-way multiquote marathon with both you and Richard. I don't think I have the strength...
You're a fully qualified legal official, you have the strength for anything if you wish to have it. Remember these things.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
You're a fully qualified legal official, you have the strength for anything if you wish to have it. Remember these things.
I have visions of Mr. Z saying that to himself in front of a mirror every day before going to work.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Oh no! Please don't provoke me into a 3-way multiquote marathon with both you and Richard. I don't think I have the strength...
Haha. Ok sir i wont get involved, i'll let you two debate.

But i definately see the FCA from a different perspective now though.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
I thought he was a pretty good player..unfortuantely injuries took its toll on him. I will always remember Ian Chappell's comments on him after the 2002 series...he said something along the lines of "he is a very unenglish English batsman"
 

Top