Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

[GuyFromLancs]

What is his legacy as a player. Did he fulfill his potential?

Take the positives-

- Superbly elegant in full flow
- Great cover driver and puller
- Great Captain
- Good test century-test match ratio for an Englishman
- Once he got to 50 you really fancied him for 100


Negatives-

- He struggled to get 50 too often
- Was there ever a more fragile top order batsman in test cricket when out of form?
- Mediocre first-class average, 20 below the likes of Hick
- Terrible injury problems
- Confidence could vanish in minutes after being built up over months

What do you think?

[Burgey]

Over-rated skipper imo. M Mint the true force behind the 05 triumph

Welcome btw mate.

[GIMH]

GuyFromLancs, meet Burgey. Still bitter about Bodyline, nevermind 05 and 09.

Anyway, I don't think he fulfilled his potential and I think had he never taken the armband he'd have averaged 4 or 5 runs more but the trade-off in what he brought to the team as captain means it was worth it IMO.

[four_or_six]

Frustrating. Not on the scale of Harmison, but always left with the feeling he could have done better.

And I know this is cricketweb and therefore we have to assume tests only, but I find his ODI record to be woeful.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs

What is his legacy as a player. Did he fulfill his potential?

Not even close. If judged by the level of expecttion, he was a massive failure for Yorkshire and disappointed for England. He was viewed as a once in a generation player and that didnt happen.

[GuyFromLancs]

He seemed to have the English disease of being able to collapse completely. Flintoff had it with his batting in the last 3 years of his career. Not able to buy a run and looking shaky all the time, no matter who bowls. But at least Fred had his bowling which improved no end.

Vaughan was a walking wicket when out of form and if you read his autobiography he hints at admitting to this on occasion. Out of all the test batsman I would liken him to Atapattu to some extent. Prone to low scores but excellent if he gets, or is allowed to get, his eye in.

[Woodster]

As has previously been said, I found Vaughan a joy to watch when he was in form. His tour of Australia in 2002/03 was obviously the pinnacle of his batting career. The ease in which he picked up the fairly short ball, and drove with absolute impunity, indicated he could go on to become one of the very finest Test batsmen of our time.

Unfortunately, imo, he probably did not reach his full potential, injuries, long spells out of form, the weight of captaincy on his shoulders, all played their part in making Vaughan an under-achiever, when you consider the amount of talent he possessed.

His captaincy was outstanding, the way he led the side, and the tactical side improved as he did the job. A top player for England, if not for Yorkshire, but in a different life could most probably have achieved much more.

[Uppercut]

Style over substance IMO. A middle-of-the-road batsman who looked like a top-class one. I do rate him as a captain though.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Style over substance IMO. A middle-of-the-road batsman who looked like a top-class one. I do rate him as a captain though.

I'm inclined to agree with this although no one should underestimate the traumatic effect on a Lancastrian of having to play for them on t'other side o' Pennines

[Uppercut]

Given his performances for t'others over the years I'm inclined to consider him some kind of spy.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Style over substance IMO. A middle-of-the-road batsman who looked like a top-class one. I do rate him as a captain though.

Nail. Head. Hit.

The classic "looks pretty when in full flight, therefore must be a great batsman."

How many times did Vaughan play down the completely wrong line and turn round to see off stump or middle stump flying all over the place?

[Richard]

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.

[Bonnie Prince C]

No way Vaughan fulfilled his potential IMO. He had the potential to be a modern great of English cricket, finished as a joke cricketer.

[zaremba]

His statuesque fielding surely deserves a mention

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Bonnie Prince C

No way Vaughan fulfilled his potential IMO. He had the potential to be a modern great of English cricket, finished as a joke cricketer.

Both of those somewhat of an exaggeration I feel.