Michael Vaughan in ODI's

[Eclipse]

He's no good and IMO it's a bit of a problem for England ATM they really need to get more out of him.

What would people think about him moving down the order and Flintoff moving up?

 

[luckyeddie]

He's no good and IMO it's a bit of a problem for England ATM they really need to get more out of him.

What would people think about him moving down the order and Flintoff moving up?

Not a lot.

It's a mindset thing. As Slats would say "Form is temporary blah blah" but turn the hearing-aid off before he goes rabbiting on about Gilchrist (sorry, Slats ).

Vaughan is but one decent knock away from feeling good about his batting - and India on Sunday might just be the time.

 

[Eclipse]

It's weird because he just seems so unassured in ODI's. his deffense even looks weeker.

 

[Craig]

If Vaughan doesn't buck up his ideas in this form of the game, the English selectors should start looking for somebody else.

 

[luckyeddie]

If Vaughan doesn't buck up his ideas in this form of the game, the English selectors should start looking for somebody else.

I doubt it.

 

[Eclipse]

So they should continue with a guy who only has about 7 fiftys and an avrage of 23??

It's not like he has proven to be a good OD player in Domestic cricket. I just dont think he is made for the one day game.

 

[Swervy]

the guy is still one of the very best batsmen in the world,but when you watch him in ODI's,you can tell the problems are in his head. I am with LE on this, England should (and will ) stick by him, although I wouldnt be completely against the idea of Strauss going in at 3 and Vaughan in at 4

 

[luckyeddie]

So they should continue with a guy who only has about 7 fiftys and an avrage of 23??

It's not like he has proven to be a good OD player in Domestic cricket. I just dont think he is made for the one day game.

In your dreams, soon-to-be-ashesless-Aussie boy.

If most of the 'brainless brigade' on here are anything to go by (and I'll include myself in that number) Flintoff and Harmison would have been discarded long ago.

To discard Vaughan now would be utterly stupid - the selectors have been proved correct time and time again over the last couple of years (apart from over RC) and it would undermine so much of the good work which has taken place over the last 12 months.

I don't hold with this nonsense of having different captains for test and odi's - and the two sides are bearing a greater resemblance to each other now than ever before. You play your best 11 cricketers - and Vaughan is one of that number.

 

[Timewell]

If Vaughan doesn't buck up his ideas in this form of the game, the English selectors should start looking for somebody else.

Vaughan's a good captain...they'll keep him in solely for that purpose. Mike Brierley was hardly a world-beater but was an excellent captain. Vaughan's very presence simply adds to the team, and one day, he will get valuable runs.

 

[Richard]

Not a lot.

It's a mindset thing. As Slats would say "Form is temporary blah blah" but turn the hearing-aid off before he goes rabbiting on about Gilchrist (sorry, Slats ).

Vaughan is but one decent knock away from feeling good about his batting - and India on Sunday might just be the time.

And so might every one of the last 53 matches.
How on Earth can someone who's been poor for 10 years or so be likely to improve.
A far more significant referance to Slats would be the fact that he, too, was never a one-day player despite being a superb Test-batsman.

 

[Richard]

In your dreams, soon-to-be-ashesless-Aussie boy.

If most of the 'brainless brigade' on here are anything to go by (and I'll include myself in that number) Flintoff and Harmison would have been discarded long ago.

So Harmison and Flintoff failed for the length of time Vaughan has, then?

To discard Vaughan now would be utterly stupid - the selectors have been proved correct time and time again over the last couple of years (apart from over RC) and it would undermine so much of the good work which has taken place over the last 12 months.

Which good work is that, then? England's ODI side has improved so much over the last 12 months, hasn't it?
The selectors have been proved right time and again in the last couple of years, excepting the case of Clarke - and McGrath, Troughton, Key in ODIs, Batty, Blackwell, Shah, Simon Jones and Dawson.

I don't hold with this nonsense of having different captains for test and odi's - and the two sides are bearing a greater resemblance to each other now than ever before. You play your best 11 cricketers - and Vaughan is one of that number.

In Test-matches, you play your 11 best Test-cricketers - in ODIs, you play your 11 best ODI-cricketers.
First-Class and one-day cricket are different games, no matter how many times you old-timers insist to us they're basically the same. Some (in fact far more than not) of the players who can play one game can play the other. However, not all. There is substantial evidence that Vaughan is one of them. The best one-day player ever, Michael Bevan, wasn't good enough for Tests; England's best three one-day players ever, Nick Knight, Graeme Hick and Neil Fairbrother, were none good enough for Test-matches.
The current Test-side contains 2 proven ODI players - Trescothick and Flintoff. No, Strauss and Harmison are not proven ODI performers.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan's a good captain...they'll keep him in solely for that purpose. Mike Brierley was hardly a world-beater but was an excellent captain. Vaughan's very presence simply adds to the team, and one day, he will get valuable runs.

Vaughan's a good captain - Brearley was, quite conceivably, the best England captain ever.
Vaughan has never shown any promise in the one-day game domestically - Brearley underperformed with the bat in Test-matches having been a success in domestic-First-Class-cricket.

 

[Richard]

the guy is still one of the very best batsmen in the world,but when you watch him in ODI's,you can tell the problems are in his head.

The guy is one of the best Test batsmen in The World.
In ODIs, wherever the problems are, the fact is they exist, they always have existed and they have always meant he doesn't score runs in one-day-cricket.

 

[Waughney]

I don't hold with this nonsense of having different captains for test and odi's - and the two sides are bearing a greater resemblance to each other now than ever before. You play your best 11 cricketers - and Vaughan is one of that number.

That mind set, wether you like it or not, is going out the window. Even though quite a few people (eg. Steve Waugh) beleive that "the best XI players" should be the main policy, nowdays sides are not always selected in that way. They are selected with the future in mind, so that when someone retires their replacement may already have some experience and if a big series comes up they would be under less pressure. Steve Waugh was dropped with the 2003 WC in mind, with the selectors beleiving that he wouldn't be good enough and hence it would be better to find a replacement sooner rather than later. Also the resting of players means that the best XI players aren't always chosen.

 

[Richard]

In one-day-cricket the next World Cup is always the focus of attention.
Anyone who looks to anything in the interim is a very poor selector indeed.

 

[tooextracool]

Vaughan is but one decent knock away from feeling good about his batting - and India on Sunday might just be the time.

amazing that.....we thought that his 83 last year against SA was the breakthrough innings.

 

[tooextracool]

If Vaughan doesn't buck up his ideas in this form of the game, the English selectors should start looking for somebody else.

they should have a long time ago,a captain cannot make the side on captaincy alone, and its not like vaughan's bowling or fielding is anything to shout about either.

 

[tooextracool]

the guy is still one of the very best batsmen in the world,but when you watch him in ODI's,you can tell the problems are in his head. I am with LE on this, England should (and will ) stick by him, although I wouldnt be completely against the idea of Strauss going in at 3 and Vaughan in at 4

one of the very best batsmen in the world?averaging 45? just because he looks technically perfect it doesnt make him anywhere near the best batsman in the world. hes not consistent and we saw that in the recent series against the WI.

 

[tooextracool]

To discard Vaughan now would be utterly stupid - the selectors have been proved correct time and time again over the last couple of years (apart from over RC) and it would undermine so much of the good work which has taken place over the last 12 months.

the what now?
have i been missing something here? the same selectors that have continually selected blackwell in the side, the same selectors that only last game persisted with anthony mcgrath for the 1 millionth time, the same selectors that selected rob key for ODIs, the same selectors that selected paul collingwood over ian bell for SA, the same selectors that continue to select batty and the same selectors that dropped chris read from the ODI side for no apparent reason whatsoever.
despite what people would like to believe the selectors have only made 2 good decisions all year.....not selecting bell for the ODI version of the game(despite several people on here thinking that they were out their mind for not doing so) because he is not an ODI player atm, and selecting jones over read in the test arena.

 

[tooextracool]

Vaughan's a good captain...they'll keep him in solely for that purpose. Mike Brierley was hardly a world-beater but was an excellent captain. Vaughan's very presence simply adds to the team, and one day, he will get valuable runs.

and if vaughans captaincy was having such a big impact that he is worth his place in the side purely as a captain then why was england so brutally hammered in the natwest series then?