Why is Vaughan Practically Useless In One Dayers

[luckyeddie]

no its not, the average is just a figure, its not the be all and end all of measuring a players ability.

I agree.

(I'll see your Craig White and raise you one Corky)

 

[Swervy]

no its not, the average is just a figure, its not the be all and end all of measuring a players ability.

not measuring a players ability but it is a measure of success

 

[marc71178]

no its not, the average is just a figure, its not the be all and end all of measuring a players ability.

Nobody is mentioning ability here.

The only thing in question is success.

 

[Hanuma]

perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to;

"why is vaughn practically useless?"

 

[Shane Warne]

perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to;

"why is vaughn practically useless?"

No perhaps about it.

 

[Hanuma]

loving england a it atm...but vaughn needs to grow a new set of testicles at the crease.

 

[tooextracool]

Nobody is mentioning ability here.

The only thing in question is success.

and like it or not, average is not the be all and end all of a players success.

 

[Shane Warne]

and like it or not, average is not the be all and end all of a players success.

True.

A case in point being Gavin Hamilton.

His misleading stats did not do justice to his immense contribution to the revival of English cricket.

 

[Jamee999]

He of pair on his only Test.

 

[marc71178]

and like it or not, average is not the be all and end all of a players success.

No, runs scored and wickets taken are the only barometer of success.

 

[King_Ponting]

No, runs scored and wickets taken are the only barometer of success.

Yeh have to agree there. If bradman sasy averaged 40..... he would have just been looked at and dismissed as a medioke player..... How can anything else be the barometer of success... if one team scores more than the other team than the team that scores the most runs wins, bar a draw.

 

[tooextracool]

No, runs scored and wickets taken are the only barometer of success.

nope, there have been plenty of players whose records make them look better/worse than they actually are.
hussain, butcher and even flintoff, are far better and more successful players than their records suggest.
likewise players like gayle,trescothick, sarwan etc are made to look more successful than they actually are.

 

[Swervy]

nope, there have been plenty of players whose records make them look better/worse than they actually are.
hussain, butcher and even flintoff, are far better and more successful players than their records suggest.
likewise players like gayle,trescothick, sarwan etc are made to look more successful than they actually are.

i think the point is though TEC, actual success is measured over a career in terms of runs,wickets and inevitably averages...the thing is success isnt always linked to ability in a perfectly proportional way.

Player A scores 1000 runs..Player B scores 1500 runs in the same team with the same number of innings..player A is unlucky and gets his fair share of bad luck..Player B is damned lucky, gets all the breaks,and more than his share fair share of good luck.

Who is the better batsman..probably A
Who is the more successful..well B is

 

[tooextracool]

i think the point is though TEC, actual success is measured over a career in terms of runs,wickets and inevitably averages...the thing is success isnt always linked to ability in a perfectly proportional way.

Player A scores 1000 runs..Player B scores 1500 runs in the same team with the same number of innings..player A is unlucky and gets his fair share of bad luck..Player B is damned lucky, gets all the breaks,and more than his share fair share of good luck.

Who is the better batsman..probably A
Who is the more successful..well B is

i dont see how scoring lucky runs makes player B more successful. player B is more likely to fail at times when his team needs him most- against quality sides, and on non-flat wickets. success is IMO, only a measure of how well you play against the better quality teams, consistency and how well you play under pressure

 

[Shane Warne]

hussain, butcher are far better and more successful players than their records suggest..

Not good examples because neither were particularly good and were consistently over rated in the fashion that you are currently doing.

 

[marc71178]

i dont see how scoring lucky runs makes player B more successful.

Because player B has scored more runs - hence in terms of actual success, he is better.

 

[King_Ponting]

yep spot on there marc

 

[Magrat Garlick]

perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to;

"why is vaughn practically useless?"

Or not. Gotta love hindsight.

 

[King_Ponting]

Or not. Gotta love hindsight.

Dropped once and bowled off a no ball....... i think not, alternative title should still stand

 

[Swervy]

i dont see how scoring lucky runs makes player B more successful. player B is more likely to fail at times when his team needs him most- against quality sides, and on non-flat wickets. success is IMO, only a measure of how well you play against the better quality teams, consistency and how well you play under pressure

if two players played in the same conditions in the same situation..one scored 50 the other 80, but the second one was dropped three times and was full of inside edges for 4 etc...the guy who made 50 may well have batted better, but the guy who made 80 was more successful in gaining the currency of success for batsmen..ie he scored more runs