Why is Vaughan Practically Useless In One Dayers

[Richard]

I like to think so. He roams these forums unnoticed......

Who, amz? Vaughan? Liam?

 

[twctopcat]

Who, amz? Vaughan? Liam?

Take your pick.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Fair enough, just you quoting him implied to me that you were referring to his pro Vaughan stance. And to be fair you're point was probably aimed at CW members, who are the people who read this.

As the person who actually wrote the post, I think I'm more qualified to say who it was "probably aimed at". The forum is not just a means of man to man conversation but also general observations and comments. More than 75% of the conversation is not necessarily aimed at a particular person/people.

 

[twctopcat]

As the person who actually wrote the post, I think I'm more qualified to say who it was "probably aimed at". The forum is not just a means of man to man conversation but also general observations and comments. More than 75% of the conversation is not necessarily aimed at a particular person/people.

I was just pointing out that you were quoting him. Do you not think there was a slight possibility that i could have taken that as you were replying to Link, however wrong i might of been? And so it's mainly non-members of CW who read the post then?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I was just pointing out that you were quoting him. Do you not think there was a slight possibility that i could have taken that as you were replying to Link, however wrong i might of been? And so it's mainly non-members of CW who read the post then?

1) We cleared that up. Yes you may have construed it to be so, but I told you as it is, so surely it's all cleared up now?
2) I wasn't making a point to non-CW members. I was making a point about them.

Please, this has to be one of the more pedantic conversations on CW.

 

[twctopcat]

1) We cleared that up. Yes you may have construed it to be so, but I told you as it is, so surely it's all cleared up now?
2) I wasn't making a point to non-CW members. I was making a point about them.

Please, this has to be one of the more pedantic conversations on CW.

I'm sorry, i have got my wires crossed. Though i have for sure seen more pedantic conversations!!

 

[Richard]

Take your pick.

Well Liam most certainly isn't unnoticed - the 2nd highest poster of all-time.
Vaughan I highly doubt roams the forums at all.
amz, while, isn't quite unnoticed.

 

[twctopcat]

Well Liam most certainly isn't unnoticed - the 2nd highest poster of all-time.
Vaughan I highly doubt roams the forums at all.
amz, while, isn't quite unnoticed.

Bad joke, forget it.

 

[Richard]

Err, OK.
Still don't see the joke in it - what has roaming the forums unnoticed got to do with Vaughan's ODI form?

 

[twctopcat]

Err, OK.
Still don't see the joke in it - what has roaming the forums unnoticed got to do with Vaughan's ODI form?

As i said, the moment (and my sense of comedy) has long since passed. My apologies.

 

[a massive zebra]

amz, while, isn't quite unnoticed.

Albeit nearly.

 

[marc71178]

As you know perfectly well it'll count for nothing if he bowls poorly against South Africa.

He's got away with bowling poorly all summer.

 

[Richard]

And you know as well as I know that he did not bowl poorly all summer, only in the last 2 games.
Oh, of course, in your World you have to take wickets in ODIs to have bowled well, even if you've not done anything to deserve credit for those wickets.
If he follows-up his 2 most recent real ODIs (in which he bowled appallingly) by bowling poorly again against South Africa some joke-ODIs in the middle won't mean he doesn't get the criticism he'd deserve.

 

[marc71178]

He was consistently England's worst bowler, getting far worse figures than the other bowlers got and the conditions suggested.

Just because he was below some arbitrary economy rate is meaningless.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not - for 12 years or more, 4-an-over has been an acceptible threshold - everyone in the game has said so.
Just because he didn't get as many wickets as some other bowlers (and while being more economical than the lot until his last 2 games) he was criticised.

 

[marc71178]

4 an over is more than acceptable if the opposition is scoring 220-240 or so.

It is not acceptable if the team is scoring 150.

 

[Richard]

No, of course not - even though had it been 6-an-over instead they'd have scored 170 instead.

 

[marc71178]

And the rest of the bowlers would have been twice as economical as him.

 

[Richard]

Exactly - but they weren't.
If someone goes for 4-an-over in 150, that means the rest have a combined rate (providing 50 have been bowled) of 2.75-an-over, it is a mere 145%, not 200%.

 

[marc71178]

Oh, and that's so much more acceptable isn't it