Anyway, I'm out.
It demeans me, arguing with an inferior life-form.
It's no good for my IQ.
It demeans me, arguing with an inferior life-form.
It's no good for my IQ.
Yes its broader than that. Why not include the fact that Vaughan is an injury hazard and is hardly likely to play more than 1 game without some sort of niggle in there too then? Or maybe Butchers bowling average of 36 including a best of 4/42 against Australia themselves as opposed to Vaughans oh so brilliant average of 89.50. In all bar the area of captaincy, Butcher beats Vaughan, and you know it.howardj said:Obviously an overall judgement has to be made about what each player brings to the table. In determining who should be in the team, you don't 'refer to batting alone'. It's broader than that - and you know it. And mate, even if you take Vaughan's absolute worst batting against Australia (average of 32 in 2005) it is still as good as Butcher's overall record against Australia (33).
and who are these 95% of cricket experts then? You and Mister wright? Thats my early morning laugh right there.howardj said:As I say, in 20 Tests against Australia (not an insignificant number) he has averaged 33. Those attacks featured Warne, McGrath and Gillespie - exactly the same chaps who will be gunning for him next summer. Add in Vaughan's captaincy, and on any objective assessment, Australia would prefer to face Butcher. However, myself and I dare say 95% of cricket experts must be wrong, and Tooextracool is right.
Once again, you are going back to 2001 with Butcher, but continually saying that Vaughan's achievements against Australia in 2002/03 should not be counted. Don't you get that that is flawed? Clearly, you are intellectually bereft.tooextracool said:If Australia would rather bowl to the guy who scored 173* and absolutely destroyed them on a seamer friendly pitch as opposed to someone who was missing straight balls against them last summer and failed in all bar one inning where he got more than 1 chance, then they are about as stupid as their selectors are.
.The problem with you and most other Aussies is that they continually respect players for doing something against them a considerably long time ago. Vaughan had one year of international success,and hes failed miserably since
The problem with you is that you dont see patterns. One of the first things about not being intellectually bereft is to be able to match colors and patterns. Any fool can see that Butcher post 2001(when he made his return to the england side) was a different player to the one before. As such given that we are talking about Vaughan AS ENGLAND CAPTAIN, its only fair to look at his record AS CAPTAIN. there is no hypocrisy in that, mere common sense, something which you inevitably lack.howardj said:You do realise the hypocrisy of your comparative analysis, don't you? You're trying to take Butcher's stats since 2001 and use those, and yet you criticise me for using Vaughan's stats 'during his golden run' of 2002/03. Really, you're intellectually bereft.
actually no, here is butchers stats in the same period in games not against bangladesh:howardj said:You then state, in effect, only Vaughan's statistics since he became captain are relevant. Well, fair enough. Let's compare like with like. Vaughan averages 32 in that period. What are Butcher's stats in that period? Oh, he averages 35. Geez, what a massive gap. That's outstanding. Conclusive proof that Butcher should be in the team!
howardj said:What about another recent, like-for-like comparison? Their last 10 Test Matches - Vaughan's average: 35. Butcher's average: 34. See, when actually do like-for-like comparisons, there's barely a jot of difference with their batting. Butcher is not some re-born Test star.
Then add in Vaughan's captaincy; his presence within the team; and the domination of Butcher by Warne and McGrath-led attacks. On balance, being objective, who do think the Australians would prefer to face?
its flawed to people who are dyslexic. read my post and then think about posting next time. id always take 4 years of consistent success over 1 year of success, you of course would pick a player because he dominated an attack light years ago.howardj said:Once again, you are going back to 2001 with Butcher, but continually saying that Vaughan's achievements against Australia in 2002/03 should not be counted. Don't you get that that is flawed? Clearly, you are intellectually bereft..
Firstly if you cant use statistics capably then dont use them at all. Ive shown you in another post that Butchers record is far better than Vaughans record since hes taken over captaincy.howardj said:Failed miserably since? As pointed out above, his average is virtually identical to Butcher since he became captain! You know, Butcher - the re-born Test Match star! Really, you should stop.
Butcher's record? He's averaged 33 against Australia - dress it up as much as you like.tooextracool said:its flawed to people who are dyslexic. read my post and then think about posting next time. id always take 4 years of consistent success over 1 year of success, you of course would pick a player because he dominated an attack light years ago.
Firstly if you cant use statistics capably then dont use them at all. Ive shown you in another post that Butchers record is far better than Vaughans record since hes taken over captaincy.
I know you think you know everything there is to know about cricket, but I'm at a loss at your reasoning for this one. Butcher has never been a 'classy' batsman. He may have had a good run, and you can use all the statistics in the world that you want to try and prove your case, but the fact is, anyone who watches the two bat would instantly recognise the difference in class between the two. Vaughan is streaks ahead of Butcher, despite any contrived statistics you like to pick and choose from to make your point.tooextracool said:If you are a true observer of the game, you would have realised by now that Vaughan has been failing miserably in test match cricket for a long time now. Statistics may not always tell the truth, but in this case when someone average nearly 10 runs more than another, its quite clear that one player is better.
Vaughans leadership maybe amazing, but you'd have to be downright lunatic if you think its anywhere near as good as Martin Crowes, Hansie Cronje's or even Nasser Hussains(Brisbane excluded). He won an Ashes series, doesnt make him the best captain ever. And as ive said some billion times before Trescothick can replace vaughan, he was responsible for nearly half of what happened during the Ashes anyhow.
Just curious have you seen Butcher bat before? Butcher in form is about as classy as any batsman you'll ever see, his cover drives, flicks and cuts among the best in the world and if it werent for his temperament, hed be amongst the very best players in the world. For someone to claim that Butchers batting lacks class is the most ludicrous thing ive ever heard. If butcher never managed to own attacks, i find it hard to imagine how he did this:
or this http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2099&Series=0401
As far as Vaughan is concerned, do you not realise that he was averaging 50+ with the bat before he dropped captaincy? Im sorry but his golden run ended the moment he dropped the captaincy and AFAIC id rather have those 20 extra runs with Trescothick taking over the captaincy than Vaughan taking over the captaincy and playing all around straight balls from Brett Lee.
because of course Butcher was dropped isnt it?howardj said:Butcher's record? He's averaged 33 against Australia - dress it up as much as you like.
Wake up to yourself.
He's a failed Test batsman.
Please tell me why England no longer consider him a viable option.
You are the only person I have ever heard, who thinks Vaughan should be kept out of the side by the failed Butcher.
Why is that so?
It doesn't surprise me that someone with such a miserable existance (9500 posts in two years) pedals such an outrageously flawed idea.
i cant believe anyone in their right mind can even suggest that Butcher is not a 'classy' batsman. Hes one of the most orthodox players you'll ever see, rarely see him hit a ball in the air, and his coverdrives of the front and back foot are as good as you'll ever get. His 173* against Australia at Headingly is right up there in terms of class,determination and technique. I dont know what you've been watching, but to say that Butcher has never been classy is quite laughable.Mister Wright said:I know you think you know everything there is to know about cricket, but I'm at a loss at your reasoning for this one. Butcher has never been a 'classy' batsman. He may have had a good run, and you can use all the statistics in the world that you want to try and prove your case, but the fact is, anyone who watches the two bat would instantly recognise the difference in class between the two. Vaughan is streaks ahead of Butcher, despite any contrived statistics you like to pick and choose from to make your point..
i never thought anyone could possibly be so possessed with Vaughans record from 4 years ago. He had one good cricket year, and failed miserable since get over it.Mister Wright said:With or without the captaincy Vaughan is far better than Butcher. I never thought I'd have to be defending Vaughan against Butcher on a cricket forum - wonders will never cease.
it's 32 v 35 - as outlined aboove.tooextracool said:right so we now know that you cant read, and you cant count either. 39.5 is only 2 runs ahead of 33. and such maturity in your posts too.
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtypehowardj said:it's 32 v 35 - as outlined aboove.
anyway, if you think butcher should be ahead of vaughan - good luck to you.
you are right.
there you go.
now get back to whatever people like you do with your day.
I know that says 39.5 - I was talking about a more germane comparison, as outlined above. But good - you think Butcher; I think Vaughan. That's cool.tooextracool said:http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
that says that its 39.5
you're entitled to your opinion if you think Vaughan should make the side ahead of Butcher, but i'd at least like to see a logical argument to it other than "he is a classy player" and " he scored runs against us 4 years ago" conveniently forgetting how he failed miserably against Australia in all bar the double chanced innings at OT last summer.