• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I can see the logic in Richard's beloved FCA but one of its weaknesses is that it ignores any runs scored after the drop.
I've never remotely denied this, and thus the all-chance average (ie, runs scored in innings all counted, but each chance counted as a dismissal - so thus if someone scores 149 while being dropped 4 times at regular intervals it's 149 runs for 6 dismissals; if someone scores 180* having been dropped on 4 it's 180 runs for 1 dismissal) is sometimes very useful.

But both records need each other; scoring runs without giving any chances is what batsmanship is all about. It's not good enough in my book to fully credit all runs made after a let-off as being equally credible as those made up to a let-off.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Did score oodles of runs against one of the best dozen or so test teams ever & looked bloody handsome* doing it, so it was probably understandable that he was.[/SIZE]
Yeah, amazing summer.

Not that much else since 2002 to actually be called a very good batsman though.

Was attractive to watch, was ****ing ugly when he got out though.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I can't recall specific posters names. There have been ****load of users on this board over the last 5 years to be fair.
I'd have thought that to make a tall claim like you made in your previous post you'd at least be able to remember one or two specific posters, or posts.

And I mean regular posters - it's hardly fair to say that some 10-post wonder who posted for a week in 2004 plays a part in on-board-consensus.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hmm, suggesting wide-scale CW consensus on a matter is a pretty tall claim where I'm coming from. I'm surprised you'd do it if you weren't more sure than you seem to be.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
It's much easier to do this than what you did. :p Just change what you had as COLOR to QUOTE and bang, you've got it.

Walking into a West Indian team since 2001/02 is not difficult. Being able to do so does not prove one a high-calibre player. In any case, Lee between 2001 and 2006/07 was really not as good as some of the better WIndians - Dillon, Collins, Collymore. Granted he was, as I say, probably a bit better than Taylor, Edwards et al.
Okay. I feel my point is proven here. Lee's stats are still better than that of the West Indies' attack

Lee was a very poor Test bowler for almost his whole career - it was just a couple of sensational periods at the start and near-end of it which, to some extent, camouflage this.
I agree to a point. But he would still be no 1 for the West Indies.

MacGill's record for most of his career, again, is poor - it was only the odd good game here and there with him, plus the fact that his record is improved massively by Bangladesh and ICC World XI games. Even just knocking those out changes his average to, IIRR, about 31-32; when you look at things on a game-by-game basis rather than just looking at the average, you see that he really wasn't that good. Again, granted, though, better than most of the WIndians of 2007.
31-32 still isn't too bad. And anyway, you can't really just remove good performances because they benefit your argument. Also, consider that H Singh averages 31 overall. Once you get beyond Warne and Murali that's about par for a spinner these days.


Not sure about that, under general circumstances - though in this case there is actually the fact that avoiding a whitewash was at stake. Of course he can't be blamed for the games being dead, and of course dead games or not they were fine innings', but he can be "blamed" for his performances when the series was live being notably down on those when it was dead.
The Aussies were a league above is back then. It was like Manchester United v Portsmouth from the early 90s until 05.

I think "well" underdoes it. As I say, I've never seen him bat better than he did that summer
.


He played very well, but read his autobiography and you we see that he himself considers 02/03 the peak of his career as a batsman.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Just FTR, nowhere in that post did I make claims of Vaughan being above his station.

That was merely a celebration of a quite wondrous moment. There is precious little better than seeing a player who you have always retained belief in conquer injury and doubters simultaneously.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's much easier to do this than what you did. :p Just change what you had as COLOR to QUOTE and bang, you've got it.
Almost. :p
Okay. I feel my point is proven here. Lee's stats are still better than that of the West Indies' attack
Lee's stats from 2001-2005 are nothing of the sort; both they and those of most of the West Indians are nothing short of abysmal. He really wasn't clearly better than all of them.
I agree to a point. But he would still be no 1 for the West Indies.
Not sure he would; maybe there might've been the odd occasion where he could've been, but certainly not continuously. People underestimate just how bad Lee was for most of his career, they really do.
31-32 still isn't too bad. And anyway, you can't really just remove good performances because they benefit your argument. Also, consider that H Singh averages 31 overall. Once you get beyond Warne and Murali that's about par for a spinner these days.
Fingerspinners like Harbhajan Singh aren't really comparable to the likes of Warne, Murali and MacGill who are wristspinners. Either way the point isn't that MacGill was utterly woeful, especially not compared to most wristspinners, just not that good. As I say - look at his career on a match-by-match basis. When he was good he was sensational, but he was only good in about 1 match in 7 or 8, which really isn't terribly impressive.
The Aussies were a league above is back then. It was like Manchester United v Portsmouth from the early 90s until 05.
More like Man Utd shorn of McClair, Hughes and Cantona (or Cantona, Solskjaer and Cole; or Sheringham, Solskjaer, Yorke and Cole; or van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer; take your pick from which point you want) vs. Portsmouth. As I say - take McGrath, Gillespie and Warne out and Australia were merely a bit better than the rest, not a league above.
He played very well, but read his autobiography and you we see that he himself considers 02/03 the peak of his career as a batsman.
I'm sure he does, and I'm not surprised, but I don't consider it to be a clear-cut matter.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
Almost. :p

Lee's stats from 2001-2005 are nothing of the sort; both they and those of most of the West Indians are nothing short of abysmal. He really wasn't clearly better than all of them.
Regardless, the WIndies team that toured England in 07 were one of the poorest teams I've seen tour England. If it weren't for Chanderpaul I really don't know what would have happened. It is for this reason I don't really rate Pieterson's 226 against them too highly either.

Not sure he would; maybe there might've been the odd occasion where he could've been, but certainly not continuously. People underestimate just how bad Lee was for most of his career, they really do.
Okay

Fingerspinners like Harbhajan Singh aren't really comparable to the likes of Warne, Murali and MacGill who are wristspinners. Either way the point isn't that MacGill was utterly woeful, especially not compared to most wristspinners, just not that good. As I say - look at his career on a match-by-match basis. When he was good he was sensational, but he was only good in about 1 match in 7 or 8, which really isn't terribly impressive.
The fact is he was a match winner if you let him get in amongst you. His stats are far better than you acknowledge, averaging 27 for much of his career, 29 at the end, good strike rate and all.

More like Man Utd shorn of McClair, Hughes and Cantona (or Cantona, Solskjaer and Cole; or Sheringham, Solskjaer, Yorke and Cole; or van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer; take your pick from which point you want) vs. Portsmouth. As I say - take McGrath, Gillespie and Warne out and Australia were merely a bit better than the rest, not a league above.
They were far better than England. I actually thought we were better in the 06/07 whitewash as a team than in 02/03.

I'm sure he does, and I'm not surprised, but I don't consider it to be a clear-cut matter
Perhaps not clear cut, no.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Regardless, the WIndies team that toured England in 07 were one of the poorest teams I've seen tour England. If it weren't for Chanderpaul I really don't know what would have happened.
It was a dreadful team, beyond question (still miles ahead of the Bangladeshis of '05 and the Zimbos of '03 mind), but as I say - this fades to relative irrelevance due to the fact that Vaughan then replicated his success against them against India, whose bowling I honestly do rate as better than that of Australia which he scored centuries off in the last two Tests of 2002/03.
It is for this reason I don't really rate Pieterson's 226 against them too highly either.
I don't either - but that has more to do with the fact that he was stumped off a no-ball on 40-odd than the bowling.
The fact is he was a match winner if you let him get in amongst you. His stats are far better than you acknowledge, averaging 27 for much of his career, 29 at the end, good strike rate and all.
His stats aren't that good - as I say, he was capable of being a matchwinner, but only on the odd occasion. He played, IIRR, about 40 serious Tests and bowled genuinely well in about 6 of them.
They were far better than England. I actually thought we were better in the 06/07 whitewash as a team than in 02/03.
Me too, but Australia were only far better than England for the first three-and-a-half Tests. It was noticeable that once they lost McGrath and Warne, then Gillespie, there was first not much between them and then England (in spite of copious injuries of their own) were, with help from winning an important toss, quite a bit better.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
It was a dreadful team, beyond question (still miles ahead of the Bangladeshis of '05 and the Zimbos of '03 mind), but as I say - this fades to relative irrelevance due to the fact that Vaughan then replicated his success against them against India, whose bowling I honestly do rate as better than that of Australia which he scored centuries off in the last two Tests of 2002/03.
Zimbabwe is a complex saga going far beyond cricket as you know. Bangladesh are not a test standard team by definition. The West Indies on the other hand are and should have been asking serious questions of themselves. I considered them the worst test team of the real test teams.

I don't either - but that has more to do with the fact that he was stumped off a no-ball on 40-odd than the bowling.
You're really into this FCA aren't you? :)

His stats aren't that good - as I say, he was capable of being a matchwinner, but only on the odd occasion. He played, IIRR, about 40 serious Tests and bowled genuinely well in about 6 of them.
They are that good. Better than any current spinner today.

Me too, but Australia were only far better than England for the first three-and-a-half Tests. It was noticeable that once they lost McGrath and Warne, then Gillespie, there was first not much between them and then England (in spite of copious injuries of their own) were, with help from winning an important toss, quite a bit better.
Didn't Gillespie play in Sydney?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Zimbabwe is a complex saga going far beyond cricket as you know. Bangladesh are not a test standard team by definition. The West Indies on the other hand are and should have been asking serious questions of themselves. I considered them the worst test team of the real test teams.
Me too - I completely agree that Bangladesh and, since that 2003 tour, Zimbabwe, are not Test-standard sides. I don't count those four matches - or any matches involving Bangladesh or post-2003 Zimbabwe - as credible Tests. West Indies of 2007 were indeed the worst Test-standard side I've seen tour England, though it's fair to say that that point was the lowest of the low and that since their subsequent tour of South Africa they've been - when the first-team has been available - a decent bit better.

But as I say, that bad-ness is irrelevant to the Vaughan saga. It's much more prescient for, for example, Andrew Strauss - the fact that he couldn't even make runs agains that rabble showed what a d-i-r-e state he was in at that point.
You're really into this FCA aren't you? :)
They all learn eventually...
They are that good. Better than any current spinner today.
Apart from the likes of Warne and Murali spin simply doesn't have a role to play in modern cricket other than playing one to fit historical stencils. MacGill was better than most spinners, but still, in the general context of bowlers, not really all that good.
Didn't Gillespie play in Sydney?
He played but he was nowhere near fit throughout and, while that was just about disguiseable in the first-innings, it really, really showed in the second. Warne played only the first three Tests; McGrath just the first three-and-a-half.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
Me too - I completely agree that Bangladesh and, since that 2003 tour, Zimbabwe, are not Test-standard sides. I don't count those four matches - or any matches involving Bangladesh or post-2003 Zimbabwe - as credible Tests. West Indies of 2007 were indeed the worst Test-standard side I've seen tour England, though it's fair to say that that point was the lowest of the low and that since their subsequent tour of South Africa they've been - when the first-team has been available - a decent bit better.
Yep, they are a bit better now, 07 was their lowest point.

But as I say, that bad-ness is irrelevant to the Vaughan saga. It's much more prescient for, for example, Andrew Strauss - the fact that he couldn't even make runs agains that rabble showed what a d-i-r-e state he was in at that point.
Yes, I was calling for his head. He couldn't score a run and was going further and further into his shell. The New Zealand away century saved his career.

They all learn eventually...
mmm...we shall see.

Apart from the likes of Warne and Murali spin simply doesn't have a role to play in modern cricket other than playing one to fit historical stencils. MacGill was better than most spinners, but still, in the general context of bowlers, not really all that good
.

I disagree. 29 average, over 4 wickets per test and a 54 strike rate are good per sa by anyone's standards.

He played but he was nowhere near fit throughout and, while that was just about disguiseable in the first-innings, it really, really showed in the second. Warne played only the first three Tests; McGrath just the first three-and-a-half.
So Warne missed two and Mcgrath 1 and a half.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
More like Man Utd shorn of McClair, Hughes and Cantona (or Cantona, Solskjaer and Cole; or Sheringham, Solskjaer, Yorke and Cole; or van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer; take your pick from which point you want) vs. Portsmouth. As I say - take McGrath, Gillespie and Warne out and Australia were merely a bit better than the rest, not a league above.

I'm sure he does, and I'm not surprised, but I don't consider it to be a clear-cut matter.
:laugh:
 

Top