Vaughan certainly isn't a better opener than Sehwag - the question is "is Vaughan a better middle-order batsman than Sehwag is opener?", to which I find the answer "possibly, yes". However, I also find any question of that ilk a rather unfair and pointless one.
Not an attack that cripples him first, which I'm very sure any particularly good seam-attack with a new-ball will.
Since he's been opening, I can think of Trent Bridge 2002, and not much else.
More accurately, people can look at certain stats and form their ideas because of that. To think it works the other way around is ignorant, plain and simple.
If one is to look sensibly at the matter rather than being simplistic and looking only at basic averages, they'll see very clearly why Vaughan is a better middle-order batsman than opener.
I think you're right HBH, but truth be told, if you have an all tiime pace attack on a difficult wicket, then you'll be talking about guys like Hayden & Sehwag maybe failing for 10-20, and those who we may view as better probably only getting 25-30 anyways.
I know that but maybe a combo of Boycott and Gavaskar could see out a couple of hours setting the stage for Bradman/Lara/Sachin/Sobers. It is not just about the 25-30 extra runs... It is the time that we will get. Hayden and Sehwag may give you 30/2 in the first 45 mins but Gavaskar and Boycott may give you 60/2 after 2 or 2 and a half hours. At least the shine won't be there on the new ball anymore after that.
. Richard i have no intention to cause any controversy since you no we dawgs yo, but don't you think after all these years stating opinions such as:
Got no probs accepting they'd be a lot more patient, which I suppose would help the team.
I've actually said nothing of the sorts in any of the three cases relating to players.
- Vaas is better than McGrath
- Criminally over-rating the likes of Atherton, Hussain, Hick etc
- Your First chance average theory
- Criminally under-rating Hayden (although you are not alone)
That have been ridiculed continously on CW overitme, that even if you strongly believe them maybe you should just not state them in your arguments?. Since IMO at least it leaves a big black spot on your overall contribution as a poster which has been extremely good.
As far as criticism of the idea goes, don't take absence of proof as proof of absence.
Very few people actually think they have any merit in the way you try to use them, though.
I know. The point is, those who try to ridicule the idea aren't as large in number as those who number amongst them would like to think.
If they used your criteria, I couldnt think of any remotely logical cricket follower that would support it
There's plenty already, and it's almost exclusively people on CW who've even been exposed to the idea.
Nope, apart from the fact both things you say there are totally exaggerated.
Nope, I exclude things that are wrongly called "chances", which were in reality not remotely catchable. Difficult catches are still catchable, though, so they all count.
So? A play-and-miss can never result in a wicket (barring an awful Umpiring decision), a catch being given mostly does.
Your lack of being bothered has nothing to do with me.
Nah, it's not.
Which is easily one of the most (if not the most) knowledgeable cricketening discussion circles you are likely to find anywhere in the world in sure. So if its rediculed here surely that would be enough to convince you otherwise. Rich would you be brave enough to argue this theory with Ian Chappell or Richie Benaud?
Not sure about Chappell because I plain don't like the guy, but I'd give it a mention in the unlikely event that I had a long chat with Richie, certainly.
Or decisions that are inconclusive?
