Why is Vaughan Practically Useless In One Dayers

[Richard]

No, Gilchrist and Hayden have opened in the same team (and only 1 batsman can face 1 ball, BTW) only since 2002; Gilchrist has played against some good bowling in the 1997-2001 period.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, Gilchrist and Hayden have opened in the same team (and only 1 batsman can face 1 ball, BTW) only since 2002; Gilchrist has played against some good bowling in the 1997-2001 period.

Fine.

Hayden since 2002 - 89 innings 3,339 runs @ 42.27, 19 fifties, 4 centuries
Gilchrist since 2002 - 97 innings, 3,491 runs @ 37.54, 20 fifties, 5 centuries

 

[marc71178]

Anyone with any cricketing clout whatsoever can tell Jayasuriya and Gilchrist are infinately better ODI batsmen than Hayden.

Because an average of 40 in ODI's is terrible isn't it?

It's certainly far better than either 36 or 32!

 

[marc71178]

No, Gilchrist and Hayden have opened in the same team (and only 1 batsman can face 1 ball, BTW)

So you're now trying to tell us that when they open together bowlers bowl poorly to Hayden then well to Gilchrist in the course of the same over?

 

[King_Ponting]

So you're now trying to tell us that when they open together bowlers bowl poorly to Hayden then well to Gilchrist in the course of the same over?

Thats stupid beyond belief. They are both left handers so there should be no reason why gilchrist gets the good balls and hayden gets rubbish..... I think hayden is not getting the credit he deserves, as he has shown on occasion after occasion that he is much more reliable than gilchrist who is largely hit or miss and very inconsistent.

 

[aussie]

hayden is not getting the credit he deserves, as he has shown on occasion after occasion that he is much more reliable than gilchrist who is largely hit or miss and very inconsistent.

i dont think so...

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, it was a poor run indeed, but all it said was that he shouldn't have been batting three

err what?
he shouldnt have been batting at 3 even though his record only gets worse when he bats elsewhere?

 

[Richard]

Maybe his average gets worse (not like his average at three is anything but flattering anyway) but his value to the team gets better.
Rather, in fact, like Tendulkar, as you might recall...

 

[Richard]

So you're now trying to tell us that when they open together bowlers bowl poorly to Hayden then well to Gilchrist in the course of the same over?

It's certainly not impossible - but no, what I'm suggesting is that Gilchrist is less good at punishing poor bowling, and much better at punishing good bowling.

 

[Richard]

Because an average of 40 in ODI's is terrible isn't it?

It's certainly far better than either 36 or 32!

Indeed it is - and as we all know averages are not the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Richard]

Fine.

Hayden since 2002 - 89 innings 3,339 runs @ 42.27, 19 fifties, 4 centuries
Gilchrist since 2002 - 97 innings, 3,491 runs @ 37.54, 20 fifties, 5 centuries

Now knock off the matches against the substandard teams.

 

[Richard]

Thats stupid beyond belief. They are both left handers so there should be no reason why gilchrist gets the good balls and hayden gets rubbish..... I think hayden is not getting the credit he deserves, as he has shown on occasion after occasion that he is much more reliable than gilchrist who is largely hit or miss and very inconsistent.

Hayden, of course, is more reliable at punishing rubbish bowling.

 

[Scallywag]

Now knock off the matches against the substandard teams.

can you list the sub standard teams richard.

 

[Nate]

I think Hayden in New Zealand was a great example of how to knock it around.

 

[Richard]

can you list the sub standard teams richard.

Canada, UAE, Netherlands, Namibia, Scotland, USA, Hong Kong, East Africa, Bangladesh, Kenya and the Zimbabweans after WC2003.
All matches involving these teams would be stripped of ODI status if it was down to me. And the Tsunami Appeal game, too.

 

[tooextracool]

Maybe his average gets worse (not like his average at three is anything but flattering anyway) but his value to the team gets better.

doubt it, the lower down the order he batted, the more likely he was to scratch around and waste valuable overs.
and whatever it is, his record at 4 isnt something of an ODI class batter either.

 

[Richard]

No, but he had some of the tools to be a six or seven.
And he was better there, if he was going to play, than wasting the spot at three that should have gone to Hick.

 

[tooextracool]

No, but he had some of the tools to be a six or seven.
And he was better there, if he was going to play, than wasting the spot at three that should have gone to Hick.

yes because his phenomenal SR of 66 suggests that that he would have made a remarkable no 7. what a complete waste it would be to pick hussain at no 7 and have him score 40 runs in the last 10 overs in the death. and im sure an average of 14.57 albeit from 8 games at 6 proves otherwise

 

[Shane Warne]

Vaughn is practically useless, period.

 

[Richard]

yes because his phenomenal SR of 66 suggests that that he would have made a remarkable no 7. what a complete waste it would be to pick hussain at no 7 and have him score 40 runs in the last 10 overs in the death. and im sure an average of 14.57 albeit from 8 games at 6 proves otherwise

It'd have been better than wasting a pivotal position.
If he'd had more gos lower down it might - just might mind you - have been different.