Why is Vaughan Practically Useless In One Dayers

[Richard]

No, it makes him look a better player than you have decided that he is.

There's a big difference between how good he is, and how good you think he is.

And yet such esteemed correspondants as vic_orthdox have similar sentiments...

 

[Richard]

well done then in contrasting your initial statement about how he always merited a place in the side for his batting then. ahh richard, you just keep on digging......

He always merited it before becoming captain, because he actually played the odd decent innings batting down the order.
Of course, he also had innings where he had to throw his wicket away too.

which changes the fact that he wasnt good enough for his batting how?

It doesn't, it just shows that even a fairly average player was still better than the next-best we had\have to offer.

 

[Richard]

thats not the only problem. the problem with all those players other than not being able to hit the ball in the air, is that all of them were incapable of rotating the strike with quick singles. which makes them more likely to put pressure on themselves everytime they get bogged down by hitting the ball to the fielders in ODIs. its a similar problem with mark butcher really, and thankfully the selectors made the right decision for once and realised that.

Yes, true.
What I meant is that that inability wouldn't be so badly exposed if they could hit boundaries more.
Inability to hit the ball in the air + inability to rotate the strike = extremely poor one-day batsman.

 

[Richard]

and after countless arguments over that exact point you finally figured it out.

I figured it out long ago.
What I now seek is to get others to figure-out the basic fact that almost no player ever becomes successful in internationals without being successful in domestic cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

He always merited it before becoming captain, because he actually played the odd decent innings batting down the order.
Of course, he also had innings where he had to throw his wicket away too..

if you think he merited a place in the ODI side before captaincy, averaging in the low 20s, then you clearly werent watching closely.

It doesn't, it just shows that even a fairly average player was still better than the next-best we had\have to offer.

nope, he was certainly not better than next best compared to some of our players back then. and if the selectors picked the right players, he probably wouldnt be better than the next best we have now either.

 

[marc71178]

What I now seek is to get others to figure-out the basic fact that almost no player ever becomes successful in internationals without being successful in domestic cricket.

I'd look at the England top 3 (or more specifically numbers 1 and 3) to counter that immediately.

 

[Richard]

Because of course Strauss was never successful in domestic-First-Class cricket was he? Strauss averaged 44.50 between 2000 and 2003.
Absolutely perfect indication that he'd be a good selection for international cricket.
Vaughan has averaged over 50 in domestic-First-Class cricket since 2000.
And if you count Trescothick as a successful Test-match player you're extremely optimistic.
Trescothick is a poor player in Tests and before summer 2004 was found-out whenever the catching and bowling were up to standard.
And you have still never been able to concoct the reason why these isolated examples prove anything.

 

[Richard]

if you think he merited a place in the ODI side before captaincy, averaging in the low 20s, then you clearly werent watching closely.

No, I admit I wasn't watching closely. I only watched a tiny handful of Hussain ODIs before WC99 (and I watched enough in that competition and the next winter to know that he should never, ever have been opening).
However I will never be removed from the idea that if he was going to play he should be batting down the order not at one or three with better players available.

nope, he was certainly not better than next best compared to some of our players back then. and if the selectors picked the right players, he probably wouldnt be better than the next best we have now either.

Who are these right players then?
Who would be better selections than Strauss, Vaughan, Solanki, Collingwood and the like?
I can think of only 1 player who should immidiately be in front of them, and I happen to be watching him bat right now.

 

[Swervy]

I figured it out long ago.
What I now seek is to get others to figure-out the basic fact that almost no player ever becomes successful in internationals without being successful in domestic cricket.

despite plenty of players actually not really doing too well at domestic level and doing well at international level...Gower...Botham with his batting (to name just two), who was infinatly more successful in tests in the first half of his career than in domestic cricket..only when his batting fall away in tests did he start doing well in domestic stuff regularly

 

[tooextracool]

Who are these right players then?
Who would be better selections than Strauss, Vaughan, Solanki, Collingwood and the like?
I can think of only 1 player who should immidiately be in front of them, and I happen to be watching him bat right now.

so you dont think theres anyone capable of being better than those 4 currently playing domestic cricket?

 

[Richard]

Aside from Usman Afzaal no-one springs to mind.
There are others who are capable of doing as poorly, of course.
Currently my England ODI side would be:
Trescothick
X
Afzaal
X
Pietersen
Flintoff
Read
X
X
Gough (and even he was woeful at the end of this summer, as last)
Harmison (and even he has yet to convince me totally)
Certainly there is a total dearth of quality bowlers (Kabir Ali and Wharf, never mind Anderson, weren't actually totally disgraceful selections, just pretty normal). Only names who come to mind are Martin-Jenkins, Killeen and Mascarenhas and none of those three have been wholly convincing in the last 3 seasons.
And for now I can't see a better opener than Strauss, who averages 17 as an opener against ODI-class sides, nor a better middle-order batsman than Collingwood. Only name who comes close to mind is Malachy Loye, who's been woeful this season.

 

[Richard]

despite plenty of players actually not really doing too well at domestic level and doing well at international level...Gower...Botham with his batting (to name just two), who was infinatly more successful in tests in the first half of his career than in domestic cricket..only when his batting fall away in tests did he start doing well in domestic stuff regularly

Of course Gower and Botham are "plenty" of players, aren't they?
I could name countless players who counter them.

 

[Swervy]

Of course Gower and Botham are "plenty" of players, aren't they?
I could name countless players who counter them.

they are just players who came to me at that time..there must be a fair few others as well..and they just happen to be two of the greatest players England have ever produced

 

[Richard]

Gower, one of the greatest players England have ever produced?
No, just a very, very good one.
If you look carefully there aren't that many others, just the odd one here and there.
Most good international players have first been successful at the domestic, and certainly players who are tried at the international without domestic success are almost always failures.

 

[Swervy]

Gower, one of the greatest players England have ever produced?
No, just a very, very good one.

yes..one of the greatest batsmen England have ever produced..no doubt about it I am afraid

 

[Richard]

To name a few better... Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Boycott, Washbrook, Hammond, Ames, Lamb, Barrington, Graveney, Jardine, Dexter, Leyland...
Gower was good, but he wasn't in the very top bracket.
Even if he was I fail to see what it means.

 

[aussie]

To name a few better... Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Boycott, Washbrook, Hammond, Ames, Lamb, Barrington, Graveney, Jardine, Dexter, Leyland...
Gower was good, but he wasn't in the very top bracket.
Even if he was I fail to see what it means.

Yous sure Lamb was better than Gower

 

[Swervy]

To name a few better... Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Boycott, Washbrook, Hammond, Ames, Lamb, Barrington, Graveney, Jardine, Dexter, Leyland...
Gower was good, but he wasn't in the very top bracket.
Even if he was I fail to see what it means.

so Gower isnt and lamb is..interesting

jardine..the scorer of 1 test hundred was..but Gower wasnt..right ok..he was a ground breaking captain fair enough , but as a player I dont think Jardine was close.

Gower vs Leyland....why Leyland ?

 

[Richard]

Read some accounts of the batting of Jardine and Leyland, and watch the little of them that it's possible to, and you'll see.
Number of Test-match centuries is not very important.
Yes, I rate Allan Lamb exceptionally highly and certainly better than Gower (while not in the Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond class).

 

[Swervy]

Read some accounts of the batting of Jardine and Leyland, and watch the little of them that it's possible to, and you'll see.
Number of Test-match centuries is not very important.
Yes, I rate Allan Lamb exceptionally highly and certainly better than Gower (while not in the Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond class).

oh so its who you consider great then?