Vaughan's batting position in ODI

[Scott-Wozniak]

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind the thinking of having Vaughan opening the batting at No. 2 in Tests, yet coming in No. 3 in ODI's?

I'm fully aware that the format of Test and ODI Matches is different, but why does he come in at No 3 in ODI's and have Trescothick and Strauss opening the batting? Is it because Strauss is a more natural ODI opener? or because Vaughan simply prefers batting at No 3 in ODI?

Is this perhaps a trial run for what may come about in the Test side? or am I reading too much into it?

Scott

[Mark Kidger]

I am puzzled. First you pen two replies to me that could have been written by Sundaram and now this. In the first ODI Vaughan opened with Trescothick and Strauss batted at 3. Today, on the team sheet he was down to open with Trescothick, with Strauss at 3.

What is going on here?

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

I am puzzled. First you pen two replies to me that could have been written by Sundaram and now this. In the first ODI Vaughan opened with Trescothick and Strauss batted at 3. Today, on the team sheet he was down to open with Trescothick, with Strauss at 3.

What is going on here?

Mark

I'm sorry I was getting myself a bit confused.

Up until quite recently Nick Knight opened the batting with Trescothick in ODI's, and I was confusing Knight with Strauss, but the question still stands - why was Vaughan coming in at No 3 with Knight opening with Trescothick in the ODI's yet Vaughan was still opening the batting in Tests?

And if you don't agree with my views in the other thread simply say so, comparing me with Sundaram, I find highly offensive and uncalled for. Just becuse you don't agree with my opinion, doesn't make me an idiot, nor does it make you right and me wrong - it just means we have different opinions - please respect those opinions, as I've respected yours. Name calling is not called for.

Scott

[Trescothick's Footwork]

Calm down boys, this isn't the BBC board.

To address the question, I would prefer a specialist pinch-hitter alongside Trecothick with Vaughan to come in later. Either Blackwell, Read or Freddy.

[Irish Left Armer]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Mark

I'm sorry I was getting myself a bit confused.

Up until quite recently Nick Knight opened the batting with Trescothick in ODI's, and I was confusing Knight with Strauss, but the question still stands - why was Vaughan coming in at No 3 with Knight opening with Trescothick in the ODI's yet Vaughan was still opening the batting in Tests?

And if you don't agree with my views in the other thread simply say so, comparing me with Sundaram, I find highly offensive and uncalled for. Just becuse you don't agree with my opinion, doesn't make me an idiot, nor does it make you right and me wrong - it just means we have different opinions - please respect those opinions, as I've respected yours. Name calling is not called for.

Scott

When Vaughan started scoring runs for fun in the tests, he wasn't established in the one dayers, he used to come in at about 5 if he played at all. If you look into it I don't think he has played that many one dayers if compared to say Tres.

On the other hand, Tres had quite a productive opening partnership with Knight for a few years until Knight retired. Knight was a great one day player but was not up to it in the tests. It's a shame it took England so long to figure this out.

Anyway, England had the situation that they now had a run machine in tests who commanded a definite place in the one dayers too but they already had a good opening partnership. So they stuck Vaughan in at number 3 for a while until Knight decided to retire.

Now Vaughan opens with Tres in the one dayers and the tests. The simple answer is that the Knight Trescothick partnership was working very effectively in one dayers and had been in operation before Vaughan hit his purple patch so they rightly in my opinion continued with it.

[Kirsty Harris]

Yes, lets face it, for a long time Knight was one of the best one day batsmen in the world - and certainly Englands best one day batsmen, so of course he was pretty much a dead cert to open, thus Vaughan had to bat lower down the order.

Now that Knight has retired, Vaughan can move up the order..

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind the thinking of having Vaughan opening the batting at No. 2 in Tests, yet coming in No. 3 in ODI's?

I'm fully aware that the format of Test and ODI Matches is different, but why does he come in at No 3 in ODI's and have Trescothick and Strauss opening the batting? Is it because Strauss is a more natural ODI opener? or because Vaughan simply prefers batting at No 3 in ODI?

Is this perhaps a trial run for what may come about in the Test side? or am I reading too much into it?

Scott

I hope quote means reply.
Vaughan should open the innings in any form of cricket,do you not think tresco needs a rest

[Richard Jenkins]

Ernie ou need to click on quote to quote the person your replying to, else the feather thing is a quick reply or post reply gives other options. Does this help?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

Ernie ou need to click on quote to quote the person your replying to, else the feather thing is a quick reply or post reply gives other options. Does this help?

Hope you get this it means I have got it right.thanks

[Rachael]

I'm with you on that one Kirsty: I'd go so far as to say he's STILL England's best one day batsman (albeit rather un-necessarily retired) and is the one guy we just don't seem to be able to replace.

Got little or nothing to do with his runs (lots of guys can score runs): it's his judgement of a good run-rate when batting first to set a target.

Tresco was a great partner for Knight.. as Vaughan would possibly have been.. but both, in the shorter form of the game, need a steadying influence the other end who can find a tempo that's genuinely sustainable.

The only guy in the side who seems to have the judgement to really take control of an innings is Collingwood... and it's reassuring to see him coming to the crease further down the order to marshall the lower-middle order and tail... but if Strauss' judgement is no better than that of Tresco and Vaughan.. we may need to consider opening with him instead.

Hope not: he's too important to risk at the top of the order, especially on tracks where slogging over / through the close fielders is called for.