Drop Michael Vaughan

[Microshocker]

Ten reasons to drop the English captain:

1. Horrible one day track record
2. Has rarely won a one day match for his team
3. Hasn't won too many test matches either
4. Take away one series from his career and you have a test average below 40.
5. Take away his performances against the minnows and you have a one day average of 25 at an apalling strike rate
6. The only reason he is Michael Vaughan instead of Michael Who? is because of Sky Sports' reach throughout the world.
7. Really doesn't know how to bat well under the role of captaincy
8. Gets out in ugly ways on simple deliveries
9. 8 years from now, considering how many test matches England plays, Vaughans record will be something like this: 140 test matches, 18 centuries, 40.9 average
10. Looks "weak", both as a solid batsman and as a captain

[greg]

5 reasons to keep picking Michael Vaughan.

1, Averages 45 in Test cricket.Not a bad average for such a bad player.
2, The best winning ratio by an England captain ever in Test cricket.
3, 14 hundreds in 57 Test matches. (better ratio than the mighty Inzamam who has 22 in 101) *
4, Has a great record against Australia
5, Who else can captain the side better?

* Check your facts before you post!!!!!!

5 reasons to drop Inzamam.

1 He is old
2 He is fat
3 Awful fielder
4 Bad captain
5 do we need any more

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Microshocker

1. Horrible one day track record ... 2. Has rarely won a one day match for his team ... 5. Take away his performances against the minnows and you have a one day average of 25 at an apalling strike rate

Well, that's one reason three times over. And when you suggest dropping Vaughan from tests too. Well, his ODI form has nothing to with test cricket. Let's have a look at the other reasons:

Originally Posted by Microshocker

3. Hasn't won too many test matches either

Mmm, hard to see where this one comes from. He's played a big part in many wins:
120 v PAK 2001
100 v IND 2002
183 v Aus in 2003
48 & 81* v BAN 2003
103 & 101* v WI in 2004
82* & 54 v SA 2005
Some crucial knocks there. And he'a also played some crucial innings to save games too.

Originally Posted by Microshocker

4. Take away one series from his career and you have a test average below 40.

Fact is, he played that series. It happened. No point pretending it didn't.

Originally Posted by Microshocker

6. The only reason he is Michael Vaughan instead of Michael Who? is because of Sky Sports' reach throughout the world.

So we drop him because of Sky Sports? What have they got to do with Vaughan's merits to be in the team. I don't care if people are or aren't aware of Vaughan in WI, Pakistan, Aus or anywhere else. What matters is how he plays.

Originally Posted by Microshocker

8. Gets out in ugly ways on simple deliveries

I don't care how he gets out. What matters is how many runs he's got by then. 45.02 on average.

Originally Posted by Microshocker

9. 8 years from now, considering how many test matches England plays, Vaughans record will be something like this: 140 test matches, 18 centuries, 40.9 average

And your reason for this conclusion is ... ? Based on his achievements so far, he'd have an average of 45 and about 30 centuries. I'll take that, thank you!

Originally Posted by Microshocker

10. Looks "weak", both as a solid batsman and as a captain

I think his record shows this blatently isn't the case.

A nice, controversial proposal you make, but one that really doesn't stand up too well.

[Teatime FatCat]

'Inzaman is fat' gags aside, there is a real issue here, and that is that Vaughan is fine where he is in tests. A good leader who has the undying respect of his men, and a class act with the bat.

However, he shouldn't be anywhere near the one-day side, as has been proved over a period of time now. Looking at the county figures, you have guys such as Matt Prior, Ed Smith, Vik Solanki and Paul Weekes (yes I know he's old, but he's good and a good one day bowler) all doing well this season, and lo and begold, looking at last years figuers, they're all in the top 10, with numerous centuries and fifties to their names and decent strike rates. Funnily enough, their career averages are only marginally better than Vaughans, but over recent years they have been consistent, an scored plenty of big scores.

Why is Vaughan continously selected in the face of other decent performers. It's all very well claiming the need for a single captain to keep team spirit together, but how does team spirit work when the captain is continously failing to get runs and is not up to ODI standard?

Vaughans career averages are 28 in both domestic one dayers and in ODI's and that's after 255 and 74 matches respectively. I'm sorry, but it's a fact that something here doesn't add up.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Microshocker

9. 8 years from now, considering how many test matches England plays, Vaughans record will be something like this: 140 test matches, 18 centuries, 40.9 average

Just by looking at point 9, I think you can demonstrate how flawed this post is

At the moment he has played 57 Tests, scored 14 centuries and has an average of 45...

So in 8 years - he will have played 83 more tests.. 8 a year, yet he will have only scored 4 more centuries inthe time...and yet his avererage has dropped just 5points.. Just doesn't add up... if he plays that many tests and his average dips that little he must score more than 4 centuries!!

Just doesn't add up and shows how flawed your argument actually is...

I do agree that we need to re-assess his place in the ODI team and in particular where he bats, but not the Test team.

[Microshocker]

I'm sorry guys, perhaps I have been a bit stupid with this post. I can see where you are coming from:

England have been the slapass boys of World Cricket for a good 10 years till 2003, when a guy came who finally did something commendible against the Aussies. Something like an Aravinda de Silva for Sri Lanka or a Ashraful for Bangladesh, only this time it's a "rebirth" instead of a "birth". Michael Vaughan surely has a big place in the hearts of Englishmen because they feel that he has had a big role in England becoming the number two team. I'd argue that it's only because of Flintoff/Strauss/Giles/Hoggard/Harmison and Trescothick improving themselves from trash international or first class cricketers to quite good players. And perhaps slightly due to Vaughan, because he showed them that an Englishmen can still get good centuries against the Aussies.

But my main point is, considering the drop of his batting average from 51-52 to 45 in less then two years, he's only heading downward. TADA!!! And perhaps an even more important point is, as a one day cricketer, I'd rather have Ian Bishop batting rather than Michael Vaughan. Atleast Ian Bishop gave it a fight.

[DaveGillespie]

I reckon the sole purpose of this post is to be anti-England and provoke a rise; readers of it would be wise not to provide one.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Microshocker 57097

England have been the slapass boys of World Cricket for a good 10 years till 2003.

Really? Is that why they won convincingly against Pakistan, in Pakistan, in 2001?

England were a weaker team than many during the 1990s, but still had some quality performers. Hussain, and then Vaughan, alongwith Marsh & Fletcher have taken them to the next level, where they are now reasonably aspiring to challenge the world's best Test side.

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie 57100

I reckon the sole purpose of this post is to be anti-England and provoke a rise; readers of it would be wise not to provide one.

Wise sentiments, and ones I endorse wholeheartedly.

[Beny]

Dont get personal guys. If you dont like what has been said then either be civil in your reply or dont reply at all.

For the record I'm with Microshocker

[Microshocker]

The sole purpose of this post is to post my opinion and my opinion is Michael Vaughan sucks compared to what the english think of him. If Forums are for "How is the tea today, mate?" I'd go to "Chit Chat" forum and not a cricket forum. And if you call someone with a 36 test average and a less then 30 one day average a quality performer (Hussain), I'd have to assume your no more then a good arbitrator.