Michael Vaughan

Remove this Banner Ad

C

CarterS

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts
Jun 14, 2001
12,884
13,420
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
This player is really top shelf, setting up the match for England's taking. The England batting lineup isn't looking that bad at the moment with Vaughan world class and Hussein putting in a couple of gutsy knocks in the 2nd innings as well as Butcher's century. With Gough in the lineup and a decent spinner I think we could be looking at a quality lineup here and a team that could challenge the Aussies in the next Ashes and in the future.

I think with McGrath and Warne out the Poms have had a big confidence boost, hopefully Australia can continue their when McGrath and Warne retire but I'm not so sure. This match is a great contest and the 5th day should be great, although it would take something truly brilliant to win from Australia.
 
Absolutely quality player.

Shame that Trescothick has been in such poor form for this series as he has probably been the better of the two over the past 18 months.
 
Originally posted by CarterS
This player is really top shelf, setting up the match for England's taking. The England batting lineup isn't looking that bad at the moment with Vaughan world class and Hussein putting in a couple of gutsy knocks in the 2nd innings as well as Butcher's century. With Gough in the lineup and a decent spinner I think we could be looking at a quality lineup here and a team that could challenge the Aussies in the next Ashes and in the future.

I think with McGrath and Warne out the Poms have had a big confidence boost, hopefully Australia can continue their when McGrath and Warne retire but I'm not so sure. This match is a great contest and the 5th day should be great, although it would take something truly brilliant to win from Australia.
Click to expand...

some good points here, and with a decent middle order batsman or two, as well as a decent spinner, England would be a very tough side. they are not far away from being a force again IMO, Vaughan and Tresco have a long career in front of them and they can build a middle order. spin is a big problem for them though.

about mcgrath and warne's abscence, perhaps yes this psycological crushing england seem to experience when playing us seemed less obvious this test, add to that some very easy chances dropped.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Originally posted by Briedis
Absolutely quality player.

Shame that Trescothick has been in such poor form for this series as he has probably been the better of the two over the past 18 months.
Click to expand...

have to disagree over an 18 month period, Vaughan has been streets ahead of tresco, but he is more consistent for sure.
 
Good thing about Vaughan is that he has gone on with his centuries, and turned them into 140/150+ on several occasions.

Mark Waugh made 20-odd centuries and only once got to 150, and Damien Martyn averages nearly 50 but has a highest score of 133.

Teams are always more likely to build big totals having at least one player who can make big centuries rather than blokes who get out for 102.

Trescothick is a strange one, usually looks more dangerous than Vaughan (and any other English batsman) when he is out there, but this series has not gone on with it, despite not too many outright failures under 10.

It was suggested on the radio commentary that maybe he'd be better down the order, where he'd have less trouble with the new ball, and is more likely to play the spinners which he does quite well.

Hussain and Butcher are workmanlike, but not world-beaters, but hold their place in the current side. Not yet convinced about Key, and can't work out why Crawley keeps popping up in England teams.

Stewart's keeping this summer has been abysmal, and should Foster take over the reins as keeper soon, I'm not sure Stewart can hold his place on batting alone. A couple of gutsy and gritty knocks this series, but a disappointing one overall.

Bowling looks wormanlike also, with blokes who can bowl line and length, but don't take enough wickets. I mean, I doubt Australia would bowl too many sides out cheaply if we had three Andy Bichels.

It's also pretty obvious that spin bowling is a big problem if Dawson is the best they can offer (how much better is Giles)?

Having said all that, the tide can turn pretty quickly. Spin bowling was Australia's problem in the 80s, but a strength in the 90s (Warne & May partenrship), and Australia now has a world-class spinner in MacGill as almost exclusively a stand-by for Warne.

Also 5-6 years ago there was an embarrassment of riches in batting (Bevan, Lehmann, Law, Cox, Maher, Siddons, Elliott, etc) whereas now there are one or two contenders and we still seem unsure about those.

The next few years will be interesting, and the next Ashes series may not be so one-sided with many Australian players retired or close to it.
 
Originally posted by Darky
Teams are always more likely to build big totals having at least one player who can make big centuries rather than blokes who get out for 102.
Click to expand...
i dont know what you mean by that but the impression that i get is it churnes you up when steve waugh gets runs. remember he has made it to 150+ on 13 occasions
 
and remember a team is also more likely to fail if a guy either fails or gets big centuries. 6 of one half a dozen of the other. a guy who gets 50 runs every innings is just as valuable as a guy who gets either 100 or 0 every second innings IMO.
 
Originally posted by nicko18
i dont know what you mean by that but the impression that i get is it churnes you up when steve waugh gets runs. remember he has made it to 150+ on 13 occasions
Click to expand...

Maybe 102 was a poor number to pick in view of recent discussions, it was not intended as a comment about Steve Waugh, who has usually turned 100s into big 100s.

Note I did cite M.Waugh & Martyn as examples, and I suppose if you include Shield cricket, Brad Hodge is another obvious one (av 39.00, 16 centuries, HS 140).
 
Originally posted by Darky
Maybe 102 was a poor number to pick in view of recent discussions, it was not intended as a comment about Steve Waugh, who has usually turned 100s into big 100s.

Note I did cite M.Waugh & Martyn as examples, and I suppose if you include Shield cricket, Brad Hodge is another obvious one (av 39.00, 16 centuries, HS 140).
Click to expand...

ok, apart from that a few valid points were raised. mark waugh once the hard work was done was renowned for throwing his wicket away. i remember all those backing 3 feet down the deg side trying to loft over cover when in the early 100's. surprisingly different players the two twins. Martyn is an interesting one. he doesnt strike me as the type to throw his wicket away like mark waugh, but still he never gets really big scores. perhaps mental fatigue??
 
Originally posted by nicko18
Martyn is an interesting one. he doesnt strike me as the type to throw his wicket away like mark waugh, but still he never gets really big scores. perhaps mental fatigue??
Click to expand...
Or batting at 6, at the end of the innings? he's had a fair few scores in the 60's and 70's not out.
 
Originally posted by nicko18
have to disagree over an 18 month period, Vaughan has been streets ahead of tresco, but he is more consistent for sure.
Click to expand...

Disagree Vaughan has been "streets ahead".

Both players had almost identical stats in the Eng vs Pakistan series in 2001.

Trescothick carried the English batting in India, Vaughan was injured in the second test.

Both were average in NZ.

In the recent series in the English summer against the SL, both excelled but Trescothick was the better player.

Against the Indians Vaughan had a blinder scoring three big tons, whereas Trescothick only played the last test due to injury.

I still think that up until Trescothick was injured during the Indian series he was the better player, but Vaughan has been through an unbelievable six months since then.

Trescothick has two problems:
1) He doesn't convert enough 50s into 100s (he currently has 15 50s and only 3 100s)
2) He seems to struggle against Australia, both in the UK and here.

It will be interesting to see how he goes against the South Africans....
 
Originally posted by scmods
Or batting at 6, at the end of the innings? he's had a fair few scores in the 60's and 70's not out.
Click to expand...

hmmm, looking at it he's only had 4 scores above 50 that have been not out.

an interesting comparison would be to look at a players average once they reach 50, i think that is the best judge of whether a batsman goes on with it:

ME Waugh: 47.00
DR Martyn: 56.35
ML Hayden: 57.04
MP Vaughan: 65.25
SR Waugh: 94.58
DG Bradman: 135.20
 
Originally posted by nicko18
hmmm, looking at it he's only had 4 scores above 50 that have been not out.
Click to expand...
I knew I should have checked before posting off the top of my head!

an interesting comparison would be to look at a players average once they reach 50, i think that is the best judge of whether a batsman goes on with it:

ME Waugh: 47.00
DR Martyn: 56.35
ML Hayden: 57.04
MP Vaughan: 65.25
SR Waugh: 94.58
DG Bradman: 135.20
Click to expand...
?? So Mark Waugh averages 47 once he reaches 50? :confused:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted by nicko18
hmmm, looking at it he's only had 4 scores above 50 that have been not out.

an interesting comparison would be to look at a players average once they reach 50, i think that is the best judge of whether a batsman goes on with it:

ME Waugh: 47.00
DR Martyn: 56.35
ML Hayden: 57.04
MP Vaughan: 65.25
SR Waugh: 94.58
DG Bradman: 135.20
Click to expand...
Ummmm........

You've mucked something up here
 
They do look like a future team at the moment. I would love to have a raw Harmison running around waiting in the wings to play for us. Vaughan and Trescothick are world class no doubt, but lets no forget what the aussies have been through this series. I mean we look buggered, and I believe this is due to our dommance. For the first four tests or the best part of, we have been in the field, its always tuff to back up and bowl a side when you put them back in. Just look at McGill this test, he has bowled mega overs in 2 tests and is smashed metally, or so it seems from his body language. I wonder how the rest of the guys feel, not only the bowlers but our bats. Due to their own success they have had to spent much of their time in the field, where as the poms have sat on the asses.
Although the poms have played great cricket this test, don’t under estimate the stress that has been put on our boys in smashing them. 3 days out in the heat chasing leather in some of the warmer days we have had this summer have to hurt. I believe we are victims of our own success to a degree.
 
Originally posted by larrikin

ME Waugh: 47.00
DR Martyn: 56.35
ML Hayden: 57.04
MP Vaughan: 65.25
SR Waugh: 94.58
DG Bradman: 135.20

Ummmm........

You've mucked something up here
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that these figures are the average runs scored in addition to 50. ie, Mark Waugh averages 97.00 in all innings where he has scored 50 runs or more. For me the figures suggest that Mark Waugh was a fairly even performer who tended to have not too many big days nor bad days. Steve on the other hand, obviously has his big days.
 
Originally posted by scmods
I knew I should have checked before posting off the top of my head!


?? So Mark Waugh averages 47 once he reaches 50? :confused:
Click to expand...

sorry, i should have explained it a bit better. i mean once they get to fifty, this is how many more runs they score. so iff a batter gets 62, that counts as a 12, because once he got the start, he went on with it with 12 further runs.
 
Originally posted by Jim Boy
I think you'll find that these figures are the average runs scored in addition to 50. ie, Mark Waugh averages 97.00 in all innings where he has scored 50 runs or more. For me the figures suggest that Mark Waugh was a fairly even performer who tended to have not too many big days nor bad days. Steve on the other hand, obviously has his big days.
Click to expand...

spot on jim.
 
For me, Michael Vaughan was the find of the series. I'd seen so little of him in the past and discovered a quality player.
I look forward to him touring Australia for many years to come.
 
Originally posted by nicko18
sorry, i should have explained it a bit better. i mean once they get to fifty, this is how many more runs they score. so iff a batter gets 62, that counts as a 12, because once he got the start, he went on with it with 12 further runs.
Click to expand...
I see! Shows how important it was to get Bradman early!

(On a vaguely related note, I remember reading once that Bradman was never dismissed in the 90's, in any grade of cricket)
 
Originally posted by scmods
I see! Shows how important it was to get Bradman early!

(On a vaguely related note, I remember reading once that Bradman was never dismissed in the 90's, in any grade of cricket)
Click to expand...

unfortunately his death was the only time he was dismissed in the 90's some people in the paper said.
 
Although I enjoyed watching Michael Vaughan bat, you can't help but to wonder how Engalnd's batting line-up would have fared against our attack if Trescothick hadn't have lost form, and if Graham Thorpe hadn't have ruled himself out of the Ashes Series because of personal reasons.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Michael Vaughan

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top