Vaughan v Trott

[vegster]

2 x 2-0 Albion wins on the Trott, need to argue about something!!

Oh don't worry, unless it's 3-0 to us next time the moans will start again.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

That's it? That's your comeback argument for saying Vaughan was an overrated captain? Good grief.

Vaughan got the best out of bowlers like Hoggard, Harmison, Jones. He believed in them, bowled them at the right time and mostly set the right fields for them. He seemed to always be giving the ball to the right bowler at the right time. It wasn't just fortunate coincidence that Vaughan happened to chance upon almost every player under him playing the best cricket of their careers. This is why many likened his management of Flintoff to that of Brearley and Botham.

He was a great captain who got a team playing beyond the sum of it's parts make no bones about that. I just hope we can find someone with his imagination, attacking instinct and positive approach sooner rather than later as I honestly don't believe Cook has got it in him and he has had one of the most talented squads of English cricketers in many a year.

I understand why cricket watchers like to put so much faith in the "great captain" argument. It fits in with people's experience of club cricket where a charismatic leader on and off the field often makes the difference to a team's fortunes for a period of time.

You won't, however, find many people involved in professional cricket subscribing to this view. Professional cricket teams win and lose pretty much independently of who is captaining them.

Brearley in 1981 still gets trotted out more than 30 years later as it is, arguably, the exception that proves the rule. (I have also heard it said that even his role is overrated - England's greatest allrounder, freed of the shackles of captaincy and with a point to prove, was after all fairly potent raw material in combination with one of our best ever fast bowlers...).

For a graphic example of how it really works you could look at Michael Clarke during 2013. Team losing - he is a crap captain, tactically lacking, not leadership material, etc. Team winning - he is a good captain, bold and dynamic, just what England could do with...

 

[Tooting Gull]

I understand why cricket watchers like to put so much faith in the "great captain" argument. It fits in with people's experience of club cricket where a charismatic leader on and off the field often makes the difference to a team's fortunes for a period of time.

You won't, however, find many people involved in professional cricket subscribing to this view. Professional cricket teams win and lose pretty much independently of who is captaining them.

Brearley in 1981 still gets trotted out more than 30 years later as it is, arguably, the exception that proves the rule. (I have also heard it said that even his role is overrated - England's greatest allrounder, freed of the shackles of captaincy and with a point to prove, was after all fairly potent raw material in combination with one of our best ever fast bowlers...).

For a graphic example of how it really works you could look at Michael Clarke during 2013. Team losing - he is a crap captain, tactically lacking, not leadership material, etc. Team winning - he is a good captain, bold and dynamic, just what England could do with...

Surely you would accept that a captain's role in cricket is vastly superior to that in football though?

In football it is pretty meaningless, given everyone should be trying to the max anyway. In cricket, the captain has loads on his plate and materially influences the game, especially in the field.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Vaughan did a couple of things very well. (1) He went for attacking and innovative fielding positions, putting doubt in the minds of opposing batsmen. (2) He encouraged the batsmen to take risks & we usually averaged around 3.5 runs per over when batting - compared to about 2.5 now. This is down to daring to fail... you get the sense now we're too bothered about "poor dismissals", when we should be more worried about our low scoring rate.

However, Vaughan was lucky he had Duncan Fletcher as coach who changed the way England played cricket (with Nasser Hussain).

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Surely you would accept that a captain's role in cricket is vastly superior to that in football though?

In football it is pretty meaningless, given everyone should be trying to the max anyway. In cricket, the captain has loads on his plate and materially influences the game, especially in the field.

I agree that to be a cricket captain at any level is a demanding role that requires above average capabilities in decision-making and people management.

Michael Vaughan was a decent captain of England. He is overrated by some and now appears to be showing his true colours as a bit of a ****.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Vaughan is now a professional pundit. Unlike football, the bar is set high in the world of cricket, with the likes of Willis, Botham, Boycott and Warne readily speaking their mind. Therefore, in order to make a name for yourself you can't get away with platitudes, you actually need to call some people out and name names. Personally, I think Vaughan treads the line between controversy and candour pretty well.

Whether or not he is a tw@t makes little odds to me. I'm quite certain Boycott is a tw@t but his punditry is compelling.

 

[big nuts]

I understand why cricket watchers like to put so much faith in the "great captain" argument. It fits in with people's experience of club cricket where a charismatic leader on and off the field often makes the difference to a team's fortunes for a period of time.

You won't, however, find many people involved in professional cricket subscribing to this view. Professional cricket teams win and lose pretty much independently of who is captaining them.

Brearley in 1981 still gets trotted out more than 30 years later as it is, arguably, the exception that proves the rule. (I have also heard it said that even his role is overrated - England's greatest allrounder, freed of the shackles of captaincy and with a point to prove, was after all fairly potent raw material in combination with one of our best ever fast bowlers...).

For a graphic example of how it really works you could look at Michael Clarke during 2013. Team losing - he is a crap captain, tactically lacking, not leadership material, etc. Team winning - he is a good captain, bold and dynamic, just what England could do with...

I find myself disagreeing with pretty much everything in this post.

The Captain of a cricket team is hugely important hence why Brearley was pretty much a specialist captain. A good captain has an instinct for field positions, he can work out and get in the minds of opposition batsman.

A poor piece of captaincy can cost a team a hundred runs + it's that important. Move a 3rd slip out to cover and watch the ball fly through there can demoralise the bowler and give a star batsman a life in the early part of his innings.

Maybe read Brearley's book the art of captaincy and that will give you a huge insight into a captains role which is becoming harder and harder particularly off the pitch with the glare of the media.

Your graphic example of how it really works is wrong also. Anyone could see and several made the point that Clarke's captaincy was streets ahead of Cook's, his field placings were miles better than Cook's captaincy by numbers. See how many times Cook follows the ball with his settings. The only reason Australia lost the away series was because their batsman were awful for 3 tests out of 5 nothing to do with their bowling or field placings.

Vaughan could average 20 and bring more to the side as captain than Cook averaging 50 in my view.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Vaughan could average 20 and bring more to the side as captain than Cook averaging 50 in my view.

This is an interesting point and one I've never thought of before. Mike Brearley's test average was 22.88, with 0 centuries in 39 innings; never mind being an opening bat, these days a wicketkeeper with those stats would be dropped sharpish. The point is that being an effective captain can is almost as good as having a 12th man fielding for you.

On the basis that Cook's batting would no doubt improve if unburdened by the captaincy there's a good argument for appointing the best English-qualified county captain out there. Unfortunately, the average age of a county captain is about 35 with almost all of them over 30 and one or two around the 40 mark (Chapple, Banger).

 

[big nuts]

This is an interesting point and one I've never thought of before. Mike Brearley's test average was 22.88, with 0 centuries in 39 innings; never mind being an opening bat, these days a wicketkeeper with those stats would be dropped sharpish. The point is that being an effective captain can is almost as good as having a 12th man fielding for you.

On the basis that Cook's batting would no doubt improve if unburdened by the captaincy there's a good argument for appointing the best English-qualified county captain out there. Unfortunately, the average age of a county captain is about 35 with almost all of them over 30 and one or two around the 40 mark (Chapple, Banger).

Rob Key would be in with a shout as the best English captain but age and recent form would be against him, plus I can't see England going down that route as it couldn't be anything more than a short term appointment.

I would be happy with Stuart Broad as captain he might upset a few, but he appears to have a good cricket brain and his got a nasty streak much like Hussain who really laid the foundations for Vaughan's reign.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I find myself disagreeing with pretty much everything in this post.

The Captain of a cricket team is hugely important hence why Brearley was pretty much a specialist captain. A good captain has an instinct for field positions, he can work out and get in the minds of opposition batsman.

A poor piece of captaincy can cost a team a hundred runs + it's that important. Move a 3rd slip out to cover and watch the ball fly through there can demoralise the bowler and give a star batsman a life in the early part of his innings.

Maybe read Brearley's book the art of captaincy and that will give you a huge insight into a captains role which is becoming harder and harder particularly off the pitch with the glare of the media.

Your graphic example of how it really works is wrong also. Anyone could see and several made the point that Clarke's captaincy was streets ahead of Cook's, his field placings were miles better than Cook's captaincy by numbers. See how many times Cook follows the ball with his settings. The only reason Australia lost the away series was because their batsman were awful for 3 tests out of 5 nothing to do with their bowling or field placings.

Vaughan could average 20 and bring more to the side as captain than Cook averaging 50 in my view.

saves me typing a response.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I find myself disagreeing with pretty much everything in this post.

The Captain of a cricket team is hugely important hence why Brearley was pretty much a specialist captain. A good captain has an instinct for field positions, he can work out and get in the minds of opposition batsman.

A poor piece of captaincy can cost a team a hundred runs + it's that important. Move a 3rd slip out to cover and watch the ball fly through there can demoralise the bowler and give a star batsman a life in the early part of his innings.

Maybe read Brearley's book the art of captaincy and that will give you a huge insight into a captains role which is becoming harder and harder particularly off the pitch with the glare of the media.

Your graphic example of how it really works is wrong also. Anyone could see and several made the point that Clarke's captaincy was streets ahead of Cook's, his field placings were miles better than Cook's captaincy by numbers. See how many times Cook follows the ball with his settings. The only reason Australia lost the away series was because their batsman were awful for 3 tests out of 5 nothing to do with their bowling or field placings.

Vaughan could average 20 and bring more to the side as captain than Cook averaging 50 in my view.

Brearley had just made 4 centuries, including one against Australia, before he came into that 1981 series. He was far from a "specialist captain" and once the gold dust associated with Botham's heroics wore off he was rightly dropped because there were better opening batsmen available.

You assert that the captain's role is becoming more and more significant and yet none of the idiots involved in the multi-billion dollar world of professional cricket seem to realise the fact... they just keep picking a captain from the best eleven players available - the fools..!!!

 

[big nuts]

Brearley had just made 4 centuries, including one against Australia, before he came into that 1981 series. He was far from a "specialist captain" and once the gold dust associated with Botham's heroics wore off he was rightly dropped because there were better opening batsmen available.

You assert that the captain's role is becoming more and more significant and yet none of the idiots involved in the multi-billion dollar world of professional cricket seem to realise the fact... they just keep picking a captain from the best eleven players available - the fools..!!!

My first instinct is to look within my best players for a captain, and by the law of averages you should find at least one decent captain out of the eleven. In England's case Broad looks like he has the makings of a decent captain and if Swann hadn't retired I also feel he would have made a good captain. Facts are even when England were winning Cooks leadership and tactical naievity were glaringly obvious.

I'm not suggesting we go down the specialist captain route but if you had 11 players who couldn't captain for toffee I think using a specialist captain would be a good option.

If you want to see how a strong captain can make a huge difference look at the New Zealand team under Stephen Fleming they over achieved for several years with him at the helm.

Another example in 2005 Vaughan out captained Ponting in an incredibly tight series, if you had of switched the captains around the result of the series would have been different.

Look how Strauss kept getting his declarations wrong in the Caribbean in 2008/09 we ended up losing a series 1-0 when we should have won 2-1 these are the impacts of cricket captaincy.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

My first instinct is to look within my best players for a captain, and by the law of averages you should find at least one decent captain out of the eleven. In England's case Broad looks like he has the makings of a decent captain and if Swann hadn't retired I also feel he would have made a good captain. Facts are even when England were winning Cooks leadership and tactical naievity were glaringly obvious.

I'm not suggesting we go down the specialist captain route but if you had 11 players who couldn't captain for toffee I think using a specialist captain would be a good option.

If you want to see how a strong captain can make a huge difference look at the New Zealand team under Stephen Fleming they over achieved for several years with him at the helm.

Another example in 2005 Vaughan out captained Ponting in an incredibly tight series, if you had of switched the captains around the result of the series would have been different.

Look how Strauss kept getting his declarations wrong in the Caribbean in 2008/09 we ended up losing a series 1-0 when we should have won 2-1 these are the impacts of cricket captaincy.

Your first sentence contains most truth - nearly all professional cricket teams contain more than one player perfectly capable of captaining the side.

New Zealand achieved relatively well for several years during which Stephen Fleming averaged about 45 and Daniel Vettori was among the best spin bowlers in the world.

People being "out-captained" and declarations being "wrong" is simply the stuff of 20/20 hindsight. There is always an alternative in cricket decision-making. The winning captain always gets it right (until he starts losing at which point his previous failings become glaringly obvious...).

The key to this argument is why are you NOT proposing the selection of a specialist captain if their role is so crucial...? Chris Adams was by all accounts a "great captain"... should he have been made captain of England for 10 years..? He would have averaged about 30 and could have overseen a decade of world dominance...?

 

[big nuts]

Your first sentence contains most truth - nearly all professional cricket teams contain more than one player perfectly capable of captaining the side.

New Zealand achieved relatively well for several years during which Stephen Fleming averaged about 45 and Daniel Vettori was among the best spin bowlers in the world.

People being "out-captained" and declarations being "wrong" is simply the stuff of 20/20 hindsight. There is always an alternative in cricket decision-making. The winning captain always gets it right (until he starts losing at which point his previous failings become glaringly obvious...).

The key to this argument is why are you NOT proposing the selection of a specialist captain if their role is so crucial...? Chris Adams was by all accounts a "great captain"... should he have been made captain of England for 10 years..? He would have averaged about 30 and could have overseen a decade of world dominance...?

Was Chris Adams a better captain than Michael Vaughan? Probably not and Vaughan was way ahead as a batsman so seems logical that Vaughan stayed in, prior to that we were very lucky to have Hussain who along with Duncan Fletcher transformed English cricket from bottom of the pile to an incredibly hard team to beat and some stunning overseas victories in the sub-continent.

A great captain from time to time will make the wrong call/decision but I guarantee they get it right incredibly frequently at least 8 out of 10 times.

Give Strauss the same scenario as the Caribbean another 18 months into his captaincy he would have declared far earlier to give the West Indies a sniff of victory, but the point remains his decision as captain not only cost us the match but also the series.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Was Chris Adams a better captain than Michael Vaughan? Probably not and Vaughan was way ahead as a batsman so seems logical that Vaughan stayed in, prior to that we were very lucky to have Hussain who along with Duncan Fletcher transformed English cricket from bottom of the pile to an incredibly hard team to beat and some stunning overseas victories in the sub-continent.

A great captain from time to time will make the wrong call/decision but I guarantee they get it right incredibly frequently at least 8 out of 10 times.

Give Strauss the same scenario as the Caribbean another 18 months into his captaincy he would have declared far earlier to give the West Indies a sniff of victory, but the point remains his decision as captain not only cost us the match but also the series.

You are right about the Adams/Vaughan/Hussain scenario. I was being facetious in any case as I don't think for one second that Chris Adams was a "great captain"... he had a great county side that any competent leader (e.g. Yardy or Joyce) would happily have captained to the Championship.

 

[Titanic]

Is this going to fizzle out with an agreement to disagree... or should I be opening the olives and hummus, and settling in with a nice Sauvignon Blanc?

 

[big nuts]

Is this going to fizzle out with an agreement to disagree... or should I be opening the olives and hummus, and settling in with a nice Sauvignon Blanc?

I think I might declare now, it was a good discussion but I feel I have enough runs on the board!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Doesn't pull many punches does he?

'For Vaughan, Trott's decision to walk away was the wrong one.
"What Trott will have to accept is that players in his own dressing room and in the opposition will look at him and think at the toughest of times he did a runner," said Vaughan.
"Trott was failing on the biggest stage and he admitted that the previous occasion he suffered burnout was in South Africa in 2009-10, the only other time he has faced top-quality fast bowling.
"He was in a bad state mentally in both series but also technically. Until he corrects the faults in his game against fast bowling, he will not get any better.'

 

[Pavilionaire]

Of the 18 county captains all are 30 or over. Of those, 4 are overseas players (Madsen, Klinger, Sarwan and Chris Rogers). Of the remaining 14, 9 are England discards (Collingwood, Foster, Key, Chapple, Read, Trescothick, Batty, Joyce and Troughton).

That leaves 5 guys all over 30 and overlooked by England to this point - Jimmy Adams, Peters, Mitchell, Gale and Wallace (and even he's Welsh).

Therefore, if England are looking for an alternative to Cook from the county circuit they'll be wasting their time.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Of the 18 county captains all are 30 or over. Of those, 4 are overseas players (Madsen, Klinger, Sarwan and Chris Rogers). Of the remaining 14, 9 are England discards (Collingwood, Foster, Key, Chapple, Read, Trescothick, Batty, Joyce and Troughton).

That leaves 5 guys all over 30 and overlooked by England to this point - Jimmy Adams, Peters, Mitchell, Gale and Wallace (and even he's Welsh).

Therefore, if England are looking for an alternative to Cook from the county circuit they'll be wasting their time.

It doesn't matter anyway, according to Moshe, professional cricket teams pretty much win lose or draw independently of the captain...