Should Michael Vaughan be dropped if he struggles in the forthcoming series against New Zealand?

Question

Since he scored his last Test century against India in July 2007, Vaughan has scored 391 Test runs from 14 innings. That's an average of less than 28. Hardly the form of a man who aspires to take his country to the pinnacle of world cricket. If Vaughan continues to struggle in the next home series against New Zealand, the England management will have a tough decision to make. A lot of time, effort, and money has been spent on getting Vaughan back onto the field again. But they have shown themselves to be ruthless when star players are not performing, by dropping Harmison and Hoggard.

Should Vaughan be treated any differently from them because:

a) He is the captain?;

b) He is a batsman?

Can Vaughan justify his inclusion based on captaincy alone?

Answer 1

Which other better batsman is present to fill his batsman role?

England has been struggling to replace a senior player and

let alone his captaincy. He is a good captain and good batsman

who is poor on his form. Even if he fails, Vaughan should continue to play for England until a youngster can be picked

and developed. I know he will come out fine.

Related to dropping Harmison - it was outrageous decision

to do so. Just because you have a bad test or a bad day, one

cannot drop a wicket taking bowler. Anderson is not a bowler

that England can depend on. Sidebottom, Harmison, Flintoff

and Monti makes a good bowling combination. You can have

Hoggard as a backup or 5th bowler.

Answer 2

I think Vaughns saving grace is that the amazing mark ramprakash is just to old to be reselected in team despite his huge weight of runs. Another factor is the troubles trescothick is going through over the past few years. But i think his captaincy is still pretty sharp so he should get another few chances. england probiley wana keep him till the ashes instead of settling in collingwood.

I also wana point out Ramprakash has averaged 102 over the past two years and has also excelled at the short forms. if he wasnt 38 you'd have to give him another shot.

I know!!!!! give him to the nz team! we need someone lol

Answer 3

Before i go on this rant, i will state that even though i am a huge Michael Vaughan fan, i will try to be as unbiased as possible.

Your statistics show that Vaughan averaged 28 from the last 14 innings in test cricket. Now remember that in Sri Lanka the pitches although flat, were very hard to score runs on (especially for the England batsmen). Then in NZ by his own self admittance he had a bad series. BUT if you look at the facts in a different way you will see a different story !!. In 2007 Michael Vaughan averaged 47.56 in test matches. So 47.56 in a year against top quality opposition can't be argued with.

OK now we have discussed the statistical part of it, here is the main part of my arguement. Currently here in England there is a very limited amount of new batsmen which could take over from Michael Vaughan and do as good a job as Vaughan. Would Shah, Key, Denly or Flintoff do a job like Vaughan ?. Shah deserves a place in the side, BUT is has he got the X factor that Vaughan has got ?, Key has been tried and failed !, Denly looks good BUT is not good enough yet, and Flintoff should come in for a bowler instead of a batsmen IMO. So to sum up, iif England had a new batsmen who was firing and scoring 1,000 runs a season in the county championship (Like a Pietersen) then maybe dropping Vaughan would be the right choice.

The 2009 Ashes is what England are looking towards, Vaughan has had experience of playing Australia before, so he would be able to handle the pressure that the Aussies give out. If a Shah or a Key came in then the could bottle it under the pressure of never facing Australia before.

England dropping Hoggard was an awful decision, England didn't show faith in a player who has served England for many years with great success. Harmison is a totally different matter. Anyway my point is that England have been known for many years as a team who stick with there players through thick and thin. Vaughan has served England for 7 or 8 years, he has played many great knocks and had many good times, Vaughan deserves to be backed by the selctors. Captaincy should NOT change a thing about selection, take Bangladesh for example they played Habibul Bashar for a year after he kept missing out with the bat match after match, and yet Bangladesh kept playing him. If Vaughan is not contributing towards the England team then he should NOT play, BUT at the moment he is still good enough to play for England

Anyway Michael Vaughan IMO is still one of the best batsmen in the countries and deserves his place in the England team even if he wasn't the England captain.

EDIT- Rajput and Brads fan- England have plenty of suitable replacments for Vaughan. Flintoff, Strauss and Collingwood all have England captaincy experience, Then there's KP and Cook who are Future England captains too. Vaughan SHOULD stay BUT if he goes we have enough quality to replace him. Way to kick a team whilst it's down (CLAP CLAP)

Answer 4

Agree totally with KooKee

Answer 5

In this context I agree with Brads fan. Englands perfomance has not been consistent. To replace Vaughan you would have to have a suitable alternative. I dont see one.

Answer 6

Yes, Vaughan has always been an over-rated, injury-prone, cocksure self-centered player who should be remembered only for leading England to reclaiming the Ashes. Since Ashes 2005, his captaincy has been highly suspect, and I strongly he tries to exert authority rather than earn respect by his actions.

His batting form has been on a constant downslide. About the only series in which he was by far and wide England's best batsman was the Ashes in Australia in 2002-03. 2005 was a good year, but that was 3 years ago and one should be rated on what they can achieve now, not what they achieved long ago.

For the brief period he held the captaincy, Andrew Strauss was indicated his leadership skills, and it is he and not Flintoff or Collingwood who should be handed the captaincy if England fail to regain the Ashes in 2009. It might be worth persisting with Vaughan until at least then, but if he cannot repeat his 2005 heroics, Vaughan should be out or at least stripped of the captaincy.

Answer 7

It seems pointless to continue with him, but knowing England's ups & downs of recent years, who have they got to replace him?

Answer 8

The Australians have shown that when picking a team reputation counts for nothig as they did whenthey dropped mark waugh and later steve waugh. If a player is under performing no matter who he is he must be dropped, and the Australians are head and shoulders above the rest.