In yesterday's Daily Telegraph, Derek Pringle says about Michael Vaughan
"He is not a one-day natural, something England have spent 85 matches finding out."
Vaughan's woeful batting stats show this "discovery" should have been made a long time ago.
Just as football strikers should keep or lose their place based on their scoring record (has there ever been an international striker for a major footballing nation to have a worse scoring ratio than Emile's 5 goals in 43?) batsmen should be judged on how many runs they score and how quickly. I'd like to understand the dynamics that have kept Vaughan in the team. Is he not embarassed?
A strike rate of less than 75 is unworthy of any international one-day batsman in the modern game and 80 is par. Vaughan's is 67!!! and his batting average is just as poor. He has never scored a one day century - think of some of the international minnows he's played against. He took 20 balls to get off the mark the other day. Leading nations score between 5 and 6 an over in one-dayers, which means that having passengers like Vaughan put the rest of the team under pressure. Check out the Aussie player profiles. All of their batsman and all-rounders have noticably better stats than Vaughan. I have been arguing for years that he shouldn't be in the team. Vaughan's cajoling to his squad this World Cup has been painful. Like being told by the class dunce that you need to pull your socks up.
Twas ever thus for England. Check this scorecard back in Nasser Hussain's day. He was another top Test player who should never played one dayers. Despite all four top batsmen scoring well, India almost reached our total. The only way England can win one dayers is if our opponents collapse or Pietersen is causing damage. Not good enough. Pick another team and start by looking which players are scoring in 20 20. Vaughan - ffs resign from the One Day scene - do it for your country - you're roobbish. And Fletcher needs to be kicked, too.