Vaughan confident of return to England XI

Sorry if this is old news but...

Former England captain Michael Vaughan is confident of forcing his way back into the national team in time for the winter tour to the Caribbean.

story

Merlin will be pleased.

Well, IF he can get into form and is around and about the team, he'll be blatantly be our second best batsman. Tough runs. Quality runs. It's a big if, obviously.

All my Lord's tickets for the 2nd Ashes test will be on offer outside the Grace Gates if that qunt makes a reprise in an England shirt.

Regardless of shit form, the chances are that he will ....
a. he's on a central contract and
b. his selector bum-buddy Piles probably "owes him one".

Quite amazing the difference between Thorpie's and Vawnie's career endings eh!
One got chopped uncerimoniously the other 'expects a return'.

Qunt.

Oh come on Merln. You KNOW that a fit and firing Vaughan is an asset to England in next year's Ashes series.

What's wrong with him wanting to play on for his England place? He scores better runs than most of the team.

Merlin wrote:All my Lord's tickets for the 2nd Ashes test will be on offer outside the Grace Gates if that qunt makes a reprise in an England shirt.

Regardless of shit form, the chances are that he will ....
a. he's on a central contract and
b. his selector bum-buddy Piles probably "owes him one".

Quite amazing the difference between Thorpie's and Vawnie's career endings eh!
One got chopped uncerimoniously the other 'expects a return'.

Qunt.

Brass Monkey wrote:What's wrong with him wanting to play on for his England place? He scores better runs than most of the team.

Nothing at all.
But the fact is that he HASN'T scored runs for 5 months.... and has yet to prove he can again.

How can he justify a tour spot to the WIndies on the basis of SFA done to prove his worth?
or indeed a pick against the Aussies next year?

All seemingly on the basis of what "might be ... and what "used to be" 3 years ago.

My point about Thorpie is relevant.
Thorpe scored heavily in the season 2005, yet was dumped after he got to 100 Tests (SL or Bangles??) before the Ashes because England were looking at youth against the Aussies.

So ... shouldn't the same logic now apply now to a player pushing 36 by next June?

Trev -
A fit and firing Vaughan ??
When was that last a reality?

Thorpe perhaps should have played but his back was farked and those close to the team thought his eyes were going against SA on the tour before

Not as black & white as you would think imo

Merlin wrote:
Nothing at all.
But the fact is that he HASN'T scored runs for 5 months.... and has yet to prove he can.

How can he justify a tour spot to the WIndies on the basis of SFA done to prove his worth?
or indeed a pick against the Aussies next year?

All seemingly on the basis of what "might be ... and what "used to be" 3 years ago.

My point about Thorpie is relevant.
Thorpe scored heavily in the season 2005, yet was dumped after he got to 100 Tests (SL or Bangles??) before the Ashes because England were looking at youth against the Aussies.

So ... shouldn't the same logic now apply now to a player pushing 36 by next June?

He can't justify his place, there's no doubt. To me, it smacks familiar of a few selections of the recent past. Strauss and Bopara for two. Ergo, if he gets his totally unwarranted chance, and takes it, he should be in the side for the Aussies.

I don't want to get into a fairness debate. If fair was fair, David Sales would've gotten a go, as can be seen by his stats over the last 5-6 years and the likes of Owais Shah would've replaced the shitter batsmen that've come in/been kept in the last 3 years.

Graham Thorpe - treated amazingly poorly, as I highlighted throughout our successful Ashes series. It was a total disgrace. We all know who replaced him, though the scorecards will tell you different. That's a little inconsistant - we know who booted him and probably the reasons why. It certainly wasn't a fitness concern, likely we all saw him a few days before in a Surrey match diving about at short leg and third man - this is a different 'axis' here - so consistancy doesn't apply.

JKLever wrote:Thorpe perhaps should have played but his back was farked and those close to the team thought his eyes were going against SA on the tour before

Not as black & white as you would think imo

What a load of bollocks. He was fine in the preceeding Surrey match. He would've been fine for two months with injections either way. The fact he had had back problems was just an immensely f*cking convenient excuse.

Brass Monkey wrote:

JKLever wrote:Thorpe perhaps should have played but his back was farked and those close to the team thought his eyes were going against SA on the tour before

Not as black & white as you would think imo

What a load of bollocks. He was fine in the preceeding Surrey match. He would've been fine for two months with injections either way. The fact he had had back problems was just an immensely f*cking convenient excuse.

Neither you or I know that do we? Perhaps those close to the team felt it would be his last series, and wanted 2 younger guys in there anyway - we don't know. It was their call...

Brass Monkey wrote:

He can't justify his place, there's no doubt. To me, it smacks familiar of a few selections of the recent past. Strauss and Bopara for two. Ergo, if he gets his totally unwarranted chance, and takes it, he should be in the side for the Aussies. I don't want to get into a fairness debate. If fair was fair, David Sales would've gotten a go, as can be seen by his stats over the last 5-6 years and the likes of Owais Shah would've replaced the shitter batsmen that've come in/been kept in the last 3 years.

Graham Thorpe - treated amazingly poorly, as I highlighted throughout our successful Ashes series. It was a total disgrace. We all know who replaced him, though the scorecards will tell you different. That's a little inconsistant - we know who booted him and probably the reasons why. It certainly wasn't a fitness concern, likely we all saw him a few days before in a Surrey match diving about at short leg and third man - this is a different 'axis' here - so consistancy doesn't apply.

Got no problem with that - however, on the condition that, like Bell, he doesn't consider it his god-given right to be there if he starts blobbing out just because he's on a central contract.

Thorpie... aye ... very hard done by in 2005, but as you say, it's a different 'axis' now ... and the increasing worry is that Piles IS a close personal friend of Vaughan's ... and Piles can, most likely, be very persuasive in a selectors huddle.

Btw, I would have picked Thorpe (& KP) but he had only scored 1 ton in his last 26 FC innings.

Wasn't he going to be unavailable that winter anyway coaching somewhere? Probably made up the head honchos minds

JKLever wrote:
Neither you or I know that do we? Perhaps those close to the team felt it would be his last series, and wanted 2 younger guys in there anyway - we don't know. It was their call...

No. Hindsight is a beauty though, eh? I'm sure it would be as as you make it if it'd had been 1-1 or whatever else, rather than 2-1. Because for a bloke who barely ever - if ever - averaged 40+ against the Aussies home and away to be dropped and one of the incumbents to be as pathetic as a certain IRB was, I'd certainly be rueing the day, more and more, that he wasn't given a deserved swansong - he should've been in the team on merit.

I only had to see him in that Surrey game to know he was hot to trot.

Merlin wrote:
Got no problem with that - however, on the condition that, like Bell, he doesn't consider it his god-given right to be there if he starts blobbing out just because he's on a central contract.

Thorpie... aye ... very hard done by in 2005, but as you say, it's a different 'axis' now ... and the increasing worry is that Piles IS a close personal friend of Vaughan's ... and Piles can, most likely, be very persuasive in a selectors huddle.

I agree that it would be a bad thing, however I think I'm letting my bitter feelings towards the Shermanator see it as the lesser of two evils. Not sure why they'd be listening to Giles so much though, he's not Sussex and he's got f*ck all chocolate on the go.

Brass Monkey wrote:

JKLever wrote:
Neither you or I know that do we? Perhaps those close to the team felt it would be his last series, and wanted 2 younger guys in there anyway - we don't know. It was their call...

No. Hindsight is a beauty though, eh? I'm sure it would be as as you make it if it'd had been 1-1 or whatever else, rather than 2-1. Because for a bloke who barely ever - if ever - averaged 40+ against the Aussies home and away to be dropped and one of the incumbents to be as pathetic as a certain IRB was, I'd certainly be rueing the day, more and more, that he wasn't given a deserved swansong - he should've been in the team on merit.

I only had to see him in that Surrey game to know he was hot to trot.

Sure, as I said I think he should have played. See above - I just think the usual 'the selectors are just a bunch of qunts' line is a bit tiresome, they must have had some inside knowledge before making the call.

As you say though, it's a pity because you would think runs in the bank should have counted for something.

JKLever wrote:Btw, I would have picked Thorpe (& KP) but he had only scored 1 ton in his last 26 FC innings.

Wasn't he going to be unavailable that winter anyway coaching somewhere? Probably made up the head honchos minds

He was our 2nd or 3rd best batsman in SA. He looked bored and totally untroubled against Bangladesh - FC is irrelevant IMO.

As for the winter thing, yeah, but we're talking summer. Boo-hoo if we had to blood someone against Pak or Ind. It's not like they were going to get, or got, an easy ride versus Aus.

We were discussing Thorpe a few months ago, so i thought id dig this up (again)
1/3/04 to retirement

17 28 9 1192 119* 62.73 4x100 6x50 (high not outs, but normally because he was stranded, or chasing a total against Bangers)

last 8 tests
114 vs WI at Old Trafford
4 & 31* vs SA at Port Elizabeth
1 & 118* vs SA at Durban
12 & 26 vs SA at Cape Town
0 & 1 vs SA at Johannesburg
86 & 8 vs SA at Centurion
42* vs Bang at Lords
66* vs Bang at Chester-le-Street

Its hardly the sort of run that youd drop someone for, but I suppose its in the past. But the point being, Vaughan has scored nowhere near this amount of runs recently.

I bet if England hadn't gone down 4 nil he wouldn't be announcing his availability so loudly.

If there is one name in the ridiculously named development squad who should be playing in the Tests it's Adil Rashid.

If MPV makes it back into the side, I think it'll be as an opener. Got a hunch that Strauss won't last the winter.

Frankly, any of England's batting line-up bar Pietersen could be cut after the meagre returns of the last few Test series, so it's no wonder that Vaughan (and other fringe players like Shah, Bopara - and I even heard Ed Joyce talking up his chances the other day) are licking their lips and fancying their chances.

Cook - technique still looks shot.
Strauss - lost his mojo completely
Bell - talent+no testicles=fitful performances
Pietersen - SAFE
Collingwood - has barely been able to lay bat on ball in 2008
Flintoff - probably won't last long at six
Prior/Ambrose - keeper's place is always hanging by a thread

First test in a couple of weeks. So..........

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Bell or Colly
Fred
Prior
Swann or Broad
Harmison
Anderson
Panesar.

If the pitch looks like a raging bunsen, there's no point in playing Colly as he would be a walking wicket.

Similarly, we might want to unleash Swanny on an unsuspecting Indian side if the pitch looks spin-friendly.

Opening pair looks gash in the extreme against spin. And that's if Instant Karma doesn't snare them early!

None of it looks great to be honest. Anderson and Harmison have no form at all, and who knows what kind of shape Panesar's game's going to be in by the time the Tests come around.

We could be a one man attack. And a one man batting line-up.