View Full Version : Did Vaughan deserve Man of the Series?
Bit controversial .. you dont often see a losing team player (flogged actually) win a man of the series ..
He got 633 runs at an average of 63.3
Hayden got 496 runs at an average of 62.
It begs the question.
Vaughan only really had a big impact in THREE innings (out of 10).
They were his 183, 177 and 145.
Take those scores out and in the other 7 innings, he averaged only 18.29
Was Hayden Punished for breaking that window?
No-one had a really consistent series.
Vaughan didn't deserve it any less than anyone else.
Another question that should be asked is should the selectors of the award have taken into account the quality of bowling that the runs were scored against. Vaughan was scoring runs against a higher quality of attack. But really you can only rate Hayden & Co against the bowling that they are facing.
I think Vaughan might have got it because the Aussies were hard to pick - when the series was there to be won Hayden, Ponting and Martyn were all putting up their hand, as was Warne, which makes it hard to choose between them.
I agree, a controversial one, but gee, is he the goods or what? Roll on the next Ashes series, should be a batting feast...
bluechampion
7 Jan 2003, 12:49
He deserved it as much as anyone.
GoEagles
7 Jan 2003, 16:53
Considering Vaughan's batting compared to the rest of his team he is definately a deserving winner.
Hayden came up trumps yet again this series, but Vaughan played the most consistant cricket of his career.
Originally posted by P76
I think Vaughan might have got it because the Aussies were hard to pick - when the series was there to be won Hayden, Ponting and Martyn were all putting up their hand, as was Warne, which makes it hard to choose between them.
I agree, a controversial one, but gee, is he the goods or what? Roll on the next Ashes series, should be a batting feast...
im not quite sure i'd be including martyn in that list... but anyway
Richie Benaud
7 Jan 2003, 19:35
Originally posted by nicko18
im not quite sure i'd be including martyn in that list... but anyway
Damien Martyn did make over 300 runs for the series at an average in the 40's.
Originally posted by Richie Benaud
Damien Martyn did make over 300 runs for the series at an average in the 40's.
true, 320 runs at an average of 40.00 infact. but in contention for man of the series??? 7th highest run scorer, many dropped chances and 1 wicket
Brett Li
7 Jan 2003, 21:30
Of course. Scored more runs at better average than any Pommie Bat. Scored more runs, better average against a better attack than the aussies.
No stand out bowlers IMHO
wagstaff
7 Jan 2003, 21:57
Originally posted by TheMase
Bit controversial .. you dont often see a losing team player (flogged actually) win a man of the series ..
He got 633 runs at an average of 63.3
Hayden got 496 runs at an average of 62.
It begs the question.
Vaughan only really had a big impact in THREE innings (out of 10).
They were his 183, 177 and 145.
Take those scores out and in the other 7 innings, he averaged only 18.29
Was Hayden Punished for breaking that window?
I think the man-of-the-series would have been between Hayden and Vaughan.
You could both argue reasons why one was inferior to the other: against Hayden you could say that he only made a signficant contribution in two Tests and that his impact on the series after Brisbane was realtively minor. Of course, you could respond with the valid argument that Hayden did it when the direction of the series was unclear.
Against Vaughan, you could say that he scored two of his centuries when the series was already over. But you could argue that his two centuries in the final Two Tests changed the momentum of the latter part of the series; midway through the Melbourne Test England were considered one of the worst ever sides to tour Australia; his century almost gave England a shock win in Melbourne and his century in Sydney ensured that England were going to be the first side in over four years to beat Australia in Australia.
It's a tight battle, but I would slightly favour Vaughan.
Bomber Spirit
7 Jan 2003, 22:04
Vaughan scored more runs and had a better average than Hayden. On the other hand, Hayden set Australia up into a winning position in 2 of those Tests compared to Vaughan doing it once.
Not much to choose between either.
Brett Li
7 Jan 2003, 22:28
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
Vaughan scored more runs and had a better average than Hayden. On the other hand, Hayden set Australia up into a winning position in 2 of those Tests compared to Vaughan doing it once.
Not much to choose between either.
you might argue that Hayden has more consistent batting around him.......
Brett Li
7 Jan 2003, 22:29
Originally posted by wagstaff
I think the man-of-the-series would have been between Hayden and Vaughan.
You could both argue reasons why one was inferior to the other: against Hayden you could say that he only made a signficant contribution in two Tests and that his impact on the series after Brisbane was realtively minor. Of course, you could respond with the valid argument that Hayden did it when the direction of the series was unclear.
Against Vaughan, you could say that he scored two of his centuries when the series was already over. But you could argue that his two centuries in the final Two Tests changed the momentum of the latter part of the series; midway through the Melbourne Test England were considered one of the worst ever sides to tour Australia; his century almost gave England a shock win in Melbourne and his century in Sydney ensured that England were going to be the first side in over four years to beat Australia in Australia.
It's a tight battle, but I would slightly favour Vaughan.
...and he was carrying an injury through at least 3 innings
wagstaff
7 Jan 2003, 22:55
Originally posted by Brett Li
...and he was carrying an injury through at least 3 innings
While there has been a lot of talk about the dubious nature of Hayden's LBW decision in Sydney, 2nd innings, it's been largely forgotten that Vaughan got a dubious LBW decision in Brisbane when dismissed for a duck in the 2nd Innings. It didn't seem that significant at the time as it wasn't realised within Austraila how good Vaugahn was, but now it looked like a decisive moment in the match.
Also with hindsight, his run out in Perth looks even more foolish now then it did at the time.
Also, I think the fact that everyone in Australia knew how good Hayden was but didn't know how good Vaughan was made Vaughan's performances have that much more of an impact then Hayden's did overall.
P0RT P0WER
8 Jan 2003, 03:35
Vaughn against the best attack in the world. He deserved it!
If he had support England may have at least been competitive.
Vaughn is one of the best batters in the world at the moment, it strikes me that he can't qualify for Englands one day side side considering besides Stewart he had the best strike rate out of the English batters.
He is a great ba6tsmen, always the Aussies dangerman and deserves the man of the series without a doubt, Congratulaions Michael Vaughn, a player who is in form and deserves the accolades of the batsmen of 2002.
Richie Benaud
8 Jan 2003, 07:56
Originally posted by nicko18
true, 320 runs at an average of 40.00 infact. but in contention for man of the series??? 7th highest run scorer, many dropped chances and 1 wicket
It was a marvellous piece of bowling though to get that one wicket, bowling Robert Key with a super delivery at the WACCA.
Vaughan has been named in Englands World Cup squad so expect him to play in the remaining one-dayers
Originally posted by dahdah
Vaughan has been named in Englands World Cup squad so expect him to play in the remaining one-dayers
I'm pretty sure he said he was going to play in the remainder of the VB Series. It will be interesting to see what they do to their batting order with Vaughan coming into the side after Knight was successful at the top of the order in the first part of the series it may have to be Trescothick that is dropped down the order.
Just a small point:
Vaughan did have 2 more innings than Hayden (V 10, H 8) - therefore he would more than likely score more runs than Hayden.
Vaughan total runs - 633
Average 63.3
Hayden total runs - 496
Average 62.0
Add 2 lots of Haydens average (62 x 2 = 124) to his total runs and he ends witha total of 620 for the series and I would have thought that a 4-1 flogging would have tilted it in Haydens favour!!
PS - the quality of the bowling argument doesn't stack up either - no Warne in Mel or Sydney and no McGrath in Sydney, Magill bowling like a poonce - Vaughan gets a ton in each of these tests!
Cheers
Gonzo
TheMase
10 Jan 2003, 12:58
Originally posted by Gonzo
Just a small point:
Vaughan did have 2 more innings than Hayden (V 10, H 8) - therefore he would more than likely score more runs than Hayden.
Vaughan total runs - 633
Average 63.3
Hayden total runs - 496
Average 62.0
Add 2 lots of Haydens average (62 x 2 = 124) to his total runs and he ends witha total of 620 for the series and I would have thought that a 4-1 flogging would have tilted it in Haydens favour!!
PS - the quality of the bowling argument doesn't stack up either - no Warne in Mel or Sydney and no McGrath in Sydney, Magill bowling like a poonce - Vaughan gets a ton in each of these tests!
Cheers
Gonzo
Finally someone has realised my point :D
Jim Boy
10 Jan 2003, 19:57
Originally posted by Gonzo
Just a small point:
Vaughan did have 2 more innings than Hayden (V 10, H 8) - therefore he would more than likely score more runs than Hayden.
Vaughan total runs - 633
Average 63.3
Hayden total runs - 496
Average 62.0
Add 2 lots of Haydens average (62 x 2 = 124) to his total runs and he ends witha total of 620 for the series and I would have thought that a 4-1 flogging would have tilted it in Haydens favour!!
PS - the quality of the bowling argument doesn't stack up either - no Warne in Mel or Sydney and no McGrath in Sydney, Magill bowling like a poonce - Vaughan gets a ton in each of these tests!
Cheers
Gonzo
Yeah, but you have to be in it to win it. Why not just give the award to Simon Jones, he did pretty well for the seven overs he bowled (all against the aussie top order). Take his average, bring it down a bit to allow for the tail and he was clearly the best player out there.