So far in this series, Vaughan has made a mere 23 runs in three knocks, and as Boycott pointed out, he's done nothing for Yorkshire either. In their last two knocks, South Africa have made a combined total of 915 runs for the loss of 13 wickets, which speaks volumes about his inability to winkle out batsmen once they get set. The New Zealand series hid deficiencies that have now been exposed by the South Africans. Had Vaughan not been captain, he surely would have been dropped by now. So, given his current dismal form, should he be dropped?

Yes, he had has one good innings in his last nine knocks. A decent cricket team like south africa know that if they can get an opening bataman out then england will be two wickets down within about 15 minutes when Vaughan is there

Think its the selectors that should be dropped. You pick an unknown to spearhead your attack and you will concede runs. Vaughan is on a bad trot at present but he will recover.

I cannot see anyone leading England in the present set up. The 'burden' of the England captaincy has always dampened the captains ability to score runs (see Brearley)

It must be remembered that this South African side is top notch and they will find our weaknesses. I am more worried about our thin bowling line up rather than our batting at present.

I was just going to suggest 'the curse of the captain'. Tremlett would have been a better pick than Pattinson, let alone Simon Jones who has been doing well at Worcestershire.

That said, it was a brave (if possibly misguided) pick to have Pattinson in, and it should be remembered that Steyn's first Test was only his 12th First Class match (according to TMS). It's backfired here. We can still win in Birmingham and have a real match at the Oval.

Unfortunately with the Oval likely to suit the Proteas' attack more than England's it mayn't be the best end to the summer, but we can only see ......

I voted no... but I am prone to irrational faith when it comes to sport. The curse of the captain is a very good point, but let's also remember that Vaughan is our most successful captain (I heard it on Five Live so it must be true) and he's proved himself fairly smart over the years.

I back him to turn his batting and the series around.

I voted no... but I am prone to irrational faith when it comes to sport.

Something tells me that you're not on your own!

The curse of the captain is a very good point, but let's also remember that Vaughan is our most successful captain (I heard it on Five Live so it must be true) and he's proved himself fairly smart over the years.

I back him to turn his batting and the series around.

He is indeed, but I wonder if he might be better at 4 or 5 now. On a racing forum I use, it was suggested that rather than concentrating on his bowling, he should look to his batting.

I have reservations, in that intrinsically he's a bowler, but if we could have a powerful number 4, who could also be a potent occassional bowler could be a good thing.

I've voted 'yes'. The only alternative IMO is for him to have the balls to drop down the batting order (and on current form, push Broad upwards).

The selection of Pattinson is questionable at least, downright silly at best. Jones and Hoggard would have both made more sense.

Despite this somewhat heavy defeat, this is still a good England team but I commented last week that the pyschological damage had been done by our pathetic attempt to bowl South Africa out in their second innings. This sticking at the wicket and holding out for a draw is something I have never seen England manage to do.

I firmly believe England will not win another test match against South Africa for this reason alone. Vaughan's further inclusion can only make the task harder.

He is indeed, but I wonder if he might be better at 4 or 5 now. On a racing forum I use, it was suggested that rather than concentrating on his bowling, he should look to his batting.

I have reservations, in that intrinsically he's a bowler, but if we could have a powerful number 4, who could also be a potent occassional bowler could be a good thing.

He's intrinsically a bowler? Jeeez - he's a better player than I thought! :P

Remember the Ashes series in Oz, before we won it? We got decimated, but Vaughan's average was in the 60s... anyone who can show that sort of form will come good after a dodgy spell I'm sure. Although this was as an opener, and partnering Trescothick with whom he seemed to have a good relationship.

I'd agree that he might need to drop down the order, maybe give him the task of nursing the tail (someone's got to do it).

Drop him to 5, with Bell at 3. Flintoff at 6, Borad 7 and Ambrose 8.

He's intrinsically a bowler? Jeeez - he's a better player than I thought! :P

Remember the Ashes series in Oz, before we won it? We got decimated, but Vaughan's average was in the 60s... anyone who can show that sort of form will come good after a dodgy spell I'm sure. Although this was as an opener, and partnering Trescothick with whom he seemed to have a good relationship.

I'd agree that he might need to drop down the order, maybe give him the task of nursing the tail (someone's got to do it).

My mind 'wandered' and I was actually talking about Broad, ahem :blush:, apart from the first sentence.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense now :blush:

Very occasionally a player is worth their selection based on their contribution as captain even when the rest of their game is not up to scratch. Brearley was the most noteworthy of these. The problem for England is that Vaughan is not sufficiently surrounded by consistent run makers for this scenario to apply. On the other hand if he is replaced by another batsman who also fails and succeeded by someone less adept at captaincy it may be that the situation gets yet worse!

Very occasionally a player is worth their selection based on their contribution as captain even when the rest of their game is not up to scratch. Brearley was the most noteworthy of these. The problem for England is that Vaughan is not sufficiently surrounded by consistent run makers for this scenario to apply. On the other hand if he is replaced by another batsman who also fails and succeeded by someone less adept at captaincy it may be that the situation gets yet worse!

Um... I don't know who Brearly is (I was a very late developer when it came to sports fanatacism) but the bit I bolded is I think a very likely outcome.

My mind 'wandered' and I was actually talking about Broad, ahem :blush:, apart from the first sentence.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense now :blush:

A lot more sense! I guessed it was something like that, although I believe Vaughan has bowled the odd over of right arm off-spin.

although I believe Vaughan has bowled the odd over of right arm off-spin.


More than the odd over; he was a very good secondary spinner, and for quite a long time I wondered why he never did more bowling in Tests. Turns out it's because of back troubles, which bowling would aggravate.

There's been many matches over the last five years where Vaughan's bowling, had it been available, could have made quite a difference, if only by giving the other bowlers an extra hour off when they needed it.

Ta for that Heyesey, I was pretty certain he'd bowled before but wasn't sure as to his effectiveness. Shame about that coz as you say - the occasional use of a half-proficient non-bowler can a) Give t'others a break and b) Get the odd stubborn wicket, just through sheer novelty.

I notice Vaughan has added one more to his growing collection of ducks. First baller this time.:mad:

Ta for that Heyesey, I was pretty certain he'd bowled before but wasn't sure as to his effectiveness. Shame about that coz as you say - the occasional use of a half-proficient non-bowler can a) Give t'others a break and b) Get the odd stubborn wicket, just through sheer novelty.

Quite a few top order batsmen have bowled the occasional bit of offspin, or off break/gentle medium pace. Ramps did, and Gooch often did. Loads more did too.

We'll be alright .... so long as we take wickets in the morning ....

I voted no... but I am prone to irrational faith when it comes to sport. The curse of the captain is a very good point, but let's also remember that Vaughan is our most successful captain (I heard it on Five Live so it must be true) and he's proved himself fairly smart over the years.

I back him to turn his batting and the series around.

Ditto though I didn't hear it on Five Live

Ditto though I didn't hear it on Five Live
Even if he turns the series around on the backs of Pietersen, Collingwood and the bowlers, there is still the fact he has made a miserable 40 runs off his last five knocks.

Yeah, `cos he is crap.

He's playing terrible.Sweetbread says drop him like 3 period maths.

Ok then internet cricket experts, who should replace him?? (waiting for lols)

Top of page 2 FTW.

I voted no... but I am prone to irrational faith when it comes to sport. The curse of the captain is a very good point, but let's also remember that Vaughan is our most successful captain (I heard it on Five Live so it must be true) and he's proved himself fairly smart over the years.

I back him to turn his batting and the series around.
With predictions like that, please don't back me to live to be 100 years old.:suspect:

Has KP got the nuts to be an England captain?

<gets coat>

Has KP got the nuts to be an England captain?

<gets coat>

Hmm. Contraversial! Would KP be better left to be the batting hero (when he can be) without the pressure of the Captaincy?

Has KP got the nuts to be an England captain?

<gets coat>

It took me a split second longer than it should have done to get this. D'oh me.

But no. He really doesn't. Monty! (Strauss maybe.) Not KP... he hasn't got the interpersonal skill or the subtlety to my mind. Then again, I've never met him, know little about his personality apart from what I get fed from the media, and am more of a football bod anyway.

Well, it's going to be (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article4454354.ece) Pietersen .. on the grounds that only he is "pretty much nailed on" for both the Test and the one-day team, and they want the same captain for both.

Bring back Beefy:D

Bring back Beefy:D

He was an awful captain.

Could do with a world class coach while they are at it.

He was an awful captain.

I know but i just loved his attitude and commitment

It took me a split second longer than it should have done to get this. D'oh me.

But no. He really doesn't. Monty! (Strauss maybe.) Not KP... he hasn't got the interpersonal skill or the subtlety to my mind. Then again, I've never met him, know little about his personality apart from what I get fed from the media, and am more of a football bod anyway.

I can't believe that loads missed that awful pun .....

He's going to get the job, but more bu default than anything. I see Cook and Strauss as too weak to lead, but I think KP has the right mind for the one-day side.

He seems too temperamental to be captain of a five day side though, and that's why I'm disappointed that Vaughan has left before the end of the series. It really does look horribly messy, and won't do anything for morale. The decision should have been left to the end of the series, but then again, he was hardly happy, was he?

It has been a long time since we saw true emotion. If he had really reached breaking point, then it had to happen; I'd rather they'd left it until after the Oval though.

I have absolutely no idea who could lead the Test side now though, I must admit.

I know but i just loved his attitude and commitment

When he wasn't captain :D

Just reading one of his earlier autobiographies, actually. The next one in line is Tufnell's :hihi:

Could be a fun read if he's frank!