Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Top Contributors
TeeJay1860

TeeJay1860

New Member
Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Dont get me wrong folks, Vaughany is unmistakably one of Englands best captains, and owns one of the most beautiful square drives in cricket. But since he stepped down/got sacked/whatever you want to call it, he's taken to systematically rubbishing and bemoaning almost every decision the ecb have made: we dont play enough t20, strauss shouldnt be taking a break, and i distinctly remember him tearing into some of the players.

My question to you all is, does his criticisms have merit or is he just incredibly bitter that he didnt end his career in a swansong ashes victory?

TJ
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

I think that is a harsh OP, I often think he has been spot on with what his said so far.

He was dead on with the assessment of Broad with regards to the foot and ball incident as well as his general attitude on the field. Additionally, a lot of people have said the ECB have made incorrect decisions, you had the Stanford issue this time last year just to name one.

Also, lots of people have said Strauss should be playing, so Vaughan is not exactly by himself there.

I actually quite enjoy reading his work, along with Atherton's articles.

One thing people have to remember is that these ex-cricketers need to earn a dollar (or a pound) once they retire.

These days there is a heap of chances to do this, and one of those areas is cricket commentary and getting your head in the media a lot. Vaughan is an Ashes winning captain so when he talks the English public will listen, saying a few things that might stir people up is a good way to get noticed and earn some money.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;389559 said:
One thing people have to remember is that these ex-cricketers need to earn a dollar (or a pound) once they retire.

These days there is a heap of chances to do this, and one of those areas is cricket commentary and getting your head in the media a lot. Vaughan is an Ashes winning captain so when he talks the English public will listen, saying a few things that might stir people up is a good way to get noticed and earn some money.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is spot on. Potstirrers make more money than propagandists - look at Peter Roebuck.

Vaughan has never struck me as a particularly bitter guy. I kind of get the impression he'd be the first to acknowledge that his own form rather than any politics inevitably brought the end to his career.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Caesar;389631 said:
I suspect this is spot on.

Vaughan has never struck me as a particularly bitter guy.
Click to expand...

I agree, especially when compared to Duncan 'I got sacked but it was everyone else's fault but mine' Fletcher.

If people think Vaughan has turned into a bitter ex player then go and read Fletcher's latest biography released in late 2007.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

you've got a fair point there, it might be that ive missed some of his articles, but he seems to be a constant stream of gripe, complaint and misery, almost always directed at the english team. maybe its just my opinion but as he's so fresh out of the position of captain, i am just so shocked at the bluntness of his writing. i can understand it from people like atherton, boycott and botham who are long(er) retired, but i mean the players who vaughan seems to be tearing to shreds are those that played under him/alongside him.

Like i said, you have a very valid point, and its probably just me wishing such a successful captain would be supportive of his team and players, not tear into them as soon as he hung up his spikes
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

It does make things awkward when you're publicly pillorying your former colleagues. Certainly if you look at recently (and even not so recently) retired Australian players they all act like the current players are their best friends.

But don't forget that despite his recent retirement Vaughan hasn't spent much time in the team for quite a while. I remember when he retired an article quoted him as playing something like 20 Tests and 12 ODIs in the last five years of his career. Most of the senior players from the 2005 Ashes side are gone, and he probably isn't that close with the current lot.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

TeeJay1860;389636 said:
you've got a fair point there, it might be that ive missed some of his articles, but he seems to be a constant stream of gripe, complaint and misery, almost always directed at the english team. maybe its just my opinion but as he's so fresh out of the position of captain, i am just so shocked at the bluntness of his writing. i can understand it from people like atherton, boycott and botham who are long(er) retired, but i mean the players who vaughan seems to be tearing to shreds are those that played under him/alongside him.

Like i said, you have a very valid point, and its probably just me wishing such a successful captain would be supportive of his team and players, not tear into them as soon as he hung up his spikes
Click to expand...

I can see where your coming from, but once your career is over the bills still have to be paid and you still need an income. If Vaughan is seen to be a straight shooter with no holds barred then people will want to employ him to commentate on cricket matchs.

A perfect example of this is Peter Roebuck when he wrote that infamous over the top article after the 2008 SCG test. In India Roebuck was treated as a god after he wrote that article. When Australia toured India in October 2008 for the return test series Roebuck was doing a heap of media work. Whether or not the article helped him in gaining all that media work is really unknown, but it wouldn't have hurt.

As I said, Vaughan is a respected former English player and holds considerable clout in the fact that he is an Ashes winning captain.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

I think he comes across as being quite knowledgable and intelligent tbh. I like it when he actually says something rather than spinning out the same old cliches.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Michael Vaughan would like "11 complete Englishmen in the side" :D :D :D

Michael Vaughan frustrated with South African influx | England Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Vaughan hasn't held back either, basically saying that Trott and Kieswetter have come for the filthy lucre.

Can't say I disagree with him.

From an English perspective do you English fans still support the team to the same degree as before?

Different teams, and teams from different era's have different attachements to the public.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

LtD mate Vaughan is sounding more and more bitter or he wants a job from the ECB me thinks. The irony is that Pietersen and Strauss (both born in South Africa) we part of the victorious Ashes side, so they then should not have played.

The thing is that he has conveniently turned a blind eye to the Scottish and Irish players that have played for England. What about Allan Lamb, Graeme Hick ..

As for Kieswetter and Trott coming from the filth did they not dominate the county game.. to get selected. The thing is Mr Vaughan is that you dont select nor sit on any ECB board but work for ISM as an agent for their cricket division. The ECB fast tracked Kieswetter because they saw potential.

Should the question not be why England are not producing more local players? ... think about it they never seem to complain when Pietersen, Strauss, Trott is scoring runs and helping the English win ala Ashes..
You cannot be burning the candle at both ends and I must be honest Vaughan is beginning to damage his own credibility with these rants.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

hattrick;391153 said:
LtD mate Vaughan is sounding more and more bitter or he wants a job from the ECB me thinks. The irony is that Pietersen and Strauss (both born in South Africa) we part of the victorious Ashes side, so they then should not have played.

The thing is that he has conveniently turned a blind eye to the Scottish and Irish players that have played for England. What about Allan Lamb, Graeme Hick ..

As for Kieswetter and Trott coming from the filth did they not dominate the county game.. to get selected. The thing is Mr Vaughan is that you dont select nor sit on any ECB board but work for ISM as an agent for their cricket division. The ECB fast tracked Kieswetter because they saw potential.

Should the question not be why England are not producing more local players? ... think about it they never seem to complain when Pietersen, Strauss, Trott is scoring runs and helping the English win ala Ashes..
You cannot be burning the candle at both ends and I must be honest Vaughan is beginning to damage his own credibility with these rants.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with Strauss or Prior playing for England, those guys moved to England when they were very young, (toddler age). They grew up in England.

KP, Trott and Kieswetter all played first class cricket in South Africa, and some of those players even played for the South Africa A side.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Just a correction -> Kieswetter only played for SA U19 and then moved to England as far as I am aware he never played First Class cricket in South Africa.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

I am a little confused about why so many players born outside of England play for the national team. It poses two questions:

Does England have such a poor development program through the ages? (I have played a high level over there and the development of the younger players often consists of a lot of 20-20 cricket, not much 50 over cricket and even less multi day cricket)


and


Why are these players coming to England to play? Are they not good enough to get a game back in their home country? Or is the English system is that poor that they are able to come over here and push for a national selection?
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

For a start, some nations like Ireland have no chance of playing test cricket or international cricket anytime soon. That explains why players like Eoin Morgan have decided to play for England.

Trott wouldn't get a game for SA, and anyway, he can earn good money playing for England or even for his county side if his England career doesn't work out.

I know that this issue is going to come up more and more, if Kieswetter gets a test berth for England then it really will become an issue.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;391273 said:
For a start, some nations like Ireland have no chance of playing test cricket or international cricket anytime soon. That explains why players like Eoin Morgan have decided to play for England.

Trott wouldn't get a game for SA, and anyway, he can earn good money playing for England or even for his county side if his England career doesn't work out.

I know that this issue is going to come up more and more, if Kieswetter gets a test berth for England then it really will become an issue.
Click to expand...

@LtD mate as far as I see it and my own opinion is that if you have played for one nation then you are not allowed to play for another. The English and Australia(Dirk Nannes) recently have benefited from the ruling that ICC associates who have nationality in another country can play for the bigger ICC nation. The English had Scots like Gavin Hamilton and Craig White play for England and then go back to play for the Associate. It is not fair and hurts the development programme in that specific nation.

As for Trott not getting a game, he played in South Africa when the international side was pretty constant and he was playing for a small provincial outfit(Boland) and then via his mother being British moved to Warwickshire. Look the money plays a role and being a professional pays the bills for these players.

I think the big problem is the usage of ancestral visas and birth documents for South Africans playing in England. Kieswetter will play for England in the near future and this will make headlines. The interesting thing is that New Zealand will be the next nation to have this problem as their are a fair amount of Saffas playing there and getting citizenship. In the long run this is an issue which I think the ICC will have to address.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

hattrick;391559 said:
The English and Australia(Dirk Nannes) recently have benefited from the ruling that ICC associates who have nationality in another country can play for the bigger ICC nation.
Click to expand...
The Associates benefit too, don't forget. In all likelyhood Nannes would never have played for the Netherlands if the result would have been cap-tying him. He was too close to selection for the Australian team.

It's a similar situation to Rugby League. Players like Matt Utai, David Solomona and Jarryd Hayne play(ed) representative football for Australia and NZ most of the time, but when the World Cup rolls around they play for the likes of Samoa and Fiji.

When there's such a gulf between two tiers of teams, it's good in some ways because otherwise the minnows would lose their best players completely. At least this way, there's some flexibility that allows the small sides to have their best team when they play at the marquee events.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

What a stupid rule. If you're a millionth part english like most people on the planet then you can play for them. It's ridiculous and it might as well be all commericialised because they are not really representing their own country.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

It would be wise to remember that cricket has always had slightly blurry boundaries when it comes to nationalities. A large part of that stems from the fact that the game was spread as part of the British empire.

Most test playing nations have benefitted from players not born or raised within their borders, wrongly or rightly. Likewise other sports equally share this problem - how many Brazillians have become naturalised Spainiards for example or Africans who have become French. Again, largely due to past colonisations, which either meant that people moved to these countries whilst retaining birth rights elsewhere or travelled and had children with access to dual nationality.

I doubt the ICC will be in any rush to stop it but the simple way is to follow the lead of other sports. For example, one parent must be a national of that country (by birth) and if born overseas the players serves a period of qualification. You can also add in a stipulation that representative age cricket in a meaningful competition (world cup, world cup qualifying or tests between countries with senior test status) means they are bound to that country when it comes to senior cricket.

However, the players are simply acting within the rules as they stand and I can't begrudge the likes of Morgan too much as the only way of reaching the pinnicle of the sport (which for me is tests) was by playing for England.

Finally, we should also ask ourselves what nationality actually means? Is it by blood or boundary, better known as ethnic nationality or is more to do with an identification towards a culture, country, location (civic nationality)? Who would you rather have fighting by your side? Someone who is there because it is expected of them or someone there because they want to be; in that they are passionate for the cause?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top