Strauss a better captain than Vaughan?

[Owzat]

Is Strauss a better captain than Vaughan, or will he be?

Runs as captain

Strauss : 25 Tests, 45 inns, 2030 runs @ 48.33
Vaughan : 51 Tests, 94 inns, 3170 runs @ 36.02

In half the number of Tests, Strauss is nearly two thirds of the way to scoring as many Test runs as Vaughan did as captain.

Results as captain

OVERALL

Strauss : P25 W12 D9 L4 (Won 48.00%)
Vaughan : P51 W26 D14 L11 (Won 50.98%)

VS AUS/SAF/IND/PAK/SRL

Strauss : P16 W8 D5 L3 (Won 50.00%)
Vaughan : P28 W6 D12 L10 (Won 21.43%)

VS WIN/BAN/NZL

Strauss : P9 W4 D4 L1 (Won 44.44%)
Vaughan : P23 W20 D2 L1 (Won 86.96% )

Vaughan loved beating the West Indies in particular, while Strauss captained England in a series on absolutely flat tracks and was barely culpable for the one defeat against West Indies when England collapsed for 51. I have excluded the abandoned Test, I have no idea why that is even kept in the records since so little actually happened it simply doesn't make any sense.

Both captains beat Australia 2-1 in a home series, the only other significant series win for Vaughan was over South Africa in South Africa which Strauss very nearly matched but was denied at the death.

Overall Vaughan may have the better win percentage, but most of that is made up of strolls in the park against West Indies - more than 3/4 of his overall wins came against West Indies (10), New Zealand (6) and Bangladesh (4). Strauss on the other hand has a very good record against the better sides, and if he ever plays lots of four match home Tests against West Indies I'm sure he'll be right up there with Vaughan against them too.

Vaughan also had the massive advantage of Flintoff who scored 402 runs and took 24 wickets in the 2005 Ashes, compared to his contribution of 200 runs and eight wickets in 2009. He also had an arguably series winning contribution from a certain Simon Jones in both South Africa (15 wickets) and against the aussies (18 wickets in 3.5 Tests)

The one other stat I will throw in is regards winning when in front vs winning from behind :

1st Innings Leads/Deficits

Vaughan

100+ lead : P18 W15 D3 L0
1-99 lead : P11 W7 D3 L1
1-99 deficit : P9 W3 D3 L3
100+ deficit : P13 W1 D5 L7

So 22 of Vaughan's 26 wins came from in front at half-time, his win from 100+ runs behind was against New Zealand, the two medium sized deficits turned around against New Zealand and West Indies, and he turned around an EIGHT run lead against South Africa. Vaughan did lose when in front against Sri Lanka, a 93 run lead.

Strauss

100+ lead : P13 W10 D3 L0
1-99 lead : P2 W0 D2 L0
1-99 deficit : P5 W1 D2 L2
100+ deficit : P5 W1 D2 L2

Strauss has never lost when in front, his only four defeats coming when the side trailed by more than 50 runs on 1st innings - including the most recent defeat against Pakistan. His side turned around a 23 run deficit against Pakistan in 2006, the only other 'win' from behind with Strauss in charge was one I won't go into but let's just say it was in 2006 and controversial.

While the stats can be achieved as a result of the strength of the side, you can't persuade me that the players at Strauss' disposal are way better than those at the disposal of Vaughan.

So the question is, will Strauss be a better captain than Vaughan or is he already? In my view Vaughan was never all that good anyway, the wins against the weaker sides and a couple of good series wins against good opposition making up his reputation. Vaughan never beat Sri Lanka, Pakistan or India in a Test match let alone series, Strauss has yet to captain against Sri Lanka or India so maybe when he does it will be clearer. It makes me cringe whenever anyone tries to make out Vaughan as being as good a captain as Brearley, who never played rubbish sides and while he never captained against the West Indies so never faced the ultimate test, none of the sides he did captain against were poor and he didn't rely on whipping the whipping boys to gain his reputation..............................

 

[blake]

Seems like you are answering your own question.

A good analysis though.

 

[Robelinda]

Both are rather poor captains IMO. Vaughan obviously will go down as a legendary captain because of 05, we will just have to live with it. I actually thought Alec Stewart was the best Eng captain ive seen.

 

[Fatal Shot]

To early to say. But it will most probably be settled depending on the Ashes result.

 

[Iridium]

Both are rather poor captains IMO. Vaughan obviously will go down as a legendary captain because of 05, we will just have to live with it. I actually thought Alec Stewart was the best Eng captain ive seen.

That's what most people will think when Vaughan's names pops up. I think that Vaughan was pretty poor as captain. But I still thank that Strauss has shown to be more capable than Vaughan. Yes, he tends to play negatively and defensively at times but he's getting the results.

 

[TumTum]

Well this is either done by comparing stats or by actually watching the games. It is funny how people use stats to compare everyone else's captaincy skills bar Ponting's (who is judged by his mistakes like Nagpur or Ashes 05/09). From what I have seen of Strauss, he hasn't really done anything good in terms of captaincy.

 

[angryangy]

Being a great captain doesn't mean much statistically.

 

[Toxic Muffin]

I think quite possibly one of the most important parts of captaincy is getting the best out of your players.

It would be pretty hard to argue that Vaughan didn't get the best out of Flintoff with 3151 runs @ 40.33 and 119 wickets at 28.06

Flintoff's figures under Strauss were 479 runs at 26.70 and 13 wickets at 43.96.

However Strauss has done better with James Anderson, but only slightly

Under Strauss 77 wickets at 27.54

Under Vaughan 76 wickets at 34.46




Although you'd really need to do a whole team there to make it work, I just thought I'd share that.

 

[Fatal Shot]

However Strauss has done better with James Anderson, but only slightly

Under Strauss 77 wickets at 27.54

Under Vaughan 76 wickets at 34.46

How is that only slightly?

 

[Toxic Muffin]

How is that only slightly?

I was looking more at wickets rather than averages.

 

[pcfan123]

Being a great captain doesn't mean much statistically.

This^

Also Vaughn was a much more natural captain. Management and tactics seem to come instinctively to him. Strauss seems too hesitant to make decisions and overly conservative. I can't wait to see the back of him.

 

[McLOVIN]

Nasser Hussain

 

[pcfan123]

Nass is probably the best English ......... commentator

 

[AngryPixel]

Bumble isn't English

 

[sifter132]

Being a great captain doesn't mean much statistically.

Indeed. Note how Stephen Fleming was lauded constantly for his captaincy - yet he didn't win very often even in ODIs where NZ had a much better looking side. Ricky Ponting is the opposite - has won everything bar the Ashes in England and he gets constantly slammed.

I think quite possibly one of the most important parts of captaincy is getting the best out of your players.

Hmmm yes I suppose, but it's very hard to judge that. Ponting is again a good example. He's gone from having an awesome group of players to having an unproven group of players. How do you judge the effect of the captain on his players? How much is talent and how much is the captain's inspiration or tactics.

Taking it to Strauss and Vaughan, I think Strauss has certainly had better players. Kevin Pietersen and Graeme Swann have both been excellent, while Collingwood, Anderson, Prior, Broad and now Trott are all pretty valuable. Vaughan never had those stars like KP or Swanny. Harmison and Flintoff had their brief moments of brilliance. Gough, Hoggard, Thorpe and Trescothick were decent but apart from that there wasn't a lot to work with...*cough* Ashley Giles *cough*.

But who did better according to their talent? Hard to say really. Also, I think Andy Flower's a better coach than Fletcher was too, so that's probably helped Strauss a lot too.