Michael Vaughan and Alastair Cook keep panic at bay

Posted by
< 1 minute read

'I can be next captain? Shake on it'It was far from a classic Test match. It felt like it was mapped out from the start and the players were just doing what they were expected to do.

Now we’re no strangers to going through the motions, but we don’t put a professional veneer on like the cricketers did. It’s deceitful. The more worthy approach is to wallow in your half-heartedness, perhaps by referring to it directly in the second paragraph of a post.

We liked what Michael Vaughan and Alastair Cook did though – a hundred partnership in each innings. Vaughan’s always looked best as an opener and it’s refreshing to have a right-hander in that role for once.

It wasn’t a difficult batting pitch, but Vaughan and Cook are two players you want in the England side and they’re probably in their best batting positions. Bad news for Andrew Strauss, who’s currently masquerading as a really, really early arriving member of England’s squad to tour New Zealand. He’s signed with Northern Districts.

Sri Lanka v England, second Test at Columbo – day four
England 351 all out (Michael Vaughan 87, Alastair Cook 81, Matt Prior 79, Muttiah Muralitharan 5-116, Lasith Malinga 3-78)
Sri Lanka 548-9 declared (Mahela Jayawardene 195, Michael Vandort 138, Prasanna Jayawardene 79, Ryan Sidebottom 3-100, Steve Harmison 3-111)
England 250-3 (Alastair Cook 62, Michael Vaughan 61, Ian Bell 54)
Match drawn


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. I agree with you regarding Mr Vaughan,

    Michael Vaughan averages five more when opening than he does at three, and Michael Vaughan could do with raising his average closer to 50 (49.08 as opener), so that Michael Vaughan can be considered a great player, rather than just the good one he is now.

    I’m sure Michael Vaughan tells Michael Vaughan that every night in front of the mirror..

  2. If it weren’t for the name at the top of that comment, we’d have thought that that actually WAS Michael Vaughan.

Comments are closed.