Mark Waugh

[Matt79]

Reckon he's a bit underrated round these parts. Probably played on a year too long in the end, with hindsight, and I think that's affected how he's seen. Was a massively important player in tests and ODIs for a long time, after waiting more than 100 FC matches to get a Test. Probably the best batsman to watch I've seen, and an extraordinary fielder, possibly the best slips fielder ever.

Steve as a brother undoubtedly affects how he's viewed, as did the nature of his flaws - eg looking soft when he gets out, rarely going on for big tons. But all batsmen have flaws, and those happen to be two that people judge harshly, as opposed to some others.

 

[zaremba]

An absolutely magnificent player. Terrific to watch and frighteningly able with the bat. Also a very handy bowler and as you say a top-drawer slip fielder.

What I'm not sure about is how he's regarded as an individual. I know that he's perceived as less intense than his brother, but do they share character traits? Is he generally seen as a likeable guy?

 

[Matt79]

Off field, he's by all accounts a very easy going, somewhat introverted guy. Never was much of a drinker, which set him apart a bit. Seems pretty vague and unfussed about a lot in life besides his family, cricket and horse racing.

Was very competitive on field but didn't show it the way Steve, McGrath et al did. Probably a bit of a throwback in that regard. Wasn't as clenchedly determined as Steve, but then very few have been.

By all accounts there are as mmany differences between them as there are similarities.

He was by all accounts pretty popular with every team he played in, particularly once people worked out he was always going to be pretty chil-laxed (hate the 'word' but it's apt here) no matter what they said or did.

 

[zaremba]

Very interesting - thanks Matt.

"Clenchedly determined"

 

[Jono]

Was awesome to watch and amazing fielder, but I personally think he's a bit of a prick as a commentator. Quite unfairly critical of players, and quite biased IMO.

The stark contrast between him doing special comments compared to Border, Fleming etc. on Fox Sports is very noticeable.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was beautiful to watch which I think may count against him amongst some armchair experts; he made it seem as if he could score test runs with the apparent effortlessness of a god.

The other demerits against him are the Jimmy Ormond observation and his acquaintance with "John". WRT the latter, I think it was a measure of his importance to Oz that it was hushed up by the ACB.

 

[Matt79]

^^ Irrelevant to him as a player however [ianhealy.jpg]

Agree he's not a great commentator though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

^^ Irrelevant to him as a player however [ianhealy.jpg]

Yes & no, IMHO. As I said, it's indicative of how crucial he was deemed to be to the Oz cause that the whole somewhat grubby little incident was swept under the carpet. Were he not such a quality performer the ACB may've been somewhat more transparent in their actions.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Suffered from comparisons to Steve, imo. Can only imagine the crap VVS would have had to put up with if he happened to have popped out of the same uterus as Dravid, for example.

 

[Matt79]

Yes & no, IMHO. As I said, it's indicative of how crucial he was deemed to be to the Oz cause that the whole somewhat grubby little incident was swept under the carpet. Were he not such a quality performer the ACB may've been somewhat more transparent in their actions.

Was responding to Jono's point, not yours. You're right about that IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was responding to Jono's point, not yours. You're right about that IMO.

Ah. Apologies.

Carry on.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Truly a delight to watch, wont really call him a great test batsman, a spectacular ODI batsman though...infact was the best ODI player in the Aussie side for quite some time in the 90s.

 

[Mister Wright]

He was a good test batsman, but not a great one. A highest score of 154* in tests simply cannot put you in the great category. Had the talent to go on a get a big one, but probably didn't have the application or desire, which is what set him apart from his brother. Although he is said to be a great slip fielder (which he was) he did drop some sitters. In one day cricket he really revolutionised the opener role, and was probably the first non-specialist opening batsmen to take on the role. He wasn't a great test player, but certainly was a great one day player.

 

[Sylvester]

He had all the talent in the world and one of those batters you could watch forever. But he never really fulfilled his talent in the Test arena. He should have been a batter that averaged 50 in Test cricket not 40. I would say he lived up to his potential in ODIs.

 

[bagapath]

He was a good test batsman, but not a great one. A highest score of 154* in tests simply cannot put you in the great category.

yeah. i always believed scoring at least one double is important for a great test bat.

absolutely loved mark waugh. a magnificent stroke player and a phenomenal fielder. in a typical celeb interview he was asked the typical cliched question of which other celebrity he would like to meet. mark answered "jim carrey". i thought that symbolized simplicity and the fun loving nature of this man.i dont remember seeing him looking ugly doing anything on the cricket field.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Was awesome to watch and amazing fielder, but I personally think he's a bit of a prick as a commentator. Quite unfairly critical of players, and quite biased IMO.

The stark contrast between him doing special comments compared to Border, Fleming etc. on Fox Sports is very noticeable.

I'm in the other boat. I find it refreshing to hear a commentator actually say what he thinks and not be afraid to be critical of players.

Maybe I've had to put up with C9's team being positive about everyone no matter how far out of their depth they are for too long.

 

[Matt79]

On what do you judge that he failed to fulfil his potential? Because he made it look easier than a Langer or Katich yet had a similar record?

I'm not saying he was an absolute great in the Lara, Tendulkar, or Steve Waugh vein, but that he was very good and probably underestimated. For instance, of the Australian batsmen from our recent golden era, I'd rate only Ponting, Steve Waugh, Border and maybe Hayden as better batsmen than him.

 

[archie mac]

40 from Mark was worth 150 from Steve as far as my enjoyment went

 

[Matt79]

And on average it was 44 from Mark and 50 from Steve, so it's not like the choice was always that stark.

 

[aussie]

Wish he was still playing.

Bill Lawry..."Mark Waughhhh great shot!!!"