bagapath
International Captain
41 from mark and 51 from steveAnd on average it was 44 from Mark and 50 from Steve, so it's not like the choice was always that stark.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Mark Waugh
- Thread starter Matt79
- Start date
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Oh definitely, but his 'character traits' came up, and I just think he's a bit arrogant. Just my opinion though.
Definitely irrelevant to him as a cricketer.
Yeah that's fair enough.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Really, only 'maybe' Hayden?
I have Mark Waugh in the Boon, Langer, Martyn category. I always felt Hayden was in the echelon above those 4.
Interesting to see you say that. Perhaps time hasn't done Mark Waugh justice like it has for other batsmen. *shrug*
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Probably 'probably Hayden' rather than maybe. We're talking two very very good batsmen who both have one or two well publicized short comings. I'm not in the extreme Hayden = FTB camp by any means, but Waugh played the majority of his career against better bowling and more lively pitches than Hayden - and therefore his problems with the odd concentration lapse stood out more in the end than Hayden's issues with the moving ball.
I'd definitely have Waugh ahead of Martyn, Boon, Jones or Lehmann.
I'd definitely have Waugh ahead of Martyn, Boon, Jones or Lehmann.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Reminded me of Gower the way he played - it looked effortless. That's probably why it's always said he should have averaged more than he did - if you can look that good when you're on song against all manner of bowling, then it's often thought you should be a great, which he plainly wasn't. Great to watch though.
Used to see him at the Woolworths at Rosehill when I lived down that way. Was approachable enough for a chat and all. Asked him to come into Hooters for a beer one time, but he wouldn't. Seeing as he and his Mrs were living across the road from there, probably understandable he didn't.
Agree with Jono about his commentary though. Not a real fan.
Used to see him at the Woolworths at Rosehill when I lived down that way. Was approachable enough for a chat and all. Asked him to come into Hooters for a beer one time, but he wouldn't. Seeing as he and his Mrs were living across the road from there, probably understandable he didn't.
Agree with Jono about his commentary though. Not a real fan.
archie mac
International Coach
I would like to see him commentate on a Test match, but I don't mind him tbh keeps it light, but always shows knowledge
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was obviously a top player but one feels others would have been dropped a few times when he was retained. I think the reason he isn't considered as great as he looked probably has something to do with rarely just winkling a 50 when not in great touch; when he was out of touch, he was really out of touch. Was right in the middle of a few collapses too. When he was going, though, wow.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Was there room in your normal booth for him in any case?
BoyBrumby
Englishman
As a related aside (literally so), do people think it's an advantage or disadvantage to have a more gifted/talented/renowned relative in the sport? I suppose initially it could be advantageous when it comes to being noticed by selectors and coaches if one has a cricketing father, grandfather or uncle but if one isn't quite the player they were one will probably always suffer by comparison in the long run. I suppose it's almost worse with brothers; by any reasonable judgement Mark was a very successful cricketer, but there was always his twin's greater achievements gently mocking his career too.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
It was a bit different for the Waughs as they were twins, so they both forged their reps at the same time, so Mark got no assistance from that - indeed he and Steve were competing for the same spot often in the Aus team early on.
Being a 'son of' undoubtedly helps in having the resources and contacts to pursue a career, however that would, I imagine only help you get to the grade scene, and if you didn't make it to FC from there, it doesn't matter who your dad is.
The Don's son was a decent cricketer but changed his name to Bradson to escapethe comparisons and the celebrity. Changed it back once he retired from cricket.
Being a 'son of' undoubtedly helps in having the resources and contacts to pursue a career, however that would, I imagine only help you get to the grade scene, and if you didn't make it to FC from there, it doesn't matter who your dad is.
The Don's son was a decent cricketer but changed his name to Bradson to escapethe comparisons and the celebrity. Changed it back once he retired from cricket.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hell yeah. I always kept a celebrity seat vacant, just in case.
OT, always enjoyed watching M Waugh field too. Looked like he played in a dinner suit.
Was at the SCG one day and he was at silly point with Warne bowling. As Warne let's it go, the wind blew Waugh's hat off. He caught it high up in his left hand just as the batsman hit the ball to his lowish right, whereupon he just reached out and fielded it in such a nonchalant way that I thinl very few at the ground realised the freakishness of what he'd just done.
howardj
International Coach
You can't dismiss a record like that.
I think he was a guy who, as a package, brought so much to the Australian team.
He was a free-wheeling batsman (in many ways a trail blazer in this regard, remembering that he debuted in 1991 amid a sea of stodginess), a magnificent slipper and silly mid-off, and a calming influence on his team mates.
On the downside, he probably didn't have a ruthless streak once he got set at the crease. His highest score and average are evidence of that.
All in all though, a top notch cricketer.
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Really interesting question. Eric Bedser must have felt he drew the short straw when (as legend has it) he and his identical twin decided between them that only one could become a fast-medium bowler. On the other hand, if you play 128 Tests and score 20 Test hundreds you're going to have been judged on ability, and the fact that you spent 9 months with your face nestled between your brother's arse cheeks has to be more or less irrelevant.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
For me it's the fact that his First-Class average was 10-15 runs higher than his Test one for the majority of his career. I don't think Mark Waugh really fulfilled his potential as a Test batsman. Unquestionably a fine Test player, good batsman, one of the most attractive to watch you could wish to see, and a brilliant slipper. And unquestionably one of the best ever in ODIs purely as a batsman, never mind an all-round package.
I don't think that assessment of him is unfair. I too would not hesitate to place him above Slater, Langer, Martyn and possibly even Gilchrist as a Test batsman, but not sure he ended-up quite as good as Taylor and Boon, and certainly a class below his twin, Ponting and Border.
I think someone who thinks anything more than "good Test batsman" aptly describes him is flattering him. And I think anything else - and there are many compliments you can pay him, as I say - is completely irrelevant and that no-one should allow them to impact on how he is assessed as a Test batsman.
Last edited: