SaeedAnwar
U19 Debutant
Mark Waugh only had a average of 41 in tests and 39 in Odi's, why is he rated among the finest batsmen of modern era?
-
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 overrated?
- Thread starter SaeedAnwar
- Start date
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
39 is pretty good in ODIs. I suppose most people reckon that 41 in Tests didn't really do justice to his incredible ability. Did you see much of him playing? Looked in a different class to almost all those around him. He's in a similar sort of bracket to David Gower I suppose.
Also, looks like Bono.
Also, looks like Bono.
Teja.
Global Moderator
I'd rate him as an ATG ODI Batsman and 39 is a brilliant average for his time(or any time for that matter). In tests he never had the temperament to do justice to his incredible ability. I'd rate him as the most stylish Batsman I've seen. It's as if he was born to bat. Noone bar SRT made batting look as easy as Waugh jr. did.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Indeed, and not doing justice to one's ability usually gets one quite a bit over-rated. Mark Waugh could've been a great batsman, but he wasn't. I don't really care about his "incredible ability" if he simply wasn't able to perform as anything more than a decent-to-good player.
His record is odd though - for someone who's so widely thought of as not having the concentration to make big totals as often as he perhaps could have, there's a huge difference between his Test and First Class records. He played 49 First Class games for Australia that weren't Tests and averaged 71 in them to go with his average of 59 for Essex and his average of 53 for New South Wales. This doesn't suggest a player with a concentration or application problem, to me, but a player who perhaps struggled a bit with the pressure of Test cricket.
Last edited:
Jakester1288
International Regular
I must admit, I cannot recall any footage of his batting that I've seen. His catching though, was amazing.
From what I've heard regarding his batting, he was an aggressive strokemaker, who helped mould the modern day opening batsmen. When I'm not too busy or being entertained by other things, I might search him on YouTube and see what I can find.
From what I've heard regarding his batting, he was an aggressive strokemaker, who helped mould the modern day opening batsmen. When I'm not too busy or being entertained by other things, I might search him on YouTube and see what I can find.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Kudos. Love posts like that; challenges and counters a lazy received opinion (one which I freely admit to having held myself) about a player.
I think because Junior looked so supremely at ease there's a tendancy to assume when he got out it was because of a lapse of concentration rather than a deficiency in technique or want in ability.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
All true. FTR I'm not suggesting that he deserved praise for underachieving in Tests. But he certainly did have incredible ability. He also had a hunger for runs at FC level where as you say he constantly churned them out. He was an absolute run machine for Essex.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Looking back at my post, it kind of looks like I was attacking/attempting to disagree with yours. I wasn't ftr; I was just elaborating on it. Apologies.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Have to agree with the PEWS here. I have a lot of time for Mark Waugh- in particular, I'd quite possibly rank him as the best fielder (in tests) of all time. But I do think that, when we look back on a career, we have to look at what he did rather than what we perceive that he could have done.
Shri
Mr. Glass
Nah he just followed what Jayasuriya and Kaluwithrane started.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Not at all PEWS - I think we're in full agreement - and in the first draft of my post I was going to express the same confusion that you did about his apparently carefree batting v his run-machine nature in FC cricket. Which is something I don't really understand. For me, I can't help but associate Waugh and Gower; yet they are very different cases because apart from anything else Gower's FC average was lower than his Test average, the reason being, you felt, that he genuinely couldn't be arsed, which also played a part in why he didn't do (even) better in Tests. With Mark Waugh, it must be something else. It's hard to put your finger on why he didn't do better in Tests. It could have been the pressure of Tests, as you suggest, but he never particularly seemed susceptible to it (or at least he didn't when playing against England!)
Last edited:
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
My favourite Mark Waugh innings was in an ODI match against England where Australia were chasing a big total (Robin Smith had scored a brilliant 160 odd) and he made a huge run-chase look effortless.
Personally, I think both Damien Martyn and Laxman beat out Mark Waugh in the sheer grace and elegance stakes.
Personally, I think both Damien Martyn and Laxman beat out Mark Waugh in the sheer grace and elegance stakes.
GuyFromLancs
State Vice-Captain
Firstly, I don't think it is correct to say he is overrated. Speak to anyone and they tell you he has a fairly average record in tests, he never consolidated a massive innings and he let himself down a number of times. These statements don't suggest that he is overrated. Merely that he underachieved.
I am guessing the author of this thread is a fairly young lad, because I honestly (rightly or wrongly) don't think anyone would ask such a blase question about Waugh Jr. I remember watching him play in the 90s where a) his average in tests was about 44 if I remember correctly, which was very good back then and b) he was a batsman who played the game with the kind of ease that made you wonder if you knew your arse from your elbow when you tried some of his strokes in the garden.
Also, as mentioned, he was a top notch ODI batsman whose average of just under 40 and 20 centuries were truly world class back then and not so bad now either.
I am guessing the author of this thread is a fairly young lad, because I honestly (rightly or wrongly) don't think anyone would ask such a blase question about Waugh Jr. I remember watching him play in the 90s where a) his average in tests was about 44 if I remember correctly, which was very good back then and b) he was a batsman who played the game with the kind of ease that made you wonder if you knew your arse from your elbow when you tried some of his strokes in the garden.
Also, as mentioned, he was a top notch ODI batsman whose average of just under 40 and 20 centuries were truly world class back then and not so bad now either.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Poor Man's Laxman ? Are you kidding I would take Mark Waugh ahead of Lax every single time.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Already put forth my argument on this question this in thread.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Personally I don't think his average totally does him justice, but nor do I think he should've been up there with the greats. Often seemed to get himself out when not much was doing. Looked like he had all the time in the world to play his shots. I don't think he struggled with the pressures of test cricket, but he certainly seemed a little too carefree to capitalise on his talent.