Border was great. Waugh was great. The difference between the two is that I remember Waugh's career better. So I'll go with Waugh.
You must rate Ponting ahead of Bradman then....
This shouldn’t even be a contest. It’s a piss take thread.
Steve Waugh was a great cricketer. He was a flamboyant stroke maker as a young player who tempered his game to become a ruthless run making machine across all conditions. He was a handy part-time bowler who probably should have bowled more, a brilliant fielder and a ruthless captain who coveted the role then turned the best team in the world into a ruthless killing machine.
Allan Border was a great cricketer. He was a flamboyant stroke maker as a young player who tempered his game to become a ruthless run making machine across all conditions. He was a handy part-time bowler who probably should have bowled more, a brilliant fielder and a ruthless captain who never wanted the job but adapted to it and who dragged by sheer force of will one of the worst teams Australia ever had into all but the best side in the world.
Steve Waugh was a tough, uncompromising bastard who gave the opposition nothing. Allan Border taught Steve Waugh how to be Steve Waugh.
Never mind your Waughs, Chappells, Lillees, Pontings, McGraths or Warnes. Border is Australia’s greatest post-war cricketer by three lengths of the Flemington straight, and even though Waugh was a great cricketer, AB wins this wth a leg in the air.