Steve Waugh vs Kumar Sangakkara

[Burgey]

Waugh bailed Australia out of so many holes in the 90s it isn't funny. It's no coincidence his run of form from 93-2000 or so coincided with that team becoming a juggernaut.

After 95, even though they'd become number one, Aus was still prone to getting in strife early in tests. Taylor was comparatively iffy by that time, Slats was Slats and Boon was getting on as well. Waugh was massive for Aus in series in SA and the West Indies.

Sure, Waugh beat up on England, but he shouldn't be criticized for that, he should be lauded for it because any decent person knows they should be set upon and prosecuted with extreme malice. But he was also awesome in the Windies when they still had great bowlers and in SA. From 93-2000 he was a colossus.

 

[BazBall21]

Have to say, I rate the Clive Lloyd love.

 

[BazBall21]

I rate Waugh higher than Trundler does but there are some valid points. A no5/no6's best innings' will definitely make them look very clutch because naturally the start of those knocks will have come in the midst of dire situations. You could argue it is a specialist role in that respect, but there isn't really any reason why a great no3 or no4 couldn't emulate that.
Waugh does have some epic away performances though.

 

[Bolo.]

I rate Waugh higher than Trundler does but there are some valid points. A no5/no6's best innings' will definitely make them look very clutch because naturally the start of those knocks will have come in the midst of dire situations. You could argue it is a specialist role in that respect, but there isn't really any reason why a great no3 or no4 couldn't emulate that.
Waugh does have some epic away performances though.

A number 5 is often going to seem like clutch or downhill skiing, depending on how good a day the top order has had, when they could potentially be innings of similar quality... new ball is gone either way and the quicks are likely tiring either way after they have been in for a while.

 

[subshakerz]

I rate Waugh higher than Trundler does but there are some valid points. A no5/no6's best innings' will definitely make them look very clutch because naturally the start of those knocks will have come in the midst of dire situations. You could argue it is a specialist role in that respect, but there isn't really any reason why a great no3 or no4 couldn't emulate that.
Waugh does have some epic away performances though.

I dont see how that is a point against Waugh though if his best innings are in dire situations.

Shouldn't your point be the opposite, that he benefited and scored more runs with the launchpad already set by the top order? In that case, just say Waugh is a downhill skier, but I don't believe he was.

I don't think him batting at no.5/6 is an automatic reason to downgrade. He still faced high quality bowling and its not like the same bowlers are half the quality when he came out to bat.

 

[subshakerz]

A number 5 is often going to seem like clutch or downhill skiing, depending on how good a day the top order has had, when they could potentially be innings of similar quality... new ball is gone either way and the quicks are likely tiring either way after they have been in for a while.

Sobers is considered by many to be the best after Bradman and batted at no.5/6. If he doesn't get downgraded why does Waugh?

 

[BazBall21]

I dont see how that is a point against Waugh though if his best innings are in dire situations.

Shouldn't your point be the opposite, that he benefited and scored more runs with the launchpad already set by the top order? In that case, just say Waugh is a downhill skier, but I don't believe he was.

I don't think him batting at no.6 is an automatic reason to downgrade. He still faced high quality bowling and its not like the same bowlers are half the quality when he came out to bat.

I don’t think he was a downhill skier because he was obviously capable of the tough runs too, he just had more access to downhill skiing than a lot of other players, Waugh did very well when tough runs needed to be scored, but that’s not to say other great plays who don’t bat in his position couldn’t have done it.

 

[BazBall21]

I am the only person in the world who considers Graham Thorpe to be probably England’s best batsman between Boycott and Root and he batted no5 a lot haha. Him, Border and Shiv have the argument of doing it in weaker lineups, Sobers probably doesn’t tbf. Neither does Lloyd, though Lloyd also had a knack of producing successful counter-attacks. Having said that, I think Thorpe actually batted at 4 quite a lot when England were ****.

 

[subshakerz]

I am the only person in the world who considers Graham Thorpe to be probably England’s best batsman between Boycott and Root and he batted no5 a lot haha. Him, Border and Shiv have the argument of doing it in weaker lineups, Sobers probably doesn’t tbf. Neither does Lloyd, though Lloyd also had a knack of producing successful counter-attacks. Having said that, I think Thorpe actually batted at 4 quite a lot when England were ****.

I think you just proved that batting down the order is no reason to downgrade and shouldnt affect a ranking.

 

[BazBall21]

I think you just proved that batting down the order is no reason to downgrade and shouldnt affect a ranking.

Batting at 5 in a strong team is easier though overall.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t think he was a downhill skier because he was obviously capable of the tough runs too, he just had more access to downhill skiing than a lot of other players, Waugh did very well when tough runs needed to be scored, but that’s not to say other great plays who don’t bat in his position couldn’t have done it.

Waugh bailed out Australia to a degree that is uncommon for even great players IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

Batting at 5 in a strong team is easier though overall.

What about Sobers and Lloyd then? Would you downgrade them?

 

[BazBall21]

What about Sobers and Lloyd then? Would you downgrade them?

Yeah a bit. They don’t have the batting with the tail issue though.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah a bit. They don’t have the batting with the tail issue though.

Interesting.

 

[trundler]

Sobers also bowled 40 overs per match. His output is also well clear of other #5s.

 

[BazBall21]

Sobers also bowled 40 overs per match. His output is also well clear of other #5s.

yeah that is true. All-rounder tax.

 

[BazBall21]

Big fan of Clive Lloyd but he was a killer of spin and had relative issues against lateral movement, that second part is usually the case with very tall batsmen. Definitely suited to being an attacking no5. It is generally perceived that Steve Waugh had a weakness against inswing so it makes sense he batted at 5 too.

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers also bowled 40 overs per match. His output is also well clear of other #5s.

I dont see how the bowling is relevant when talking about batting skill.

Point is nobody brings Sobers batting at no.5/6 as a reason to downgrade him compared to VIv who batted no.3 into the conversation at all because its not that critical a point.

Especially when you are comparing batsmen like Waugh and Sanga who batted in eras with a huge gulf in bowling quality.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Sobers also has a gun record batting in the top 4.

 

[BazBall21]

Sobers also has a gun record batting in the top 4.

Yeah there’s that too. Don’t think he needs to be rated down for batting mostly at 5 when his record in the top 4 is so good. There are relative doubts over Waugh maintaining the same productivity in the top 4. Can argue that he was fulfilling a specialist role, but batting at no5 is a net positive.