Mark Waugh vs Damien Martyn

[smash84]

Yeah it's worth a thread on it's own, the variability of successful types. I mean for every Ponting or Sachin who were guns from the get-go, there are blokes like Hayden who was never invited to the academy, was rated as below par even whilst plundering attacks on tough Gabba decks for most of the 90's yet ended up being one of Aus's best ever openers. Conversely, there are guys like Bev and Lehmann who were rated as being in Ponting's league but didn't really go anywhere in Tests or Siddons who didn't get a go at all (ironically, was probably for the same reasons as Bevan, considered weak against the short-ball although there was probably something to it).

What I reckon a lot of people miss in rating players is that blokes have to constantly refine or reinvent their game and sometimes the decisions they make don't pay off. Happens to all players. How (and how quickly) you claw back from a bad season(s) where you tried a slightly different grip or decided to go after balls you'd normally leave is a big test. This is aside from all the other pressures a bat can face. When Lehmann was picked against England in the 90's, he was in ridiculous form for SA but failed in Tests. Word on the street was he was stung by people who thought he didn't play enough shots so started throwing his hands at anything even vaguely outside off-stump. A series of nick outs later and he was out on his arse for being flaky in pressure situations.

Personally, a big correlate of successful players is those who, once they find something that works, either stick with it through good and bad trots and/or listen to what they're own brain is telling them rather than taking the advice of experts holus bolus. Guys who are constantly chasing their tails trying to keep everyone happy ("Bah, he's good but he doesn't have an out-swinger!" "Pshaw, he's accurate but no wrong'un?" "Can't be successful in Tests unless you can hook!") are the ones who struggle when they get found-out and have to change stuff.

Look at a guy like Sachin; Warne was busy decimating everyone who faced him before they played the 1998 series and conventional wisdom suggested once Warne came around the wicket, you'd be best kicking him away because trying to smash them was just too risky. Sachin, formerly an impeccably orthodox player, instead took a leaf out of Cronje's book, trusted his eye, practiced against a leggie before the series (Laxman was it?) and then regularly slammed Warne into the stands around wide mid-on. No-one saw it coming and had people found out beforehand, would have questioned his sanity but in doing that and being smart enough to pick only the balls in exactly the right spot, turned a big money-ball from Warne into a psychological weapon because the rest of his game suffered for a while after that I reckon.

quality post

 

[benchmark00]

. Sachin, formerly an impeccably orthodox player, instead took a leaf out of Cronje's book, trusted his eye, practiced against a leggie before the series (Laxman was it?) and then regularly slammed Warne into the stands around wide mid-on.

Not the last time Warne's been slammed in the stands ftr.

 

[hang on]

top drawer stuff, top cat!

why don't u start a thread on it - would be interesting.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This discussion revolves around presuming he'd have figured it out and quantifying how successful he could have been. Otherwise, it isn't much of a discussion. As you say, he didn't adjust and Australia had plenty of batsmen waiting.

Fair enough, it certainly would have been interesting to see how he went if he got another chance. It's a pity it's something that will forever be a bit of a mystery given he didn't get another chance. Although I'm sure it grates more for Bevan than those watching.

It'd be interesting to know whether he'd prefer for his career to have turned out the way it did, with him not getting an opportunity to get back into the team due to its strength and his past record, or whether he'd be happy to have been playing now and marched straight in with it being considerably weaker.

If he was born a few years later then he probably would've got a lot more tests match cricket under his belt.

Mind you, he was a bit of a knob...

 

[vcs]

Quality posts from Top Cat.

 

[Mike5181]

+1

 

[archie mac]

From what I read in interview recently, he said it was mostly mental and not really only the short ball stuff that people mostly keep talking about

I remember an interview with Lawson in which he said he was surprised about his trouble with the short ball to Bevan. As in FC cricket he was never worried by short pitched bowling or any other sort of bowling. So it may well have been a mental thing

 

[watson]

Bump.

Incidently, Mark Waugh leads the poll 39 to 11.

 

[viriya]

Bump.

Incidently, Mark Waugh leads the poll 39 to 11.

Nice find. I would pick Mark over Martyn here too since I consider them to be even in Tests but Mark was pretty clearly better in ODIs.

 

[the big bambino]

) Ok watson. Point made.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Honestly it's a lot closer between the 2 than a lot of people think IMO. I couldn't fault anyone for thinking either is better. It's not like there's a definitive correct answer as to who is better.

Wha??? That was your argument. I was simply pointing out its absurdity. The point being Marto wasn't good enough to even get into the test side for the best part of a very competitive decade let alone be compared with Waugh.

If this whole time your argument was that Waugh was better than Martyn in the 90s then I apologise as I may have misunderstood. I was under the impression that you were using Waugh being better in the 90s as a reason for why Waugh was a better player overall.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So may I please have my other point in favour of Waugh; that he faced better bowling in a more competitive decade, acknowledged at last?

I acknowledged it on like page 2 of the other thread. Actually before you even mentioned it:

I can see people arguing that Mark Waugh faced some slightly tougher bowling on average during his career than Martyn

I think it's a pretty commonly held opinion that the bowling in the 90s was higher quality than 00s. I can't say that it is a definitive fact, but I can't see any reason to disagree with it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think maybe Martyn's twin tours to SL and India, basically leading us to victory, might just give him the advantage.

 

[Top_Cat]

Agreed. For a bloke with his rep against the twisting ball, Waugh's record in Asia is pretty eh. Don't remember him scoring a ton in a live Test over there, tbh.

 

[mr_mister]

that 153* tho.

 

[Top_Cat]

Notable only for how many times he nearly **** himself during.

 

[Stefan9]

Waugh was the more talented player but martyn did more with his talent.

 

[the big bambino]

Honestly it's a lot closer between the 2 than a lot of people think IMO. I couldn't fault anyone for thinking either is better. It's not like there's a definitive correct answer as to who is better.



If this whole time your argument was that Waugh was better than Martyn in the 90s then I apologise as I may have misunderstood. I was under the impression that you were using Waugh being better in the 90s as a reason for why Waugh was a better player overall.

Brah I think Waugh faced better bowling overall and was consistently selected in the test team. Martyn's time in the wilderness counting against him in a comparison imo.

Reasons to favour Martyn: His ave was higher. He may have been better when you compare respective peaks.

On the balance overall I favour Waugh bcos of the bowling competition he faced and the consistency of selection (relative to Martyn). I mentioned the selector's preference bcos it is a relevant point supporting my preference. I mean both men played in the same era and competed for spots in the same team and Waugh was favoured by men whose opinion matters more often. I know Viriya reckons this is unfair as Martyn was only young at the time. I don't think that is a reason mitigating Martyn's failure to crack the team for such a long while. After all he was almost 30 by the time the 90s decade ended.

 

[91Jmay]

Waugh's average against quality bowling was low 40s though, he padded his stats against some very, very mediocre (at best) England teams. He was just a good test player, and overrated a little because of how stylish he was. Martyn much better player for me, was consistently best batsmen in series against really tough conditions. Waugh obviously a fine player but a clear notch under Martyn.

 

[the big bambino]

Eng were pretty ordinary but was their bowling so bad? Gough, Fraser and Headley were more than decent.