Mark Waugh vs Damien Martyn

[91Jmay]

Headley was an underachiever, Gough overrated and Gus was a good bowler for sure. Especially in English conditions he was very difficult to play.

 

[the big bambino]

Injuries did for Headley I suppose but Gough was v good. Actually Waugh's record overall is remarkably consistent, which is ironic. He averaged in the low 40s against Pak, SA and WI. 50 v Eng. His failures being against India and SL.

 

[watson]

Injuries did for Headley I suppose but Gough was v good. Actually Waugh's record overall is remarkably consistent, which is ironic. He averaged in the low 40s against Pak, SA and WI. 50 v Eng. His failures being against India and SL.

Or more specifically, he had problems facing India in Australia, and Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka.

Such a confusing player is Mark Waugh - which is probably why some of us like him so much.

 

[Gob]

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.

So was Tendulkar's i think. Its not very easy to average big fat 55s against quality bowling. Don't think he padded up much against lesser teams either he was never a run machine

The standout thing about Waugh is his centuries. Can't think of many players outside Gavaskar to score as many tons against quality bowling as Waugh has done

 

[Red]

It's hardly a surprise that batsmen average less against quality attacks is it? I'd be surprised to find many players who have a better average against great attacks than mediocre ones.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah Waugh played plenty of great innings but his lack of converting into really big scores is well documented, and again whilst he is a good player he isn't in the top bracket of his era. He and Martyn are close but that Sri Lanka tour Martyn had was so special, puts him over the edge for me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

His career average was low 40s . . .

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.

So basically you're defining "better player" as:
- Which was a better player, looking out how good they were at all different stages of their career and picking the average, rather than everyone else who was describing it as:
- Which was a better player, during their peak years.

This makes what you were saying earlier make a bit more sense if so. Still not sure if you're right or not, but I'd say it's close between the 2 either way.

 

[91Jmay]

Yes, I am aware of that which would suggest he is a good test batter but not a great one. Lower average and less impressive career than Graham Thorpe for example when playing similar quality bowling attacks (Waugh played better West Indies attacks but obviously Thorpe played against Australia's who were far superior than England which was 1/4 of Waugh's career runs). Yet no one would call Thorpe a generational batsmen or talk about him in the fabled way Mark Waugh is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes, I am aware of that which would suggest he is a good test batter but not a great one. Lower average and less impressive career than Graham Thorpe for example when playing similar quality bowling attacks (Waugh played better West Indies attacks but obviously Thorpe played against Australia's who were far superior than England which was 1/4 of Waugh's career runs). Yet no one would call Thorpe a generational batsmen or talk about him in the fabled way Mark Waugh is.

that's great, I was pointing out that saying that he "averaged low 40s against quality bowling" isn't really saying anything about how good he was like you seemed to think, considering that he averaged low 40s in general.

If anything, what this would indicate is that he rose to the occasion against quality bowling more so than against lesser quality, since his average didn't suffer when facing better bowlers

I'm not saying any of this is definitively true, just using the statistics you quoted

 

[Prince EWS]

Looks like I voted for Waugh five years ago. I've actually since changed my mind.

 

[vcs]

Yes, I am aware of that which would suggest he is a good test batter but not a great one. Lower average and less impressive career than Graham Thorpe for example when playing similar quality bowling attacks (Waugh played better West Indies attacks but obviously Thorpe played against Australia's who were far superior than England which was 1/4 of Waugh's career runs). Yet no one would call Thorpe a generational batsmen or talk about him in the fabled way Mark Waugh is.

Good example of an underrated batsman.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah I agree he was a good player against quality bowling, clearly not a mug. Average of 40 is good for that era but not spectacular though. He was a player of great innings, rather than a great player.

 

[Top_Cat]

MWaugh's consistency in England more a reflection of 5 seasons for Essex than the attack being terribly weak. The 90's teams were full of blokes with strong County records as compared to the current lot who don't play there at all or have ordinary records.

 

[weldone]

Looks like I voted for Waugh five years ago. I've actually since changed my mind.

or maybe you just changed your code

 

[Prince EWS]

or maybe you just changed your code

Actually my code still thinks Waugh was better; I just disagree with it now.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Mark Waugh's top 5 test innings VS Martyn's?

list.....

Waugh-

1 Port Elizabeth 97
2 Jamaica 95
3 Bangalore 98
4 Adelaide 91
5 Adelaide 98

Martyn

1 Chennai 2004
2 Kandy 2004
3 Melbourne 2004
4 Melbourne 1992
5 Joburg 2006

Before I saw Martyn's list I momentarily thought that Afghanistan/Junior must have really struggled to convert to 3 figures.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Before I saw Martyn's list I momentarily thought that Afghanistan/Junior must have really struggled to convert to 3 figures.

Maybe Damien Martyn just goes on with it better than most...