Mark Waugh

[Matt79]

He's also looked upon with less favorably in hindsight because his replacement and the man he kept out for years from the side (Darren Lehmann) was actually a better player than him. Even though he was well past his prime by the time he got a decent crack in the side.

Would strongly disagree with this, if we're comparing peak with peak.

 

[tooextracool]

Would strongly disagree with this, if we're comparing peak with peak.

Lehmann at his peak didn't really play international cricket though. It's useful to note that Lehmann boasts a substantially better FC record, this while spending several years playing at Headingley, which is hardly the place where people queue up to bat.

 

[stephen]

Lehmann at his peak didn't really play international cricket though. It's useful to note that Lehmann boasts a substantially better FC record, this while spending several years playing at Headingley, which is hardly the place where people queue up to bat.

Still I'd have picked Mark Waugh over Lehmann at their respective peaks 9 times out of 10. Mark Waugh was a better all round package than Lehmann as well when you take into account his ridiculous fielding ability.

 

[aussie]

Interesting because Hayden did very well in 05/06, particularly on the South African green tops. I suppose though that some will say that him being dismissed by Ntini 6 times in 3 tests means that he's obviously crap against good bowling. Though I would say that only Ntini was good enough to get him out.

Indeed. But uncle Richard will claim here that the test in SA where not green tops.

Sorry Aussie, we just won't agree. I'll just keep at it that because my reply would essentially be posting the same thing over again for you to still say so and so wasn't at their peak when I am showing you a year's worth before and after that said bowlers were on form.

Their form prior to the 6 tests in 2001/02 is irrelevant. The main argument about that series is whether:

- the SA bowlers had the skills to expose Hayden's technically defficiences that where later exposed in 04/05 by Mills & Akhtat & Ashes 05.

- whether the conditions over those 6 tests where bowler friendly.

Its no to both. Which unfortunately was the case with Hayden between IND 01 to NZ 05.. He was tested enough technically & was a real FTB & until he corrected himself in Oval 05test.

 

[aussie]

Lehmann at his peak didn't really play international cricket though. It's useful to note that Lehmann boasts a substantially better FC record, this while spending several years playing at Headingley, which is hardly the place where people queue up to bat.

I'd agree that at his peak he didn't get to play international cricket. He was definately better than Ponting & Blewett in the late 90s i'd say, & probably should have gotten a go before Martyn got his recall - but as aformentioned he was never threatening Junior for a place.

 

[Ikki]

Their form prior to the 6 tests in 2001/02 is irrelevant. The main argument about that series is whether:

It's completely relevant. It may not be the sole determinant but it is unquestionably important. And it's not the prior 6 tests, we're talking about 12+ tests. Did you check the links?

Even Donald who for the last few years of his career was routinely unfit and didn't finish series on occasion never had a series of averaging above 30 in the 2000s. You have to go all the way back to 99 and against Zimbabwe when that happened. The time before that, all the way back to 97.

- the SA bowlers had the skills to expose Hayden's technically defficiences that where later exposed in 04/05 by Mills & Akhtat & Ashes 05.

They did.

- whether the conditions over those 6 tests where bowler friendly.

They were; at least comparative to pitches around the world at the time.

Its no to both. Which unfortunately was the case with Hayden between IND 01 to NZ 05.. He was tested enough technically & was a real FTB & until he corrected himself in Oval 05test.

It's wrong. Hayden's weakness is exaggerated. All batsman, every single one of them, are susceptible to the swinging ball and high quality seam. It's not even a real criticism. The argument made that he faced less of this post 2000 is a valid one, it just doesn't detract from his all-time great status.

Frankly, I find it humourous to think he corrected himself on the pinpoint of the Oval test in 05. He wasn't in form for at least a year before that Test. Deficiencies in technique don't simply go away like that; so in conclusion the deficiency was exaggerated. It was more form-related. Someone like Hayden who goes after batsmen is bound to go through periods of trough probably heavier than those with a conservative approach. However, his approach also meant he scored at a freakish rate when he was on song.

During the 90s Hayden faced some of the greatest bowlers around the world, both against domestic sides and touring test sides. He did so on what were largely bowler friendly pitches - or at least fair to both bat and ball - during that time. He amassed a tonne of runs. Any deficiencies that were glaring would have been spotted.

---

You can opine as you wish, as long as you remember what you're saying is purely subjective. You mentioned dates and talk about his batting problems as if they are known facts. The same you do with the S.African bowlers. This is not intelligent IMO. I appreciate the fact that you try to side with Hayden in saying he "fixed" himself, but there really wasn't much fixing to do in the first place.

As I said, we're not going to agree. You're plain wrong in my view. I think we should also stop talking about Hayden in a Mark Waugh thread.

 

[Richard]

Hundreds?

Metaphorically as in "plenty \ no shortage of" rather than literally hundreds.

 

[Richard]

24 months? Whatever!

It was 7 tests, if that. During 2 of those tests he was run out by Slater after strong starts.

Hayden first played under Stephen Waugh in 1999/2000. Yet it was 2001/02 before he became the Test batsman of consistent success that he was known as 2001/02-2007/08. Suggests that Waugh's presence wasn't much of an influence - and yes despite being run-out by Slater twice Hayden failed against decent\excellent seamers often enough in 1999/2000, 2000/01 and 2001.

 

[Richard]

It had a good run before CW's version of Godwin's Law came into effect.

And if it hadn't the thread would be 5 pages back by now and no-one would care. No discussion of Mark Waugh has been stymied, it had finished so other things appeared. If Mark Waugh were still to be discussed there'd be nothing to stop those attempting to do so.

 

[Richard]

Would strongly disagree with this, if we're comparing peak with peak.

It's possible to argue that Lehmann was a better player than anyone bar Stephen Waugh in Australia and was exceptionally unfortunate not to come into the side and get hold of a place in 1994/95 after Border's retirement and keep it for 10 years at least.

It's not something that can be implicitly proven either way, but I do believe it. And yes he had the ideal batting conditions of Adelaide Oval for one of his homes but he actually performed even better for his other team, who had some of the least ideal batting conditions for home, Headingley.

 

[stephen]

Going through some old tour games:

Cricinfo.com - Pakistan v Queensland, Oct 30-Nov 2, 1999

Hayden didn't do too badly against Akhtar and Akram there.

Australia 'A' v Pakistanis at Perth, 2 Jan 2000

I know it's an ODI but he did alright in that game as well.

 

[howardj]

As Damien Fleming said the other day, I reckon Junior with his current hair do looks a bit like Bono.

Anyway, undoubtedly had the best mullet of any cricket player.

 

[Craig]

Was beautiful to watch which I think may count against him amongst some armchair experts; he made it seem as if he could score test runs with the apparent effortlessness of a god.

The other demerits against him are the Jimmy Ormond observation and his acquaintance with "John". WRT the latter, I think it was a measure of his importance to Oz that it was hushed up by the ACB.

One of the best comebacks to a sledge: "At least I'm the best cricketer in my family".

 

[NUFAN]

It's not something that can be implicitly proven either way, but I do believe it. And yes he had the ideal batting conditions of Adelaide Oval for one of his homes but he actually performed even better for his other team, who had some of the least ideal batting conditions for home, Headingley.

Funny how all these batsman have better records playing County Cricket in England over Shield Cricket in Australia. Check out MWaugh's record playing County Cricket, pretty decent, yeah?

 

[Burgey]

It's possible to argue that Lehmann was a better player than anyone bar Stephen Waugh in Australia and was exceptionally unfortunate not to come into the side and get hold of a place in 1994/95 after Border's retirement and keep it for 10 years at least.

It's not something that can be implicitly proven either way, but I do believe it. And yes he had the ideal batting conditions of Adelaide Oval for one of his homes but he actually performed even better for his other team, who had some of the least ideal batting conditions for home, Headingley.

M Waugh > Lehmann at their respective best, quite comfortably imo. Would concede though there were times when Waugh's form was such that Lehmann would have been well worth a shout.

 

[zaremba]

As Damien Fleming said the other day, I reckon Junior with his current hair do looks a bit like Bono.

Anyway, undoubtedly had the best mullet of any cricket player.

...

 

[Richard]

Funny how all these batsman have better records playing County Cricket in England over Shield Cricket in Australia.

For some batting was easier in county than state cricket, of course - the general standard has been higher in domestic cricket in Australia pretty much throughout history (for bowling so thus for batting). But if you're seriously suggesting that Lehmann had it easier playing his home games at Headingley than Adelaide Oval then I don't know what you're on.

Check out MWaugh's record playing County Cricket, pretty decent, yeah?

Fo' sho', Waugh Jnr was an outstanding overseas-player for Essex, but UIMM Lehmann's record in both Championship and Shield was better than his.

 

[Richard]

M Waugh > Lehmann at their respective best, quite comfortably imo. Would concede though there were times when Waugh's form was such that Lehmann would have been well worth a shout.

Depends what you mean by "at their best". For sure, a 133 from Waugh would likely be a better (and absolutely certainly a more attractive) knock than a 133 from Lehmann but I'd say Lehmann was mostly more likely to produce a score of note than Waugh.

 

[fredfertang]

Depends what you mean by "at their best". For sure, a 133 from Waugh would likely be a better (and absolutely certainly a more attractive) knock than a 133 from Lehmann but I'd say Lehmann was mostly more likely to produce a score of note than Waugh.

Not against England in a Test Match he wasn't

 

[Richard]

Well yeah but Lehmann batted against England in Tests about 6 times; Waugh must have done so 40-odd, maybe more. Hardly a fair comparison methinks.