Ford_GTHO351
U19 Vice-Captain
What do you all think in what form of the game was Mark Waugh more successful in, Tests or ODI's?
I personally think that he was a better ODI player.
I personally think that he was a better ODI player.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Mark Waugh
- Thread starter Ford_GTHO351
- Start date
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Most certainly one dayers. His test innig in 1995 where he had the partnership with Steve which helped them win the series in the Windies was a very good inning though. So he could certainly bat well in the tests too. People forget what a good slip fielder he was too, which was a good attriubute to have when you play tests.
Ford_GTHO351
U19 Vice-Captain
Mark Waugh will go down as one of the best slips fielders (Tests and ODI's) of all time.
Shane Warne
Banned
probably 1DI`s
KishanTeli
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I think Mark was marginally a better ODI player then Test not to say he wasn't a good Test player. I loved to watch him in either forms of the game, his timing was superb, a delight to watch.
His fielding was brilliant, second to none. He took some wonderful catches at slip.
His fielding was brilliant, second to none. He took some wonderful catches at slip.
Ford_GTHO351
U19 Vice-Captain
Here is a stats comparison with Steve Waugh's and Mark Waugh's career:
Tests
Steve Waugh
Matches: 168
Batting
Innings: 260
Not Outs: 46
Runs: 10927
Highest Score: 200
Average: 51.06
Strike Rate: 48.64
100's: 32
50's: 50
Bowling
Overs: 1300.5
Maidens: 332
Runs conceded: 3445
Wickets: 92
Average: 37.44
Best Bowling in a innings: 5/28
Strike Rate: 84.8
Economy: 2.64
5WI: 3
10WM: 0
Fielding
Catches: 112
Mark Waugh
Matches: 128
Batting
Innings: 209
Not Outs: 17
Runs: 8029
Highest Score: 153*
Average: 41.81
Strike Rate: 52.27
100's: 20
50's: 47
Bowling
Overs: 808.5
Maidens: 171
Runs conceded: 2429
Wickets: 59
Average: 41.16
Best Bowling in a innings: 5/40
Strike Rate: 82.2
Economy: 3.00
5WI: 1
10WM: 0
Fielding
Catches: 181
ODI's
Steve Waugh
Matches: 325
Batting
Innings: 288
Not Outs: 58
Runs: 7569
Highest Score: 120*
Average: 32.90
Strike Rate: 75.91
100's: 3
50's: 45
Bowling
Overs: 1480.3
Maidens: 56
Runs conceded: 6761
Wickets: 195
Average: 34.67
Best Bowling in a innings: 4/33
Strike Rate: 45.5
Economy: 4.56
5WI: 0
Fielding
Catches: 111
Mark Waugh
Matches: 244
Batting
Innings: 236
Not Outs: 20
Runs: 8500
Highest Score: 173
Average: 39.35
Strike Rate: 76.83
100's: 18
50's: 50
Bowling
Overs: 614.3
Maidens: 11
Runs conceded: 2938
Wickets: 85
Average: 34.56
Best Bowling in a innings: 5/24
Strike Rate: 43.3
Economy: 4.78
5WI: 1
Fielding
Catches: 108
Tests
Steve Waugh
Matches: 168
Batting
Innings: 260
Not Outs: 46
Runs: 10927
Highest Score: 200
Average: 51.06
Strike Rate: 48.64
100's: 32
50's: 50
Bowling
Overs: 1300.5
Maidens: 332
Runs conceded: 3445
Wickets: 92
Average: 37.44
Best Bowling in a innings: 5/28
Strike Rate: 84.8
Economy: 2.64
5WI: 3
10WM: 0
Fielding
Catches: 112
Mark Waugh
Matches: 128
Batting
Innings: 209
Not Outs: 17
Runs: 8029
Highest Score: 153*
Average: 41.81
Strike Rate: 52.27
100's: 20
50's: 47
Bowling
Overs: 808.5
Maidens: 171
Runs conceded: 2429
Wickets: 59
Average: 41.16
Best Bowling in a innings: 5/40
Strike Rate: 82.2
Economy: 3.00
5WI: 1
10WM: 0
Fielding
Catches: 181
ODI's
Steve Waugh
Matches: 325
Batting
Innings: 288
Not Outs: 58
Runs: 7569
Highest Score: 120*
Average: 32.90
Strike Rate: 75.91
100's: 3
50's: 45
Bowling
Overs: 1480.3
Maidens: 56
Runs conceded: 6761
Wickets: 195
Average: 34.67
Best Bowling in a innings: 4/33
Strike Rate: 45.5
Economy: 4.56
5WI: 0
Fielding
Catches: 111
Mark Waugh
Matches: 244
Batting
Innings: 236
Not Outs: 20
Runs: 8500
Highest Score: 173
Average: 39.35
Strike Rate: 76.83
100's: 18
50's: 50
Bowling
Overs: 614.3
Maidens: 11
Runs conceded: 2938
Wickets: 85
Average: 34.56
Best Bowling in a innings: 5/24
Strike Rate: 43.3
Economy: 4.78
5WI: 1
Fielding
Catches: 108
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Mark Waugh was a highly over-rated player. For the amount of talent he had he was a massive under achiever. He is one of the rare players to have a higher ODI higher score than a test higher score, and for someone who played 100+ tests that is not good enough.
The one thing I will give Mark Waugh he usually scored runs when you needed them. However to have 20 odd centuries and to have a highest score of 154* just says something about the player.
And for the great catcher he was he did drop some dead-set sitters.
The one thing I will give Mark Waugh he usually scored runs when you needed them. However to have 20 odd centuries and to have a highest score of 154* just says something about the player.
And for the great catcher he was he did drop some dead-set sitters.
The Argonaut
State Vice-Captain
Mark was better than Steve in ODI and vice versa for tests. He was a great slipper though I once saw him put 2 easy ones down off consecutive balls. He gave his wicket away too easily at times for my liking. A good player not a great player.
I'm wondering why he continues to be selected for NSW when his form over last year and a half has been pretty ordinary.
I'm wondering why he continues to be selected for NSW when his form over last year and a half has been pretty ordinary.
krkode
State Captain
There is only one Tendulkar, and his name is God. :P
j/k
Anyway, about Mark Waugh. I feel the record speaks for itself. He was a good ODI player, moreso than Steve, but hardly a match in the test arena.
I never thought of him highly as a test player, but as an ODI player - great success. An average of 39 odd speaks for itself. Leave the 40s for the legends...if you can keep a high 30s average in his day, that's quite good enough.
He will probably always be remember as the Great Steve Waugh's brother (at least, I, unfortunately, see him like that) but that happens to the best of them, and just because he's overshadowed by someone greater doesn't mean he wasn't great in his own right.
And personally, I don't think his ODI highest score being higher than his test highest score says anything. If anything at all, it says that one fine day, Mark Waugh went beserk. That's it. Highest of 154 is also fine...you really don't need a highest of 375 to be regarded as a great - his average, while not spectacular, is quite good and the rest of his test record matches it. You can't blame someone for not being good enough.
Underachiever? I don't know...he did well...
j/k
Anyway, about Mark Waugh. I feel the record speaks for itself. He was a good ODI player, moreso than Steve, but hardly a match in the test arena.
I never thought of him highly as a test player, but as an ODI player - great success. An average of 39 odd speaks for itself. Leave the 40s for the legends...if you can keep a high 30s average in his day, that's quite good enough.
He will probably always be remember as the Great Steve Waugh's brother (at least, I, unfortunately, see him like that) but that happens to the best of them, and just because he's overshadowed by someone greater doesn't mean he wasn't great in his own right.
And personally, I don't think his ODI highest score being higher than his test highest score says anything. If anything at all, it says that one fine day, Mark Waugh went beserk. That's it. Highest of 154 is also fine...you really don't need a highest of 375 to be regarded as a great - his average, while not spectacular, is quite good and the rest of his test record matches it. You can't blame someone for not being good enough.
Underachiever? I don't know...he did well...
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I definately agree with Mr. Wright that Mark Waugh underachieved. Just look at his First-Class record (albeit it's been disappointing over the last 2 seasons). For me he should have been averaging at the very least 45-6 in Test-matches. 42 isn't bad, in fact it's very good considering the bowlers he faced, but still I think he could have been better than good - he could have been great, if not quite as great as his twin.
And surely it goes without saying that he was a better ODI player than Stephen. If there is one overrating, it's certainly Stephen's in ODIs. Again, I think he slightly underachieved, but people act as if he didn't - as if his ODI average was in the 40s.
For me they're both better players than Ponting will ever be, and Ponting is easily the best of the present Australian players (excepting obviously Bevan in ODIs).
I also think it's very disappointing that his highest Test score was only 154*. Don't think it matters much that his top ODI score was higher, but certainly a batsman as good as him should have at least 1 double-century.
And surely it goes without saying that he was a better ODI player than Stephen. If there is one overrating, it's certainly Stephen's in ODIs. Again, I think he slightly underachieved, but people act as if he didn't - as if his ODI average was in the 40s.
For me they're both better players than Ponting will ever be, and Ponting is easily the best of the present Australian players (excepting obviously Bevan in ODIs).
I also think it's very disappointing that his highest Test score was only 154*. Don't think it matters much that his top ODI score was higher, but certainly a batsman as good as him should have at least 1 double-century.