Martin Crowe Vs Mark Waugh

[Zinzan]

Both great talents who didn't quite fulfil their potential statistically, yet vastly different characters ....Crowe too sensitive and intense, Waugh possibly a little too laid back.

For the record....

Crowe ....
Tests 77 131 11 5444 299 45.36 12190 44.65 17 18
ODIs 143 140 18 4704 107* 38.55 6477 72.62 4 34
First-class 247 412 62 19608 299 56.02 71 80

Waugh........
Tests 128 209 17 8029 153* 41.81 15360 52.27 20 47
ODIs 244 236 20 8500 173 39.35 11063 76.83 18 50
First-class 368 591 75 26855 229* 52.04 81 133

Crowe for me because although their careers did overlap for a short time (91-95), Crowe was IMO generally exposed to a better class of fast bowler Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Willis, Botham to name a few.
As far as onedayer cricket goes, Batting became a lot easier in the 90s than it was in the 80s

 

[Burpey]

Crowe was definitely better than M Waugh IMO. Mark Waugh wasted his talent a little... if he had the resolve of his brother he could have been a true legend. However, he is still a great of the game

 

[SJS]

Crowe for me because although their careers did overlap for a short time (91-95), Crowe was IMO generally exposed to a better class of fast bowler Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Willis, Botham to name a few.
As far as onedayer cricket goes, Batting became a lot easier in the 90s than it was in the 80s

Concur in toto.

Mark was slightly more pleasurable to watch though.

 

[Zinzan]

Concur in toto.

Mark was slightly more pleasurable to watch though.

Interesting. I'd have them even in that Dept......can't think of too many other batsmen as classical to watch as those 2 were.

 

[SJS]

Interesting. I'd have them even in that Dept......can't think of too many other batsmen as classical to watch as those 2 were.

Classical yes but waugh had that Laxman kind of quality of lazy elegance

 

[archie mac]

I would take Waugh every time, just for the pleasure of his batting.

It must be remembered that Crowe was exposed to Test Cricket far to early, so his average suffers as a result.

 

[Anil]

both were among the most elegant of batsmen...crowe for me personally....although there is not much to separate these two....

 

[King_Ponting]

Havent seen crowe play but waugh was imo one of the most elegant batsman ive ever seen

 

[Richard]

The tiny amount of Martin Crowe I've seen is a big regret of mine.
I'm hoping it may be rectified some day, maybe soon.

 

[aussie]

never seen Crowe but Mark was arguably the most elegant batsman i've ever seen...

 

[Beleg]

Crowe was one resilient bummer.. he handled Wasim and Waqar at their very bests. Wasim Akram called him the best player against reverse swing he had ever bowled too. (Akhbar Watan June 2000, I think)

 

[Richard]

Wow, that is saying something.
Reverse inswing, presumably?

 

[Beleg]

Probably, though I don't think he made a differentiation between in-swing or out-swing. Or if he did, I have forgotten it since it was some time ago I came across the quote. (2000) Will see If I can find the magzine it was published in in my archives.

 

[Dasa]

Martin Crowe was the superior batsman, Mark Waugh better to watch (IMO).
They're both terrible as commentators though (or in Waugh's case, during the breaks in the cricket).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Crowe was the better test batsman, while Mark was better in ODIs in my opinion. I'll never forget the way he and Jayasuria just dominated the 1996 World Cup.

Crowe was certainly much more reliable in the longer form, and as mentioned the fact that Wasim rates him better than Sachin or Lara speaks very highly of him indeed.

 

[C_C]

Crowe was the better test batsman, while Mark was better in ODIs in my opinion. I'll never forget the way he and Jayasuria just dominated the 1996 World Cup.

Crowe was certainly much more reliable in the longer form, and as mentioned the fact that Wasim rates him better than Sachin or Lara speaks very highly of him indeed.

Actually, Sachin dominated the 1996 world cup...he had more runs and a higher average than Jayasurya in 1 less match and a superior strike rate to go along with the above when it came to mark Waugh.

Crowe was a better batsman IMO in both ODIs and Tests. He was one of the top 5 batsmen through the 80s IMO.

 

[Zinzan]

Crowe was one resilient bummer.. he handled Wasim and Waqar at their very bests. Wasim Akram called him the best player against reverse swing he had ever bowled too. (Akhbar Watan June 2000, I think)

Wow, hadn't heard that before

 

[Top_Cat]

Crowe was the better test batsman, while Mark was better in ODIs in my opinion. I'll never forget the way he and Jayasuria just dominated the 1996 World Cup.

But Martin Crowe dominated the 1992 WC. I agree, though.

Put me down as another in the Crowe camp overall, though. Outstanding footwork to pace and spin, better at handling the short stuff than Mark Waugh and was an outstanding hook/pull player.

Crowe was a better batsman IMO in both ODIs and Tests. He was one of the top 5 batsmen through the 80s IMO.

You must be basing the assertion about Martin Crowe being a better ODI player on something other than the data available because the numbers suggest rather differently. Unusual for you, C_C.

Mark Waugh: 244 matches, 8500 runs, Ave: 39.35 HS: 173, 18 100's and 50 50's.
Martin Crowe: 143 matches, 4704 runs, Ave: 38.55 HS: 107*, 4 100's and 34 50's.

The averages are close but considering Crowe batted at 3 generally, 4 hundreds is less than he probably should have gotten.

 

[C_C]

Yeah but remember - Crowe had no 15 overs rule or the bouncer rule.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but remember - Crowe had no 15 overs rule or the bouncer rule.

Actually that's a good point - the 15 over rule was exactly why Mark Waugh was promoted to open the innings. He was always good for hitting over the top.