-
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.
Steve Waugh as Australian Captain - How good was he?
- Thread starter Jono
- Start date
Autobahn
State 12th Man
Well actually in that match it was Boycott that dropped anchor, and Cowdrey started smacking everyone around.Francis said:
You make the point that it was because Border wasn't as talentened as boycott or Gavaskar that he made his wicket harder to get i.e. by not playing shots he couldn't play well.
Well wouldn't it be the other way round? Both Geoff and Sunil knew they where talented and probably the best batsmens in their teams, caple of putting many bowling attacks to the sword, but they choose not to attack because they knew if their wicket went for a low score it would put both their teams on the backfoot.
Surely it's harder to put a high price on your wicket when you believe that you could be smacking these bowlers around instead of just looking for half-volleys and long-hops?
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Of course then there is the extremes that Gavaskar could go to where him putting such a high price on his wicket wasn't in the best interests of his team (even if it is a ODI). It was like Sunny forgot 1) he was playing ODI cricket and 2) he was chasing a total.
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC75/ENG_IND_WC75_ODI1_07JUN1975.html
An odd knock to say the least.
Of course then there is the extremes that Gavaskar could go to where him putting such a high price on his wicket wasn't in the best interests of his team (even if it is a ODI). It was like Sunny forgot 1) he was playing ODI cricket and 2) he was chasing a total.
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC75/ENG_IND_WC75_ODI1_07JUN1975.html
An odd knock to say the least.
Autobahn
State 12th Man
Jono said:
Odd knock??, thats the highest compliment for him and his captaincy, this is one man I truly absolutely and completely hate. On the highest stage of international cricket, the World Cup, that too in the very first match, the most pathetic and abysmal display by the Indian captain ever. At least they could've gone down trying to chase. He decided it was "unattainable", 320 runs off 360 deliveries, and hence went to bat out the entire innings. 36 off 174..is simply pathetic. On top of that this man has the audacity now to comment on the current Indian team and the way they are playing, especially when the lose, what a joke.
Although I have to give him props on one thing, off his era he was the best Indian batsmen to face genuine quick bowling at its best and score runs of it heavily.
Well wouldn't it be the other way round? Both Geoff and Sunil knew they where talented and probably the best batsmens in their teams, caple of putting many bowling attacks to the sword, but they choose not to attack because they knew if their wicket went for a low score it would put both their teams on the backfoot.
You missed the point. Consider Steve Waugh - he couldn't use the pull shot or he'd get caught, so he kept on ducking bouncers. Bowlers would spend entire spells bouncing him trying to get him to play that shot. Waugh would resist, until bowlers gave up and tried something else. Border was even more limited. Border was so limited that he had to refuse many many more tempting delivieries that threatened weaknesses.
There was no threat with Gavaskar and Boycott. They simply chose not to go for shots... which is fine. Bowlers didn't really tempt them as much because they were so complete. Border, Waugh, Gavaskar and Boycott all scored runs slowly... but the two Australians mentioned had to overcome more. They had to overcome tempting shots and dangerous deliveries. Border would full on accept bouncers into his body... that's tough.
Surely it's harder to put a high price on your wicket when you believe that you could be smacking these bowlers around instead of just looking for half-volleys and long-hops?
I understand your point fully and you have a point. It's a matter of comparison really. Two men mentioned had to overcome weaknesses and do more to stay there. Another two didn't like to go after good balls... only really bad balls.
For me, the person who sells his wicket the highest is the person who is most desperate to stay out there and will do insane things. Leaving good balls alone is one way to sell your wicket at a high price. But for me, a man accepting bouncers into his body, using three main strokes, a limited back swing etc. All traits of Border - show he sold his wicket higher. Border and Waugh went to more extreme lengths for me.
Interesting story on Sunni by the way. Players like Greenidge, back then, played ODI's like tests. If Sunni didn't think India could get it, he'd be the guy who'd hate to give away his wicket for sure. Really nifty story.
You missed the point. Consider Steve Waugh - he couldn't use the pull shot or he'd get caught, so he kept on ducking bouncers. Bowlers would spend entire spells bouncing him trying to get him to play that shot. Waugh would resist, until bowlers gave up and tried something else. Border was even more limited. Border was so limited that he had to refuse many many more tempting delivieries that threatened weaknesses.
There was no threat with Gavaskar and Boycott. They simply chose not to go for shots... which is fine. Bowlers didn't really tempt them as much because they were so complete. Border, Waugh, Gavaskar and Boycott all scored runs slowly... but the two Australians mentioned had to overcome more. They had to overcome tempting shots and dangerous deliveries. Border would full on accept bouncers into his body... that's tough.
Surely it's harder to put a high price on your wicket when you believe that you could be smacking these bowlers around instead of just looking for half-volleys and long-hops?
I understand your point fully and you have a point. It's a matter of comparison really. Two men mentioned had to overcome weaknesses and do more to stay there. Another two didn't like to go after good balls... only really bad balls.
For me, the person who sells his wicket the highest is the person who is most desperate to stay out there and will do insane things. Leaving good balls alone is one way to sell your wicket at a high price. But for me, a man accepting bouncers into his body, using three main strokes, a limited back swing etc. All traits of Border - show he sold his wicket higher. Border and Waugh went to more extreme lengths for me.
Interesting story on Sunni by the way. Players like Greenidge, back then, played ODI's like tests. If Sunni didn't think India could get it, he'd be the guy who'd hate to give away his wicket for sure. Really nifty story.
Autobahn
State 12th Man
So you basically talking about limited batsmen making sure to play within those tight limits? Yeah i can see what you mean i.e. starving yourself of attacking strokes that you aren't good at must be hard to do (randall and sarwan haven't managed that, to name two examples.)Francis said:
But i still think it's easier to justify to yourself limiting your batting if you know your limited to start, because your basically saying "meh probably would have just skied it anyway" then to know your good and have an almost arrogant self-belief that boycott and to a degree Sunil possesed and yet still limit yourself. I mean boycott knew he could flay the bowling like he did in this cup final (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/140933.html)
But if you think Border was brave chesting down deliveries, how about Brian Close then? At the ripe old age of 45 and without a helmet he was chesting down deliveries regulary in a test match from the likes of Holding, Roberts and Daniel in their prime.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Didn't think too highly of Waugh's captaincy. I have seen the captaincy of Taylor, Waugh and Ponting closely.
I absolutely loved the captaincy of Taylor, the way he used Warne, every thing generally.
Waugh wasn't any where near as innovative. Well you can put nine slips versus Zimbabwe and get a photo and talk in the media but thats putting it versus Zimbabwe and nothing more. I wasn't too impressed with the way he used Warne either. He was suddenly potrayed as this great captain while the fact remained that he wasn't doing some thing spectacular.
Ponting has been shown up in a lot of ocassions to come any where near a good captain, let alone a great captain like Taylor.
I absolutely loved the captaincy of Taylor, the way he used Warne, every thing generally.
Waugh wasn't any where near as innovative. Well you can put nine slips versus Zimbabwe and get a photo and talk in the media but thats putting it versus Zimbabwe and nothing more. I wasn't too impressed with the way he used Warne either. He was suddenly potrayed as this great captain while the fact remained that he wasn't doing some thing spectacular.
Ponting has been shown up in a lot of ocassions to come any where near a good captain, let alone a great captain like Taylor.
So you basically talking about limited batsmen making sure to play within those tight limits? Yeah i can see what you mean i.e. starving yourself of attacking strokes that you aren't good at must be hard to do (randall and sarwan haven't managed that, to name two examples.)
Yep. It's incredibly hard. Especially when bowlers know it and keep bowling balls you hate.
It's much harder because of that.
But i still think it's easier to justify to yourself limiting your batting if you know your limited to start, because your basically saying "meh probably would have just skied it anyway" then to know your good and have an almost arrogant self-belief that boycott and to a degree Sunil possesed and yet still limit yourself. I mean boycott knew he could flay the bowling like he did in this cup final (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ry/140933.html)
Again, what puts it in perspective is that bowlers bowl entire marathon spells giving you balls you hate. That's incredibly hard. Then you have to make sure you put away balls that are bad, doing that when you watching out for the ball that keeps coming your way, be it a bouncer or whatever. Saying "meh probably would have skied it anyway" is dead wrong. Because even if there is 5 days in a test, you still need to score runs at a good level. If bowlers kept bowling bouncers at Steve Waugh, he'd start to feel tempted as the pressure rises. Waugh, however, had the ability to put away the balls that were in the right area so he did fine. We're not talking about a few overs of bouncer, we're talking about entire Allan Donald spells aimed at his head. Surely the temptation is there to hit out, especially when you are down. That's the paradoxial thing about Steve Waugh, he was renouned for saving Australia when they were down. He was the man for the hour. Yet he took such time. Complete opposite of Gilchrist.
But if you think Border was brave chesting down deliveries, how about Brian Close then? At the ripe old age of 45 and without a helmet he was chesting down deliveries regulary in a test match from the likes of Holding, Roberts and Daniel in their prime.
Yeah tough lad no doubt.
There were a few other things I'll say about captaincy that I forgot to write because I have a tendency to babble.
Firstly, Australia have dropped catches before. They dropped plenty in NZ during one test in 2004 I believe. But the Ashes 2005 was the worst period for them dropping catches since Bill Lawry's team toured South Africa in 1969. It's quite blatant really how much worse they were in England than say, how they were in NZ when they dropped a few catches.
Ponting, in my opinion, is a terrible captain. Michael Vaughn clearly outcaptained him in the Ashes... aside from putting England in at Edgbaston, which was idocy, he'd do strange little things. For example, Brett Lee was bowling his best spell on the Ashes tour and had about three maidens and a wicket, Michael Vaughn comes in... somebody who made big runs the previous innings, and Ponting wants to cut off boundaries so he spreads the field when Lee was bowling super-tight. Ponting would call conferences during the game and looked lost. I guess he'd never been in such a position before. It's OK to ask for advice, but the captain has final say and he never looked assertive. At Edgbaton, Ponting refused to use a 3rd man in the first innings when England were scoring most of their runs down there. He was aggressive when he should have been defensive and defensive when he should have been aggressive.
His only great moment was that captains knock at Old Trafford - the best innings of 2005.
Shane Warne one the other hand embodied everything a captain should be. He believed Australia could win games when they were down. I swear, I thought that game at Trentbride was going to turn into "Warne's Ashes" when he took 3-0 in three overs. Before he came onto bowl in that final innings, Brett Lee was spraying runs and trying too hard to get wickets. Warne ran down from slips to tell him something, probably to calm down, and the next ball Lee squared Tresco up. I forget who it was on C4 saying that Warne would have made a great captain, but it was obvious in that moment, he was the leader. Even at Old Trafford, he believed he could save the game with the bat and lasted 20 overs with Ponting when the game was gone. Warne took four wickets in no time at The Oval... knocking over the top 4 batsman. Just amazing stuff. No wonder the he won the BBC award for international personallity of the year. Just very inspirational.
When Steve Waugh played, the Aussies showed more attrition in the field. They were more determined, and maybe even felt secure under him because they knew he'd lead by example. Waugh would do things like swear out loud if a catch was dropped, he demanded perfection of his team mates and they feel in line. Best way to describe Ponting is that he just doesn't lead the team with the same "fall into line" attitude Steve Waugh did.
Warne captained 12 ODI's in 1998 when Steve Waugh was hurt and they won 11 of those games I believe. He was a daring captain who'd bring up players at long on and long off and be aggressive. Very daring captain like Brian Lara. Players seemed to enjoy playing under him as well. Warne just has that ability to make his team mates feel like something special is about to happen when he bowls in desperate moments. He's a clutch player.
But yeah Vaughn over Ponting anyway of the week. Inzi over both of them... but yeah, Vaughn over Ponting. (Francis - Inzamam Ul Haq mark)
Yep. It's incredibly hard. Especially when bowlers know it and keep bowling balls you hate.
It's much harder because of that.
But i still think it's easier to justify to yourself limiting your batting if you know your limited to start, because your basically saying "meh probably would have just skied it anyway" then to know your good and have an almost arrogant self-belief that boycott and to a degree Sunil possesed and yet still limit yourself. I mean boycott knew he could flay the bowling like he did in this cup final (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ry/140933.html)
Again, what puts it in perspective is that bowlers bowl entire marathon spells giving you balls you hate. That's incredibly hard. Then you have to make sure you put away balls that are bad, doing that when you watching out for the ball that keeps coming your way, be it a bouncer or whatever. Saying "meh probably would have skied it anyway" is dead wrong. Because even if there is 5 days in a test, you still need to score runs at a good level. If bowlers kept bowling bouncers at Steve Waugh, he'd start to feel tempted as the pressure rises. Waugh, however, had the ability to put away the balls that were in the right area so he did fine. We're not talking about a few overs of bouncer, we're talking about entire Allan Donald spells aimed at his head. Surely the temptation is there to hit out, especially when you are down. That's the paradoxial thing about Steve Waugh, he was renouned for saving Australia when they were down. He was the man for the hour. Yet he took such time. Complete opposite of Gilchrist.
But if you think Border was brave chesting down deliveries, how about Brian Close then? At the ripe old age of 45 and without a helmet he was chesting down deliveries regulary in a test match from the likes of Holding, Roberts and Daniel in their prime.
Yeah tough lad no doubt.
There were a few other things I'll say about captaincy that I forgot to write because I have a tendency to babble.
Firstly, Australia have dropped catches before. They dropped plenty in NZ during one test in 2004 I believe. But the Ashes 2005 was the worst period for them dropping catches since Bill Lawry's team toured South Africa in 1969. It's quite blatant really how much worse they were in England than say, how they were in NZ when they dropped a few catches.
Ponting, in my opinion, is a terrible captain. Michael Vaughn clearly outcaptained him in the Ashes... aside from putting England in at Edgbaston, which was idocy, he'd do strange little things. For example, Brett Lee was bowling his best spell on the Ashes tour and had about three maidens and a wicket, Michael Vaughn comes in... somebody who made big runs the previous innings, and Ponting wants to cut off boundaries so he spreads the field when Lee was bowling super-tight. Ponting would call conferences during the game and looked lost. I guess he'd never been in such a position before. It's OK to ask for advice, but the captain has final say and he never looked assertive. At Edgbaton, Ponting refused to use a 3rd man in the first innings when England were scoring most of their runs down there. He was aggressive when he should have been defensive and defensive when he should have been aggressive.
His only great moment was that captains knock at Old Trafford - the best innings of 2005.
Shane Warne one the other hand embodied everything a captain should be. He believed Australia could win games when they were down. I swear, I thought that game at Trentbride was going to turn into "Warne's Ashes" when he took 3-0 in three overs. Before he came onto bowl in that final innings, Brett Lee was spraying runs and trying too hard to get wickets. Warne ran down from slips to tell him something, probably to calm down, and the next ball Lee squared Tresco up. I forget who it was on C4 saying that Warne would have made a great captain, but it was obvious in that moment, he was the leader. Even at Old Trafford, he believed he could save the game with the bat and lasted 20 overs with Ponting when the game was gone. Warne took four wickets in no time at The Oval... knocking over the top 4 batsman. Just amazing stuff. No wonder the he won the BBC award for international personallity of the year. Just very inspirational.
When Steve Waugh played, the Aussies showed more attrition in the field. They were more determined, and maybe even felt secure under him because they knew he'd lead by example. Waugh would do things like swear out loud if a catch was dropped, he demanded perfection of his team mates and they feel in line. Best way to describe Ponting is that he just doesn't lead the team with the same "fall into line" attitude Steve Waugh did.
Warne captained 12 ODI's in 1998 when Steve Waugh was hurt and they won 11 of those games I believe. He was a daring captain who'd bring up players at long on and long off and be aggressive. Very daring captain like Brian Lara. Players seemed to enjoy playing under him as well. Warne just has that ability to make his team mates feel like something special is about to happen when he bowls in desperate moments. He's a clutch player.
But yeah Vaughn over Ponting anyway of the week. Inzi over both of them... but yeah, Vaughn over Ponting. (Francis - Inzamam Ul Haq mark)
archie mac
International Coach
That was a long post, though I agreed with most of it
I think the best thing Ponting has as captain, is Ponting the batsman, who lifts his game to a new level when his captain/team is in trouble. This is a great thing to have, and will assures he remains captain for a long time.
I think the best thing Ponting has as captain, is Ponting the batsman, who lifts his game to a new level when his captain/team is in trouble. This is a great thing to have, and will assures he remains captain for a long time.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
In the Bangladesh game allowing them easy singles was a crap move IMO. No disrespec to Bangladesh, they thoroughly deserved their victory, but it was a foolish move.Richard said:
In the Ashes, I didn't think highly of his field placements.
In the recent series vs RSA there were issues like declaration for which Ponting came under the scanner.
Ponting is a very good batsman but I do see mistakes he commits as captain.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not at all, Australia's dropping catches has happened in equal measure since 2002\03. This is simply the only time most people have noticed it, because it's the only time it's caused the loss of a series (though they'd probably have beaten India in 2003\04 but for dropped catches).Francis said:
That's nothing - almost all captains steadfastly, and stupidly, refuse to use third-man when near enough a third of boundaries come down there - even more against the new-ball.
I blame Ian Chappell for that, he set that trend.
That's all well and good, but no captain, however good, can do anything at all if the ability is not there. And as such catches still went down by the truckload towards the end of Waugh's captaincy stint, when Australia's catching skill went downhill.
Warne might've captained well in ODIs in 1998 but I can tell you for nothing, he's been a pretty terrible captain in one-dayers in England. Made all the wrong changes at all the wrong times.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, quite true, but that's a mistake almost all captains make almost all the time in all one-day games.Pratyush said:
Captains are far, far too reluctant to bring men into the circle, especially against new batsmen.
I thought much lower of the bowling of Lee (in the last four), Kasprowicz, Gillespie and Tait.
True, but I felt that was ridiculous to be frank. No way would anyone with a sane mind have declared earlier. It'd have had a disheartening effect on the team had Hodge been denied his double-century, and Australia still had ample time to bowl SA out, as most of the Australian players (Gilchrist esp.) pointed-out. The pitch deteriorated nowhere near as much as expected.
archie mac
International Coach
Also a little credit to the SA batsman they played very well, I thought Aust. had plenty of time to force a win.Richard said:
What I was not happy with was his use of Symonds, I know he is not the greatest off spin bowler in the world, but he was in the team. So surely Ponting could have given him at least one over just to have a look see.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I thought that strange, too, but it'd not be the first time a captain had overlooked someone...
1961: someone (bit-part bowler who bowled occasionally) to Richie Benaud: "hey, skip, any chance I could have a bowl?" ; Richie: "sorry, completely forgot you were on the field".
You can just imagine Richie saying that in his laconic way!
But it shows that even the best captains make oversights.
Incidentally - Rudolph and Kemp played very well, yes (Rudolph rather surprisingly so) but there's no denying the pitch played far, far, far better than pretty much anyone was expecting, and like Gilchrist's declaration at Headingley in 2001, hardly anyone made much of it at the time.
And any fool can excercise hindsight. Funny how rarely it happens when a team bowl someone out in the allotted time...
1961: someone (bit-part bowler who bowled occasionally) to Richie Benaud: "hey, skip, any chance I could have a bowl?" ; Richie: "sorry, completely forgot you were on the field".
You can just imagine Richie saying that in his laconic way!
But it shows that even the best captains make oversights.
Incidentally - Rudolph and Kemp played very well, yes (Rudolph rather surprisingly so) but there's no denying the pitch played far, far, far better than pretty much anyone was expecting, and like Gilchrist's declaration at Headingley in 2001, hardly anyone made much of it at the time.
And any fool can excercise hindsight. Funny how rarely it happens when a team bowl someone out in the allotted time...