Steve Waugh as Australian Captain - How good was he?

[marc71178]

No, Edgbaston was the only mistake he made other than the day-to-day mistakes even the best make all the time.

What was the game he waited till England had 150+ on the board to introduce Warne?

What about the Oval when he persisted with Lee and ignored Tait?

Just 2 from many.

 

[Francis]

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).

How many catches was it in the Ashes? Inbetween 12-16 I think. Now I recall Australia haviong bad days in the field, but nothing like that. If you can name a series when they did that (aside from Bill Lawry's 1969 side) then by all means tell me.

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.

Michael Vaughn didn't. The strategy itselt isn't terrible, if it's working. Marcus Trescothick is an example of a player who can beautifully nudge the ball around and guide it through gully and slip. It worked with Chappell because he had the bowlers like Lillee who were masters at finding edges. And more importantly, he's stack the slips. I'm talking about 4th slip and gully. If Ponting did that then OK. But two ore three slips and a gully left Tresco with enough room to make runs easily. I can understand being aggressive, but after X-amount of runs have been scored, guys like Chappell would have used a third man. Ponting wasn't used to that situation and decided to keep on being aggressive. How he reacted under pressure was really interesting.

In stark contrast to this was Michael Vaughn setting a field to Matthew Hayden. Noticing where Hayden liked to hit and how he liked to bully, he put somebody at silly mid-off taking away his freedom. Tresco was free to score in the parts he liked. Hayden wasn't.

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.

What? Fielding standards were great in Waugh's era. The first time I noticed the dropsies in the Aussies was in NZ. This may be hard to explain, but sometimes to concentrate more and work harder than you thought you could, you need a motivater. The Aussies looked afraid to let Steve Waugh down and looked more distressed when they dropped catches. Look at Glenn McGrath dropping his catch in the 1999 World Cup Final. McGrath himself has said he's a ruthless captain that demanded nothing less than perfection and wanted to eliminate dead rubbers. He gave the Aussies a sort of attrition, a "fall into line" vibe that made their standards in fielding improve.

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.

You don't like his Hampshire captaincy?

 

[tooextracool]

What about the Oval when he persisted with Lee and ignored Tait?

i can hardly see how that was a mistake. at the time Pietersen was going after almost everything short that Lee bowled, and he took a gamble with the fielder on the boundary hoping that Lee would eventually get him out. it was a gamble, but it certainly cant be blamed on him based on hindsight. i think ponting is a good captain(other than the fact that he makes a mockery of himself in interviews) but hes just a cut below michael vaughan.

 

[archie mac]

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...

Monday experts

 

[Pratters]

Yes, quite true, but that's a mistake almost all captains make almost all the time in all one-day games.

Versus Bangladesh in a such a situation? I don't think most captains take the path Ponting took. Obviously we disagree.

I thought much lower of the bowling of Lee (in the last four), Kasprowicz, Gillespie and Tait.

Doesn't excuse the field placements of Ponting.

No way would anyone with a sane mind have declared earlier.

I am glad we agree on at least one aspect.

 

[marc71178]

i can hardly see how that was a mistake.

Tait bowled about 4 overs when the game was gone, Lee was bowling tripe when the game was very much live.

 

[Richard]

What was the game he waited till England had 150+ on the board to introduce Warne?

What about the Oval when he persisted with Lee and ignored Tait?

Just 2 from many.

Because of course Tait had bowled so wonderfully well as to inspire such confidence?
I certainly didn't think "why the hell's he not bowling?"
I'm sure he had his reasons for waiting to introduce Warne - it hardly impeded Warne's success, did it?

 

[Richard]

How many catches was it in the Ashes? Inbetween 12-16 I think. Now I recall Australia haviong bad days in the field, but nothing like that. If you can name a series when they did that (aside from Bill Lawry's 1969 side) then by all means tell me.

The Ashes 2002\03?
I've lost count of the number of catches dropped since that neutral Pakistan series just before that Ashes.
I'd be amazed if Australia dropped much less in that Ashes, or against India the following year, than they did last summer.

Michael Vaughn didn't. The strategy itselt isn't terrible, if it's working. Marcus Trescothick is an example of a player who can beautifully nudge the ball around and guide it through gully and slip. It worked with Chappell because he had the bowlers like Lillee who were masters at finding edges. And more importantly, he's stack the slips. I'm talking about 4th slip and gully. If Ponting did that then OK. But two ore three slips and a gully left Tresco with enough room to make runs easily. I can understand being aggressive, but after X-amount of runs have been scored, guys like Chappell would have used a third man. Ponting wasn't used to that situation and decided to keep on being aggressive. How he reacted under pressure was really interesting.

In stark contrast to this was Michael Vaughn setting a field to Matthew Hayden. Noticing where Hayden liked to hit and how he liked to bully, he put somebody at silly mid-off taking away his freedom. Tresco was free to score in the parts he liked. Hayden wasn't.

I lost count of the number of runs scored to third-man - in The Ashes 2005 and just about every other series.
Especially against the new-ball, third-man would be one of the first positions I put in. And on plenty of occasions with an older ball, too.
Incidentally - Trescothick wouldn't have made any half-centuries but for dropped catches and no-balls.

What? Fielding standards were great in Waugh's era. The first time I noticed the dropsies in the Aussies was in NZ. This may be hard to explain, but sometimes to concentrate more and work harder than you thought you could, you need a motivater. The Aussies looked afraid to let Steve Waugh down and looked more distressed when they dropped catches. Look at Glenn McGrath dropping his catch in the 1999 World Cup Final. McGrath himself has said he's a ruthless captain that demanded nothing less than perfection and wanted to eliminate dead rubbers. He gave the Aussies a sort of attrition, a "fall into line" vibe that made their standards in fielding improve.

I don't deny that, but the fact is Australia have been dropping catches since long before that NZ tour. Like I've been saying for ages and ages, it all started in 2002\03 - with, in fact, Mark Waugh, one of the better slippers there's ever been, dropping a couple.

You don't like his Hampshire captaincy?

No, not on the (admittedly relatively few) occasions I've seen it. I've lost count of the times I've thought "get him off!" when a bowler has something like 6-26-0, then goes for 14 off the next over. He's often waited until 25-30 overs before bringing himself and Udal on, he's bowled part-timers far, far too often... I reckon I could do a better job, easy as it may be sitting on the sidelines.
(Which, incidentally, is why I find it criminal that captain-dressingroom communications are banned. It's absurd to expect someone on the field to think on their feet as well as field)

 

[Richard]

Versus Bangladesh in a such a situation? I don't think most captains take the path Ponting took. Obviously we disagree.

We don't know - because the fact is Bangladesh have rarely if ever been in a position to make such challenges.
Have Bangladesh ever (successfully) chased down a total against a ODI-standard team before? I don't think so, from memory.

Doesn't excuse the field placements of Ponting.

Why not? A captain can't get bowlers to bowl in the right areas, and nor can he set a field for bowling that's all-over-the-shop.

 

[Top_Cat]

Because of course Tait had bowled so wonderfully well as to inspire such confidence?

I distinctly remember Tait finally getting a bowl in one spell and ripping out Geraint Jones when well-set. Then not getting another bowl......... Treating a supposed front-line bowler like a part-timer who'd gotten a lucky wicket was just unfair. I mean, I would definitely be in the camp who thought it was a bit unfair to pick Tait in the first place (considering he'd played about 3 games on tour) but having picked him, Ponting should have bowled him. He'd bowled well-enough in taking that 3-fer but certainly he looked very under-done.

Mind you, Tait's just that sort of bowler; one-day he'll go for plenty, another day he'll send a team at 5/300 to all to for 320. With the Ashes at stake, I would have thought all-out attack was the only option. If the aim was to have line bowlers on, why not pick Kasper? Why pick a guy who is well-known to be an all-out attacking weapon and then not bowl him? Kasper bowled better in his spells than his figures suggested and even when not taking wickets, aside from a couple of occasions, didn't leak runs like Gillespie was.

You either attack or not; picking Tait as an attacking weapon and then not using him, considering there were only 4 bowlers to choose from was just non-sensical. It put so much pressure on the other bowlers, especially Lee. Lee suddenly had to be both an attacking weapon and a stock bowler and in his first Test series after 18 months out of the side, how fair was that? He certainly didn't handle it very well in that last Test. At Test level, you pick a bowler to use him, not to make up the numbers. I always just got the feeling that in terms of the last Test, realising the game was fast slipping away, Ponting panicked and hoped his three core bowlers were able to do a near-superhuman job. It's history that they couldn't. Then again, they were only put under such pressure by the fact that England played so well over all. The Aussies weren't THAT far off their top game, really. England just didn't let them off the leash. Far too good and deserved the win

 

[Richard]

I distinctly remember Tait finally getting a bowl in one spell and ripping out Geraint Jones when well-set.

With a delivery which crept along the ground... hardly to Tait's credit, is it?

 

[Jono]

He meant it. Its his special delivery.

 

[Top_Cat]

With a delivery which crept along the ground... hardly to Tait's credit, is it?

It was fast, accurate, swung in and kept a little lower than Jones thought. It wasn't exactly a ball without merit, either.

 

[Francis]

Tait was a greenhorn that was fed to the lions it would seem. My personal philosophy on selecting is simple - select the best team. I knwo that sounds obvious, but selecters really go for the "it's a seamers wicket" philosophy. I liked it how the West Indies had four great fast bowlers are played them, didn't matter the wicket, they were the best and did the job. MacGill doesn't have the control of Warne, but he has a better strike-rate than Warne and Murali. I know he had a bad domestic game, but he should have been in there, especially with guys like Bell and Jones looking poor against the spin.

England selecters are much smarter. In times of crisis they always did the same thing, they asked veterans to play, go back to experience. To this day I know know what made the selecters think Tait would do better than a proven veteran. I guess he was having a great county season... but to pick him over somebody with a strike-rate of 52 who's a veteran... makes no sense to me.

Cricket fans have short memories and your only as good as your last year. Some people here might say Tendulkar isn't one of the ten greatest ever forgetting that it's just a bad patch and he was brilliant in the 90s. Well my point is that people think MacGill might be overrated etc. This was a man who, in 1998 when Warne hurt his shoulder, won games for Australia. When Warne dropped in form he replaced him for one test in the WI.

Time and time again the only reason Warne was picked was he was picked on reputation. Warne had a habbit of ressurecting his career a lot in his down times. But if selection was based solely on form MacGill would have been playing in 1999 more and he would have been playing in the 2001 Ashes. Oh yes - people thought he should have been ahead of Warne. And somehow people have doubts about him. Warne's entitled to bad games - he isn't... or else he's out of form or whatever.

The only time I'd pick somebody over him is if it was a really good seamers wicket... and it would need to be very good. If you were playing sub-continent, you'd think he should have in the starting team.

The most unlucky cricketer of the past 20-30 years - no question for me.

 

[marc71178]

I'm sure he had his reasons for waiting to introduce Warne - it hardly impeded Warne's success, did it?

Bearing in mind how often Warne came on and got an early wicket or 2, waiting until 2 of England's batsmen get past 50 before introducing him is not a good move.

 

[marc71178]

Tait was a greenhorn that was fed to the lions it would seem. My personal philosophy on selecting is simple - select the best team. I knwo that sounds obvious, but selecters really go for the "it's a seamers wicket" philosophy. I liked it how the West Indies had four great fast bowlers are played them, didn't matter the wicket, they were the best and did the job. MacGill doesn't have the control of Warne, but he has a better strike-rate than Warne and Murali. I know he had a bad domestic game, but he should have been in there, especially with guys like Bell and Jones looking poor against the spin.

England selecters are much smarter. In times of crisis they always did the same thing, they asked veterans to play, go back to experience. To this day I know know what made the selecters think Tait would do better than a proven veteran. I guess he was having a great county season... but to pick him over somebody with a strike-rate of 52 who's a veteran... makes no sense to me.

Cricket fans have short memories and your only as good as your last year. Some people here might say Tendulkar isn't one of the ten greatest ever forgetting that it's just a bad patch and he was brilliant in the 90s. Well my point is that people think MacGill might be overrated etc. This was a man who, in 1998 when Warne hurt his shoulder, won games for Australia. When Warne dropped in form he replaced him for one test in the WI.

Time and time again the only reason Warne was picked was he was picked on reputation. Warne had a habbit of ressurecting his career a lot in his down times. But if selection was based solely on form MacGill would have been playing in 1999 more and he would have been playing in the 2001 Ashes. Oh yes - people thought he should have been ahead of Warne. And somehow people have doubts about him. Warne's entitled to bad games - he isn't... or else he's out of form or whatever.

The only time I'd pick somebody over him is if it was a really good seamers wicket... and it would need to be very good. If you were playing sub-continent, you'd think he should have in the starting team.

The most unlucky cricketer of the past 20-30 years - no question for me.

Yes, MacGill is very good, when he's bowling as the 4th member of an attack where the other 3 are extremely accurate. That way batsmen spot the chance to go after the weak link and get out.

I note that when he wasn't bowling in such a good attack (and at a much weaker level of the game as well), his record was pretty ordinary at best.

 

[Francis]

MacGill's done it before without Warne in his team. Aside from McGrath and Gilespie, I don't know of any other pin-point accurate players he's played with. I mean if I were going to make an argument against MacGill, I'd say his figures are skewered because he's normally picked for spinners wickets only.

But I'm sorry, you don't get 7/50, 8 fourfers, 11 fivers and 2 tenfers in just 38 tests. When somebody's getting that many wickets, there not bowlers your going after anymore, they're strikers.

Seriously, even I'm shocked to go to cricinfo and see he's gotten 11 fivers in 38 tests... that's nuts. Anybody getting that many wickets is a threat.

 

[Pratters]

We don't know - because the fact is Bangladesh have rarely if ever been in a position to make such challenges.

Well I do know a more attacking field should have been setup.

Why not?

Even given the bowlers I felt the field placements were by large poor.

 

[marc71178]

MacGill's done it before without Warne in his team. Aside from McGrath and Gilespie, I don't know of any other pin-point accurate players he's played with.

At the same time.

Coming on after McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa?

Spot the loose bowler and weak link?

 

[Richard]

It was fast, accurate, swung in and kept a little lower than Jones thought. It wasn't exactly a ball without merit, either.

Swung in, sorry?
"Kept a little lower than Jones thought"?
I know you like to praise bowlers for things they deserve no credit for, but you're really taking the p**s there. Watch that ball again. It crept along the floor. No batsman in history would have kept it out.
It was accurate, yes, but he was simply fortunate that it was such. I don't know exactly, but I'd reckon it was one of 4 or 5 deliveries at best that were on-line of the stumps in his 4-over spell.
All Tait did correctly that ball was bowl it on the stumps. He was very fortunate that it crept along the floor. Otherwise Jones would've had no trouble with it.