• 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.

Allan Border vs Stephen Waugh

A.Border vs S.Waugh, who is the greater batsman ?


  • Total voters
    29

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Alan Border and Stephen Waugh, one a LH bat, the other a RH bat, both fighters and generally mid-to-low order batsmen.

Who's the greater batsman ?

Border Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 156 265 44 11174 205 50.56 27 63 1161 28 156 0
ODIs 273 252 39 6524 127* 30.62 9134 71.42 3 39 500 43 127 0
First-class 385 625 97 27131 205 51.38 70 142 379 0

SWaugh Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 168 260 46 10927 200 51.06 22461 48.64 32 50 1175 20 112 0
ODIs 325 288 58 7569 120* 32.90 9971 75.91 3 45 530 68 111 0
First-class 356 551 88 24052 216* 51.94 79 97 273 0
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
border for me...methodically efficient, flexible, scrappy, determined, consistent....waugh would also merit more or less the same adjectives but he is one rung lower for me...
 

archie mac

International Coach
I also voted Border, played in an Australian team for a long period where he was the only thing between Aust and defeat. This meant that he was the main focus or a lot of attacks around the world, especially the Windies. I doubt too many could have played the 100 & 98 against the best in the world on a fast pitch.

Not much in it tbh
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I also voted Border, played in an Australian team for a long period where he was the only thing between Aust and defeat. This meant that he was the main focus or a lot of attacks around the world, especially the Windies. I doubt too many could have played the 100 & 98 against the best in the world on a fast pitch.

Not much in it tbh
what he said.
 

skipper

School Boy/Girl Captain
For me, it is not the number of runs that matter. It is the circumstances in which the runs are scored that matters.

I selected Waugh.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Border vs Waugh (as batsmen) is such a difficult case. I often wonder how many people truly realise the magnitude of Stephen Waugh's achievements.

Before 1993, Waugh was a batsman of no great class, being dropped at least twice, and relying in his bowling to keep him in the side for much of the time he did play. His only achievement of note before Australia visited New Zealand in early 1993 was in England in 1989 - exclude this and he averaged just 26 with the bat, over the course of nearly 50 Tests.

However, for the next 8 years he stood alongside anyone, including even Sachin Tendulkar - though Tendulkar was obviously a better player, as he had come in at an age 4 years younger than Waugh and taken only a few months to come to terms, whereas Waugh took 8 years.

Something that's always interested me is how would Waugh be perceived if he'd been picked for the first time much later in his career - in 1991, say, and had a much briefer poor period.

Because between 1993 and English summer 2001, Waugh averaged 61.06, equable to Tendulkar at the same time. And he played 90 Tests, conquering all-comers. And being easily the best batsman as Australia ascended from the team who was fairly obviously the best in The World to one at absolutely indisputable hedgemony.

He then went on for another 2-and-a-half years, batting reasonably but nowhere near the level he had previously been at.

Border, on the other hand, was a truly remarkable species. He came into the side midway through the Packer Schism and was a rare case in that he stayed in the side after the reunion. Deduct performances in Packer games and it makes no difference at all to his career record (he didn't cash-in on equally depleted teams).

Post-Packer, Border just kept on and on scoring runs, he simply never failed. He played 100 more Tests before his average started to go down a little (but not much - he averaged 42 in his last 44 Tests). The most impressive thing about Border, of course, was how he was master batsman and captain of Australia at their lowest ebb - he was often the difference between defeat and humiliation. Kind of the Andy Flower of his day.

All in all, Border may not quite have matched Stephen Waugh's performances in their (very, very long in both cases) heydays, but there's little in it, and Border was unquestionably the more durable. If I had the choice of an exact repeat of the career of one, I'd have to go for Border.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
Allan Border takes my vote. To average fifty at a time when 35 was considered pretty good is a mark of something like greatness. His leadership, too, trumps Waugh's in that his resources were comparatively meagre. Indeed, we may trace Australia's present indomitable sway back to the timely revival that he inspired.
 
Last edited:

pup11

International Coach
Border vs Waugh (as batsmen) is such a difficult case. I often wonder how many people truly realise the magnitude of Stephen Waugh's achievements.

Before 1993, Waugh was a batsman of no great class, being dropped at least twice, and relying in his bowling to keep him in the side for much of the time he did play. His only achievement of note before Australia visited New Zealand in early 1993 was in England in 1989 - exclude this and he averaged just 26 with the bat, over the course of nearly 50 Tests.

However, for the next 8 years he stood alongside anyone, including even Sachin Tendulkar - though Tendulkar was obviously a better player, as he had come in at an age 4 years younger than Waugh and taken only a few months to come to terms, whereas Waugh took 8 years.

Something that's always interested me is how would Waugh be perceived if he'd been picked for the first time much later in his career - in 1991, say, and had a much briefer poor period.

Because between 1993 and English summer 2001, Waugh averaged 61.06, equable to Tendulkar at the same time. And he played 90 Tests, conquering all-comers. And being easily the best batsman as Australia ascended from the team who was fairly obviously the best in The World to one at absolutely indisputable hedgemony.

He then went on for another 2-and-a-half years, batting reasonably but nowhere near the level he had previously been at.

Border, on the other hand, was a truly remarkable species. He came into the side midway through the Packer Schism and was a rare case in that he stayed in the side after the reunion. Deduct performances in Packer games and it makes no difference at all to his career record (he didn't cash-in on equally depleted teams).

Post-Packer, Border just kept on and on scoring runs, he simply never failed. He played 100 more Tests before his average started to go down a little (but not much - he averaged 42 in his last 44 Tests). The most impressive thing about Border, of course, was how he was master batsman and captain of Australia at their lowest ebb - he was often the difference between defeat and humiliation. Kind of the Andy Flower of his day.

All in all, Border may not quite have matched Stephen Waugh's performances in their (very, very long in both cases) heydays, but there's little in it, and Border was unquestionably the more durable. If I had the choice of an exact repeat of the career of one, I'd have to go for Border.
AWTA. Very well said both are greats in their own way so there isn't much between them but still i would go with Waugh, he was just an awesome overall package and a real fighter to the core.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Border vs Waugh (as batsmen) is such a difficult case. I often wonder how many people truly realise the magnitude of Stephen Waugh's achievements.

Before 1993, Waugh was a batsman of no great class, being dropped at least twice, and relying in his bowling to keep him in the side for much of the time he did play. His only achievement of note before Australia visited New Zealand in early 1993 was in England in 1989 - exclude this and he averaged just 26 with the bat, over the course of nearly 50 Tests.

However, for the next 8 years he stood alongside anyone, including even Sachin Tendulkar - though Tendulkar was obviously a better player, as he had come in at an age 4 years younger than Waugh and taken only a few months to come to terms, whereas Waugh took 8 years.

Something that's always interested me is how would Waugh be perceived if he'd been picked for the first time much later in his career - in 1991, say, and had a much briefer poor period.

Because between 1993 and English summer 2001, Waugh averaged 61.06, equable to Tendulkar at the same time. And he played 90 Tests, conquering all-comers. And being easily the best batsman as Australia ascended from the team who was fairly obviously the best in The World to one at absolutely indisputable hedgemony.

He then went on for another 2-and-a-half years, batting reasonably but nowhere near the level he had previously been at.

Border, on the other hand, was a truly remarkable species. He came into the side midway through the Packer Schism and was a rare case in that he stayed in the side after the reunion. Deduct performances in Packer games and it makes no difference at all to his career record (he didn't cash-in on equally depleted teams).

Post-Packer, Border just kept on and on scoring runs, he simply never failed. He played 100 more Tests before his average started to go down a little (but not much - he averaged 42 in his last 44 Tests). The most impressive thing about Border, of course, was how he was master batsman and captain of Australia at their lowest ebb - he was often the difference between defeat and humiliation. Kind of the Andy Flower of his day.

All in all, Border may not quite have matched Stephen Waugh's performances in their (very, very long in both cases) heydays, but there's little in it, and Border was unquestionably the more durable. If I had the choice of an exact repeat of the career of one, I'd have to go for Border.
Well said, although Waugh in the 90s became a much more talented batsmen from what i've seen & read would give it to Border here as well since he played in a weaker team & was captain & as another poster rightly mentioned he was Australia's best bestman so opposition targeted him & he still still did superbly well even though he was the most talented batsman around.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Purely as batsmen I'd have to go with Stephen Waugh, by a not insignificant amount. Both great leaders though, and I'd probably have Border ahead in that regard, tbh.
 

ozone

First Class Debutant
Waugh as the superior batsman but would probably have Border for all-round leadership. Border was great, but when Waugh was at his best he was nearly as good (IMO) as Tendulkar and Lara.
 

Top