Mark Waugh

[Richard]

Why not?

Yes Mark Waugh did not have a poor start to his career - instead, he had the luxury (which some misrecognised as a disadvantage) of coming into Test cricket at just the right age, being pitched into a successful side and basically having about all that could be said to encourage success-from-the-off; Boon on the other hand was pitched in too early because there was so little talent available and results were thus wretched. Boon and Mark Waugh both had a final year of extremely poor performance, though this dragged Boon's career average down a little more than it did Waugh's (it did so because Boon's was higher ITFP). The sort of bowling the two would routinely face was of similar quality (in fact there was a decent-length overlap between the two's careers) - Boon did very well against it (IIRR averaged something like 48), Mark Waugh did no more than pretty well (averaged 42).

Gilchrist being > Mark Waugh is to some extent fair enough because there's no way Waugh or indeed virtually anyone would or will ever come close to having 40-odd consecutive Tests averaging 60, but equally there's no way Mark Waugh ever had another 50-odd Tests of mostly averaging 26. I'd say it's an issue that can have no cut-and-dried.

 

[Furball]

As a related aside (literally so), do people think it's an advantage or disadvantage to have a more gifted/talented/renowned relative in the sport? I suppose initially it could be advantageous when it comes to being noticed by selectors and coaches if one has a cricketing father, grandfather or uncle but if one isn't quite the player they were one will probably always suffer by comparison in the long run. I suppose it's almost worse with brothers; by any reasonable judgement Mark was a very successful cricketer, but there was always his twin's greater achievements gently mocking his career too.

In Tests.

The gap between them at Test level IMO is exactly reversed when you consider the Waughs as ODI players.

 

[Matt79]

and the fact that you spent 9 months with your face nestled between your brother's arse cheeks has to be more or less irrelevant.

was somewhat confused and nauseated for a minute there, til I worked out you meant in utero.

 

[Matt79]

In Tests.

The gap between them at Test level IMO is exactly reversed when you consider the Waughs as ODI players.

Not sure about 'exactly', given Steve's batting was pretty lively by the standardsof the first half of his career, and Steve was definitely the better bowler when he could still bowl. He didn't have the game to adapt his batting to the mid 90s revolution in ODIs as well as Mark did obviously however.

Mark was clearly the better ODI player, but not by as far as you're suggesting. On the other hand I suppose I've been somewhat arguing that the gap between them as test players wasn't as big as sometimes portrayed.

 

[aussie]

Nah can't agree with Gilly being better than Junior at all. Gilly failed againts the only very good pace attack in his career (although this doesn't devalue his greatness), Junior's entire career he had to deal with very good or great attacks.

 

[Matt79]

Why not?

Yes Mark Waugh did not have a poor start to his career - instead, he had the luxury (which some misrecognised as a disadvantage) of coming into Test cricket at just the right age, being pitched into a successful side and basically having about all that could be said to encourage success-from-the-off;

that's not quite right or fair. He was dropped twice within his first twenty tests, and played 10 of his first 19 tests against the West Indies attack of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson. That's the kind of start that would break many a young player. Instead he averaged 61 in the tour of the Carribean and 38 in the series at home - that included one of the greener WACA pitches of recent times.

 

[bagapath]

that's not quite right or fair. He was dropped twice within his first twenty tests, and played 10 of his first 19 tests against the West Indies attack of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson. That's the kind of start that would break many a young player. Instead he averaged 61 in the tour of the Carribean and 38 in the series at home - that included one of the greener WACA pitches of recent times.

exactly my thoughts

 

[Richard]

that's not quite right or fair. He was dropped twice within his first twenty tests, and played 10 of his first 19 tests against the West Indies attack of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson. That's the kind of start that would break many a young player. Instead he averaged 61 in the tour of the Carribean and 38 in the series at home - that included one of the greener WACA pitches of recent times.

I'm not for a second suggesting Waugh wasn't impressive against West Indies, but nonetheless his arrival in Test cricket was absolutely perfect in terms of his own game and that of his team. He wasn't "young" at all, he was the exact age most would benefit most from coming into Test cricket at, unlike his twin and Boon who had been brought in too early in the chaos of the mid-1980s.

It's also news to me that he was dropped twice. I've heard some tell tales of him being dropped for the last Test of the India 1991/92 series - from which he came straight back after missing just that single game - but never had any outright confirmation. When was the other axing? I only know of one other Test he missed, that being in New Zealand in 1992/93, in which he batted twice without doing dreadfully, and which followed-on directly from the aforementioned home West Indies series. So I'd always simply presumed he was injured for that game.

Make no mistake, I've been on record several times as saying any best Australian team 1989-2006/07 must come somewhere between the aforementioned 1992/93 NZ tour and the 2001 one of England, because outside that period there was no Waugh-twins-as-we-knew-them. I consider Mark essential - and a better batsman as I say than most others of the period - but I don't think he was more than a good Test batsman. And I do think he could have been so much better.

 

[NUFAN]

I hate to do this but if Mark Waugh was nothing but a good batsman, what exactly would you consider Michael Atherton?

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure you really do hate to do this but I'd consider Atherton a good Test batsman, same as Mark Waugh. It's difficult to compare them absolutely because one was an opener and the other a middle-order batsman but I've always grouped them in the same category myself. I don't doubt for a second that Waugh was potentially a better Test batsman than Atherton, because his domestic First-Class average for most of his career was about 10 runs higher. And when domestic and international cricket are considered, Waugh was indeed a fair bit better than Atherton at the longer format (in the shorter format he was so much better it's impossible to use enough chevrons). But Waugh underperformed at Test level, while Atherton pretty much got the best of himself.

Of course Waugh enjoyed advantages Atherton never did, which accounts for the vaguely notable difference in Test career average - principally the fact that Waugh never had to play 6 Tests in a condition that would have rendered every batsman, ever, completely incapable of scoring anything much. Considering the significant portions of the careers of both (ie Atherton's bad start deducted, the bad end of both deducted and Atherton's unfit games discounted) the difference is IIRR a little over 1 (Atherton just over 41, Waugh just under 43).

 

[Top_Cat]

Of course Waugh enjoyed advantages Atherton never did, which accounts for the vaguely notable difference in Test career average - principally the fact that Waugh never had to play 6 Tests in a condition that would have rendered every batsman, ever, completely incapable of scoring anything much. Considering the significant portions of the careers of both (ie Atherton's bad start deducted, the bad end of both deducted and Atherton's unfit games discounted) the difference is IIRR a little over 1 (Atherton just over 41, Waugh just under 43).

Junior had a back condition which stopped him from bowling pace. Not as serious as Athers but it gave him grief through most of his career.

 

[Richard]

Was there ever a series where he played half-fit and was obviously, to the watcher at the time and to those who read about it later, not in with a hope in hell of combating serious bowling?

If so I'd be more than happy to deduct it from his record but the only seriously diabolical series' I can see on Waugh's record are the ones in SL (7 years apart) and India 1991/92. I'm not fully familiar with exactly when it was Waugh was forced to switch from seam to spin and not fully familiar with anything to do with his back condition other than that it was there.

 

[Top_Cat]

Was there ever a series where he played half-fit and was obviously, to the watcher at the time and to those who read about it later, not in with a hope in hell of combating serious bowling?

If so I'd be more than happy to deduct it from his record but the only seriously diabolical series' I can see on Waugh's record are the ones in SL (7 years apart) and India 1991/92. I'm not fully familiar with exactly when it was Waugh was forced to switch from seam to spin and not fully familiar with anything to do with his back condition other than that it was there.

England '97 his back really flared up from what I heard at the time.

 

[Richard]

I see. I'll have to have a bit of a look into that at some point. I know he was far below his best, but he still enjoyed a series which looks regal compared to Atherton's 1998/99 one.

 

[Matt79]

I'm pretty certain he was dropped for that second match you've referred to there Rich - I have to get up to get his biog. to check and at the moment my stitches are too sore for that. If he did miss through injury it saved him from the chop. Alternatively, he might have been omitted from a squad before an a subsequent injury saw him recalled to that squad before he actually misses a game.

The switch from seam to spin was definitely as a result of an ongoing back complaint. It saddened him a lot because he had a fixation with bowling bouncers at batsmen and lost the ability to do so. He never had a series cruelled by injury in the manner Athers did.

The funny thing about that tour of SL is that his run of outs was pretty much all his own doing. He scored plenty of runs on the tour, inc. against Murali in a tour match, but got a pair in the one test, both within single digit balls faced, and then wound himself into such a tizz about it that he freaked out in the next test and by his own admission forgot all technique in trying to force a run to get off the streak of ducks. Needless to say another pair followed within the space of only another four balls faced and he was stuck with the nickname Audi. It upset him so much that he recounted that years later, when facing SL again, this time in Oz, he was nearly sick worrying it would happen again and Audi would become Olympic.

 

[Richard]

I'm pretty certain he was dropped for that second match you've referred to there Rich - I have to get up to get his biog. to check and at the moment my stitches are too sore for that. If he did miss through injury it saved him from the chop. Alternatively, he might have been omitted from a squad before an a subsequent injury saw him recalled to that squad before he actually misses a game.

Well I hope your stitches get well ASAP because I'm genuinely interested to know about this - and I don't have his book myself.

The switch from seam to spin was definitely as a result of an ongoing back complaint. It saddened him a lot because he had a fixation with bowling bouncers at batsmen and lost the ability to do so. He never had a series cruelled by injury in the manner Athers did.

Yeah, I know about the reasons behind his switch from seam to spin (irony was I always thought he was an OK-ish spinner as well, even if he never appeared to work on it that much - possibly because of the antipathy towards that style of bowling you mention), just not sure when it was that it had to be made.

Both Waughs in their earlier days had something of a Bouncer fixation in fact - Stephen probably even more notorious for it than Mark. As a part-timer, though, it's a useful thing to have, because it tends to be less expected than short stuff from a specialist seamer.

The funny thing about that tour of SL is that his run of outs was pretty much all his own doing. He scored plenty of runs on the tour, inc. against Murali in a tour match, but got a pair in the one test, both within single digit balls faced, and then wound himself into such a tizz about it that he freaked out in the next test and by his own admission forgot all technique in trying to force a run to get off the streak of ducks. Needless to say another pair followed within the space of only another four balls faced and he was stuck with the nickname Audi. It upset him so much that he recounted that years later, when facing SL again, this time in Oz, he was nearly sick worrying it would happen again and Audi would become Olympic.

Yeah I think I've heard about that somewhere before - it's funny how easy it is for something to get you into a downward spiral. I'd not be all that surprised if it contributed to his dismal failure in Sri Lanka once again in 1999/2000. I've heard of such a thing happening to other batsmen occasionally - Nasser Hussain at The Oval in 2000 for example said he was almost certain before he batted in both innings' that he had no hope of getting off-the-mark - and sure enough he made one of the more forlorn pairs you're ever going to see.

 

[Migara]

The funny thing about that tour of SL is that his run of outs was pretty much all his own doing. He scored plenty of runs on the tour, inc. against Murali in a tour match, but got a pair in the one test, both within single digit balls faced, and then wound himself into such a tizz about it that he freaked out in the next test and by his own admission forgot all technique in trying to force a run to get off the streak of ducks. Needless to say another pair followed within the space of only another four balls faced and he was stuck with the nickname Audi. It upset him so much that he recounted that years later, when facing SL again, this time in Oz, he was nearly sick worrying it would happen again and Audi would become Olympic.

The 1991/2 tour Waugh got out to innocous balls from Murali. Only good ball that he got was from Liyanage, who was running hot that time. Somehow, Waugh managed not to score against a one and half man attack of SL. But in 1999/2000 the situation was different. Murali had developed a top spinner by then. He reduced Mark Waugh to groping with it. He infact got some superb balls from Murali. So the low scores in two series are due to very different reasons.

 

[Uppercut]

Really, only 'maybe' Hayden?

I have Mark Waugh in the Boon, Langer, Martyn category. I always felt Hayden was in the echelon above those 4.

Yeah, this is what I'd have thought. WRT Hayden, I think CW may be suffering from the Richard influence.

I don't disagree on Mark Waugh being a bit undervalued, but I think Matthew Hayden is horrendously underrated on CW. Regardless of how flat pitches were, we can only judge him on how he stood against his contemporaries, and there's not an opening batsman who comes within a mile of him this decade:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, this is what I'd have thought. WRT Hayden, I think CW may be suffering from the Richard influence.

I don't disagree on Mark Waugh being a bit undervalued, but I think Matthew Hayden is horrendously underrated on CW. Regardless of how flat pitches were, we can only judge him on how he stood against his contemporaries, and there's not an opening batsman who comes within a mile of him this decade:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Indeed. And those numbers there - which still show him as the clear statistical number one - are actually tempered by his late-career slump.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, this is what I'd have thought. WRT Hayden, I think CW may be suffering from the Richard influence.

I don't disagree on Mark Waugh being a bit undervalued, but I think Matthew Hayden is horrendously underrated on CW. Regardless of how flat pitches were, we can only judge him on how he stood against his contemporaries, and there's not an opening batsman who comes within a mile of him this decade:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Unfortunately yes. But as always is the case i have him running from the argument in the other thread.