Mark Waugh's highest test score was pretty damn low (153*), I always found this weird

[mr_mister]

without even looking it up I can say it's probably the lowest high score by someone who's scored 10 test centuries let alone the 20 he scored. Did he just lose concentration after 100?

 

[Red]

There was usually a horse race he wanted to hear in the dressing room.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He hasn't got the longest attention span

 

[Skyliner]

He was an attacking cricketer.....should have put away the hook shot and gotten dour.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I was watching the Cricket Legends interview with him and he outright says that once he got to 100 he lost focus and saw the job as done. Said it was his biggest cricketing regret, other than the "match fixing" stuff.

 

[gettingbetter]

I remember when Cook was established in international cricket his highest was 127 for a period of time which I found odd.

 

[dfrinku]

Before Clarke's 329 he never seemed to go big and then after it seemed that all his tons were daddys. It took him 6 years to top his 151 on debut.

 

[adub]

Junior was always one for getting out to a lazy shot. He scored so many beautiful 30s and 40s it wasn't funny. The guy would come out looking like he had the bowling at his mercy and pop one up to midwicket out of no where. Just the way he was so no real surprise he never made a real daddy ton.

 

[Jono]

Seems about right for a talented but lazy batsman with a low 40s average tbh.

 

[Dan]

tbh it wasn't exactly a team that needed guys to go big on a regular basis. I'm speaking completely anecdotally here, but there weren't many big scores by Australian batsmen in that era -- especially not considering how ****ing good they all were. And when they did go big, it was only ever the top 3 who did it.

Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Clarke, Martyn, Gilchrist never had that many chances to get above 150 before the team was in position to declare, simply because Langer-Hayden-Ponting were so consistently brilliant up top.

 

[AndrewB]

without even looking it up I can say it's probably the lowest high score by someone who's scored 10 test centuries let alone the 20 he scored. Did he just lose concentration after 100?

Lowest high score with 10+ Test centuries:
138: Mohinder Amarnath (11 centuries)
142: Allan Lamb (14)
153*: Mark Waugh (20)
157: Simon Katich (10)
162*: Ashwell Prince (11)

Lowest high score with 20+ Test centuries:
153*: Mark Waugh (20)
177: Andrew Strauss (21)
182: Colin Cowdrey (22)
199: Mohammad Azharuddin (22)
200: Steve Waugh (32)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Seems about right for a talented but lazy batsman with a low 40s average tbh.

But VVS got two doubles and multiple huge 150+ scores.

Seems like Waugh was more likely to convert a start into a century but VVS more likely to get a huge score.

 

[Jono]

I said low 40s. Difference between 41 avg and 45 avg in a long career is a lot of runs.

 

[Pratters]

I was watching the Cricket Legends interview with him and he outright says that once he got to 100 he lost focus and saw the job as done. Said it was his biggest cricketing regret, other than the "match fixing" stuff.

Happened to watch the same episode just 3-4 days back. It's interesting. The test average is just 41.80 I see. I thought he was so much better as a player.

Re the match fixing - he stated that it makes his blood boil when people mention his offense along with match fixing in the papers. He explained it nicely I thought.

 

[Pratters]

Seems about right for a talented but lazy batsman with a low 40s average tbh.

Was he lazy though given the first class average is 50+.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Happened to watch the same episode just 3-4 days back. It's interesting. The test average is just 41.80 I see. I thought he was so much better as a player.

Re the match fixing - he stated that it makes his blood boil when people mention his offense along with match fixing in the papers. He explained it nicely I thought.

Yeah it was quite a good episode, his personality really came out in the whole thing. Finding that series of interviews quite interesting tbh.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

tbh it wasn't exactly a team that needed guys to go big on a regular basis. I'm speaking completely anecdotally here, but there weren't many big scores by Australian batsmen in that era -- especially not considering how ****ing good they all were. And when they did go big, it was only ever the top 3 who did it.

Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh... never had that many chances to get above 150 before the team was in position to declare, simply because Langer-Hayden-Ponting were so consistently brilliant up top.

Really?

Is this some new age trolling that I do not understand?

 

[bagapath]

Haynes Richardson Vengsarkar and Anwar didn't cross 200 either

 

[Pratters]

After the draw era of the 70s and 80s when test cricket became very boring a lot of times, the 90s had less high scores. It provided a nice balance between the bat and the ball. Getting a 200 was a very big deal in the 90s. Much more than it is now.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah it was quite a good episode, his personality really came out in the whole thing. Finding that series of interviews quite interesting tbh.

I have watched all the episodes which aired in India. The ones with Jeff Thompson, Allan Border and Greg Chappell are awesome.