Mark Waugh vs Aravinda de Silva

[Raz0r6ack]

In the 90s team in the decades XI Aravinda was picked. Mark Waugh was not. The 1990s was when both players were at their peak.

Do people really consider Aravinda a better batsmen? By early 1997 Aravinda was averaging 34 after 57 Tests. Followed by a great couple of years.

Mark Waugh played some great knocks against some very strong West Indian and South African bowling attacks. Wasn't the most consistent player but he averaged 40+ much longer then Aravinda did.

Should have Mark Waugh been picked ahead of Aravinda?

 

[Gob]

In the 90s team in the decades XI Aravinda was picked. Mark Waugh was not. The 1990s was when both players were at their peak.

Do people really consider Aravinda a better batsmen? By early 1997 Aravinda was averaging 34 after 57 Tests. Followed by a great couple of years.

Mark Waugh played some great knocks against some very strong West Indian and South African bowling attacks. Wasn't the most consistent player but he averaged 40+ much longer then Aravinda did.

Should have Mark Waugh been picked ahead of Aravinda?

Aravinda dominated the Pakistani pair tbh

 

[Migara]

In the 90s team in the decades XI Aravinda was picked. Mark Waugh was not. The 1990s was when both players were at their peak.

Do people really consider Aravinda a better batsmen? By early 1997 Aravinda was averaging 34 after 57 Tests. Followed by a great couple of years.

Mark Waugh played some great knocks against some very strong West Indian and South African bowling attacks. Wasn't the most consistent player but he averaged 40+ much longer then Aravinda did.

Should have Mark Waugh been picked ahead of Aravinda?

No.

- Aravinda's low average was due to lack of home matches due to the civil war.
- He played far less matches when he was in his first peak in 88-90 period. Few more matches then and there would make his average go past 45.
- Aravinda was the perfect batsmen to play West Indian pace men, intimidates bowlers when dropped short and rarely gets hit due to his reflexes. And he averages better against West Indies than Mark Waugh. Unlike Waugh he didn't have the chance to feast on weaker West Indies attacks (even then Mark was pretty poor against Mervyn Dillon, Nixon Mclean etc.
- In ODI's despite the average difference (Aravinda has abetter Sr though) Aravinda more consistent delivered in crunch matches.
- When on song Aravinda was much more destructive than Waugh, even taking bowlers like Imran, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose and Donald to cleaners.

 

[Gob]

No.

- Aravinda's low average was due to lack of home matches due to the civil war.
- He played far less matches when he was in his first peak in 88-90 period. Few more matches then and there would make his average go past 45.
- Aravinda was the perfect batsmen to play West Indian pace men, intimidates bowlers when dropped short and rarely gets hit due to his reflexes. And he averages better against West Indies than Mark Waugh. Unlike Waugh he didn't have the chance to feast on weaker West Indies attacks (even then Mark was pretty poor against Mervyn Dillon, Nixon Mclean etc.
- In ODI's despite the average difference Aravinda more consistent delivered in crunch matches.
- When on song Aravinda was much more destructive than Waugh, even taking bowlers like Imran, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose and Donald to cleaners.

Hmm Mark Waugh made hundreds against Marshall and Ambrose? Does DeSilva have a hundred against them? I don't know that's why I'm asking

 

[Migara]

Hmm Mark Waugh made hundreds against Marshall and Ambrose? Does DeSilva have a hundred against them? I don't know that's why I'm asking

He doesn't. Played a single match in SL, where he was freakishly out set for a hundred, and second innings washed out when he was set. Played two more in WI. That's about it.

But there is no question how he treated fastest of bowlers when dropped short.

 

[Gob]

Hmm Mark Waugh made hundreds against Marshall and Ambrose? Does DeSilva have a hundred against them? I don't know that's why I'm asking

Well poop I checked no hundreds against WI and SA. Also you can't ignore Waugh's ton against WI in the final test in 95 that was as high pressure as it gets

 

[Gob]

He doesn't. Played a single match in SL, where he was freakishly out set for a hundred, and second innings washed out when he was set. Played two more in WI. That's about it.

But there is no question how he treated fastest of bowlers when dropped short.

There is no question who was the better batsman again short pitched bowling. I cant decide who is better overall

 

[Migara]

Well poop I checked no hundreds against WI and SA. Also you can't ignore Waugh's ton against WI in the final test in 95 that was as high pressure as it gets

Aravinda never had the chance to play often against West Indies. Very difficult to make an assessment. However his best battles came with bowlers dropping short trying to bounce him out.

The different type of battle came with Wasim and Waqar though.

 

[Migara]

There is no question who was the better batsman again short pitched bowling. I cant decide who is better overall

Mark Waugh in condtions where bowlers pitch it up and move. Aravinda when pitch is fast and bouncy. That would be a good way to look at it.

 

[sunilz]

Well poop I checked no hundreds against WI and SA. Also you can't ignore Waugh's ton against WI in the final test in 95 that was as high pressure as it gets

Mark Waugh played 28 tests against WI, Desilva played 3. So, very difficult for Desilva to score 100.

 

[Gob]

Aravinda never had the chance to play often against West Indies. Very difficult to make an assessment. However his best battles came with bowlers dropping short trying to bounce him out.

The different type of battle came with Wasim and Waqar though.

Yeah he had a great run against them from 96 to 99. Mostly at home but conditions were very similar in Pakistan and SL so that wouldn't have made much of a difference

 

[_00_deathscar]

Neither should have been picked. Considering Flower/Healy was a close call, why didn't people just pick Flower as the bat? Makes no sense...

 

[Gob]

Neither should have been picked. Considering Flower/Healy was a close call, why didn't people just pick Flower as the bat? Makes no sense...

Andrew Flower averaged 44 in the 90s with only 2.5k runs. Solid but not solid enough

 

[_00_deathscar]

Andrew Flower averaged 44 in the 90s with only 2.5k runs. Solid but not solid enough

The 'only 2.5k' runs is because he only played 8 of 10 years, for a **** Zimbabwe side (while also being keeper).

Meh, then should have gone with Dravid or someone who averaged nearly 50 if we're just going by that even if he only played for under half the decade.

 

[stephen]

Mark Waugh, by a small but fair margin. But to bat number 6, de Silva was better suited to the role.

Mark Waugh was a discount Viv inasmuch as they scored a similar number of hundreds (24 for Viv, 20 for Waugh), 50s (45 for Viv, 47 for Waugh) in the same number of tests (121 for Viv, 128 for Waugh). There was a huge difference in their averages, which was explained by Waugh's inability to go on to a big score after getting to 100.

By contrast, de Silva was far more likely to get to 100 once he got to 50, but less likely to get to 50. This is born out in his conversion rate (20 hundreds, 22 50s in 93 tests). De Silva actually had a better rate of hundreds than Waugh (and even Viv) but was less consistent in getting to 50.

Waugh was better suited to pace conditions, de Silva preferred slower wickets. Waugh made the bulk of his hundreds against England, the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan, de Silva made the bulk of his runs against Pakistan and India (though mostly at home, particularly against India - despite making 4 hundreds in Pakistan, his average was under 40 in the country).

Mark Waugh was more consistent away from home, averaging virtually the same away as at home. De Silva was a beast at home, but substantially worse away.

De Silva had a longer career, playing for 6 years before Waugh and retiring at the same time.

Honestly there's not a huge amount between them, but I'd take Waugh up the order and de Silva down the order, which is why I voted de Silva for the number 6 slot in the 90s team (and Waugh at 4 once it was already clear Tendulkar would get the spot).

 

[subshakerz]

Another under-appreciated aspect of Mark Waugh was that, while being inconsistent, he scored tons when it really mattered. He scored 20 centuries and Australia won in around 15-16 of them, and a couple of tons helped to save a match through drawing it. His fourth innings ton against Donald in SA in 1997 was one of the best innings of the 90s.

 

[Burgey]

I loved to watch Mark Waugh bat but I think Aravinda was a better player tbh. Would probably be two of the blokes I'd have in a "watch them bat together all day" line up though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mark Waugh played 28 tests against WI, Desilva played 3. So, very difficult for Desilva to score 100.

Kind of demonstrates that Waugh played stronger opposition doesn't it?

 

[h_hurricane]

Mark Waugh, by a small but fair margin. But to bat number 6, de Silva was better suited to the role.

Mark Waugh was a discount Viv inasmuch as they scored a similar number of hundreds (24 for Viv, 20 for Waugh), 50s (45 for Viv, 47 for Waugh) in the same number of tests (121 for Viv, 128 for Waugh). There was a huge difference in their averages, which was explained by Waugh's inability to go on to a big score after getting to 100.

By contrast, de Silva was far more likely to get to 100 once he got to 50, but less likely to get to 50. This is born out in his conversion rate (20 hundreds, 22 50s in 93 tests). De Silva actually had a better rate of hundreds than Waugh (and even Viv) but was less consistent in getting to 50.

Waugh was better suited to pace conditions, de Silva preferred slower wickets. Waugh made the bulk of his hundreds against England, the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan, de Silva made the bulk of his runs against Pakistan and India (though mostly at home, particularly against India - despite making 4 hundreds in Pakistan, his average was under 40 in the country).

Mark Waugh was more consistent away from home, averaging virtually the same away as at home. De Silva was a beast at home, but substantially worse away.

De Silva had a longer career, playing for 6 years before Waugh and retiring at the same time.

Honestly there's not a huge amount between them, but I'd take Waugh up the order and de Silva down the order, which is why I voted de Silva for the number 6 slot in the 90s team (and Waugh at 4 once it was already clear Tendulkar would get the spot).

Waugh played 27 innings more than Viv. Just looking at the number of tests doesn't give a fair idea about the gulf between them.

Viv Richards innings per hundred - 7.58
Mark Waugh innings per hundred - 10.45

Viv Richards innings per fifty- 2.64
Mark Waugh innings per fifty- 3.12

The gulf in consistency between them is pretty big. So it was not just down to Waugh's inability to go big.

 

[Migara]

Kind of demonstrates that Waugh played stronger opposition doesn't it?

Would have been true if Waugh avearged higher than Aravinda against WI. More the share against WI, higher Aravinda's average would have been. And yes, he is one of the very few batsmen who had technique to handle West indies fire with fire.