Mark Waugh

[Richard]

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.

FTR I don't dispute Hayden's excellence at doing what he did and the importance of him doing what he did to Australia's success in the time he was doing it (2001/02-2007/08). I don't think considering every Australian Test-standard batsman of 1989-2001 better than Hayden is underrating Hayden at all, even though for instance Michael Slater's or Mark Taylor's contribution to the success of their respective times was actually smaller.

If I can cause some people to "suffer" a bit from rating Hayden as lower than they otherwise might though I'm quite happy. Not entirely sure I can take all the credit for it though TBH.

 

[Uppercut]

This is one of your theories I have absolutely no time for whatsoever. You've taken a player who was undoubtedly the best opener of his generation in terms of output, speculated heavily on how he would have performed in another era, and passed your speculation off as more important than his actual performances. The fact is, no one has any idea how he would have performed were he born ten, twenty or thirty years earlier. And the other fact is, it doesn't matter. The sheer masses and masses of runs Hayden churned out when he did play were what made him a great player.

 

[Richard]

I believe there is good grounds on which to speculate that had Hayden's Test career been over by the English summer of 2001 (for whatever reasons - being born at a different date or the cookie crumbling differently in terms of places available in the Australian Test side) then he would not have had any success - or, equally, that had Worldwide conditions for batting not gotten routinely easier from 2001/02 onwards, that he would not have had success however many times he was called upon. I do not believe this is idle speculation with nothing more than guesswork involved.

If I did I'd not speculate such a thing. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree but I don't hold with the "if a player was outstanding at one time he would absolutely undoubtedly have been at least good at any" theorem. I don't dispute Hayden was outstanding at doing what he did. I do dispute that he was outstanding - or even remotely good - at doing what most (and no, not all) good batsmen throughout Test history have done.

 

[Matt79]

Back on topic, to Migara's point re the 99 tour pf SL:

Yeah, was speaking about the earlier tour. Mark vs spinners was always entertaining cricket because he was firmly of the view that spinners were there to be smashed and was rather good at it, but in the process would often show what was probably a lack of respect to sometimes just kick a ball safely away rather than try and drop it in the grandstand. Meant that along with some good strokeplay there was always a chance he'd get himself out.

Murali at the height of his powers at home was a formidable opponent there's no doubt. Mark reckons one of his best innings, in all cricket, was a century he scored for NSW against Vic, circa 1996, with Warne bowling at him all day around the wicket into the rough. Described it as harder than test cricket. On the flipside, while scored a lot of runs off Tufnell, Phil got him more times than his talent suggested, largely because Mark treated his bowling with contempt - most notably with THAT reverse sweep.

You could say this unwillingness to knuckle down an be content to just survive is a flaw, but to have changed that would have made him a completely different player, it was his near arrogance and desire to always bat positively that made him the player he was.

 

[Richard]

I remember Bill Lawry - or someone - comparing Brad Haddin to Mark Waugh during the course of that breakout century he scored against New Zealand at Adelaide in 2008/09. The comparison was on the basis of the fact that even though he'd have been far best-advised to let Daniel Vettori bowl over-the-wicket, pretty harmlessly, at him and feast on the rubbish served-up by the rest of the attack, Haddin seemed near-incapable of doing so, and instead tried all sorts of innovative strokes against Vettori. Obviously, it did him no harm in that particular knock, but it could easily have done and in similar circumstances repeated would do, plenty of times.

I often wonder how good Mark Waugh would've been with a different attitude against spinners. Against seam he played the ball on merits, almost without fail (unless the team was on 350-2 or so). But against spin it was different. Was it arrogance? Sometimes it almost struck me as mere boredom - something always had to be happening when spinners were bowling at him. He was, when he played the ball on merit, one of the best players of spin I've seen, especially among Australians.

You're very right that we have no way of knowing whether it'd have, on the whole, been a positive or negative on his batting had he been different - it could easily have been either. The same applies to many similar free-spirit players - I always say to those who lament Ian Botham's attitude that had he been more of a knuckle-downer he might well not have been as good as he briefly was.

Mark Waugh was what Mark Waugh was. It's funny that he did manage on that one occasion to play Warne on the ball and not merely the fact that he was a spinner. I wonder if there were others.

 

[Matt79]

The thing was that he was very good at attacking spinners though. It cost him dearly on a few notable examples but he often thrived through his approach.

 

[stephen]

I do dispute that he was outstanding - or even remotely good - at doing what most (and no, not all) good batsmen throughout Test history have done.

You're cracking me up here.

He was unquestionably the best opener of his era. And the best criticism of him was that he performed poorly in his first couple of tests against some of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen.

Hayden may not have played in an identical fashion if he peaked in the 90s as opposed to the 00s, but he still would have been successful. He had the natural ability and the work ethic to make it happen. A couple of failures against Curtley Ambrose notwithstanding.

 

[Burgey]

I remember Bill Lawry - or someone - comparing Brad Haddin to Mark Waugh during the course of that breakout century he scored against New Zealand at Adelaide in 2008/09. The comparison was on the basis of the fact that even though he'd have been far best-advised to let Daniel Vettori bowl over-the-wicket, pretty harmlessly, at him and feast on the rubbish served-up by the rest of the attack, Haddin seemed near-incapable of doing so, and instead tried all sorts of innovative strokes against Vettori. Obviously, it did him no harm in that particular knock, but it could easily have done and in similar circumstances repeated would do, plenty of times.

I often wonder how good Mark Waugh would've been with a different attitude against spinners. Against seam he played the ball on merits, almost without fail (unless the team was on 350-2 or so). But against spin it was different. Was it arrogance? Sometimes it almost struck me as mere boredom - something always had to be happening when spinners were bowling at him. He was, when he played the ball on merit, one of the best players of spin I've seen, especially among Australians.

You're very right that we have no way of knowing whether it'd have, on the whole, been a positive or negative on his batting had he been different - it could easily have been either. The same applies to many similar free-spirit players - I always say to those who lament Ian Botham's attitude that had he been more of a knuckle-downer he might well not have been as good as he briefly was.

Mark Waugh was what Mark Waugh was. It's funny that he did manage on that one occasion to play Warne on the ball and not merely the fact that he was a spinner. I wonder if there were others.

Mark Waugh said spinners are only there to get you from 30 to 70 more quickly.

I therefore suspect he didn't really rate them.

 

[Matt79]

Richard - just checked, Waugh was dumped in favour of Martyn for the third test of the series in NZ - it would have been his 22nd test.

 

[Matt79]

Comment from Mark Taylor regarding Waugh's reverse sweep against Tufnell:
"I could see Junior was getting the dirts with Tufnell because it was fairly defensive bowling, then in typical Mark Waugh fashion he decides to play a shot that none of us has ever seen him play before.
Simmo went beserk; I couldn't look at him because I was laughing so much. I rushed inside to watch the replay, and we all waited inside to see exactly what Mark would do when he came back in. He walks in, looks at us and just says "How did THAT get back onto the stumps?". That was it for me. I couldn't hold it in. Neither could half the side. It was just the way you'd expect Mark to handle it. It was his way of saving he had no luck. I asked him how many times he'd tried the shot. And he was just so straight faced when he said, "oh, that's the first time". It never would have occurred to him to practice the shot before giving it a go. But that's the way he was. I'm sure he wouldn't have played it if we were 5-93, but we were well placed, looking to set a total, so he tried something."

 

[Uppercut]

Comment from Mark Taylor regarding Waugh's reverse sweep against Tufnell:
"I could see Junior was getting the dirts with Tufnell because it was fairly defensive bowling, then in typical Mark Waugh fashion he decides to play a shot that none of us has ever seen him play before.
Simmo went beserk; I couldn't look at him because I was laughing so much. I rushed inside to watch the replay, and we all waited inside to see exactly what Mark would do when he came back in. He walks in, looks at us and just says "How did THAT get back onto the stumps?". That was it for me. I couldn't hold it in. Neither could half the side. It was just the way you'd expect Mark to handle it. It was his way of saving he had no luck. I asked him how many times he'd tried the shot. And he was just so straight faced when he said, "oh, that's the first time". It never would have occurred to him to practice the shot before giving it a go. But that's the way he was. I'm sure he wouldn't have played it if we were 5-93, but we were well placed, looking to set a total, so he tried something."

Haha. WAG. Could hardly be less like his bro if he tried.

 

[Richard]

You're cracking me up here.

He was unquestionably the best opener of his era. And the best criticism of him was that he performed poorly in his first couple of tests against some of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen.

Hayden may not have played in an identical fashion if he peaked in the 90s as opposed to the 00s, but he still would have been successful. He had the natural ability and the work ethic to make it happen. A couple of failures against Curtley Ambrose notwithstanding.

It was far more than "a couple" (of Tests or failures) and that reaction is typical of someone trying to downplay Hayden's shortcomings and put words into the mouth of those talking the batsman down. It's why such people are increasingly pointless to argue against, whether they're KaZoH0lic or anyone else.

Hayden did not have the game to succeed against quality seam bowling and\or on seam-friendly decks with a swinging ball. It's as simple as that in my book. But he did have the game to succeed big-time against non-seaming, non-swinging balls - as well as spin of any calibre.

 

[Uppercut]

The point is that he didn't need the game to succeed against quality seam. Why would he? He averaged 50 without it!

Batsmen make little tweaks and changes to their techniques all the time in order to maximise their ability to score runs. I find it presumptious to say that Hayden would have stuck with his technique had it not been successful. Particularly considering how he spent the whole of the 90s dominating quality domestic Aussie attacks in a style completely different from the swashbuckling bully seen this decade.

 

[stephen]

It was far more than "a couple" (of Tests or failures) and that reaction is typical of someone trying to downplay Hayden's shortcomings and put words into the mouth of those talking the batsman down. It's why such people are increasingly pointless to argue against, whether they're KaZoH0lic or anyone else.

Hayden did not have the game to succeed against quality seam bowling and\or on seam-friendly decks with a swinging ball. It's as simple as that in my book. But he did have the game to succeed big-time against non-seaming, non-swinging balls - as well as spin of any calibre.

4th Test: Australia v West Indies at Adelaide, Jan 25-28, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Walsh and Bishop weren't too bad I'd say.

5th Test: Australia v West Indies at Perth, Feb 1-3, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

The second innings of this match when the pitch was a minefield gave glimpses of his calibre against the best bowlers in the world at their peak.

And that was in his inconsistant/early period.

The series after he was dimissed twice by Pollock, twice by Shultz and was run out. He spend three years in exile.

The worst that you can really say about Hayden was that early in his career he faced Ambrose and failed a few times. Any green batsman facing Ambrose in his pomp is probably not going to excell.

Still, if you don't rate Hayden then you really cannot rate any batsman from the 00s. The only top shelf quick from this period was McGrath and he was more fast-medium than quick.

EDIT: Also he's largely the reason Donald's figures against Australia were so bad in 01/02.

 

[The Sean]

Comment from Mark Taylor regarding Waugh's reverse sweep against Tufnell:
"I could see Junior was getting the dirts with Tufnell because it was fairly defensive bowling, then in typical Mark Waugh fashion he decides to play a shot that none of us has ever seen him play before.
Simmo went beserk; I couldn't look at him because I was laughing so much. I rushed inside to watch the replay, and we all waited inside to see exactly what Mark would do when he came back in. He walks in, looks at us and just says "How did THAT get back onto the stumps?". That was it for me. I couldn't hold it in. Neither could half the side. It was just the way you'd expect Mark to handle it. It was his way of saving he had no luck. I asked him how many times he'd tried the shot. And he was just so straight faced when he said, "oh, that's the first time". It never would have occurred to him to practice the shot before giving it a go. But that's the way he was. I'm sure he wouldn't have played it if we were 5-93, but we were well placed, looking to set a total, so he tried something."

That's brilliant, what a champ.

 

[BoyBrumby]

4th Test: Australia v West Indies at Adelaide, Jan 25-28, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Walsh and Bishop weren't too bad I'd say.

5th Test: Australia v West Indies at Perth, Feb 1-3, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

The second innings of this match when the pitch was a minefield gave glimpses of his calibre against the best bowlers in the world at their peak.

And that was in his inconsistant/early period.

The series after he was dimissed twice by Pollock, twice by Shultz and was run out. He spend three years in exile.

The worst that you can really say about Hayden was that early in his career he faced Ambrose and failed a few times. Any green batsman facing Ambrose in his pomp is probably not going to excell.

Still, if you don't rate Hayden then you really cannot rate any batsman from the 00s. The only top shelf quick from this period was McGrath and he was more fast-medium than quick.

EDIT: Also he's largely the reason Donald's figures against Australia were so bad in 01/02.

TBF I wouldn't be holding that innings at Adelaide up as an example of Hayden's prowess against high quality pace. As Gideon Haigh put it, is was compiled "without once finding the middle of the bat".

Whilst in no way subscribing to the oft repeated Dickinson theory that big Matty was just no bloody good, etc, there is a correlation between Hayden's ascent and the global decline in pace bowling. Donald, Ambrose & Walsh were on the way down and Steyn and Flintoff had yet to emerge. IMHO the only first-rate quick he dominated was Ahktar, wich is no mean feat in itself, obv.

Whether Hayden's success is because of the dearth of pace in the early noughties or just because he'd improved as a batsman tho is rather more debateable.

 

[Riggins]

Mark Waugh was what Mark Waugh was. It's funny that he did manage on that one occasion to play Warne on the ball and not merely the fact that he was a spinner. I wonder if there were others.

When was this one occasion ?

 

[Julian87]

It's sad that I'll never love another cricketer like I loved Mark Waugh. I remember I was heartbroken in about 97 when my old man took me to a one dayer in Sydney against the Kiwis before I ever went to a test match and the morning of the game we found out Mark Waugh was out and Jim Maher was in. What a let down. I loved watching everything he did. His quick bowling. His batting; obviously. All of his fielding. And even his nude off spinners which would gets wickets at the most crucial times. Just a legend of the game for mine.

 

[R_D]

Comment from Mark Taylor regarding Waugh's reverse sweep against Tufnell:
"I could see Junior was getting the dirts with Tufnell because it was fairly defensive bowling, then in typical Mark Waugh fashion he decides to play a shot that none of us has ever seen him play before.
Simmo went beserk; I couldn't look at him because I was laughing so much. I rushed inside to watch the replay, and we all waited inside to see exactly what Mark would do when he came back in. He walks in, looks at us and just says "How did THAT get back onto the stumps?". That was it for me. I couldn't hold it in. Neither could half the side. It was just the way you'd expect Mark to handle it. It was his way of saving he had no luck. I asked him how many times he'd tried the shot. And he was just so straight faced when he said, "oh, that's the first time". It never would have occurred to him to practice the shot before giving it a go. But that's the way he was. I'm sure he wouldn't have played it if we were 5-93, but we were well placed, looking to set a total, so he tried something."

hahaha.... thats brilliant..
Loved watching M Waugh.

 

[Zinzan]

Off field, he's by all accounts a very easy going, somewhat introverted guy.

Bang on, can remembering walking past him on my way out of a pub toilet a few years back & he made a point of saying hi despite the fact I was a stranger. Struck me as a modest, easy-going & as you say, slightly introverted type of guy.