Langer Versus Mark Waugh

[Ice goddess]

Langer has a better average, same number of centuries in about forty fewer tests, scores at a faster rate and yet Waugh has the better reputation. According to Peter Roebuck Langer deserves now to be regarded as better. Do the statistics lie? Was Mark Waugh overrated in terms of critics getting orgasmic over him but he not performing that often under pressure? What do people think?

[Bentleigh]

Mark Waugh was a gun.

His batting was so elegant. Only Marto comes close.

[blackcat]

Mark waugh went up against the Windies in their prime, Langer played about 2 tests against them back in the hey day of high fives.

Again, give Mark Waugh the opportunity to go up against the weak line-ups of the past 2 years (NB in his prime) and lets see where his average finishes.

Langer lauds it over Waugh in terms of mental ability, perhaps even eclipsing Steve Waugh in this regard. He never gives his wicket away, unlike Waugh, thought it was junior cricket and he needed to retire at 100.

The only Langer deficiency is his "self-acceptance" for lack of a better word, and this is almost the antithesis of mental ability, yet not quite. He feels the need to prove himself, and be a one-day player as well as an incumbent in the test side. If he accepted his limitations and did not need to be so attacking early in his innings his last 3 years would look much better. You might say that game got him where he is today, and Imight be the one wrong, which I am readily acknowledging, after all I am only a keyboard quarterback. My point is, he treads a fine line between attacking play, and sound decisions with measured restraint, like Hayden. He might feel inferior in his partnership with Hayden and needs to prove that he should be opening the one dayers also.

This Freudian analysis is probably bs and Langer has certainly proved himself as a premier domestic one day player, probably superior to Elliott and Hodge, and Maher. He may rightly feel he deserves a spot at the table in the pygama game. I disagree looking at the side, looking at Langers lack of stroke making ability (relative to the one dday incumbents who have the full array) and the premature retirement of Bevan from Hohns and co.

You cannot judge everything on statistics, Mark Waugh was easy on the eye and that cannot be objectively valued either. If Waugh batted for the record books it would undoubtedly been different.

That said Langer has a fine record and his ability to make big scores must be given some precedence when comparing records to Waugh, but Waugh was much more than his average.

[Milenko]

The only Langer deficiency is his "self-acceptance" for lack of a better word, and this is almost the antithesis of mental ability, yet not quite. He feels the need to prove himself, and be a one-day player as well as an incumbent in the test side. If he accepted his limitations and did not need to be so attacking early in his innings his last 3 years would look much better. You might say that game got him where he is today, and Imight be the one wrong, which I am readily acknowledging, after all I am only a keyboard quarterback. My point is, he treads a fine line between attacking play, and sound decisions with measured restraint, like Hayden. He might feel inferior in his partnership with Hayden and needs to prove that he should be opening the one dayers also.

Have to completely disagree on this point. Langer MK2, the opening bat strokemaker, is the successful Langer, not the dour accumulator who struggled against spin and was a questionable number 3.

Agree on treading the fine line though, and this may be drawing a long bow, but he should have gone on and won the test match last year against India on the big chase in Sydney, he was 100+ and looked set when he inexplicably tried to smash Kartik and ended out holing out to regulation mid-off. It was a crap shot and totally unneccessary, the runs were flowing....ahh hypotheticals.

[blackcat]

Have to completely disagree on this point. Langer MK2, the opening bat strokemaker, is the successful Langer, not the dour accumulator who struggled against spin and was a questionable number 3.

Agree on treading the fine line though, and this may be drawing a long bow, but he should have gone on and won the test match last year against India on the big chase in Sydney, he was 100+ and looked set when he inexplicably tried to smash Kartik and ended out holing out to regulation mid-off. It was a crap shot and totally unneccessary, the runs were flowing....ahh hypotheticals.


He needed to add shots to his batting and now has a reputable arsenal of off side strokes. Langer mk2 is a fine stroke maker, but I sometimes feel he is quite fluky through the very early parts of his innings with his square slash(to call it a drive would be an overestimate) and those cover drives are often played wide of the body with an angle from a right armer over the wicket. Seems always to be fodder for the slips and gully to me.

He is the one laughing all the way to the ninemsn/sportshop Tony Greig bank with a lithograph of his "214 Adelaide Langer's conquering" or something cliched like that. But all those shots he played early in his innings, albeit the proportion were half vollies, did not differ to the one the NZ opener was just dismissed for, and lambasted by Smith. Langer had the skill to connect, but the ball was swinging and I always felt he was more likely to get a thick edge with a off-side stroke than his partner Hayden.

Milenko, this is what I meant when I said his decision making is driven by a inferiority complex, that he should be playing one-dayers, and to prove it on the test field by asserting dominance, strokeplay and strike-rate.

What is your opinion on that proposition Milenko?

Tests have little relevance to the one-day game, Slater suffered for the inability to pick off the bowling without the benefit of easy gaps throughout the field. His frustration through packed fields, inability and lack of repertoire, meant the game that on face value, going on his test performance, should suit him, did anything but. His attacking instincts remained, though his execution was stymied, and ultimately performance.

There is an ability in the one day side at the top of the order for each batsmen to be able to play a ball of good length off the front or back foot. Hayden, Gilly, and Ponting can all pull a good length delivery and can all drive that same length on the up. Langer, cannot manage that.

[Minka Beaver]

Have to completely disagree on this point. Langer MK2, the opening bat strokemaker, is the successful Langer, not the dour accumulator who struggled against spin and was a questionable number 3.

Agree on treading the fine line though, and this may be drawing a long bow, but he should have gone on and won the test match last year against India on the big chase in Sydney, he was 100+ and looked set when he inexplicably tried to smash Kartik and ended out holing out to regulation mid-off. It was a crap shot and totally unneccessary, the runs were flowing....ahh hypotheticals.

Exactly. It's strange how perceptions of cricketers take a long time to change, for many people seem to view Langer as the dour opener with a limited range of strokes that we saw when he first entered the side in 1992-93. His movement towards deliveries pitched outside off is still a problem, but since then he's stadily improved. He now plays well off his pads, uses his feet well against the spinners, is a spanking cover-drive and shows plenty of G & D when facing the quicks.

For all his natural talent, Mark Waugh did not really improve as a batsman once he entered the Test side. It wasn't for a lack of natural talent - his wristy shots and fantastic hand-eye coordination meant he always seemed to have plenty of time to play each delivery. But perhaps the drive and ambition was not present in 'Junior' in the same way it was with Langer. He never had to struggle in the way Langer did, a guy who has been dropped for three spells from the Aussie side and come back a better player after each occasion.

Mark Waugh's struggle period was the late 80s when he was the finest batsman in domestic cricket, but couldn't get a break into a successful Test side with a midddle-order of Border, Jones and Steve Waugh. Once he came into the side, I can only remember him being dropped once -at the end of the 1991-92 series v India - but I'm probably wrong about that, someone probably remembers otherwise. As a consequence he never had to reinvent himself (unlike his brother or Langer), instead just staying the same - elegant, mercurial and a brilliant slip fielder.

A revealing stat: Mark Waugh's highest score - 153* in India in 1998, which is I think the only time he made over 150.
Justin Langer - 250 v England at Melbourne in 2002-03, plus now another five scores of more than 150.

[Minka Beaver]

There is an ability in the one day side at the top of the order for each batsmen to be able to play a ball of good length off the front or back foot. Hayden, Gilly, and Ponting can all pull a good length delivery and can all drive that same length on the up. Langer, cannot manage that.

Langer's form in ING games at the WACA over the last few seasons would suggest otherwise.

[Ice goddess]

Mark Waugh never played against the Windies in their prime, they had past their best by about 88-89, ask the Windies players themselves. They still had Walsh and Ambrose but not the battery of earlier years. Mark came into test cricket as attacks were declining, poms have been ordinary since late eighties. Look at Mark Waugh against genuine quick bowling and see how elegant he actually is.

[Minka Beaver]

Mark Waugh never played against the Windies in their prime, they had past their best by about 88-89, ask the Windies players themselves. They still had Walsh and Ambrose but not the battery of earlier years. Mark came into test cricket as attacks were declining, poms have been ordinary since late eighties. Look at Mark Waugh against genuine quick bowling and see how elegant he actually is.

Waugh's record against the Windies was decidedly mixed, but no different from his overall Test career.

Test average - 41.81
v West Indies - 41.28

He scored a good century at St John's in 1991, but that was a dead rubber. He hit 110-odd at the MCG in December '92, that was a good innings on a wicket that gave a lot of help to the quicks against a tough lineup of Walsh, Bishop and Ambrose. His best moment against them was in Kingston in '95 when he and Steve Waugh had that partnership that swung the match (and series) Australia's way. He struggled when the Aussies found themselves under the pump in 1999 (average: 25.25), but had a decent season in 2000-01 in a 5-0 romp.

Langer has been fortunate never to have a single rival to challenge Australia during his career. He was OK in India in 2001 (avg 32.2 batting at 3), very good v South Africa H & A in 2001-02 (avg over 51 in 6 Tests) and struggled v West Indies in 1992-93 when he found Test cricket a 'baptism of fire' (avg 21.25).

[YOTC]

Langer > M.Waugh

[Milenko]

Milenko, this is what I meant when I said his decision making is driven by a inferiority complex, that he should be playing one-dayers, and to prove it on the test field by asserting dominance, strokeplay and strike-rate.

What is your opinion on that propistion Milenko?

Tests have little relevance to the one-day game, Slater suffered for the inability to pick off the bowling without the benefit of easy gaps throughout the field. His frustration through packed fields, inability and lack of repertoire, meant the game that on face value, going on his test performance, should suit him, did anything but. His attacking instincts remained, though his execution was stymied, and ultimately performance.

There is an ability in the one day side at the top of the order for each batsmen to be able to play a ball of good length off the front or back foot. Hayden, Gilly, and Ponting can all pull a good length delivery and can all drive that same length on the up. Langer, cannot manage that.

He's good enough to be playing ODI cricket for any nation in the world bar Australia. The form he's consistently displayed in domestic one-dayers for WA would back this assertion up. He simply lacks the versatility that the selectors seem to crave, and i wholeheartedly agree with. He offers no more than batting, he can't bowl and is nothing more than a reliable catch in the field.

You may be right about the fact that his attacking play is, in some part, driven by a desire to play ODI cricket, but surely by now he had realised that this is a case of wishful thinking. I think he has realised that his attacking strokeplay has brought him the success that he now enjoys. His reprieve in England when he first opened with Haydos was a last chance, and he played not with grit and determination but flair and shotmaking, thus his current modus operandi is a continuation of this initial lucky break.

[blackcat]

I have asserted he is probably the preeminent domestic one day player with only Maher Elliott and Hodge for competition (*Bevan).

Mark Waugh did not play against the best the Windies had to offer, but he played against v strong Windies and S.African line-ups. That cannot be disputed.

[BulldogMike]

all those shots he played early in his innings, albeit the proportion were half vollies, did not differ to the one the NZ opener was just dismissed for, and lambasted by Smith. Langer had the skill to connect, but the ball was swinging and I always felt he was more likely to get a thick edge with a off-side stroke than his partner Hayden.



There really was no danger in those shots Langer played at all.You may feel like he is going to get a knick but really he had his eye on the ball right from the start,saw the wide balls early and sent them to the fence.These shots are not lucky for him because most of the time they are hit hard along the ground or struck with such a force a catch is unlikely.When Langer gets his eye on the ball early he is one of the hardest batsmen in the world to get out.

[blackcat]

There was an article in todays Herald Sun, were Langer was consciously facetious but it gave an insight into his psychology when he was sparring with the press saying he was giving it to "Haydos" (hate the nick) telling him about his dominance in their partnership and respective strike-rates. He could also have deliberately underplayed by giving an unciously underrated reply to the effect of "yeah nah, Haydos was not the beneficiary of loose deliveries and I farmed the strike ;) ". He overplayed it, (the same read of the situation could be taken if he deliberately underplayed it) and therefore I know there is lingering resentment and self worth anxieties behind it.

He is out to prove a point, and I think it jeopardises his decision making. He is the most mentally tough of the current line-up, but this is the only chink in his armour.

I think Langer does not have the strokes Ponting Hayden and Gilchrist possess (that said a handful in the world do). He scores primarily through the off and is more than competent off his pads. He leg side flourishes tend to be skied slogs in the mid-on mid-wicket area. He has great execution ration with this "slog" in domestic cricket. The bowling in international cricket may be barely above Australian domestic standards atm so he might have the same success rate.

[hoss]

Langer and Junior = bloody champions. Langer being close to the most underated Aussie test cricketer ever. His record says it all.

[blackcat]

There really was no danger in those shots Langer played at all.You may feel like he is going to get a knick but really he had his eye on the ball right from the start,saw the wide balls early and sent them to the fence.These shots are not lucky for him because most of the time they are hit hard along the ground or struck with such a force a catch is unlikely.When Langer gets his eye on the ball early he is one of the hardest batsmen in the world to get out.

he hit 5 boundaries in the first ten balls, and one attempt at a straight defense he missed the outswinger. Surely he has less margin for error on square drives than forward defense strokes?

See, I think that has been his downfall, yesterday he was content to withdraw his penchant for boundaries, albeit it relies on the loose delivery (to the larger degree). I think his trouble (if you can call it that) in the last three years, because he has had inordinate success, has been when he continues to go hard a push for the boundaries, and gets out early or prior to 50. If he dug in and was more selective I think he would have had more success. I might be wrong, because I can accept his record has been brilliant, and he probably has not received the appreciation due to Hayden's and Ponting's performance.

You could surmise, because he has scored the proportion of his runs through the off-side, if you were to deprive him of those strokes, he would not have scored the runs and would have been dismissed in due time. I am not being selective in attesting that those dismissal deliveries were because of poor decision making. Hindsight obscures things with its simplicity I understand, and I have almost contradicted myself by suggesting he is the strongest mentally, yet prone to poor decision making because of his perception of inferiority in this side.

And I cannot overlook the fact that his attacking play is virtue of the culture that Waugh moulded and Ponting has continued to and the high run rate is a team symbol that pervades the crease.

[Milenko]

Let's face it, for a player with plenty of limitations in his game he's done bloody well for himself.

Still remember that shield final vs NSW in 91/92, his first or second shield season, he dug in and scored 149 in the 2nd innings when wickets were tumbling around him. From that moment i knew he would make it someday.

[Rookie]

Langer and Junior = bloody champions. Langer being close to the most underated Aussie test cricketer ever. His record says it all.


:)

I'd take watching M.W. over J.L any day. Who cares what the averages are? I don't.

[docker_azza]

When Langers on a roll he will post big scores. He will go on once he has made 100 and score 150s and 200s. He is very hard to get out at his best and the innings he had just played proves that. He has never ever been out between 89 and 99 in international cricket, a fact i heard during the coverage on TV yesterday.

[hoss]

:)

I'd take watching M.W. over J.L any day. Who cares what the averages are? I don't.

Agree that I'd rather watch Waugh bat too. Completely disagree with you regarding averages. If we can't judge cricketers on their actual performances, what other measures should we use?? Their looks, popularity, home state ?? :rolleyes:

[Bentleigh]

If we can't judge cricketers on their actual performances, what other measures should we use?? Their looks, popularity, home state ?? :rolleyes:

The style of their batting.

Of averages are important but Junior was the most loverly batsman ive ever seen. Defined elegance.

[YOTC]

Style :rolleyes:

Its the amount of runs you get, not the way you get them.

[vicpride99]

Mark Waugh was 10X the all-round cricketer Justin Langer is. His fielding and his bowling set him apart from Langer. I would rather watch mark Waugh make a 50 than watch Langer make a 200. And in fact i remember looking forward to the second wicket to fall so i could see the great Waugh in full flight.

[usalion]

Tough to pick- think I'd rather watch M Waugh bat over Langer- but both are excellent players and a generation from now should be seen as key components in the Aussie dominance of 1995-?????
Langer clearly more like Steve Waugh in attitude and determination, Mark waugh brought more all around with his bowling and slip fielding.
Both are awesome, let's remember both.

[Johnson#26]

Waugh will always be peerless in terms of skilfull batting.

[blackcat]

Style :rolleyes:

Its the amount of runs you get, not the way you get them.


It is the context you get them, the opposition, the influence on the match.

[RooDog]

just for those interested who would rather watch M Waugh, Langer has a better strike rate in test cricket then Waugh and Damien Martyn too. But i think people enjoyed watching Waugh simply because there was always that element of risk in the way he batted but the bad thing was at test level he got a lot of hundredrs but he never went on with it, his highest score was 153.

[blackcat]

strike rates, different era, different team, different bowlers.

What was Langer's sr first and second time around, before this part of his career?

Compare like to like, which is impossible when they are not in the same team in their respective primes.

[PowerKop]

M Waugh played a lot of his cricket in a stronger era and when Australia weren't the worlds best. Also one of the most stylish and unselfish batsmen I have ever seen. Langer seems to have a lot of luck, but still a class player

[Ice goddess]

Talking about style has anyone watched Gower or Greg Chappell bat? If you watch them they make Mark Waugh almost look 'ugly'. Gower played very gracefully while Chappell did likewise and had the most perfect stance imaginable and minimum movement.

[Bentleigh]

Talking about style has anyone watched Gower or Greg Chappell bat? If you watch them they make Mark Waugh almost look 'ugly'. Gower played very gracefully while Chappell did likewise and had the most perfect stance imaginable and minimum movement.

Yes, Mark Waugh was better.

[Dog Town]

Good thread.Mark Waugh was a fantastic cricketer but is far from the champion he was made out to be.His slips fielding was probably what kept him in the side for so long.Was so frustrating seeing him do just enough to stay in the side.Would go runless for 4 or 5 tests and then scratch out a score on his last chance.In the end I think the selectors love affair with Waugh might have prevented him from getting that hard edge that his batting always lacked.Ponting and Steve Waugh both came back better cricketers after being dropped more than once.There is no comparison between Langer and Waugh because at the end of the day the stats dont lie.Langer is a more succesful batsmen and has done it in the hardest position to bat.

[Bentleigh]

stats dont lie.

Clarke is the greatest bowler to grace Australian cricket.

[Cooldude]

Clarke is the greatest bowler to grace Australian cricket.

Surely that's sarcasm, which means you've directly contradicted yourself from the Langer thread...

[Bentleigh]

Surely that's sarcasm, which means you've directly contradicted yourself from the Langer thread...

Read the thread again. (was sacrasim)

Stats dont lie over an extended period of time.

ie. as many tests as Grenagie and Hanyes (sp)/ Langer and Hayden played.

[Cooldude]

Extended period of time doesn't make a difference, stats don't tell the full story, the fact is, they will lie, and to look at them as religion is as stupid as looking at hawkeye as a religion, hawkeye have made errors as well.

[Bentleigh]

Extended period of time doesn't make a difference

Of course it bloody does. If you average 70 for 4 tests it isnt a accurate indicator. If you average 70 over 140 tests it means you are a sensational player.

stats don't tell the full story, the fact is, they will lie, and to look at them as religion is as stupid as looking at hawkeye as a religion, hawkeye have made errors as well.

why are you talking about Hawkeye? wtf...
On that note Hawkeye is sposed to make a mistake 1 out of 10 000 times or somthing similar. Not too shabby.

If you honestly totally disregard stats you a idiot. They are a very important indicator for this sport, the key one.

Of course they are not bible but of up-most importance.

[Cooldude]

Good to see that you're putting words in my mouth by claiming "I have total disregard for stats"

I just don't see them as a religion like you do, you say stats don't lie through an extended period, I never said stats always lie. There lies the difference

There's one thing with indicator and another thing with total truth, stats don't tell the full story, they are important, but they don't never lie like you claim they do.

This is the last time I'll repeat this, otherwise I wouldn't wanna keep going on and on with an idiot.

[Bentleigh]

Good to see that you're putting words in my mouth...

I just don't see them as a religion like you do...

Hypocrite


There's one thing with indicator and another thing with total truth, stats don't tell the full story, they are important, but they don't never lie like you claim they do.

This is the last time I'll repeat this, otherwise I wouldn't wanna keep going on and on with an idiot.

Have I once said they "tell the full story".

No, you are a moron.

[dannyboy]

Good thread.Mark Waugh was a fantastic cricketer but is far from the champion he was made out to be.His slips fielding was probably what kept him in the side for so long.Was so frustrating seeing him do just enough to stay in the side.Would go runless for 4 or 5 tests and then scratch out a score on his last chance.In the end I think the selectors love affair with Waugh might have prevented him from getting that hard edge that his batting always lacked.Ponting and Steve Waugh both came back better cricketers after being dropped more than once.There is no comparison between Langer and Waugh because at the end of the day the stats dont lie.Langer is a more succesful batsmen and has done it in the hardest position to bat.

Completely agree.

I guess it depends what sort of characteristics you value in a player.

Mark Waugh-- Elegance and breathtaking strokeplay that seemed almost effortless but mentally weak and often threw his wicket away with a lazy shot.

Justin Langer-- Determination and has the ability to rip an opening attack to shreds playing in the toughest position to bat, this bloke bleeds for Australia, incredibly underrated throughout his career, but this is probably slowly changing

[Bentleigh]

Justin Langer-- Determination and has the ability to rip an opening attack to shreds playing in the toughest position to bat, this bloke bleeds for Australia, incredibly underrated throughout his career, but this is probably slowly changing

Hes sposed to actully have a better strike rate than M Waugh and Tubby Taylor.

Amazing when you combine that with his detemination and grit.

Underrated, gun of a player.

[silky-smooth]

Langer > M.Waugh
hmmm... yeah, maybe basing that on stats.

But Mark Waugh was so elegant in his strokeplay, while Langer is more of an aggresive and seemingly a Steve Waugh type - where he never really shows any emotion while playing.

I am going to admit that Langer is a better player, but I enjoyed watching Mark Waugh better.

[YOTC]

Watching - Waugh = Langer
Skill - Waugh > Langer
Who's better? Langer > Waugh

[Dog Town]

Justin Langer-- Determination and has the ability to rip an opening attack to shreds playing in the toughest position to bat, this bloke bleeds for Australia, incredibly underrated throughout his career, but this is probably slowly changingHis first test against the Windies in Adelaide shows his character.At that stage he had the grit and heart for it but probably wasn't up to it.Scratched out a 50 and got smashed on the body about 4 times.It is a massive credit to him that he went away and worked on his game and is now able to play the way he is.

I have no problem with Mark Waugh other than his reputation just isn't matched by the actual output he had.Fantastic cricketer but overall he isn't as good as Langer.Elegance never won a test match.

[hoss]

Look, I have already stated that Waugh was a better batsman to watch, but all this style and grace cr@p just doesn't cut it. Chris Judd kicks his goals with more grace and style than Dunstall or Plugger, but it doesn't make him a better goalkicker.

Langer and Waugh have scored the same amount of centuries (20), Waugh in 209 innings, Langer in 138 innings. Langer has a better average and a better strike rate than Mark Waugh. Langer actually gets his centuries more regularly than Brian Lara or what Viv Richards did in his test career. Langer has also scored 3 double centuries whereas Waugh's highest test score was 153*.

No brainer really, this one. My initial comment was that Langer had been extremely underated as a test batsman. I stand by this.

[silky-smooth]

No brainer really, this one. My initial comment was that Langer had been extremely underated as a test batsman. I stand by this.
And I agree with you! ;)