View Full Version : Mark Waugh
SeinDude
20 Jan 2002, 17:16
While watching the cricket today, the commentators were talking about Mark Waugh's future in the one-day side and were looking back at his performances in 2001.
It was something like 16 games, 4 centuries and an average of 80.
I agree Mark Waugh appears down in form & confidence at the moment, but it seems pretty strange dropping a bloke who has performed like that over the last 12 months!!
How quickly we forget!!
SeinDude
Regardless of 2001 he is past it and should be replaced....
Did you see how crap Pollock made him look???
Anyway it doesn't matter as with our current selection policies this team will remain a mess...Fancy not giving Gilchrist a bat and resting bevan..2 out of our 4 best batsmen didn't bat.What hope have we got to make a decent score... Its like Brisbane resting Voss and Simon Black for the grand final and playing Johnathon Brown on the bench... :(
Mark Waugh has a great record over a long period of time, and statistically did have a great 2001, however form should be included in the selection process.
Most of the 2001 figures containing all those centuries and the 80 average, would relate to how he played in last year's triangular and on the Ashes tour (ie - up until about August 2001). Since the current season started in November, his form has just about deserted him. It appears 3-5 months is a long time in cricket. :p
The way he is playing at the moment, both in the recent Test series and the current triangular ODI tournament, he should be dropped, regardless of what his form was in 2001.
tiger of old
20 Jan 2002, 18:39
both mark waugh and hayden played like their careers in the one dayers rested on this match however the biggest joke was made by steve waugh.
1st you send in a player on reputation alone to hit the poteas all over the ground only to be out witted by a 2nd rate spinner and second you put you bring yourself in when clearly gilcrist SHOULD have been the better option.
while i admire steve waugh as a captain and a team man today waugh put himself ahead of the team interests.
cheers!
Originally posted by tiger of old
the biggest joke was made by steve waugh.
1st you send in a player on reputation alone to hit the poteas all over the ground only to be out witted by a 2nd rate spinner and second you put you bring yourself in when clearly gilcrist SHOULD have been the better option.
while i admire steve waugh as a captain and a team man today waugh put himself ahead of the team interests.
cheers!
Steve Waugh batting for his average with a dinky 20-odd (red ink) at the end?
Geez, that's a first... NOT!
Could see it coming a mile off though - no Donald and Ntini bowling today, and Elworthy had just about bowled his quota. All he had to face was the 125-130km/h brisk medium pace of Pollock and Klusener, and Boje's tame but disciplined spin.
Boje and Pollock have been economical this series, but most importantly for Captain Red Ink was the fact that they have bowled to contain, not so much to take wickets.
Klusener's form with the ball has been so-so, and is probably the medium pacer the batsmen are most likely to go after. So why not send in a batsman WHO WILL ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE BOWLING!
The Hippie
20 Jan 2002, 21:17
F*ck me, you can't win with you pr*cks. Yes, Gilchrist should have batted before Symonds, (personally I reckon Mark Waugh should be the one to go and Gilchrist open with Hayden) but if Waugh had sent him in you lot would have still been on his back about being too concerned about his average to come in at all. He still did the job when he came in for the last few overs, get off his f*cking back.
Look at his record recently. In the last 21 innings he's batted in, he's had 4 not outs, hardly the record of a man playing for himself. And he's batted at 4, 5 and 6, coming in anywhere from the 15th to the 50th over, depending on the position of the game. To say he looks after his own record all the time is ludicrous and you all know it. :rolleyes:
Mark Waugh should certainly be dropped, he's done nothing for the team since the Test matches, hes a liability
And what i still cant get over is the fact that when we had 10 overs to go and Ponting got out, we threw Symonds in, which is fair enough i guess, but when he got out, how could we possibly not send Gilchrist in????
The only reason i can see for this is that Steve Waugh wanted to face the last couple of overs and try and be a hero, he definetly put his interests before the teams and thats not something a captain should do
To think that one of the worlds most dangerous one day batsmen didnt bat in a one dayer is hard to believe
The Hippie
20 Jan 2002, 21:23
F*ck me, you can't win with you pr*cks. Yes, Gilchrist should have batted before Symonds, (personally I reckon Mark Waugh should be the one to go and Gilchrist open with Hayden) but if Waugh had sent him in you lot would have still been on his back about being too concerned about his average to come in at all. He still did the job when he came in for the last few overs, get off his f*cking back.
Look at his record recently. In the last 21 innings he's batted in, he's had 4 not outs, hardly the record of a man playing for himself. And he's batted at 4, 5 and 6, coming in anywhere from the 15th to the 50th over, depending on the position of the game. To say he looks after his own record all the time is ludicrous and you all know it. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Darky
Steve Waugh batting for his average with a dinky 20-odd (red ink) at the end?
Geez, that's a first... NOT!
Could see it coming a mile off though - no Donald and Ntini bowling today, and Elworthy had just about bowled his quota. All he had to face was the 125-130km/h brisk medium pace of Pollock and Klusener, and Boje's tame but disciplined spin.
Boje and Pollock have been economical this series, but most importantly for Captain Red Ink was the fact that they have bowled to contain, not so much to take wickets.
Klusener's form with the ball has been so-so, and is probably the medium pacer the batsmen are most likely to go after. So why not send in a batsman WHO WILL ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE BOWLING!
I personally would've sent Gilchrist & Warne (maybe even Bichel!) in before Waugh at that stage of the game, to really go the slog. Waugh like Bevan is best suited to the 20 to 40th over milking the bowling period. Those two are both experts at that but Gilchrist & Warne (Bichel to a lesser extent) are real power hitters.
I'm just wrapt that we won one!
Steve Waugh should know that Gilchrist is a lot more aggressive with the bat, therefore he shouldve sent him in.
The fact that it was near the end of the game, and that there were only 7 odd overs left shouldve convinced him to send Gillchrist, but by going in himself, he put his own interests ahead of the teams. 21 off 19 balls??? a fair enough return but i feel Gilchrist couldve got more
The Hippie
20 Jan 2002, 22:14
If Gilchrist had batted in his normal spot, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Originally posted by SeinDude
While watching the cricket today, the commentators were talking about Mark Waugh's future in the one-day side and were looking back at his performances in 2001.
It was something like 16 games, 4 centuries and an average of 80.
I agree Mark Waugh appears down in form & confidence at the moment, but it seems pretty strange dropping a bloke who has performed like that over the last 12 months!!
How quickly we forget!!
SeinDude
Seindude, sides should be picked on current form, not form from a year ago. On that alone, Mark Waugh should be out of the side.
As for the other opening spot, I haven't seen anything yet from Hayden to suggest that he is the one for the spot.
What about Campbell and Gilchrist to open.....
tiger of old
21 Jan 2002, 06:36
Originally posted by The Hippie
F*ck me, you can't win with you pr*cks. Yes, Gilchrist should have batted before Symonds, (personally I reckon Mark Waugh should be the one to go and Gilchrist open with Hayden) but if Waugh had sent him in you lot would have still been on his back about being too concerned about his average to come in at all. He still did the job when he came in for the last few overs, get off his f*cking back.
Look at his record recently. In the last 21 innings he's batted in, he's had 4 not outs, hardly the record of a man playing for himself. And he's batted at 4, 5 and 6, coming in anywhere from the 15th to the 50th over, depending on the position of the game. To say he looks after his own record all the time is ludicrous and you all know it. :rolleyes:
get off steve waugh,s back?
it was plain to see yesterday his decision to go in ahead of gilly was made not at the teams interest but the interests of his own.
he along with his brother have been under pressure to perform and to put gilly ahead of himself would have added more fuel to the fire for his head.
cheers!
Briedis
21 Jan 2002, 07:24
You people are amazing.... you mean 12 months of fantastic form means nothing compared to 4 bad innings, one of which he was run out?
Thank god you're not selectors....
Mark Waugh is a quality player who will come good and shut up all the critics as he always does.
Alot of people are constantly on the Waugh's back, but it is rarely mentioned in here the inadequate performances of Warne over the last four years. He has one good ashes series and bowled well in the last two games of the 1999 world cup. He is the one who the selectors seriously need to be considering....
You can't knock Mark Waugh's performances over the past year but two aspects of his game are worrying.
Firstly, in the test matches this summer, against the quicker bowlers he took a large number of short deliveries on his body. Secondly, his catching lately has really gone downhill, in fact he would now be one of the least reliable catchers in the side. He would have put down more chances in the past 12 months than the rest of his career put together.
Both of these facts suggest that he's not seeing the ball as well or as early as he has previously. Against the spinners and medium pacers this isn't such a problem but against the quicker attackes he is going to start getting found out. At his age this problem is only going to get progressively worse.
Fat Red
21 Jan 2002, 08:12
Cricketers Briedis rates:
Mark Waugh
Stuart Macgill
Cricketers Briedis does not rate:
Shane Warne
Ian Harvey
Anyone see a pattern here?
Originally posted by Fat Red
Cricketers Briedis rates:
Mark Waugh
Stuart Macgill
Cricketers Briedis does not rate:
Shane Warne
Ian Harvey
Anyone see a pattern here?
Gee, you wouldn't be suggesting he's a tad one eyed would you Red?
Jars458
21 Jan 2002, 08:31
Anyone who says Steve Waugh bats for himself must have rocks for brains.
He hit 21 off 19 which was the best strike rate in the innings.
What was Marto doing? He had been in for two hours and seemed incapable of getting a boundary in the last ten overs.
Perhaps HE was playing for himself to get to his 100 safely
Other than Alan Border, Steve Waugh is probably the gutsiest cricketer I have seen for Australia and has been a brilliant player and captain
Before these three games they had won 18 WSC matches in a row for Gods sake.
Not to mention the test matches
Get off Steve Waugh's back. Typical Aussie tall poppy lopping.
ps
Andrew Symonds is a joke and a fraud. Bring in Boof.
Briedis
21 Jan 2002, 08:44
Originally posted by Fat Red
Cricketers Briedis rates:
Mark Waugh
Stuart Macgill
Cricketers Briedis does not rate:
Shane Warne
Ian Harvey
Anyone see a pattern here?
Yeah, the pattern is that Victorian cricketers are crap! :D
Fat Red
21 Jan 2002, 08:45
Originally posted by Jars458
Anyone who says Steve Waugh bats for himself must have rocks for brains.
He hit 21 off 19 which was the best strike rate in the innings.
What was Marto doing? He had been in for two hours and seemed incapable of getting a boundary in the last ten overs.
Perhaps HE was playing for himself to get to his 100 safely
Other than Alan Border, Steve Waugh is probably the gutsiest cricketer I have seen for Australia and has been a brilliant player and captain
Before these three games they had won 18 WSC matches in a row for Gods sake.
Not to mention the test matches
Get off Steve Waugh's back. Typical Aussie tall poppy lopping.
ps
. Bring in Boof.
Agree with every word (except the ones I deleted!)
Briedis
21 Jan 2002, 08:46
Originally posted by Jars458
Bring in Boof.
Unfortunately it does not look likely.... :mad: How Ian "Hack" Harvey gets a game over Lehmann is ridiculous....
kristin5
21 Jan 2002, 08:55
My 2 cents:
Adam Gilchrist and Mark Waugh should open (they did so with great success last year). Hayden should not be in the 1 day side. He has had a magnificent test series, there is no doubt about it, but he is not suited to the 1 day game. His strike rate yesterday was appalling. It is ridiculous having Waugh and Hayden open as both are fairly slow scorers, at least in comparison to players like Gilchrist and Symonds. That is why it is better having one stable batsman (Waugh) and one flashy batsman (Gilchrist).
And with the side they had yesterday, Adam Gilchrist should have come in before Andrew Symonds.
But I cannot understand the criticism of Steve Waugh - he played well yesterday and had a great strike rate (far superior to the others).
Steve Waugh did have the best strike rate, but so would anyone else coming in with 6 overs to go, with wickets in hand and the change bowlers on.
I agree with BT here (there's a first, mate) - Gilchrist AND Warne should have batted ahead of Waugh. Send in guys who attack the bowlers, and if it fails with both getting out, Steve Waugh can then send himself in to poke around for singles.
Waugh's 22 off 19 equates to about 7 runs an over. Sending in Gilchrist with 6 overs to go, I think Australia could have expected a return of at least 50% more off those overs.
The Hippie - yes, if Gilchrist had batted in his opening spot, this would not be discussed... but that's partly the contentious point - the fact that he didn't bat at all!
Victor Trumper
21 Jan 2002, 20:21
Mark Waugh has a top score of 47 from his last seven one day innings. The scorebook does not lie.
Originally posted by Briedis
How Ian "Hack" Harvey gets a game over Lehmann is ridiculous....
Harvey can bowl.
NICK THE PIE MAN
21 Jan 2002, 22:29
Geez, um, Mark Waugh eh?
I really don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
Because I have a feeling that he will come out and hit a high score in the next few games to silence the knockers.
Briedis
22 Jan 2002, 07:24
Originally posted by Catman
Harvey can bowl.
So can Lehmann. Harvey very rarely gets wickets, he is a containment bowler. Lehmann's batting more than makes up for Harveys "skill" in batting, bowling and fielding.....
I see no one has mentioned the horrible ODI series Hayden is having, maybe he should stick to tests...
Fat Red
22 Jan 2002, 08:25
I always thought the idea of bowling in ODIs was to contain, especially at the end, when Harvey usually bowls. Can't imagine Lehmann filling that role.
Originally posted by Briedis
I see no one has mentioned the horrible ODI series Hayden is having, maybe he should stick to tests...
That's because he's not in the side anymore.
kristin5
23 Jan 2002, 08:17
Good on ya, Marky Mark! You sure showed all the knockers out there!!!
And Gilchrist didn't do too well either...maybe that's why Steve put himself in before Gilchrist on Sunday (it seems to me that Gilchrist hasn't been in very good form of late).
Santos L Helper
23 Jan 2002, 08:44
Originally posted by kristin5
Good on ya, Marky Mark! You sure showed all the knockers out there!!!
And Gilchrist didn't do too well either...maybe that's why Steve put himself in before Gilchrist on Sunday (it seems to me that Gilchrist hasn't been in very good form of late).
Mark Waugh is badly out of form and last nights innings showed that he's not far from being dropped, rather than showing he's getting back into form. The knockers were shown nothing by that innings to change our mind.
AS for Gilly, I think your statement shows extreme prejudice, but that's ok because fan's of any player will defend them on what they see. Gilly needs to be settled in a position, which I now hope will be opener. To suggest that the reason Steve Waugh went in ahead of Gilchrist was that he could do a better job of scoring quicker at the end of an innings is naive. True, Gilchrist has not been in the best form, but once settled it should all come back in a flurry of runs.
Originally posted by kristin5
Good on ya, Marky Mark! You sure showed all the knockers out there!!!
Yep,a great innings by Junior.He gets dropped,he gave a few edges towards slip & he was facing an undermaned bowling attack.
Give a guy the captaincy because he's so bloody good :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Mark Waughs nickname should be "CAT'.He clearly has 9 lives [& he's up 8].
Briedis
23 Jan 2002, 08:48
Looks like Mark really startedto get some form back last night...he was really hitting the ball beautifully.
Briedis
23 Jan 2002, 08:57
Originally posted by JUBJUB
Yep,a great innings by Junior.He gets dropped,he gave a few edges towards slip & he was facing an undermaned bowling attack.
Give a guy the captaincy because he's so bloody good :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Pollock, Kluesener and Ntini have been bowling well in this series so I would hardly say they were totally undermanned. Even without Elworthy they are still good bowlers.
Yes he did get dropped early, but by the end of his innings you could see the form and confidence returning to Mark Waugh.
Don't forget that he was Australia's leading ODI batsman last year, and his outstanding form in 2001 was one of the main reasons Australia could string together 19 on the trot. Surely a man of that ability deserves a few chances when his form drops off a little....
Fat Red
23 Jan 2002, 09:02
Originally posted by Briedis
Pollock, Kluesener and Ntini have been bowling well in this series so I would hardly say they were totally undermanned. Even without Elworthy they are still good bowlers.
Yes he did get dropped early, but by the end of his innings you could see the form and confidence returning to Mark Waugh.
Don't forget that he was Australia's leading ODI batsman last year, and his outstanding form in 2001 was one of the main reasons Australia could string together 19 on the trot. Surely a man of that ability deserves a few chances when his form drops off a little....
ahem...Shane Warne...ahem
Briedis
23 Jan 2002, 09:17
Originally posted by Fat Red
ahem...Shane Warne...ahem
I said a little - not alot!;)
Originally posted by Briedis
Pollock, Kluesener and Ntini have been bowling well in this series so I would hardly say they were totally undermanned.
Zulu's bowling is crap,Ntini has an occasional good over but otherwise he's loose.Pollock is o.k.
Originally posted by Briedis
Looks like Mark really startedto get some form back last night...he was really hitting the ball beautifully.
And didn't he hit it beautifully tonight ?
Straight back to Dion Nash.
But he's back in form :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Originally posted by JUBJUB
And didn't he hit it beautifully tonight ?
Straight back to Dion Nash.
But he's back in form :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
yes, Mark Waugh showed his class against New Zealand tonite, a fantastic innings....
but lets not be too harsh on him, he did face 5 balls before getting out, that should count for something!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
How do you manage to single one player out for criticism when the entire batting order failed (again)?
I mean really what did Mark Waugh do that was any worse than Ponting's or Martyn's efforts.
Originally posted by Player
How do you manage to single one player out for criticism when the entire batting order failed (again)?
I mean really what did Mark Waugh do that was any worse than Ponting's or Martyn's efforts.
Ponting has scored consistent runs, he has produced i think 2 half centuries and has been a decent run getter...
Martyn has made a century and used to play too far down the order to make any significant contribution
Mark Waugh however, has been opening in every game bar one and has done absolutely NOTHING. He has had so many chances it becoming a joke
Originally posted by Player
How do you manage to single one player out for criticism when the entire batting order failed (again)?
.
if players like Hayden,Langer,Blewett & Lehmann were given as many chance as him when they failed,I wouldn't have a problem.
The Old Dark Navy's
27 Jan 2002, 12:07
Originally posted by Fat Red
I always thought the idea of bowling in ODIs was to contain, especially at the end, when Harvey usually bowls. Can't imagine Lehmann filling that role. Exactly Fat Red, I would rather have the opposition at 0/200 after 50 overs than 9/280. Containment bowlers send the run rate up and pile on the pressure so that wickets fall at the other end.
Originally posted by JUBJUB
if players like Hayden,Langer,Blewett & Lehmann were given as many chance as him when they failed,I wouldn't have a problem.
hear hear!!
Hayden was dropped from the one day squad after scoring 20 runs in 2 games.... at that stage M.Waugh had scored 15 runs in 3 games
but he'll never be dropped now because he got a wicket yesterday and he scored a 50 in the series :rolleyes:
JubJub's hit the nail on the head. Most people aren't anti Mark Waugh, just anti Mark Waugh's selection.
You can't look back on MW's career and remember the times he's scored hard runs for us. Over the past five years he's let us down way too often to deserve the opportunities the selectors have given him.
waughs a champion, simple.
Originally posted by mrboy
waughs a champion, simple.
So are Greg & Richard:D
goatmaster
29 Jan 2002, 11:36
Jub Jub is spot on.
Funny how the bloke who has never wanted to bat higher than 4 in a test match has a lower career average than Hayden & Langer who have both been dropped continualy throughout their careers.
Still if he gets dropped he can go back to the "pitch & selection "info racket if he is hard up.