View Full Version : Mark Waugh time to go?
Is it time for Mark Waugh's test career to come to an end?
55 in the first innings of the Pakistan test innings may give him at least one more test against the Pakis. His duck in the second innings wanted have done him any favours but to be fair he did cop an unplayable from Shoaib.
It also looks as though the pressure may have got to his fielding after dropping three catches in the second innings.
Personally I'd like to see him dropped mainly because I am Darren Lehmann fan and would like to see boof into the team.
yep, i think time for both of them to go unfortunately :(:(:(:(
who do you think should replace them.
Watson ?? not yet
Lehmann ?? probably the next best, even though he is fairly old, he should still get one of the two spots.
The other spot should go to either Martin Love or Michael Clarke IMO.
If they both go Lehmann would get one spot. Michael Clarke will eventually play for Australia but he might be classed as too young right now. Jimmy Maher maybe? or even Brad Hodge?
Jimmy Maher will take over from Langer or Hayden when they retire for a period of time.
I think Love would be ahead of Hodge for a middle order spot.
bluechampion
8 Oct 2002, 17:36
Without Steve and Mark Waugh the side should look like this...
HAYDEN
ELLIOTT
LANGER
PONTING
MARTYN
GILCHRIST
WATSON
WARNE
FLEMING
GILLESPIE
McGRATH
12 -
LEHMANN (depending on the pitch)
NICK THE PIE MAN
8 Oct 2002, 17:38
LOL.
Should Mark Waugh go?
People have been debating this since around 1996! :D
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
LOL.
Should Mark Waugh go?
People have been debating this since around 1996! :D
They have been but this time I think it is time.
bluechampion
8 Oct 2002, 17:41
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
LOL.
Should Mark Waugh go?
People have been debating this since around 1996! :D
It's true.
He should stay. At least he has some style at the crease.
Originally posted by bluechampion
Without Steve and Mark Waugh the side should look like this...
HAYDEN
ELLIOTT
LANGER
PONTING
MARTYN
GILCHRIST
WATSON
WARNE
FLEMING
GILLESPIE
McGRATH
12 -
LEHMANN (depending on the pitch)
nooooooo dont be silly :D
seriously, Elliot i dont think is any chance now. Why move Langer from his opening spot when he is doing so well.
Lehmann has to get a shot, and Watson isn't good enough.....yet.
my team if both went.
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Love
Lehmann
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee <---- theres another issue there
Gillespie
McGrath
if one went, i dont know who i'd have in first Love or Lehmann. There is arguments for both of them.
bluechampion
8 Oct 2002, 17:51
Elliott deserves a chance. He batted well for Yorkshire recently, and Langer's more a no.3.
The Watson / Lehmann / Love issue is interesting.
- Watson will learn from doing.
- Lehmann can bowl abit and has senior player written all over him. He would be replaceing a bloke with 120 odd tests experience.
- Love is a good batsman who deserves a chance.
Also... bring back Flemmo. He's nearly a bloody all-rounder.
I reconk there are many people who deserve a chance infront of Elliot.
And yes, Langer is techincally a number 3, but since moving to opener hes done nothing wrong, and why gamble by moving him back to 3 and hoping he's form holds??
If anything, play Elliott at number 3. Dont try and fix it when its working.
redi/whitei
8 Oct 2002, 18:17
If it was my decision I would play Mark Waugh until the 2nd test against England. If he hasn't made a big score by then, bye-bye Mark.
Steve Waugh can play for as long as he wants as far as I'm concerned.
Unwritten_Law
8 Oct 2002, 19:24
If Mark Waugh goes:
* Maher comes in at three
* Ponting drops to 4
If Steve goes as well:
* Watson comes in at six or seven.
Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
If Mark Waugh goes:
* Maher comes in at three
* Ponting drops to 4
Definetaly another option to think about, however Maher's time will come when Hayden and Langer pass the bat on. I dont think he's earned a spot above Love, espiecally seeing as though Love is a middle order batsmen, and Hussey is in front of Maher for an opening batting position i think, despite Maher killing him in 2001-2002. If Maher does the same again, then that will put Maher into the number 1 challenger for an opening batsmen spot.
Jimmy Maher was a middle order batsman though before he was shifted to the top of order.
yer i know but either way i still don't think he is inline before Love or Lehmann, my order of batting-challenges would be:
1 - Lehmann
2 - Love
3 - Hussey (opener)
4 - Watson (because hes young and can bowl - he would bat #7)
5 - Maher (opener - can but middle order)
6 - Clarke
7 - Hodge
8 - Katich
9 - Blewett (middle order - can open)
10 - Elliot (opener)
11 - Bevan
Surprised no-one has mentioned Ryan Campbell.
Both of them should go after the Ashes series and allow some younger blood a chance in the side.
No. Now is not the time for Mark Waugh to go.
That time was some years ago.
Originally posted by Slax
Surprised no-one has mentioned Ryan Campbell.
Both of them should go after the Ashes series and allow some younger blood a chance in the side.
Why is that surprising? He's a complete hack at both batting and keeping.
Richmondfan#1
8 Oct 2002, 22:20
Well with the youngest fella in the side being 25 (B.Lee) perhaps it's time to blood the youngsters. Otherwise we'll be left behind. That includes getting rid of Steve as well. They've both served Australia well but the time has come.
interesting fact:
the last test played (aus v pak) involved the most experienced side ever fielded in the history of test cricket. for the first time ever, the combined number of test caps was over 700 (703). that figure will drop a bit with gillespie out (34 tests) and bichel in (6) to only 686 (still the 3rd highest ever!!)
Originally posted by Richmondfan#1
Well with the youngest fella in the side being 25 (B.Lee) perhaps it's time to blood the youngsters. Otherwise we'll be left behind. That includes getting rid of Steve as well. They've both served Australia well but the time has come.
thats absolute crap, if the Waugh's are batting good enough they're young enough.
As it stands though, they aren't batting well enough, so they should face the axe.
They shouldn't be replaced because they are too old.
Adelaide Hawk
8 Oct 2002, 23:22
Originally posted by redi/whitei
If it was my decision I would play Mark Waugh until the 2nd test against England. If he hasn't made a big score by then, bye-bye Mark.
Steve Waugh can play for as long as he wants as far as I'm concerned.
I totally agree. There is still 2 tests to play against Pakistan and both Waughs may play themselves into form. I would certainly begin the test series against England with Mark Waugh at No.4, and I think unless he screws up completely Steve Waugh should captain the entire series.
As a South Aussie I'd love to see Boof Lehmann in the XI but there are only 6 batting spots. My team for the First Test v England would read:
LANGER
HAYDEN
PONTING
M.WAUGH
S.WAUGH (Captain)
MARTYN or LEHMANN
GILCHRIST
WARNE
LEE
GILLESPIE
McGRATH
It's a great side, why change it?
Richmondfan#1
9 Oct 2002, 00:39
Originally posted by hourn
thats absolute crap, if the Waugh's are batting good enough they're young enough.
As it stands though, they aren't batting well enough, so they should face the axe.
They shouldn't be replaced because they are too old.
Oops, that didn't come out to well. Sorry about that. What I am saying is we should blood the youngsters. Fair point though, if they're batting well, keep them. But they aren't, possible because of age, possibly not but perhaps time to give a younger guy an opportunity? Just my opinion. But hey, give us a break, I'm a 14 year old chick with no sporty friends whatsoever ... oh the loneliness. OK, now I'm just rambling.
:eek:
Nige_Bix
9 Oct 2002, 01:13
David Hookes reckons they [the Waughs] could be looking at [or hoping for] the 5th test v England as their swan song.
I do remember that Steve signed that bat contract for a few years - when does that end??
My worry about our side is that it tends now to be lacking a bit of depth in the bowling apart from the four frontline bowlers. Steve had hardly bowled in the past few years and Mark isn't generally as effective as he used to be. None of the other bats suggested come in the category of batting/allrounders which is what we need. - with the exception of Watson - and is he an allrounder?? - ie can he legitimately claim a place in the side as either as batsman or a bowler [a la Ian Botham] or is he a batting/all-rounder or a bowling/allrounder.
South Africa always seem to be able to come up with a few - but then again to contradict my point - we seem to be able to beat wthm with what we have. I guess its because our 4 bowlers have the wood on them and out batsmen have performed realy well and we have a guiy called Gilchrist!!
Originally posted by dezzmo
I guess its because our 4 bowlers have the wood on them and out batsmen have performed realy well and we have a guy called Gilchrist!!
As you say with Gilchrist batting so well perhaps if Mark Waugh he could move up to six, Martyn goes to four and Steve Waugh stays five. Then we could possibly try playing five frontline bowlers e.g 4 pacemen (McGrath, Dizzy, B.Lee & Bichel) and Warnie. Or depending on the pitch a 2nd spinner could be played Hauritz?
Kenny_01
9 Oct 2002, 14:47
Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
I totally agree. There is still 2 tests to play against Pakistan and both Waughs may play themselves into form. I would certainly begin the test series against England with Mark Waugh at No.4, and I think unless he screws up completely Steve Waugh should captain the entire series.
As a South Aussie I'd love to see Boof Lehmann in the XI but there are only 6 batting spots. My team for the First Test v England would read:
LANGER
HAYDEN
PONTING
M.WAUGH
S.WAUGH (Captain)
MARTYN or LEHMANN
GILCHRIST
WARNE
LEE
GILLESPIE
McGRATH
It's a great side, why change it?
Martyn or Lehmann? There is no way Martyn should even be considered for being dropped. He is one of our top 3 batsmen.
And Watson isn't good enough yet. He would get murdered with his medium pacers he throws up.
wagstaff
9 Oct 2002, 16:08
Mark Waugh's greatest problem recently hasn't been the low scores he's gotten (he hasn't had that many), but his inability to turn promising scores into big ones.
He hasn't scored a century since the Oval Test 2001 in England, 10 Tests have passed since then.
From my viewpoint, far more damaging for Mark Waugh was going out to a soft dismissal in the first innings when a century beckoned, as opposed to his first ball duck in the second innings.
Originally posted by Kenny_01
Martyn or Lehmann? There is no way Martyn should even be considered for being dropped. He is one of our top 3 batsmen.
And Watson isn't good enough yet. He would get murdered with his medium pacers he throws up.
Martyn's a selfish hack who never scores runs under pressure.(see 3rd Test v South Africa at Sydney 1994)
Martin Love and Darren Lehman for the immediate future.
Martin Love and possibly Michael Clarke, Boof can't have much more left in him either.
Hopefully there can be alot of the youngsters step up, couple of the guys from W.A Shaun Marsh being one of them. Would be good to see someone step up.
Whatever happens it will be a huge void left in the batting lineup with both the number 4 and 5 spots being unstable.
Kenny_01
9 Oct 2002, 19:18
Originally posted by DaveW
Martyn's a selfish hack who never scores runs under pressure.(see 3rd Test v South Africa at Sydney 1994)
That was 8 years ago fool.
I wasn't a big fan of Martyn then either, but he is a shoe in when it comes to selecting the Australian side, whether it be the one-day side or Test side.
bluechampion
10 Oct 2002, 20:06
I'm not a big fan of Martyn in the one-day team. He lacks pace in his innings. He'll score 10 off 40 balls and if he gets out, the pacing of the innings is stuffed. If he goes on with it, then he scores at almost a-run-a-ball. He's useless in a big chase.
He's also a very average bowler, and the one-day game requires both skills.
Jars458
23 Oct 2002, 14:53
Pakistan's batsmen supposedly had a shocker in the recently complted series
Four of them had higher averages than M Waugh against a much better bowling attack.
M Waugh was Aussies worst batsmen.
Its time to go Mark.
We want Boof.
Originally posted by Jars458
We want Boof.
Go and have a cold shower! :D
roostersgal4eva
23 Oct 2002, 18:23
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
LOL.
Should Mark Waugh go?
People have been debating this since around 1996! :D
i know and it giving me the willies :(
i think the fact that the selectors have told mark 'get runs OR ELSE' & no selector has said mark is safe since 1996 it taking its toll - he SHOULD BE playing in the Ashes IMHO
I luv boof but i think for the moment mark should stay
Kane McGoodwin
23 Oct 2002, 19:34
Originally posted by roostersgal4eva
i know and it giving me the willies :(
i think the fact that the selectors have told mark 'get runs OR ELSE' & no selector has said mark is safe since 1996 it taking its toll - he SHOULD BE playing in the Ashes IMHO
I luv boof but i think for the moment mark should stay You must be joking. Mark Waugh has averaged just over 30 for his last 17 tests, which is bloody ordinary even by English standards. He should have gone long ago & has cost Lehmann most of what would have been a great test career. Apart from being the brother of the captain & from NSW, what has Mark done to keep in spot?
bunsen burner
23 Oct 2002, 23:53
Originally posted by bluechampion
Without Steve and Mark Waugh the side should look like this...
HAYDEN
ELLIOTT
LANGER
PONTING
MARTYN
GILCHRIST
WATSON
WARNE
FLEMING
GILLESPIE
McGRATH
12 -
LEHMANN (depending on the pitch)
I can't believe how out of touch you are. I wonder if you have the balls to repost and justify why you think Elliott should be given the opener's spot? Here's a few things I would like you to justify:
1) Hayden and Langer have formed a very successful opening pair. They are the first pair to gel since Taylor/Slater and have the highest opening partnership in test history. WHY would you want to split them up?
2) Ponting is an excellent number 3. He is the first good number 3 since David Boon. Good number 3s are very hard to come by. WHY would you move Ponting away from number 3 to create a space for Elliott?
3) Elliott is hopelessly out of form. He just gave up the Victorian vice-captaincy so he could concentrate on his form. WHY do you think he should be in the national side.
I just noticed you had Flemming AND Watson in the side. I don't believe how stupid you are. Maybe we should just put the whole Bushrangers team in?
You have to be kidding if you want Mark Waugh out of the Australian team.
Stop writing Mark Waugh off.
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 11:17
Originally posted by stumpy
You have to be kidding if you want Mark Waugh out of the Australian team.
Stop writing Mark Waugh off. He can't stay forever.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
He can't stay forever.
Neither can the idiotic journalists who have nothing else to do but write off the Australian players.
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 11:44
Originally posted by stumpy
Neither can the idiotic journalists who have nothing else to do but write off the Australian players. You're in deep denial. I think you better lie down and have a rest.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
You're in deep denial. I think you better lie down and have a rest.
No I am not
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 11:57
Originally posted by stumpy
No I am not are too.
davers11
26 Oct 2002, 22:33
Originally posted by stumpy
You have to be kidding if you want Mark Waugh out of the Australian team.
Stop writing Mark Waugh off.
Finally a man with a brain!!!!!!
The man is a legend!!
Originally posted by davers11
The man is a legend!!
So is Bradman, but you wouldn't pick him on current form.
bunsen burner
27 Oct 2002, 12:47
Originally posted by davers11
Finally a man with a brain!!!!!!
The man is a legend!! Suzi Olsen - a man?? - with a brain????
Highly unlikely on both counts.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
are too.
And you are a loser who loves to ring up people just to terrorise their families:rolleyes:
Get a live you sore loser
bunsen burner
28 Oct 2002, 14:28
Suzi,
You have crossed the line. I would suggest that find some sort of evidence (say a telephone record), plus the method of how I gained your telephone number, and some sort of account of how I 'terrorised' your family.
I have been questioned by the mods on this outrageous allegation, and I have requested that they ban you and all your aliases from this board.
You simply can't just make stuff up about people and try to pass it on as truth.
Bunsen.
bunsen burner
28 Oct 2002, 16:47
It's empty
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Suzi,
You have crossed the line. I would suggest that find some sort of evidence (say a telephone record), plus the method of how I gained your telephone number, and some sort of account of how I 'terrorised' your family.
I have been questioned by the mods on this outrageous allegation, and I have requested that they ban you and all your aliases from this board.
You simply can't just make stuff up about people and try to pass it on as truth.
Bunsen.
Rack off loser you are nothing but trouble