View Full Version : Steve Waugh
Steve Waugh is starting to make a goose of himself.
He is a specialist middle order batsman - a rare commodity in one day cricket - and understandably the selectors think there is no room for him in the team.
Now he reckons he can bowl offspin and replace Warney! And that its all the ICC's fault!
He needs to show a bit if dignity in his retirement phase, otherwise he will be remembered as a bitter man who thought of himself above his team.
dr nick
19 Dec 2002, 15:43
Originally posted by hotpie
otherwise he will be remembered as a bitter man who thought of himself above his team.
does this go for every fringe player who would like to be a part of any cricket team or are you just having a jealous stab because he is 37?
Would I be right in saying Steve Waugh has no chance of playing in the World Cup? There's been a big hoo-ha over whether McGill can make it, and the ruling seems to be that he's ineligible because he wasn't named in the original 30. So I guess that applies to Steve as well.
Originally posted by RogerC
Would I be right in saying Steve Waugh has no chance of playing in the World Cup? There's been a big hoo-ha over whether McGill can make it, and the ruling seems to be that he's ineligible because he wasn't named in the original 30. So I guess that applies to Steve as well.
The rule states that a player may only be seleceted from outside the 30 if he is replacing a "like" player. ie a legspinner (MacGill) for a legspiner (Warne) which is a pretty crap ruling cause its very broad and interpretive.
Why should teams not be allowed to pick players from outside the 30???
kretchy
19 Dec 2002, 20:46
Originally posted by hourn
The rule states that a player may only be seleceted from outside the 30 if he is replacing a "like" player. ie a legspinner (MacGill) for a legspiner (Warne) which is a pretty crap ruling cause its very broad and interpretive.
Why should teams not be allowed to pick players from outside the 30???
If teams are allowed to pick from outside the 30 then what would be the point of picking the 30 to begin with?
Originally posted by kretchy
If teams are allowed to pick from outside the 30 then what would be the point of picking the 30 to begin with?
the reasoning behind the 30 man squads was so that tournament organisers could have together all brochures and magazines and programs etc,. in place before the event according to Steve Waugh in the telegraph today.
sounds like a whole heap of crap if you ask me. Its a stupid idea to have preliminary 30 man squads. There is nothing to be gained and alot to be lost be it.
dr nick
19 Dec 2002, 21:00
and why do you have to be bogged down by setting 30 players in concrete so far out from the event, wheras india still have the opportunity to assess who is in and not in form. the top 30 players in early december will not be the same as the top 30 in march, so why should india pick theirs closer to the event than others??
larrikin
19 Dec 2002, 22:55
The whole thing is a farce, but I'm sure if push came to shove we could pick whoever the hell we wanted in each individual game!!!
Wicked Lester
20 Dec 2002, 06:50
Originally posted by hotpie
Steve Waugh is starting to make a goose of himself.
He is a specialist middle order batsman - a rare commodity in one day cricket - and understandably the selectors think there is no room for him in the team.
Now he reckons he can bowl offspin and replace Warney! And that its all the ICC's fault!
He needs to show a bit if dignity in his retirement phase, otherwise he will be remembered as a bitter man who thought of himself above his team.
I agree.
It was totally unneccesary for Steve Waugh to declare so early. Australia should have batted on until an hour before stumps and made another 70-80 runs.
The only reason he declared then was to keep Martin Love's score below his own and to ensure Love did not make a ton on debut.
dr nick
28 Dec 2002, 07:33
Originally posted by hotpie
It was totally unneccesary for Steve Waugh to declare so early. Australia should have batted on until an hour before stumps and made another 70-80 runs.
The only reason he declared then was to keep Martin Love's score below his own and to ensure Love did not make a ton on debut.
:rolleyes: never mind the fact that it could take 6-8 sessions to get 20 english wickets, at which time the typical melbourne weather could shorten the match even further. keep in mind our main spin weapon is out of action.
clearly gilchrist was sent in to blast quick runs. Love was scoring far too slowly to make continuing on worthwhile. all it takes is another big knock from Vaughan or Hussain and you pricks would be having a go at him for batting on too long and forcing the draw.
The weather is not an issue - there will be five days of clear weather. Three days and an hour is plenty of time to bowl out England - (MacGill has always filled in well for Warne) and would have given Love a shot at a century, and given Australia a huge score not just a solid score.
Waugh has put himself ahead of his team by declaring an hour early.
dr nick
28 Dec 2002, 08:40
Originally posted by hotpie
The weather is not an issue - there will be five days of clear weather. Three days and an hour is plenty of time to bowl out England - (MacGill has always filled in well for Warne) and would have given Love a shot at a century, and given Australia a huge score not just a solid score.
Waugh has put himself ahead of his team by declaring an hour early.
you are embarrasing yourself now. even richie benaud just said then he thought that the declaration should have come earlier than it did. as i said in another thread, the rate Love was scoring, it would have taken another session for him to reach 100. in which time England would have taken 6 wickets in 2 days, leaving us to get 20 in 3 days, and england are batter heavy on a good track that will hold up for 5 days. why would you put love's personal ambitions before the team? you haven't been following cricket for too long have you?
Bomber Spirit
28 Dec 2002, 09:21
Originally posted by hotpie
The weather is not an issue - there will be five days of clear weather. The forecast tomorrow's looking a bit dodgy.
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
The forecast tomorrow's looking a bit dodgy.
The way England are going,it won't matter.
I don't see any problem with Waugh's captaincy here, or any selfishness in the decision taken. If 550-odd isn't enough to declare on, no score is.
What I do object to is the sustained campaign, aided and abetted by the media, to make a special case of Steve Waugh. I keep hearing talk about how the media are trying to drive him out of the game. Well, Peter Roebuck has written five articles in a row backing him, and most of the rest of the print media are playing the same tune.
His innings in this test was typical of the hype that now surrounds him. His form up until the last test against the sub-standard Pakistanis probably warranted dropping him, and it was only his captaincy that kept him there. He slugged most of his recent knock on a benign pitch against the terrors of Mark Butcher. But to read about it in the papers, you'd think that innings single-handedly saved Australian cricket.
It's good stuff, but it proves nothing. He still looks suspect against fast bowling, he's probably not as good as Lehmann or Love right now, and he stresses that he wants to be selected on merit, not reputation.
Both Taylor and Border were eased out while they still had something to offer. Australian cricket was stronger for it. Ponting is ready to captain, Love has put his hand up and Clarke is waiting around the corner. Whether Waugh likes it or not, the selectors are expected to look a few years down the track and prepare the side accordingly; and hanging onto a great player while his form slides into sporadic bursts isn't part of that picture.
Of course Waugh can't think that way, because it is signing his own redundancy slip. But that's the way it works.
dr nick
28 Dec 2002, 23:06
Originally posted by RogerC
Both Taylor and Border were eased out while they still had something to offer.
surely you jest??? Allan Border was virtually pushed out of the side and told to retire. They held team meetings between players and selectors in which he was not privvy to whilst still captain. he certainly did not do it on his own merit, and unwillingly by his own admission called a press conference in '94. Border was 38 years and 245 days old.
as for Mark Taylor, well i guess after going 20 innings without so much as a half century is being 'eased out'. Thankfully for him his triple century in peshawar masks the fact that he also was teetering on the edge of being dumped.
Looks like Steve Waugh has got away with it. His generous declaration nearly lost his side the match.
At least he got another chance to bat again, and remind the selectors that his time is up.
Its been a great career Steve. Enjoy your final Test match in Sydney - don't overstay your welcome because there's nothing worse in sport to see than a champion who will not retire despite the obvious signs.
knuckles
30 Dec 2002, 11:30
Originally posted by hotpie
Looks like Steve Waugh has got away with it. His generous declaration nearly lost his side the match.
At least he got another chance to bat again, and remind the selectors that his time is up.
Its been a great career Steve. Enjoy your final Test match in Sydney - don't overstay your welcome because there's nothing worse in sport to see than a champion who will not retire despite the obvious signs.
I agree with Waugh to go - $$ getting in the way of his decision.
However, his declaration was spot on. Mark Taylor started a great trend of making Captains responsible for providing an entertaining game, as well as trying to win it. I think it cost him a test or two V SA., but Test cricket was much better for it, I see no point in OZ making a gazillion runs and having a no-contest in Day 3.
Originally posted by hotpie
Its been a great career Steve. Enjoy your final Test match in Sydney - don't overstay your welcome because there's nothing worse in sport to see than a champion who will not retire despite the obvious signs.
I think we're already past that stage. He just didn't look like he belonged there today. And not for the first time recently either.
Nicko, without gettting into hair-splitting as to what exactly "having something to offer" consists of (although I do think that 334 doesn't happen by accident), in a way your point is not so far from what I was trying to say. Border's form before he was pushed wasn't appalling. Taylor's form before his mammoth Peshawar score wasn't dissimilar to Waugh's before the third test against Pakistan recently.
The fact is the selectors told them to go. Which is what they're probably going to do now to Waugh. And he has no more right to hang around than they did.
Waugh's a valuable player, but others are passing him by. Love looked way more comfortable today. The English bowlers virtually treated Waugh as a tail ender.
dr nick
30 Dec 2002, 17:24
people overlook the fact that Steve Waugh was the 4rd best performing Australian in that test.
another world cup no show, Macgill, was the 2nd best
Wicked Lester
30 Dec 2002, 17:39
I think we may be forgetting a few facts re. Mark Taylor.
Like most people my memory is that his form was rotten, then he made 334, then retired shortly after.
Not quite the case - after he came out of his slump he made a further 5 centuries (including the 334) and 7 fifties over his last 4 or 5 series. In other words he played for nearly two years after the slump with some fairly good series results, though its fair to say that he was clearly not the batsman he was in his prime.
The big difference with the current situation of course was that Taylor was 31/32 during the slump and retired(!!) at 34. Waugh will be 38 just after the world cup and on the evidence of today is in serious decline.
I don't know how long this soap opera can go on. If he had a migraine then Love or Gilchrist should have been sent in.
My North
30 Dec 2002, 20:47
The Melbourne Test match is finished and it looks like Steve Waugh did make the right decison and declare at 550 odd and put made Englan bat again has Australia won by 5 wickets with over 2 sessions still left in the test match
GhostofJimJess
1 Jan 2003, 22:31
As an Australian cricket fan who is far more a fan of cricket than I am of Australian cricket, I'm finding Steve Waugh is getting more bitter and more twisted with every match.
At what point in time is he ever going to give an opposition player or team the credit he or they deserve, as opposed to just referring to how badly his team played or fielded, or whatever ?
So it was a migraine this time, hey Steve. From my angle, it looked like some of that "mental toughness" that he so strongly believes in might have been displayed by Nassar Hussein and his team on the last day. There's a common saying in football that as soon as you cross the white line, you're 100% fit. Especially when you have the likes of Love, Gilchrist or even Brett Lee who could quite easily have batted at Number 5. I think the Poms simply worked on his weaknesses. It was great cricket on their behalf, and whinging about their tactics of keeping him on strike was both hypocritical and unjustified.
Or maybe it's the fact that finally Steve had to go in when we were 3 for 58, instead of 3 for 258, as it's been for the better part of the last decade when he's finally gone out to bat. If you're gonna hide at Number 5 or Number 6 for the entirety of you're international career, then excuse me if I don't rate your efforts as highly as someone who goes out their when the ball and/or the pitch is actually doing something.
Cricket will survive quite healthily without Steve Waugh.
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Or maybe it's the fact that finally Steve had to go in when we were 3 for 58, instead of 3 for 258, as it's been for the better part of the last decade when he's finally gone out to bat. If you're gonna hide at Number 5 or Number 6 for the entirety of you're international career, then excuse me if I don't rate your efforts as highly as someone who goes out their when the ball and/or the pitch is actually doing something.
I agree that Steve Waugh's time is up. But we mustn't forget he has often saved Australia in "3 for 58" type situations. I don't think the "3 for 258" type situations have been as common for Australia over the last decade as you might believe.
Wicked Lester
2 Jan 2003, 07:38
Must say I've often wondered why he has locked himself into the number 5 position for all these years and not taken the responsibility of batting a little higher in the order. This would have provided greater assistance to younger players who could have been eased into the team at 5 or 6 and avoided the circus we had for a few years in the number 3 position.
Anyway its been a great career Steve and you have definitely been the man for a crisis (though not very often in the past 2 years) on many occasions but it is time to call it a day and let the team start building a new middle order so that there is stability in the team when the true day of reckoning arrives in a couple of years time - the retirements or decline in form of the team's match winners - McGrath and Warne.
dogboy23
2 Jan 2003, 10:20
I think Waughs come back to form during this series.He has got alot of starts that would have turned into big scores had he not had to go for quick runs to make a declaration so any suggestion of him playing for himself is ridiculous.It is quite unbelievable to read some of the media after he batted with a migraine.Some are even trying to put down his style of batting and his unusual technique as pointers to the fact he should be dropped.He has always batted that way since he removed the pull and hook from his game and it has worked wonders for him.Get off his back and let him play cricket.
Originally posted by nicko18
people overlook the fact that Steve Waugh was the 4rd best performing Australian in that test.
No, Waugh wasn't the fourth best Australian.... he was the fourth best batsman (out of six).
And it's easier making a slogging 77 when you come in at 3/900 facing Butcher and Dawson, than 3/50 facing Harmison and Caddick...
You might also notice that most of his initial 50 was made against the two soft pie-chuckers, and his strike rate the next morning (facing better bowlers) was about 40.
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
There's a common saying in football that as soon as you cross the white line, you're 100% fit. Especially when you have the likes of Love, Gilchrist or even Brett Lee who could quite easily have batted at Number 5. I think the Poms simply worked on his weaknesses. It was great cricket on their behalf, and whinging about their tactics of keeping him on strike was both hypocritical and unjustified.
In this situation there was nothing for Australia to gain by a "sick" Waugh batting at 5. He probably thought he could survive for an hour, chime in with a red ink 30 and get that average closer to 50 again. Rather that than let Love cement his place with another unbeaten 30 or 40, eh Cap'n?
All of a sudden his back injury is better and he can bowl again too... at the tail-enders of course. Think averages Steve... ;)
I think rather than do the "courageous" thing and face the music with a migraine (then make excuses later), it would have been more courageous and certainly more dignified for Waugh to sit out the second innings, announce the Sydney Test would be his last, and go out as a man who had a little bit of dignity in him rather than a bloke who is clawing to hang on to a position that has passed him by.
I am growing increasingly tired of the borish attitude some people have on this forum towards certain players in the Australian team.
Whether a guy plays in the Test team is a matter for the selectors, and we should support those players even if we don't agree with their selection.
Just remember people ... jealousy is a curse.
knuckles
2 Jan 2003, 11:21
So is greed.
Originally posted by knuckles
So is greed.
Greed? You mean that thing that MOST people are guilty of? All I see is a player who takes enormous pride in playing for his country, and he wants to play as often as possible.
If you don't think he should be in the team then blame the selectors, don't hang rubbish on a man just trying to do what he loves doing.
I see no need for Steve Waugh to retire, the selectors' pen will put a line through his name soon enough. I don't know of too many other people who would gladly walk away from a job they love and one which pays in excess of a million dollars a year.
How many of us can honestly say if we were in Waugh's position that we would just walk away from something we love doing?
Just enjoy his final few days at the elite level, he will be gone all too soon enough.
knuckles
2 Jan 2003, 11:43
He needs to retire b/c there are better batsmen around - covered by others. Anyone would be proud to represent their country at any sport- moot point.
He said money wasn't the issue. I say bollocks, as do many others. And yes, you would have to shoot me to take me away from a 7 figure job. Or take me out of derivatives and put me in swaps ;)
I have to question the merits of Trevor Hohns.
7 times played for Australia. Does that make you an automatic selector?
:rolleyes:
Becker, there is some merit in what you say - who would retire in Steve's position. In fact what we have seen in recent times is that no cricketer goes willingly, and that is surely because of some form of greed. Don't forget that the 70's era cricketers usually retired to make more money out of cricket.
It's understandable these days that a Lehmann or a Bichel would want to play as long as they can, but I actually think Steve is shooting himself in the foot here - the more of a shamble his departure becomes, the less marketable he will be after his "retirement". There's plenty more money for far less work ahead of him, given his status of former Aus captain.
My feeling is that he is desperate for the stats, he wants to go at least one test more that AB, and get to 10,000. I think barring a miracle his average won't get back up to 50 (of course he'll now score 335 in this match......)
red+black
2 Jan 2003, 12:40
i would keep him for the Windies tour then dump him for good. if we get 2-0 up against the Windies then for me, the 2nd test over there would be his last.
i laugh at suggestions that he has been treated poorly. yeah, cos everyone gets to play 17 years of test cricket and make millions of dollars :rolleyes:
oh the team's winning! so we should only retire players when the team falls in a heap. i agree that he doesn't have to announce his retirement, but he will have to accept that the selectors can and will dump him at any moment. saying he'll play until the next indian tour is laughable.
great innings steve, but the ball that dismisses you is about to leave the hand.
time for us all to move on.
And of course the thing that looms over all this is the age of the Aus team. Not too many cats in there under 30, and we all remember what happened to Australia the last time we had three champions retire in close succession.....
Originally posted by P76
I actually think Steve is shooting himself in the foot here - the more of a shamble his departure becomes, the less marketable he will be after his "retirement". There's plenty more money for far less work ahead of him, given his status of former Aus captain.
I guess this is where I differ. I don't feel Steve Waugh's situation is a "shambles" in the least. He is leading his country to an Ashes victory, he MAY reach the magical 10,000 run mark, and then the selectors will possibly give him the golden handshake.
Steve Waugh was selected as captain for the series and he is just doing his job to the best of his ability.
Like others, I feel his time has come and he will be sacked at the end of this series. However, unlike others, I refuse to sit here and treat the man like a refugee with a deadly disease. He has been one of the greats, and I shall continue to respect him as just that.
As I've continued to say, if you disagree with his selection in the team then your argument is with the selectors, not Steve Waugh.
Becker, what you say is fair enough, and I agree with you, Waugh is not selecting himself. However, with his sometimes farcical campaign to get back into the one day side, and his increasingly desperate attempts to inflate the scores he does get into something they are not, he is losing whatever dignity he had. That is the shambles on his part in my opinion. He is debasing our future memory of him by his actions at the moment.
Originally posted by P76
Becker, what you say is fair enough, and I agree with you, Waugh is not selecting himself. However, with his sometimes farcical campaign to get back into the one day side, and his increasingly desperate attempts to inflate the scores he does get into something they are not, he is losing whatever dignity he had. That is the shambles on his part in my opinion. He is debasing our future memory of him by his actions at the moment.
Inflate the scores he gets? How is he doing that? Maybe he is deasing your future memories of him, but not mine.
Originally posted by Becker
Inflate the scores he gets? How is he doing that?
Don't you read the newspapers????
Originally posted by P76
Don't you read the newspapers????
Yes, sometimes I do, but they aren't my constant source of reference. Not everything in the papers require reading.
I repeat ..... how is he inflating his scores, does he sneak into the scorer's booth and add another 25 runs or something?
Well, let's take his first fifty of the series - he described it in his column as a fine innings, which it wasn't, and his last one in Melbourne (which I saw) in similar glowing terms and yes he did play some good shots against bowling from Butcher and Dawson, who are hardly test standard bowlers, but really it was hardly anything to write home about. He is not playing well, and that started IMHO last year against Shane Bond - but he would have us believe otherwise. He is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That is what I mean by him inflating the scores he gets into something they are not - he has had a couple of 50's, only one of which had any semblance of good stroke-play, and he's writing about himself as if he is in as good a nick as he's always been.
But, as you say, the selectors keep picking him.
There's no question that Steve Waugh wants to stay in the side for selfish reasons alone. He's putting himself before the team, and for this reason I've lost a lot of respect for him over the last couple of years.
Originally posted by DaveW
I agree that Steve Waugh's time is up. But we mustn't forget he has often saved Australia in "3 for 58" type situations. I don't think the "3 for 258" type situations have been as common for Australia over the last decade as you might believe.
I've researched this via the Baggy Green stats filter, and basically looked only at his century scores, and looked up what the state of play was when S.Waugh came out to bat. Make what you will of the results.
Runs Pos Dismissal I Result Match
1989
177* 6 not out 1 W 1st Test v Eng in Eng 1989 at Leeds (came in at 4/273)
152* 6 not out 2 W 2nd Test v Eng in Eng 1989 at Lord's
(came in at 4/221, Eng batted first and made 286)
134* 7 not out 3 W 2nd Test v SL in Aus 1989/90 at Hobart
(came in at 5/253, plus 8 run lead on 1st Innings)
1993
100 3 caught 1 D 3rd Test v WI in Aus 1992/93 at Sydney
(came in at 1/42)
157* 6 not out 1 W 4th Test v Eng in Eng 1993 at Leeds
(came in at 4/321)
147* 6 not out 2 W 3rd Test v NZ in Aus 1993/94 at Brisbane
(came in at 4/277, NZ batted first and made 233)
1994
164 6 caught wk 1 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 1993/94 at Adelaide
(came in at 4/183)
1995
200 5 caught 2 W 4th Test v WI in WI 1994/95 at Kingston
(came in at 3/73, WI batted first and made 265)
112* 5 not out 1 W 1st Test v Pak in Aus 1995/96 at Brisbane
(came in at 3/213)
131* 5 not out 1 W 2nd Test v SL in Aus 1995/96 at Melbourne
(came in at 3/219)
1996
170 5 bowled 1 W 3rd Test v SL in Aus 1995/96 at Adelaide
(came in at 3/96)
1997
160 5 caught wk 2 W 1st Test v SA in SA 1996/97 at Joh'burg
(came in at 3/169, SAF batted first and made 302)
108 5 bowled 1 W 3rd Test v Eng in Eng 1997 at Manchester
(came in at 3/42)
116 5 caught wk 3
(came in at 3/39, plus 73 run lead on 1st Innings)
1998
157 5 caught 2 W 1st Test v Pak in Pak 1998/99 at R'pindi
(came in at 3/28, Pak batted first and made 269)
112 5 caught wk 1 D 1st Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Brisbane
(came in at 3/106)
122* 5 not out 2 L 4th Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Melbourne
(came in at 3/98, Eng batted first and made 270)
AS CAPTAIN
1999
100 5 caught 1 L 2nd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Kingston
(came in at 3/46)
199 5 lbw 1 L 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown (came in at 3/36)
151* 5 not out 2 W Only Test v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare (came in at 3/96, Zim batted first and made 194)
150 5 caught wk 1 W 1st Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Adelaide (came in at 3/45)
2000
151* 6 not out 2 W 2nd Test v NZ in NZ 1999/00 at Well'ton
(came in at 4/51, NZ batted first and made 298)
121* 5 not out 1 W 4th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Melb.
(came in at 3/101)
2001
103 5 bowled 2 W 5th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney
(came in at 3/109, WI batted first and made 272)
110 5 lbw 1 L 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Calcutta
(came in at 3/214)
105 5 lbw 2 W 1st Test v Eng in Eng 2001 at Birmingham (came in at 3/134, Eng batted first and made 294))
157* 5 not out 1 W 5th Test v Eng in Eng 2001 at The Oval (came in at 3/489)
2002
103* 5 not out 1 W 3rd Test v Pak in UAE 2002/03 at Sharjah (came in at 3/233)
Thanks Darky.
There's enough 3-for-not-enough scores to support my conjecture.
Originally posted by DaveW
Thanks Darky.
There's enough 3-for-not-enough scores to support my conjecture.
Definitely a pattern between about 1997-2000. But the last few centuries have come when Australia has been anywhere between comfortable & in command.
Nobody doubted his place in the team during 1997-2000, but when age started creeping up (35-ish), the centuries and 50s in the last 3 years (which I also looked at but couldn't be stuffed editing for readable posting) have come at easier stages of matches.
Of course a batsman doesn't have much choice about when he comes out to bat, but the last three years don't have all those gutsy knocks which are supposedly his trademark. Until a year or so ago there was no doubt about his position in the side either, but it's hard to draw a line on his form when the quality of the opposition has dropped away significantly.
As an outsider one point I'd like to make in regards to the whole Steve Waugh should he go or not debate is that whilst it's clear that he's past his best as a batsman & the likes of Love or Carke may well score more runs than him given a go in the middle order it may well be outbalanced by what he gives the side as a leader.
At the moment with such a great side it's pretty easy to sit there & say let's get rid of him bring in a new bloke who scores more runs & the whole juggernaut will just keep on chugging but with even more power, but great leaders of men aren't two a penny.It's pretty obvious that a lot of blokes in this Aussie side really look up to him & when you have this sort of presence you become an almost talismanic symbol for the team.
Obviously Australia aren't about to slip into mediocricty in the short term but you may find under a new captain that you aren't as able to turn the screw in the pivotal moments of matches, standards may drop & blokes who always deffered to Waugh as captain may have trouble doing the same to Ponting.I mean to say when Waugh was made captain he'd been in the side longer than anyone but Ponting must step up knowing there's blokes in the side who've played Test cricket for a lot longer than him & who've proved themeselves much better Test cricketers than him.
It's by no means a done deal that a new captain comes in & the team continues to be as successful, if I was an Australian cricket fan whether I liked him or not I'd be hoping that Waugh stayed around-there's a phrase 'if it ain't broken then don't fix it'-couldn't be more applicable in my opinion.
So whilst he may not provide the runs that would be expected of another middle order batsmen his influence on the team as a whole might well be much more important............then again it might not(we'll find out over the next year or 2 though).
Wicked Lester
3 Jan 2003, 08:47
Dipper
We have this dilemna every time the captaincy changes - when Taylor took over from Border people were worried and likewise very similar concerns were echoed when Waugh replaced Taylor.
But, the team always copes - in fact it is always surprising how quickly the supposedly irreplaceable captain is forgotten. Will Ponting be as successful as Waugh? Most likely not and most likley it won't be anything to do with his captaincy. Quite simply Australia will slowly decline as a power as our two match winning bowlers slowly decline and eventually retire. Remember these two would now almost assured of selection in an all time Australian team. However there inevitable decline through form and/or injury will happen even if Tugga were captain in 5 years time.
I'm intrigued to know which current members of the team have proven themselves to be MUCH BETTER than Ponting, other than perhaps Warne and McGrath but it could be argued they are better than everyone else, the Captain included.
IN ODI's Ponting's up there with our best ever. In the test team his record is also up there and improving all the time. If he maintains his current average then he and Steve Waugh will be almost inseperable and of course Ponting is making his name at number 3.
Lastly while I don't deny Tugga has been the man for a crisis many times and has done well coming in at 3 for not many on occasions, I will always maintain it is easier to come in at 3 for 200, 3 for 100 or even 3 for 50 after the new ball has lost at least some of its shine than opening the batting or coming out at the fall of the first wicket.
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I will always maintain it is easier to come in at 3 for 200, 3 for 100 or even 3 for 50 after the new ball has lost at least some of its shine than opening the batting or coming out at the fall of the first wicket.
Ponting and others like Langer thrive up the top of the order and would struggle more down the order. Vice versa for others. It depends what type of player you are. I was always a top order batsman and did much better batting in the top 3 than the middle order. This is because i liked the luxury of taking my time and building an innings. Quite often coming in at 5,6 or 7, the team could have 300+ runs on the board so the pressure is there to maintain the momentum. top order batsman also like the ball coming off quicker. you cannot make a sweeping statement that batting in the top order is harder than the middle order. if you shuffled the top 6, we'd be a lot more ineffective. as someone said before Love is a #3 batsman, but you wouldn't risk losing Pontings form by pushing him down to 6, its a totally different ballgame coming in at 4-300.
make what you will of these stats.
Langer:
#1 or #2: 1465 @ 56.34
#3: 2457 @ 41.64
Ponting:
#3: 1891 @ 54.02
#6: 1962 @ 50.30
Martyn:
#4: 398 @ 49.50
#6: 1113 @ 45.39
Waugh:
#3: 252 @ 36.00
#4: 196 @ 32.66
#5: 5828 @ 53.46
#6: 3095 @ 51.58
the batsman in this side are currently settled into the positions they are most comfortable with. Langer opening, Ponting up the top order, whereas Waugh is more suited to the middle order. horses for courses, not easier doing one or the other, otherwise everyone would go better at #6.
Originally posted by nicko18
Langer:
#1 or #2: 1465 @ 56.34
#3: 2457 @ 41.64
Ponting:
#3: 1891 @ 54.02
#6: 1962 @ 50.30
Martyn:
#4: 398 @ 49.50
#6: 1113 @ 45.39
Waugh:
#3: 252 @ 36.00
#4: 196 @ 32.66
#5: 5828 @ 53.46
#6: 3095 @ 51.58
the batsman in this side are currently settled into the positions they are most comfortable with. Langer opening, Ponting up the top order, whereas Waugh is more suited to the middle order. horses for courses, not easier doing one or the other, otherwise everyone would go better at #6.
But you'll also see from those stats that Waugh is the player with the most pronounced difference between batting in different places. Martyn & Ponting's averages vary by only four runs, and while Langer's difference is 15 runs, being a young player batting at 3 and averaging 41 is very respectable.
Not as many "not outs" up the top either.
And once again, I don't think too many people are questioning Waugh's record over his entire career, just the most recent couple of years which are relevant to the form on which he should/shouldn't be selected for the next series.
Couldn't agree with Darky more - Waugh was probably always a number 5 or 6 batsman, and was in his great years a magnificent asset to the team, but I think his time really has come, and if he can't put himself out of his misery, the selectors must. The whole thing is becoming too dreary by far, remember the relief when Tubby finally announced he was going.....
Originally posted by Darky
Not as many "not outs" up the top either.
you seem to imply that not-outs artificially raise the batting average. batting average is simply the number of runs you get per dismissal. a 70 not out at #6 could well have been a hundred had the batter had more opportunity to bat on.
and about Waughs pronounced difference, thats because of the very few times he has batted in these positions, hardly enough times to qualify for a geniune average though.
Originally posted by nicko18
you seem to imply that not-outs artificially raise the batting average. batting average is simply the number of runs you get per dismissal. a 70 not out at #6 could well have been a hundred had the batter had more opportunity to bat on.
and about Waughs pronounced difference, thats because of the very few times he has batted in these positions, hardly enough times to qualify for a geniune average though.
It might not be many innings, but you've included Martyn's efforts at #4 (dismissed 8 times), so Waugh's form at 3/4 (dismissed 14 times) is fair game.
As for not outs, there is no doubt that coming in lower down there is a higher percentage of them... outlasting a few tailenders rather than fellow batsmen... so blokes coming in at 5/6 are especially more likely to have a red ink, especially holding down one end defensively while the tail goes the slog.
In your previous post you mentioned that his job is to keep the momentum going, looking at every bastman's strike rate he is the slowest in the team. Last week's innings aside, he doesn't exactly come out swinging the bat every time to speed up a declaration.
Career Strike Rates of the Aus Top 7:
langer - 51
hayden - 59
ponting - 57
martyn - 51
s. waugh - 47
love - 43 (only 1 test though)
gilchrist - 81
so steve waugh is the slowest of the lot but not by much. He never has been a quick scoreer despite his last 2 half centuries, hes been the rock when we've needed one.
I think he may have got himself a spot on the Windies tour here. If he gets a ton then he's put it beyond doubt.
Steve n.o. 59 - I tipped this! only 276 to go.....
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 15:29
Originally posted by P76
Steve n.o. 59 - I tipped this! only 276 to go.....
why bother with the minor stats? might as well score 502*
with love in now (mr no average), we could declare at about 4/1000 :D
Originally posted by P76
Steve n.o. 59 - I tipped this! only 276 to go.....
He's only allowed to reach 334, then he must declare. It is written.
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 15:35
who cares, the old man is dead.
steve is now on 9994 career runs, a well known number (if you divide by 100).
Originally posted by red+black
with love in now (mr no average), we could declare at about 4/1000 :D
errr you were saying?
I must say, if Steve Waugh isn't good enough to be in the team, there's a couple of other batsmen we may need to think about aftre the shots they've played to get out on.
red+black
3 Jan 2003, 15:43
Originally posted by Becker
I must say, if Steve Waugh isn't good enough to be in the team, there's a couple of other batsmen we may need to think about aftre the shots they've played to get out on.
marto averaging under 29 in last 10 matches. somehow i think his time will come sooner rather than later. he's played 33 tests so far, i doubt he'll double that tally.
1st windies test team (yeah, probably dreaming):
hayden
langer
ponting
lehmann
waugh
love
gilchrist
warne
lee
gillespie
mcgrath
Well done Steve ..... from one of the the few people on this site who still thinks you are good enough.
Dipper
A specialist captain - a la Mike Brearley - is not really the Australian thing.
As Darky pointed out, the captains that have stepped in for us in the past have done the job quite well. Both Ponting and Warne have proven themselves good captains in one-day internationals.
If anything I would think a struggling captain would have a destablising effect on the side.
Although perhaps its a moot point for the time being, as it looks as if Steve Waugh has returned to form. (on that point - why are there so many threads on this?!)
GhostofJimJess
4 Jan 2003, 23:26
If Steve Waugh was the opposition captain commenting on Steve Waugh's century, it might have gone something like this ...
"We're a bit disappointed we didn't pick him up early. But then, a good team will take those chances. Catch those edges. We didn't bowl well either. Too many loose balls early on leg stump, getting him off the hook and easing the pressure. Too many short balls outside off stump too. We know he's only got one other shot besides that dinky one off his legs through forward square - out through Point, and we played right into his strength. We've just gotta keep working on it, learn to maintain the pressure ...."
Originally posted by Darky
As for not outs, there is no doubt that coming in lower down there is a higher percentage of them... outlasting a few tailenders rather than fellow batsmen... so blokes coming in at 5/6 are especially more likely to have a red ink, especially holding down one end defensively while the tail goes the slog.
It's also a lot easier to get not outs when you take a single off the first ball of an over and let the likes of Gillespie (yes I did see him bat yesterday) and Mcgrath face the bulk of an over.
Moomba
The Hippie
5 Jan 2003, 09:50
You've been listening to Darky for too long, Moomba :p :D
Don't forget also that our tail was a rabble not so many years ago, was often a case of 5 out, all out. Waugh took McGrath (and a couple of others aside) for some one on one coaching to improve their batting and it's worked. Gave them some confidence with the bat and showed confidence in their ability out in the middle by giving them more of the strike and for the most part they've responded to that exposure to the bowling.
There's been numerous times the Aussies would be 5 or 6 down with a slim lead or even behind and with Waugh doing exactly what he's often critisised for, the tail has put on another 150 or 200 runs and often that has been the difference between winning and losing a Test match.
Sure, it doesn't always work (Melbourne Test, '99 Ashes a good case) but I reckon the times it's worked to Australia's advantage far outweigh the times it's failed.
Originally posted by The Hippie
Gave them some confidence with the bat and showed confidence in their ability out in the middle by giving them more of the strike and for the most part they've responded to that exposure to the bowling.
...while the Captain stays up the other end, waiting patiently for four tailenders to get out. Guess who gets the red ink.