View Full Version : Waugh and this Ashes series
Forgetting for a moment whether or not he deserved to have the constant speculation over his position coming into the Ashes series, it was pretty much assumed that it would take a good series for Steve Waugh to retain his place for the Windies tour.
His stats for this tour:
M: 5
I: 8
NO: 0
R: 305 (6th best Australian)
HS: 102 (5th best Australian)
Avge: 38.12 (9th best Australian) *
100's: 1
50's: 2
Catches: 2
* Waugh's performance, IMO was superior to Gillespie, Love and Warne despite a lower average. The figures show him to be the worst performed of the Australian regulars, with Lehman and Love not far behind.
Without the emotion of the 5th test century, and the concerted media campaign that has been running for most of the series I would have thought that these numbers would not have been good enough to prove his worth to the selectors, yet it seems that his chances have risen considerably.
Thoughts?
Moomba
bunsen burner
6 Jan 2003, 13:36
Sydney's Daily Telegraph 5/01/03:
"Trevor Hohns has changed his mind and said that if Steve Waugh wants to play on, he can"
Interview with Trevor Hohns on ch9 news 5/01/03:
"It was a great knock, but nothing has changed. If he (Waugh) decides to play on, we will sit down and make a decision whether or not he makes the team".
I think they've already made their decision. Waugh out, Love in.
Originally posted by moomba
Forgetting for a moment whether or not he deserved to have the constant speculation over his position coming into the Ashes series, it was pretty much assumed that it would take a good series for Steve Waugh to retain his place for the Windies tour.
His stats for this tour:
M: 5
I: 8
NO: 0
R: 305 (6th best Australian)
HS: 102 (5th best Australian)
Avge: 38.12 (9th best Australian) *
100's: 1
50's: 2
Catches: 2
* Waugh's performance, IMO was superior to Gillespie, Love and Warne despite a lower average. The figures show him to be the worst performed of the Australian regulars, with Lehman and Love not far behind.
Without the emotion of the 5th test century, and the concerted media campaign that has been running for most of the series I would have thought that these numbers would not have been good enough to prove his worth to the selectors, yet it seems that his chances have risen considerably.
Thoughts?
Moomba
And I would add, that he was out-captained by Hussain in both Melbourne and Sydney (The other tests were so one sided, captainsy plans really didnt come into it).
Waugh pretty much threw away the Indian series by forcing a follow on, and exhausted his bowlers in Melbourne by doing the same thing. Hussain showed him in Sydney that first you save a test, then you win it.
Thats a reason SA are now No1. They go to the subcontinent and win series.
Waugh has been great, but I think the Australian team needs to start a real rebuilding session over the next few years as its starting to look like a dads army.
Originally posted by grayham
Hussain showed him in Sydney that first you save a test, then you win it.
That must be why he's won so many.
Waugh has showed everyone in recent years that if you're prepared to risk losing, you can increase your chances of winning. Doesn't always come off, but I'd rather have a captain with Waugh's record than Hussein's. Or indeed any other captain in history.
Re the West Indies, I'd be keeping Waugh (if he chooses), keeping Love and dumping Lehmann.
Originally posted by scmods
That must be why he's won so many.
Waugh has showed everyone in recent years that if you're prepared to risk losing, you can increase your chances of winning. Doesn't always come off, but I'd rather have a captain with Waugh's record than Hussein's. Or indeed any other captain in history.
Re the West Indies, I'd be keeping Waugh (if he chooses), keeping Love and dumping Lehmann.
Your only as good as your cattle, and for Hussian to be the first captain of any country to beat Australia at home for something like 21 tests, and considering he was missing around 3 of his top players (Gough for example), and a team considered the worst from England for some time, is a great effort.
We have the best team in the world, but we are not No.1 ranked. That is because we stuffed up India, and we occationally loose dead rubber test matches we should win. Waughs, as captain, should shoulder some blame.
Waugh has got to go. Luckily his century will be forgotten after the World cup. And Lehmann was part of the reason Australia lost in Sydney. They were crying out for another spinner on that pitch.
Wicked Lester
7 Jan 2003, 08:22
The century in Sydney largely covered up what was another fairly ordinary series with most of his runs coming in the last two test matches.
Damien Martyn seems to be copping it now from the press yet he scored more runs at a better average than the captain (marginally) and made most of his runs in the first three tests - that is, when the series was alive.
I don't think Lehmann can be appropriately assessed on the basis of 4 test innings, one of which was a not out.
The individual I'm actually starting to feel sorry for is Ponting who must be feeling the pressure build up from the Waugh speculation and media frenzy more than most. Particularly when certain team mates keep going to print on behalf of Waugh.
Originally posted by grayham
Your only as good as your cattle, and for Hussian to be the first captain of any country to beat Australia at home for something like 21 tests, and considering he was missing around 3 of his top players (Gough for example), and a team considered the worst from England for some time, is a great effort.
We have the best team in the world, but we are not No.1 ranked. That is because we stuffed up India, and we occationally loose dead rubber test matches we should win. Waughs, as captain, should shoulder some blame.
Waugh has got to go. Luckily his century will be forgotten after the World cup. And Lehmann was part of the reason Australia lost in Sydney. They were crying out for another spinner on that pitch.
yeah, not a bad effort from hussain, particularly considering we would have won the series if we were only allowed to bat once in each test.
win the toss and bowl at the gabba??? brilliant captaincy that, really marvellous stuff
Originally posted by nicko18
yeah, not a bad effort from hussain, particularly considering we would have won the series if we were only allowed to bat once in each test.
win the toss and bowl at the gabba??? brilliant captaincy that, really marvellous stuff
Since Australia has said they would have also bowled at the gabba, thats a nil all draw between Hussian and Waugh.
I think it is fair to say Hussein's captaincy was somewhat erratic throughout the series.
I think it is also fair to say that a drover's dog could have captained Australia to a 4-1 victory over the current Pommie lineup.
Originally posted by P76
I think it is fair to say Hussein's captaincy was somewhat erratic throughout the series.
I think it is also fair to say that a drover's dog could have captained Australia to a 4-1 victory over the current Pommie lineup.
I'd go along with that.
Maybe a really good Oz captain could have got 5-0 by better player (read bowler) management throughout the series.
I'd like to see Hussain stay captain of England. He handles it ok, and still scores runs. The last thing they want to do is burden Vaughan with the captaincy.
England are actually ranked 4th in the world, so disregarding this series, Hussain has led them well.
bunsen burner
7 Jan 2003, 10:44
Originally posted by grayham
Your only as good as your cattle, and for Hussian to be the first captain of any country to beat Australia at home for something like 21 tests, and considering he was missing around 3 of his top players (Gough for example), and a team considered the worst from England for some time, is a great effort.
We have the best team in the world, but we are not No.1 ranked. That is because we stuffed up India, and we occationally loose dead rubber test matches we should win. Waughs, as captain, should shoulder some blame.
Waugh has got to go. Luckily his century will be forgotten after the World cup. And Lehmann was part of the reason Australia lost in Sydney. They were crying out for another spinner on that pitch.
and considering he was missing around 3 of his top players (Gough for example), Gough? the guy who hasn't played for two years? Sorry, but he just doesn't count.
Who else?
Simon Jones? The guy who hadn't even debuted?
Thorpe? The pussy who puts his personal life in front of his country?
Flintoff? Is he any better than anyone else who played?
Waughs, as captain, should shoulder some blame.What blame? blame for what? For being the most successful captain in history and for leading a team that is widely considered to be comparible to both Bradman's, Lloyd's and Richard's?
What have you been smoking?
And Lehmann was part of the reason Australia lost in Sydney.You really don't know what you're talking about.
There are a few reasons why we lost the test, some more than others. I think this is closer to the mark:
1) Dropped catches in first innings - Butcher and Hussein were both dropped early. Both went on to make big scores. Had the catches been held, England may have been restricted to 225ish.
2) Batting in first innings - The top order didn't hold up. If the Aussies had have scored an extras 100 runs, there would have been a good chance that England would have broken.
3) Bowling in second innings - Mentally the attack we had just weren't up to it. But to say lehmann would have been the saviour is really going out on a limb.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Gough? the guy who hasn't played for two years? Sorry, but he just doesn't count.
Who else?
Simon Jones? The guy who hadn't even debuted?
Thorpe? The pussy who puts his personal life in front of his country?
Flintoff? Is he any better than anyone else who played?
Mate, Gough and Thorpe are class players who would be regarded in the top 5 English players. We saw how Australia performed without Warne and McGarth.....
What blame? blame for what? For being the most successful captain in history and for leading a team that is widely considered to be comparible to both Bradman's, Lloyd's and Richard's?
The record doesnt stand up the the windies. Considering the quality in the team, he could have done better. At home we are unbeatable. Away we are just "good".
You really don't know what you're talking about.
There are a few reasons why we lost the test, some more than others. I think this is closer to the mark:
1) Dropped catches in first innings - Butcher and Hussein were both dropped early. Both went on to make big scores. Had the catches been held, England may have been restricted to 225ish.
2) Batting in first innings - The top order didn't hold up. If the Aussies had have scored an extras 100 runs, there would have been a good chance that England would have broken.
3) Bowling in second innings - Mentally the attack we had just weren't up to it. But to say lehmann would have been the saviour is really going out on a limb.
Both countries dropped catches. The batting was fine, although not the lofty heights we are used to. 363 for a first innings is a good solid start.
The bowling let us down big time. Mainly due to poor bowling management in Melbourne, and some uninspired changes by Waugh in Sydney. Bowling at the English 2nd innings was insepid. I was there.
Having another bowler should have been a given. An off-spinner all the better. You may say it wasnt a spinners wicket because the spinners didnt take many wickets. Thats because McGill had a shocker and Dawson couldnt spin a chocolate wheel.
We were a bowler short whether it be spin or pace.
bunsen burner
7 Jan 2003, 11:36
Originally posted by grayham
Mate, Gough and Thorpe are class players who would be regarded in the top 5 English players. We saw how Australia performed without Warne and McGarth.....
Gough has been injured for over 2 years. This is no longer an excuse.
Thorpe? A good player, but you can't make excuses for a guy who didn't WANT to play. McGrath and Warne were injured.
Both countries dropped catches. The batting was fine, although not the lofty heights we are used to. 363 for a first innings is a good solid start.
The bowling let us down big time. Mainly due to poor bowling management in Melbourne, and some uninspired changes by Waugh in Sydney. Bowling at the English 2nd innings was insepid. I was there.
Having another bowler should have been a given. An off-spinner all the better. You may say it wasnt a spinners wicket because the spinners didnt take many wickets. Thats because McGill had a shocker and Dawson couldnt spin a chocolate wheel.
We were a bowler short whether it be spin or pace.
Funny how a number of cricket experts named those reasons that I listed as the reasons why Australia lost. But if you know better.......
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Gough has been injured for over 2 years. This is no longer an excuse.
Hmmm, seem to recall a bloke called Bruce Reid who was injured for over a year but walked back into the Australian side as soon as it was thought he was fit......(although it turned out they'd used the wrong sort of glue to fix him up)
England certainly didn't have its best side on the park, Australia did until the last test (assuming Love and Lehmann are equal).
Originally posted by grayham
I'd go along with that.
Maybe a really good Oz captain could have got 5-0 by better player (read bowler) management throughout the series.
I'd like to see Hussain stay captain of England. He handles it ok, and still scores runs. The last thing they want to do is burden Vaughan with the captaincy.
England are actually ranked 4th in the world, so disregarding this series, Hussain has led them well.
BIG difference there grayham. the english did it because they were scared of a batting collapse to start off the series. purely negative reasons. their bowling attack was never going to get anywhere on that flat track.
and whats the deal with putting a guy standing next to the pitch at the bowlers end when hayden was batting, with the bowler coming around the wicket. the ball didnt get to him once. he had clearly run out of ideas.
and thats rubbish that a better captain could have got 5-0 in the series with better bowler management. if we didnt enforce the follow on in melbourne that game would have been a draw. i'd much rather a captain that goes for the wins rather than the pedestrian negative approach some so called fans vouch for. our catching let us down in the 5th test, nothing a captain can do about that.
lets see, west indies of the 80's,
P:47
W: 22
L: 3
D: 22
compare to the australians since steve waugh's captaincy:
P: 47
W: 34
L: 8
D: 5
a far cry from the australians record.
Here we go with the circular argument again.
Windies 15 years without dropping a series.
Current Aus no more than 2 years.
Stats tell no lies?????
The final arbiter is really gut feeling, and from what I've seen from the various postings on this subject, we seem to be a fairly evenly divided lot......Windies for mine.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Simon Jones? The guy who hadn't even debuted?
The fact that England played almost the entire the first test one bowler short not relevant you reckon?
Thorpe? The pussy who puts his personal life in front of his country?
Oh for shame, I wish I could be so tough that I would put a game ahead of my family. That decision shows more character than if he had chosen the other way. He has his priorities right IMO.
Flintoff? Is he any better than anyone else who played?
You wouldn't imagine he would be selected if he wasn't considered better than those behind him.
Moomba
Originally posted by nicko18
lets see, west indies of the 80's,
P:47
W: 22
L: 3
D: 22
compare to the australians since steve waugh's captaincy:
P: 47
W: 34
L: 8
D: 5
a far cry from the australians record.
Quality of the opposition would be a fairly relevant factor here I would think.
Moomba
Originally posted by nicko18
and thats rubbish that a better captain could have got 5-0 in the series with better bowler management. if we didnt enforce the follow on in melbourne that game would have been a draw. i'd much rather a captain that goes for the wins rather than the pedestrian negative approach some so called fans vouch for. our catching let us down in the 5th test, nothing a captain can do about that.
Thats a long bow. To bat again in Melbourne would have insured a win or at worst a draw, saved the bowlers, and crushed England completely.
The only reason to enforce a follow is either a chance of rain or arrogance.
Forcing the follow on by Waugh has cost us twice. Most notibly in India, and now here, where it gave England a sniff, and depleted our bowling for a test starting only days afterwards.
bunsen burner
7 Jan 2003, 15:52
Originally posted by moomba
Quality of the opposition would be a fairly relevant factor here I would think.
Moomba Can you explain this? I would have thought Australia's current competition would be the same, if not stronger than the Windies competition.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Can you explain this? I would have thought Australia's current competition would be the same, if not stronger than the Windies competition.
beat me to it, now that several countries have developed acadamies and players who devote to cricket full time, have strict training/weights programmes, even diets have to be adhered to. keep in mind during these 47 tests, we have played zimbabwe once, and not yet bangladesh. apart from them, every team bar the west indies and possibly england are way better than their respective 80's sides. even australia was in a rut back then.
this thinking that the opposition is weak is only brought about by the absolute complete dominance and brilliance of the australian side they come up against.
oh and to that person who reckons waugh has cost us twice with follow ons... can i say what a moron. to have not enforced the follow on v india would be stupidity, and every single captain would have done so. this person also fails to mention the countless times he has succesfully enforced the follow on too.
Originally posted by P76
Here we go with the circular argument again.
Windies 15 years without dropping a series.
Current Aus no more than 2 years.
Stats tell no lies?????
The final arbiter is really gut feeling, and from what I've seen from the various postings on this subject, we seem to be a fairly evenly divided lot......Windies for mine.
mate under your analysis, south africa would be the current best team in the world. it is similar to the one that is currently used by the ICC. all in sundry, including the ICC and the south african captain shaun pollock acknowledge that this is a flawed system. to blindly look at series without analysing the comprehensiveness of the series victories is why the ICC are going to make changes to the current format. i dont think you'll find a single person that would suggest south africa are the best team, nor do i think they'll adopt the same thinking to conclude the west indies, who had many drawn series and series won by only a test, are better than the australians who clean sweep the majority, if not exult crushing victories.
Originally posted by grayham
We have the best team in the world, but we are not No.1 ranked. That is because we stuffed up India, and we occationally lose dead rubber test matches we should win.
Actually, under the current rankings system it makes absolutely no difference whether dead rubbers are won, lost or drawn. That 's one of the problems with it.
Originally posted by scmods
Actually, under the current rankings system it makes absolutely no difference whether dead rubbers are won, lost or drawn. That 's one of the problems with it.
They still keep the tests for/against in the table. Not sure why. But one thing that stood out is that Australia had played about 13 tests, whereas everyone else has played about 17. Anyone know why?
SA going to the subcontenient and beating India is a good enough reason for them to be No.1 than us.
Australia may be better in Australian (& SA) conditions, but SA is the better team _anywhere_ in the world.
A less skilled side on paper than us, but perhaps better captained????
Originally posted by grayham
They still keep the tests for/against in the table. Not sure why. But one thing that stood out is that Australia had played about 13 tests, whereas everyone else has played about 17. Anyone know why?
SA going to the subcontenient and beating India is a good enough reason for them to be No.1 than us.
Australia may be better in Australian (& SA) conditions, but SA is the better team _anywhere_ in the world.
A less skilled side on paper than us, but perhaps better captained????
perhaps it would be a start if you knew what you were talking about. the current format has no reference whatsoever to tests won or lost, or even tests played for that matter. dead rubbers count absolutely squat. the boks could lose every dead rubber played and still have as many points as if they won them all
good enough reason for them to be #1?? they lost to us 5-1, and got thrashed in no less than 4 of them. and every cricketing expert on the globe, including south african ones, admit that they are not the best side.
bit of an exercise, im going to analyse the comprehensiveness of victories for the tests the west indies played in the early 80's compared to that under steve waugh, both played 47 tests.
1 point for every run victory, 25 points for every wicket victory, and 250 + runs points for innings victories.
for example, West indies win by 29 runs. that gives them 29 points. then they get beaten by 8 wickets (-200 points)
West Indies finished up with: 4975 points
Australia finished up with: 7276 points
looking through the results, australia have by far the most comprehensive of victories in their list.
Originally posted by nicko18
bit of an exercise, im going to analyse the comprehensiveness of victories for the tests the west indies played in the early 80's compared to that under steve waugh, both played 47 tests.
1 point for every run victory, 25 points for every wicket victory, and 250 + runs points for innings victories.
for example, West indies win by 29 runs. that gives them 29 points. then they get beaten by 8 wickets (-200 points)
West Indies finished up with: 4975 points
Australia finished up with: 7276 points
looking through the results, australia have by far the most comprehensive of victories in their list.
You're trying really hard to be the Dan26 of the cricket board aren't you.
Originally posted by Jim Boy
You're trying really hard to be the Dan26 of the cricket board aren't you.
whatever, i was just trying to give people another comparison between the two teams. i dont think it is definitive nor did i suggest that. but there are always ****ers such as youself in public forums who rather than try to come up with valid points have a bitch about something they dont agree with.
bunsen burner
7 Jan 2003, 20:30
Originally posted by grayham
A less skilled side on paper than us, but perhaps better captained????
I've heard it all now. You have no idea. You probably have been a Waugh knocker from the start and are too stubborn to admit that he is a fine leader of men.
Originally posted by grayham
They still keep the tests for/against in the table. Not sure why. But one thing that stood out is that Australia had played about 13 tests, whereas everyone else has played about 17. Anyone know why?
That's the number of series played, not the number of tests.
Nicko, I think you must have had no idea what point P76 was making. Stats tell lies. You can twist them to make whatever point you want. That's what he said. From that you draw the conclusion that he thinks South Africa is the best team in the world?
Your further analysis only proves the point more completely. Dividing up wins into points for per run/points lost per wicket is meaningless.
As he said, the final arbiter is gut feeling. The West Indies side of the early 80s was frighteningly good, and you don't need a copy of Wisden and a calculator to tell you that. As to whether this current Australian side is better, that's a personal opinion. A lot of Australians are going to say it, of course. But that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Can you explain this? I would have thought Australia's current competition would be the same, if not stronger than the Windies competition.
Originally posted by nicko18
beat me to it, now that several countries have developed acadamies and players who devote to cricket full time, have strict training/weights programmes, even diets have to be adhered to. keep in mind during these 47 tests, we have played zimbabwe once, and not yet bangladesh. apart from them, every team bar the west indies and possibly england are way better than their respective 80's sides. even australia was in a rut back then.
I guess it's all about opinions, and without going through the stats book I would say that the general standard across the board during the Windies era was much higher than it is today. Back then there were several sides that could be described as highly competitive, today there is South Africa (despite their performances against Australia), India at home, maybe New Zealand over the last few years. The rest have been garbage.
There is a fair argument to say that Australia have been as dominant this era as the West Indies were, but I don't think their record against largely sub-standard opposition means that they were as good.
Moomba
Originally posted by nicko18
good enough reason for them to be #1?? they lost to us 5-1, and got thrashed in no less than 4 of them. and every cricketing expert on the globe, including south african ones, admit that they are not the best side.
How very patriotic of you. The facts are South Africa are much better than us on the sub continent, as good as us in England, as good as us in the Carrabean, and worse than us in the Southern region.
There isnt much to split them on is there?
Since they have a worse side on paper than us, the only conceivable difference would be the leadership. Poor leadership costs us the series in India which would have made us undesputed No.1 nation.
BTW, anyone know why we only played 13 _series_ to everyone elses 17?
I have always liked Steve Waugh, but his time is up. I am greatly concerned at the age of the australian team and what that holds for the future. It time to begin investing in the future. Steve Waugh should definately not be allowed to captain in the sub continent again.
Thank you RogerC for your backup. I am indeed not suggesting that this Australian team is anything other than the best in the world at the moment, and by some margin. Nor am I denying that the last ten or so years have been anything other than a golden era for Aus cricket. I'm just saying that I think the Windies team of their golden era is better than the current Australian team, as do other members of this august forum. (BTW, I wonder if a survey of members ages vs. their opinions of which is the better side would tell us anything - I think it might).
As for Waugh S. I couldn't agree with Grayham more - we are going to lose a lot of the side in the next 4-5 years, bring in some younger guys when they can get a nice easy induction to the side. (and they need to be younger than Lehmann!)
Originally posted by nicko18
good enough reason for them to be #1?? they lost to us 5-1, and got thrashed in no less than 4 of them. and every cricketing expert on the globe, including south african ones, admit that they are not the best side.
If Arsenal lose home and away to Man United, yet still complete the season with more points, does that make them the no.1 side. I would have said yes, and I don't see any difference between that example and cricket.
Moomba
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 12:02
Originally posted by P76
As for Waugh S. I couldn't agree with Grayham more - we are going to lose a lot of the side in the next 4-5 years, bring in some younger guys when they can get a nice easy induction to the side. (and they need to be younger than Lehmann!) This wasn't Grayham's point. I too believe Waugh has run his race and should retire (or be forced to retire) BUT, I strongly dispute that Steve Waugh has been a bad captain overall - which is what Grayham has been saying.
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 12:04
Originally posted by moomba
If Arsenal lose home and away to Man United, yet still complete the season with more points, does that make them the no.1 side. I would have said yes, and I don't see any difference between that example and cricket.
Moomba Apples to oranges.
EPL - you can't make a decision on a few 90 minute football games.
Test series: you can make a decision over 30 days of cricket.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
This wasn't Grayham's point. I too believe Waugh has run his race and should retire (or be forced to retire) BUT, I strongly dispute that Steve Waugh has been a bad captain overall - which is what Grayham has been saying.
Ah well, I think on the balance of probabilities I agree with Grayham on that as well.... not sure if I posted it on this thread, but I have said before a drover's dog could captain the current Aus team to the results it is getting, Steve's had a dream run in terms of having his top cattle available, and in my opinion all he's had to do is not stuff up and let the boys play. No doubt I will be howled down for this one.
Taylor and Border definite better skippers IMHO.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Apples to oranges.
EPL - you can't make a decision on a few 90 minute football games.
Test series: you can make a decision over 30 days of cricket.
Same principle I would have thought.
How about if Queensland defeats Victoria twice in the Sheffield Shield, but loses the rest of their games. Are they a better team than Victoria? Dramatic example but clearly no as far as I am concerned.
Moomba
Originally posted by P76
Ah well, I think on the balance of probabilities I agree with Grayham on that as well.... not sure if I posted it on this thread, but I have said before a drover's dog could captain the current Aus team to the results it is getting, Steve's had a dream run in terms of having his top cattle available, and in my opinion all he's had to do is not stuff up and let the boys play. No doubt I will be howled down for this one.
Taylor and Border definite better skippers IMHO.
Waugh is not a bad captain. All I said was the Hussain out-captained him in the last two tests.
Waugh is just not a player that you would keep on the list just because he was a good captain, irrespective of form, because I think Ponting could do as good if not better job of it.
Border was definately the last great Australian captain.
I put Taylor in much the same boat as Waugh.
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 13:04
Originally posted by P76
Ah well, I think on the balance of probabilities I agree with Grayham on that as well.... not sure if I posted it on this thread, but I have said before a drover's dog could captain the current Aus team to the results it is getting, Steve's had a dream run in terms of having his top cattle available, and in my opinion all he's had to do is not stuff up and let the boys play. No doubt I will be howled down for this one.
Taylor and Border definite better skippers IMHO. I bet you've never been in a leadership position before.
BTW Waugh had the same cattle as Taylor. So how do you work that one out?
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 13:06
Originally posted by grayham
Waugh is not a bad captain. All I said was the Hussain out-captained him in the last two tests.
Waugh is just not a player that you would keep on the list just because he was a good captain, irrespective of form, because I think Ponting could do as good if not better job of it.
Border was definately the last great Australian captain.
I put Taylor in much the same boat as Waugh. You said Pollock was a better captain than Waugh too.
Border was a great captain. Very under rated IMO. But to claim Waugh isn't a great captain? What drugs are you on?
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I bet you've never been in a leadership position before.
BTW Waugh had the same cattle as Taylor. So how do you work that one out?
1. You bet wrong (although I have never captained a cricket team)
2. Sigh - Go back and look at the team lists - also factor in that of the blokes who still are around, many of them were nowhere near their current abilities, S. Waugh excepted.
Originally posted by bunsen burner
You said Pollock was a better captain than Waugh too.
Border was a great captain. Very under rated IMO. But to claim Waugh isn't a great captain? What drugs are you on?
Not everything you disagree with is related to drugs bunsey.
Pollock, from what I have seen, is a very very good captain. Better than S Waugh? Yes.
Its not all about win/loss record, its how you marshall your cattle.
S. Flemming is also a fine captain FWIW.
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 14:08
Originally posted by P76
- Go back and look at the team lists - also factor in that of the blokes who still are around, many of them were nowhere near their current abilities, S. Waugh excepted. Der, this is my point. Guys like Langer and Hayden are performing much better under Waugh. And you say Waugh has better cattle? Seems to me that Waugh gets more out of his men than Taylor did.
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 14:11
I couldn't be bothered having this debate. I think Waugh is one of test cricket's greatest captains, whereas you don't even rate him as great.
I'll let everyone else make their own judgement on that, and in the meantime, when I see your name next a post, a little thought cloud will pop up above my head with the word 'idiot' in it.
Ahh, I see Bunsen, it's Steve Waugh's magnificent captaincy that has improved Hayden's, Langer's, Martyn's et. al. averages.
Well then, I stand corrected - obviously Stevie is the greatest coach in cricket history.
Originally posted by moomba
Same principle I would have thought.
How about if Queensland defeats Victoria twice in the Sheffield Shield, but loses the rest of their games. Are they a better team than Victoria? Dramatic example but clearly no as far as I am concerned.
Moomba
same principle, you must be fooling. all those competitions, EPL, pura cup etc take into account wins, losses and draws. thus australia are absolutely streets ahead of south africa. everyone knows the current ratings system is flawed, but some are to stubborn/envious to admit it.
btw, the current competition these days is a lot better than in the 80s. the reason the 80's appear more competitive was because they were able to match it better with the windies (and australia). they had after all as many draws as they did wins. the fact that australia is so far ahead of the other nations, who are all better than they were in 1980, makes the others appear weak.
Wicked Lester
8 Jan 2003, 14:31
Waugh has definitely had the better cattle available:
1. Waugh has rarely had McGrath or Warne out of the side (except for Warne briefly, though he was well covered by McGill at the peak of his powers).
2. Waugh has had far more of Gillespie than Taylor did.
3. Waugh has had Gilchrist for most of his captaincy - virtually an additional batsman.
4. Taylor did not have a settled number three.
As for captaincy records surely Viv Richards is the greatest ever - never lost a series I believe - which of course just proves what nonsense the argument is that a great captaincy record proves you are a great captain.
Waugh is I believe a very good captain though in adversity I think both Taylor and Ian Chappell proved far more intuitive.
Originally posted by P76
Ahh, I see Bunsen, it's Steve Waugh's magnificent captaincy that has improved Hayden's, Langer's, Martyn's et. al. averages.
Well then, I stand corrected - obviously Stevie is the greatest coach in cricket history.
well if you know your stuff, you'd know that waugh took langer aside when he was on the fringe of the team and told him he was the worlds best #3. that gave him enormous confidence from a man he so greatly respects. you'd also know it was steve waugh that advised him to revelutionise his batting from a gritty, grinding batsman to a dasher and flasher. this has seen langer improve out of sight.
you'd also know the reason he told langer to change his game... because matthew hayden struggled every time he had to shoulder most of the run scoring. with langers game totally changed, and now opening, it eased the pressure off hayden and he could bat without fear of him getting out, it would trigger a stagnant innings. this has seen hayden's game really open up. this, along with waugh's aggresive captaincy is why this team wins by far more games than any team in the history before them.
ive also heard reports waugh had a lot to do with slater's axing. he moulded this into a "team" not necessarily the best XI individuals, but the guys who contributed to team aura.
Originally posted by nicko18
same principle, you must be fooling. all those competitions, EPL, pura cup etc take into account wins, losses and draws. thus australia are absolutely streets ahead of south africa. everyone knows the current ratings system is flawed, but some are to stubborn/envious to admit it.
You say that South Africa got beat 5-1 by Australia and as such they can't be the best side in the world. The principle is that assessments of the best side should be made by judging their performances against ALL competition, not just head to heads against individual countries. If you can't see that then I guess we are just going to go around in circles. FWIW I haven't said anything about the fairness or otherwise of the current ratings system, just the flaw in your 5-1 reasoning.
btw, the current competition these days is a lot better than in the 80s. the reason the 80's appear more competitive was because they were able to match it better with the windies (and australia). they had after all as many draws as they did wins. the fact that australia is so far ahead of the other nations, who are all better than they were in 1980, makes the others appear weak.
Like I said, a matter of opinions. My opinion on this issue is that I am right and you are wrong ;)
Moomba
Well I guess we'll see how well the players cope after he has gone and how the new boys come along under a new captain.
Maybe Steve has got a future ahead of him as a cricket psychologist.
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2003, 16:05
I just might make a couple of points about Steve Waugh:
- Steve Waugh played the ultimate captain's innings at the '99 world cup. We looked like we were history, and Waugh scores 120 to win the match. Do you think the others players felt invincible in the final because of coincidence, or do you think Steve Waugh inspired them?
- It's only been since Steve Waugh has been playing that ALL test nations have dramatically increased their run rates. I would say that puts him ahead of all other current test captains. He is the one they all aspire to be.
- Every current Australian player is united behind Steve Waugh as captain. He has enormous support and this is reflected in the results.
- Almost every cricket expert would nominate Steve Waugh as won of the finest captains ever - so why are there a few who ignore the bottom line and don't rate him as great?
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I just might make a couple of points about Steve Waugh:
- Steve Waugh played the ultimate captain's innings at the '99 world cup. We looked like we were history, and Waugh scores 120 to win the match. Do you think the others players felt invincible in the final because of coincidence, or do you think Steve Waugh inspired them?
- It's only been since Steve Waugh has been playing that ALL test nations have dramatically increased their run rates. I would say that puts him ahead of all other current test captains. He is the one they all aspire to be.
- Every current Australian player is united behind Steve Waugh as captain. He has enormous support and this is reflected in the results.
- Almost every cricket expert would nominate Steve Waugh as won of the finest captains ever - so why are there a few who ignore the bottom line and don't rate him as great?
Bunsey, agreed, Steve's innings at the world cup was great, but it's drawing a long bow to suggest that was the reason for the great performance in the final.
-Think you'll find that run rates in the past were not necessarily lower (ie Aus in the '30's) - depends on the cattle running around at the time - we are in a period of good batsmen and (apart from Aus) not so good bowling attacks (although I think this could be changing).
-Everyone is behind Steve, true, more so than he was behind Tubby.
- And I know you think that everyone who disagrees with you is on drugs, but could it be that everyone in this big wide world is different, and values different things. I preferred Tubby as captain, and I think Steve was/is too concerned with his own performance to be a great captain. That is my opinion, based on the facts as I choose to see them, your opinion is different. Good on you.
wagstaff
8 Jan 2003, 19:40
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Waugh has definitely had the better cattle available:
1. Waugh has rarely had McGrath or Warne out of the side (except for Warne briefly, though he was well covered by McGill at the peak of his powers).
2. Waugh has had far more of Gillespie than Taylor did.
3. Waugh has had Gilchrist for most of his captaincy - virtually an additional batsman.
4. Taylor did not have a settled number three.
As for captaincy records surely Viv Richards is the greatest ever - never lost a series I believe - which of course just proves what nonsense the argument is that a great captaincy record proves you are a great captain.
Waugh is I believe a very good captain though in adversity I think both Taylor and Ian Chappell proved far more intuitive.
I agree with the general gist of your comments although I would disagree with one or two of your numbered points:
2. Gillespie only played in 4 of Waugh's first 18 Tests as captain, and the side still managed to clean sweep against Pakistan, Indian and New Zealand without him.
3. Gilchrist's influence and effect as a batsman can't be underestimated, especially when one considers that in the previous few series before Gilchrist's arrival, Ian Healy's batting had fallen away significantly and Australia's tail had become quite weak.
The addition of Gilchrist to the side made a high-class side into one of the great cricket sides.
By Nicko18well if you know your stuff, you'd know that waugh took langer aside when he was on the fringe of the team and told him he was the worlds best #3. that gave him enormous confidence from a man he so greatly respects.
That may all be true but I do recall that after the New Zealand tour of 2000, Waugh commented that Langer was batting as well as anyone he's seen, yet just 8 Tests later Langer was dropped from the side.
Sometimes talk is just that - talk.
Might as well chuck another two bob's worth into this discussion.
I think it would be difficult to dispute Waugh's claim to be one of the great captains. The team has done exceedingly well under his stewardship, and obviously his aggressive approach to the game, his confidence in his team as a unit and his personal approach (ie the way he plays the game) have been instrumental in our success.
The problem we have in assessing just how great a captain he is, is that he inherited such a talented team. Seriously, the Australia A side of about 1996/7 was a virtual test strength team. Many of them were just growing into their best form. And the cream of that best 22 are the current test team. You can't lose with a line-up like that.
So we can only guess what Border might have done with a team like this one. And similarly, we can't really know what Waugh might have made of a less talented line-up.
Waugh's achievement is to take a team he knew was top shelf, and push them to produce their very best. Many teams who have played us (India in this country along with Pakistan and England anywhere and, more comprehensively given their talent, South Africa) have appeared to give up before a ball was bowled. That comes about through a combination of aggession and confidence. Once you create an environment like that, as Waugh has done, anything is possible.
And that's where I believe Waugh is a better captain than Pollock. The last two series between us and South Africa should have been a serious knock-out competition between two evenly matched sides. We creamed them mentally, and mopped them up on the field. I don't think they're quite as good as us, but it's nothing like the 5-1 result suggests.
But again, Waugh's got class players playing well. Other countries simply don't have the class players to match us. England and the West Indies are a rabble. New Zealand have some good players, but not enough. Sri Lanka are perennially half way there. Pakistan can't get a team on the field with any regularity. India do have a good batting line-up, statistically, but their bowling stocks are lamentable, Harbajhan and maybe Kumble aside. Only South Africa come close to us in terms of talent available.
A glance at the up and coming players seems to indicate that we won't have a correlative player for McGrath or Warne in the next generation. There's no young Ponting carving up the Pura Cup right now, and certainly no Gilchrist. We're pushing to find a new Gillespie or Hayden as well. And of course no Steve or Mark Waugh. They may turn up, but I feel in five or so years' time we're going to be looking back at this era and marvelling at the collection of talent that came along at just the right time.
That's not pessimistic. It's just noting that Waugh has an abundance of talent and he marshalls it well. In terms of getting the best out of the talent available, I'd probably rate Fleming higher, but that's mainly because he has less to work with and he really does have them playing above themselves.
Nige_Bix
8 Jan 2003, 21:02
Originally posted by RogerC
A glance at the up and coming players seems to indicate that we won't have a correlative player for McGrath or Warne in the next generation. There's no young Ponting carving up the Pura Cup right now, and certainly no Gilchrist. We're pushing to find a new Gillespie or Hayden as well. And of course no Steve or Mark Waugh. They may turn up, but I feel in five or so years' time we're going to be looking back at this era and marvelling at the collection of talent that came along at just the right time.
That's not pessimistic. It's just noting that Waugh has an abundance of talent and he marshalls it well. In terms of getting the best out of the talent available, I'd probably rate Fleming higher, but that's mainly because he has less to work with and he really does have them playing above themselves.
I liked your post Roger and agree with it overall. I agree that we will not have as strong a side in a few years time - these things can be cyclic. Australia has an infrastructure and a tradition that ensures that we will always have a competitive side - but it wont always be the best! [ sadly!]
dzm
Originally posted by moomba
Like I said, a matter of opinions. My opinion on this issue is that I am right and you are wrong ;)
Moomba
that is fine, but i'd like to know how you come to that opinion. what is it that makes you think that cricket players in 1980 are better than those playing in 2000?
Originally posted by nicko18
that is fine, but i'd like to know how you come to that opinion. what is it that makes you think that cricket players in 1980 are better than those playing in 2000?
Gut feel from watching plenty of cricket throughout that era. IMO there has never been as much rubbish in test cricket than there is today. Sri Lanka uncompetitive, England uncompetitive until the last few years, India and Pakistan useless away from home, Pakistan not that good at home, New Zealand getting there act together, West Indies appalling at the momentm Zimbabwe and Bangladesh nuff said, South Africa a good side.
Compare to the Windies era they had to beat Australia who always put a fight, England, Pakistan, India who were all competitive, New Zealand were about the only easy games and even they had their moments with Hadlee, Cairns, Crowe, Turner etc. There was no games against Zim, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and while I appreciate that Australia hasn't played a lot against the first two it all goes toward my feeling that Test Cricket today has never been more uncompetitive.
All about opinions.
Moomba
yes, other teams were competitive, but that is because the top sides were not as much stand outs as the current australian squad. take out australia and all of a sudden world cricket is rife with competitiveness, and then you could say that south africa has heaps of competition, much like the windies.
anyway, rather than gut feeling, i can be confident in saying that current players spend at least double in terms of training, have specialist physios, mental training and preparation, video analysis of the opposition, proficient acadamies, all of which contribute to raising the standard of cricketers everywhere.
All sports progress in time, cricket is no exception. do you think dawn fraser would win a gold medal these days?
Originally posted by RogerC
Might as well chuck another two bob's worth into this discussion.
Waugh's achievement is to take a team he knew was top shelf, and push them to produce their very best. Many teams who have played us (India in this country along with Pakistan and England anywhere and, more comprehensively given their talent, South Africa) have appeared to give up before a ball was bowled. That comes about through a combination of aggession and confidence. Once you create an environment like that, as Waugh has done, anything is possible.
And that's where I believe Waugh is a better captain than Pollock. The last two series between us and South Africa should have been a serious knock-out competition between two evenly matched sides. We creamed them mentally, and mopped them up on the field. I don't think they're quite as good as us, but it's nothing like the 5-1 result suggests.
I would contend that the intimidation factor is less to do with Waugh, and more to do with Warne ( a once in a lifetime freak) and to a lesser extend McGarth.
You could visibly see the turnaround in England once Warne was injured. Take Warne out of the SA tests, and I bet they would lift 200%. They were scared of him.
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.
So I would say, that no matter who was captain, Australia would have had an intimidating factor against most sides. But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.
Originally posted by grayham
I would contend that the intimidation factor is less to do with Waugh, and more to do with Warne ( a once in a lifetime freak) and to a lesser extend McGarth.
You could visibly see the turnaround in England once Warne was injured. Take Warne out of the SA tests, and I bet they would lift 200%. They were scared of him.
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.
So I would say, that no matter who was captain, Australia would have had an intimidating factor against most sides. But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.
darn spellcheck...... why do you fail me so???????
Note: 3rd test 2000/2001 v West Indies. Steve Waugh injured, Gilchrist captain. closest test match of the summer.
4th test 2001 v England. only test we lost.... steve waugh the only man out.
Originally posted by grayham
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.
So I would say, that no matter who was captain, Australia would have had an intimidating factor against most sides. But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.
well against NZ, border would have played for the draw instead of trying to achieve a win, no turnaround there. he also would have played for a draw in india, and probably would have come away with a drawn series 1-1, but i guess thats why he never went anything near 16 test wins in a row, and it doesnt look like anybody else will ever beat it.
bunsen burner
9 Jan 2003, 13:49
Originally posted by grayham
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.
There's a bit of truth in that, but Australia were all over NZ in the first two tests. It was only the rain that saved NZ. You have a short memory.
Originally posted by grayham
But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.
You are so in denial.
Originally posted by nicko18
well against NZ, border would have played for the draw instead of trying to achieve a win, no turnaround there. he also would have played for a draw in india, and probably would have come away with a drawn series 1-1, but i guess thats why he never went anything near 16 test wins in a row, and it doesnt look like anybody else will ever beat it.
If a border type leader, led Australia and won the second test in India which they surely would have by batting rather than enforcing the follow on, then the momentum would be with Australia and a series win was on the cards.
I agree the NZ tests were mared by bad whether, but it did give a glimpse of how much Australia rely on Warne and McGarth by NZ nullifying them, which has again been underlined by England in the last test when they were absent. A dollup of further proof, just look at the game today.
Steve waugh, good batsman, good captain doesnt intimidate anyone, and is bloody lucky Gibbs dropped him in the last WC.
bunsen burner
9 Jan 2003, 15:20
Originally posted by grayham
If a border type leader, led Australia and won the second test in India which they surely would have by batting rather than enforcing the follow on, then the momentum would be with Australia and a series win was on the cards.
I never recall Border not enforcing the follow on. Do you have links to specific examples?
Steve waugh, good batsman, good captain doesnt intimidate anyone, and is bloody lucky Gibbs dropped him in the last WC. Seems like you manage to find the negative in everything Steve Waugh has done. Does it worry you at all that akmost no cricket experts would agree with you?
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I never recall Border not enforcing the follow on. Do you have links to specific examples?
Seems like you manage to find the negative in everything Steve Waugh has done. Does it worry you at all that akmost no cricket experts would agree with you?
No, Steve Waugh has done some good things, its just that I feel if we had a super captain to match the super side we have had for the last few years, then we could have done even better.
But now as he is getting older, and the runs are drying up its time for a change. I dont really care who agrees with me, its only my opinion of course, but it seems the Australian selectors are also looking for a change, and they would have a clearer picture of Australian cricket than a journo.
Border didnt enforce the follow on, on numerous occations. Links, no. Just use your common sence.
Originally posted by nicko18
what a joke, you obviously dont have a clue and are now digging up the wildest of hypotheticals to back up your spirrilous claims. please tell me when border did not enforce the follow on after a side was bowled out for 170 odd, and none of his strike bowlers bowled more than 15 overs.
and now your comments are beginning to reek of jealousy. i suspect you are one tormented individual, steve waugh being so successful and all, and you, probably a knocker from the start, have many a time had to dig up pathetic excuses as to why steve waugh really didnt win us that world cup, and why 16 tests in a row doesnt make a patch on the west indies record.
Steve Waughs batting in the semi did get us into the world cup final.....but he was lucky he was dropped. If that catch was taken it was all over red rover. As Waugh allegedly said to Gibbs You just dropped the world cup", implying it was Gibbs mistake which determined the fate of that game as much as anything. Waugh just took his chance and ran with it.
Does anyone really think Waughs captaincy intimidates anyone?
West Indies won everywhere in the world.
Originally posted by nicko18
under a better captain, sri lanka would have been bowled out for 150. under a better captain, there would have been a player at third man to take that catch, under a better captain, they wouldnt have bowled hogg so much, under a better captain, symonds would have fielded where bevan was to take that catch. under a better captain, there would have been a fielder behind the keeper to save those runs. blah blah blah.
All todays game shows he that McGarth and Warne (& Gillespie) are the players who are sorely missed from the Aussie side.
Do you think Waugh would have made a difference, really?
Originally posted by nicko18
well if you have sour grapes you can put anyone's efforts down. like when matthew hayden made 197 at the gabba, he was first dropped, then skied one down near fine leg which a fielder didnt get to, played and missed a couple, all of which could have been out. but sourkrauts like you will always find a way to bring people down to your level.
You read the Daily Telegraph to much.
But in general you are right, a chanceless innings is better than being dropped a few times.
Originally posted by nicko18
obviously your precious allan border would have.
and why do i remember you finding different reasons as to why we lost the 5th test. a steve waugh hater perhaps??
By that logic, you'd be a steve waugh appologist? (& Border hater).
This is not about taking sides and supporting someone no matter what. This is about getting the best out of the best cricketters in the land. You'd still have Bradman in as captain as his record is unsurpased.
Originally posted by nicko18
cementing by belief that your knowledge of cricket is modest to be fair. it is well known thats not what he really said.
What did he say, if not those exact words, words to that effect.
Note the "alleged".
bunsen burner
9 Jan 2003, 20:57
Originally posted by grayham
By that logic, you'd be a steve waugh appologist? (& Border hater).
This is not about taking sides and supporting someone no matter what. This is about getting the best out of the best cricketters in the land. You'd still have Bradman in as captain as his record is unsurpased.
During my lifetime, I have had 2 favourite players and followed their careers through from their first test. The first was Allan Border and the second was Steve Waugh. Border was a great captain who was very under rated, but I believe Steve Waugh is better than any other captain that I've seen.
Unlike you, who has decided that you don't like Steve Waugh and therefore will not acknowledge any of his great deeds, I do like Steve Waugh but can cast that aside when making opinions on his worth.
I do believe he should retire for the benefit of the Australian team. It is hard to accuse me of using my personal preferences to bias my opinions, but sadly the same can't be said about you.
bunsen burner
9 Jan 2003, 21:02
Originally posted by grayham
By that logic, you'd be a steve waugh appologist? (& Border hater).
This is not about taking sides and supporting someone no matter what. This is about getting the best out of the best cricketters in the land. You'd still have Bradman in as captain as his record is unsurpased. Hang on a sec, let's not migrate from the original subject.
This isn't about whether Waugh has the goods to continue on as captain right now (that is very debatable), it's about his worth as a captain overall. You say that he is not a great captain, you say pollock is a better captain, you say he was out captained by Hussain in the 4th test etc.
Most others believe he is a great captain and have facts to back this up, whereas as you merely have a bunch of hypothetical "if" scenarios.
Brett Li
9 Jan 2003, 21:04
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Hang on a sec, let's not migrate from the original subject.
This isn't about whether Waugh has the goods to continue on as captain right now (that is very debatable), it's about his worth as a captain overall. You say that he is not a great captain, you say pollock is a better captain, you say he was out captained by Hussain in the 4th test etc.
Most others believe he is a great captain and have facts to back this up, whereas as you merely have a bunch of hypothetical "if" scenarios.
"...ding, ding round 3..."
:D
Originally posted by nicko18
yes, other teams were competitive, but that is because the top sides were not as much stand outs as the current australian squad. take out australia and all of a sudden world cricket is rife with competitiveness, and then you could say that south africa has heaps of competition, much like the windies.
Take out Australia and South Africa would crap on the rest. Take out the Windies of the 80's you would have a pretty even comp.
anyway, rather than gut feeling, i can be confident in saying that current players spend at least double in terms of training, have specialist physios, mental training and preparation, video analysis of the opposition, proficient acadamies, all of which contribute to raising the standard of cricketers everywhere.
All sports progress in time, cricket is no exception. do you think dawn fraser would win a gold medal these days?
Is Todd Woodbridge a better tennis player than Rod Laver?
Moomba
grayham
10 Jan 2003, 07:31
Originally posted by bunsen burner
During my lifetime, I have had 2 favourite players and followed their careers through from their first test. The first was Allan Border and the second was Steve Waugh. Border was a great captain who was very under rated, but I believe Steve Waugh is better than any other captain that I've seen.
Unlike you, who has decided that you don't like Steve Waugh and therefore will not acknowledge any of his great deeds, I do like Steve Waugh but can cast that aside when making opinions on his worth.
I do believe he should retire for the benefit of the Australian team. It is hard to accuse me of using my personal preferences to bias my opinions, but sadly the same can't be said about you.
I agree with you on 80% of what you say. Border was a great captain and Steve Waugh should go.
You can try and put words in my mouth about not liking Steve Waugh, but the opposite is the case. Steve Waugh is an amazingly gifted cricketer. Some of his heroics with the bat and the ball have been indeed "great deeds". But as a captain I feel he hasnt achieved all that was possible with the team he had at his disposal, although he has performed at least as well as his predicesor(sp?) Taylor.
Based on the teams amazing strength, before the series in India you would have pencilled in a drawn series as a worst result, and against England this summer a 4-0 or 5-0 victory.
grayham
10 Jan 2003, 07:38
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Hang on a sec, let's not migrate from the original subject.
This isn't about whether Waugh has the goods to continue on as captain right now (that is very debatable), it's about his worth as a captain overall. You say that he is not a great captain, you say pollock is a better captain, you say he was out captained by Hussain in the 4th test etc.
Most others believe he is a great captain and have facts to back this up, whereas as you merely have a bunch of hypothetical "if" scenarios.
Most of your "facts" seem to be win/loss ratios which is all about the quality of the players in the team. The test of a good captain would be in a close game where some inspired changes brought about a victory. Or the test of a bad captain was when he was well in front, lost the plot and lost the game.
From the debate so far. Waugh is 1-2. 1 good - last WC, 2 -bad 2nd test India, 4th/5th test England.
I'm sorry if you think otherwise, but to have that motley group of misfits in England win a test match against the current Australian side is a national disgrace.
Originally posted by nicko18
yes, i do think he would beat rod laver. at his prime. tennis in particular has moved forward light years in skills, speed and power in recent years, but then again i notice you use an abstract sport where individual skills are hard to qualify because competition as a whole progresses.
Of course he would beat Laver, as would thousands of moderately skilled tennis players today, that in my mind at least doesn't make him a better tennis player, just as in your carefully chosen sport I would consider Dawn Fraser a better swimmer than the thousands that could currently better her best times.
As far as I am concerned, If you are going to rank players, or teams over time without taking into account the changes and development of the game over time you may as well throw the history books away.
Cricket, on the whole would be one of the sports least affected by development through the ages. Put Dessie Haynes, Greenidge, Richards of the 80's and early 90's into 2002 and they would still perform against todays crop of bowlers. Marshall, Holding, Croft, Garner would still take wickets. Fielding has improved immeasurably in the last decade or two, batting technique, bowling technique is pretty much the same.
Originally posted by moomba
Cricket, on the whole would be one of the sports least affected by development through the ages. Put Dessie Haynes, Greenidge, Richards of the 80's and early 90's into 2002 and they would still perform against todays crop of bowlers. Marshall, Holding, Croft, Garner would still take wickets. Fielding has improved immeasurably in the last decade or two, batting technique, bowling technique is pretty much the same.
Fitness, nutrition and the technologies and advances regadring these two factors also contribute to athletes having improved times and distances in swimming, athletics, etc.
I don't think it applies so much in cricket, because even though any advantage that can be gained is good for the game, cricket is more a game of skill than fitness, so advances in fitness and strength etc are not as relevant IMHO.
Harder hitters don't necessarily make more runs, I mean once it's 4 or 6, it doesn't get you any extra runs if the ball bounces an extra 20 metres...
Stronger and quicker bowlers don't necessarily take more wickets...compare Patrick Patterson to M.Muralitharan for example.
The skill level of players through the ages would not change because of modernisation of the game, it would more likely change in a cyclical way, as team success does.
Anyone notice the lousy quality of world cricket?
I don't remember hearing similar concerns emanating from Jamaica or Trinidad during the Windies reign of terror, even though Australia experienced its worst slump ever, there was no South Africa, and England was only passable.
bunsen burner
13 Jan 2003, 08:35
Originally posted by syphon
Anyone notice the lousy quality of world cricket?
I don't remember hearing similar concerns emanating from Jamaica or Trinidad during the Windies reign of terror, even though Australia experienced its worst slump ever, there was no South Africa, and England was only passable. Get your hand off your python syphon.
Indeed Nicko, there are a few worrying trends for our great game at the moment. It has been almost relegated to a second class sport in England, in fact I believe that in some schools cricket is not even offered as a sport (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). In the Windies every young lad wants to go to the U.S. to play basketball rather than come here and wield the willow, and soccer is making much bigger inroads into Black South African life than cricket.
Only in the subcontinent is cricket as popular as it is here throughout the whole population, and cricket there is sadly a victim to politics (India and Pakistan), and an unhealthy reliance on money (legal and otherwise) to be made from the pyjama game.
All these things can't help but lower the standards of cricket in other parts of the world, and are a bit of a worry.