Things in life you just don't understand - cricket edition

[footyfan1978]

Forget that stuff.

Mark Waugh's 116 vs SA at Port Elizabeth in 1997 was one of the greatest test innings I've ever seen. He was a genius in difficult conditions, when the chips were down and appeared to be playing a different sport he was that good. He may not have got the best out of himself, but he was a team player who didn't need to be the star and played his role superbly.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63743.html



some of the shots he plays on that pitch are just astounding. The cuts, flicks off the pads and the square drives - just superb stuff!

(also, how good having Cometti in the test commentary)

Love it. Hookesy too.
Junior certainly played not only match winning innings but series winnings innings too. Overseas too!!!
His was way more than the sum of his parts.
Find any more feel free to share. Loved watching that one as much as others I posted.

 

[The Passenger]

I think Mark Waugh's average belies his importance to the team during that time. He played many crucial innings in steering us to victory. Just as many, maybe even more than guys who averaged in the high 40's and low 50's.

It was a shame he didn't cash in with some bigger scores (only 1 150 from 20 tons, and heaps of 80's and 90's) because he was certainly a good enough batsmen to average 50+. But he didn't cash in, and thus didn't fully reach his potential, which is disappointing.

I do often wonder if cricket was individual scores weren't kept track of in cricket (only keep track of the teams scores) just where Mark Waugh's standing in the game would be. I reckon it would be a lot higher than it is. But ultimately cricket is a very statistical game and MW's are good but still slightly underwhelming. Most people are surprised when you tell them his average was only 41 or 42.

 

[footyfan1978]

I think Mark Waugh's average belies his importance to the team during that time. He played many crucial innings in steering us to victory. Just as many, maybe even more than guys who averaged in the high 40's and low 50's.

It was a shame he didn't cash in with some bigger scores (only 1 150 from 20 tons, and heaps of 80's and 90's) because he was certainly a good enough batsmen to average 50+. But he didn't cash in, and thus didn't fully reach his potential, which is disappointing.

I do often wonder if cricket was individual scores weren't kept track of in cricket (only keep track of the teams scores) just where Mark Waugh's standing in the game would be. I reckon it would be a lot higher than it is. But ultimately cricket is a very statistical game and MW's are good but still slightly underwhelming. Most people are surprised when you tell them his average was only 41 or 42.

It's all good mate. Stats are not everything. They are very handy guide but can never tell the full story. I actually think he did reach his potential. He won series for us. Important ones like in scheme of generational changes. I rate him very high in my own books. Plenty of batsmen averaging well over him I honestly would not rate in his class. Lots cash in on road decks in subcontinent etc. against minnow nations starting out in Tests.
but if you are an important cog in important moment to beat the West Indies in West Indies after they been top of the world for over 15 years that is serious worth beyond any averages or top score. Similarly that innings in South Africa probably won us a series overseas against a strong nation. Nah, he is super player and only undervalued by some. I put my bottom dollar real cricketers rate him much higher than your average couch expert. You do not have to score a highest score of 300 on a flat deck to get rated as special by some. Where and when you scores your runs in context of matches and eras counts even more.
That partnership by Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh in West Indies that finally made Australia number one and dethroned the West Indies. Probably about my favourite moment as an Aussie cricket follower. Legendary in my own eyes. Forever grateful they were part of that era.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

You cant be a cricketer without a nickname.

Thats against the laws of cricket somewhere.

That "somewhere" is the Nine commentary box.

 

[Plugger35]

I saw Mark Waugh make a sparkling 108 at Lords in 2001 after Australia was 2 wickets down early on, it was quite tough batting conditions at the time with overcast skies but he made it look easy, then typically ran himself out with a lazy piece of running after getting his ton. He was the only batsmen to score a ton in that match though

 

[The Passenger]

Awesome post footyfan78 and agree wholeheartedly. All great batsmen (and bowlers) pad their stats to differing degrees in highly advantageous situations (i.e. poor opposition and/or great batting wicket), but that is something Mark Waugh never did. But as you say he won us a lot of tests, and a lot of series, and against some very good opposition. Like you, there are a number of blokes with higher averages than Mark Waugh that I don't rate nearly as highly.

 

[frankrizzo]

Can't forget this innings from waugh either.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63780.html

Wasn't a match winning innings as such but you could argue it was a series deciding knock(tubbys epic innings obviously also played it's part in giving us a realistic chance of a last day draw).

Don't think we have anybody in our current team who can bat 300+ balls to secure a draw, ponting was the last one who really showed he was capable of that sort of knock back in the 05 ashes.

 

[The_Reaper]

Can't forget this innings from waugh either.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63780.html

Wasn't a match winning innings as such but you could argue it was a series deciding knock(tubbys epic innings obviously also played it's part in giving us a realistic chance of a last day draw).

Don't think we have anybody in our current team who can bat 300+ balls to secure a draw, ponting was the last one who really showed he was capable of that sort of knock back in the 05 ashes.

I genuinely can't think of a similar knock since Ponting at Old Trafford in 2005.

 

[Super Hans]

That Ponting knock is my favourite of all time, best I've seen. I remember not even contemplating a draw while he was at the crease, I thought we'd win it, that's how good he played.

 

[Phone]

Can't forget this innings from waugh either.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63780.html

next time someone criticises the fixture just remember that in the past, inc. that series, sometimes they would play some test matches, play the ODers, and then resume the test series. it could be worse

 

[Mkcaptain]

The new Cricinfo website

 

[Carbine Chaos]

The new Cricinfo website

It's as bad as the Cricket Australia one. Hot messes.

 

[TassieEagle]

Yeah the new website is awful. It seems like it has been designed to be clickbait rather than actual features and scorecards.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Yeah the new website is awful. It seems like it has been designed to be clickbait rather than actual features and scorecards.

Looks like every website redone in the world now.

Boring!

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Can't forget this innings from waugh either.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63780.html

Wasn't a match winning innings as such but you could argue it was a series deciding knock(tubbys epic innings obviously also played it's part in giving us a realistic chance of a last day draw).

Don't think we have anybody in our current team who can bat 300+ balls to secure a draw, ponting was the last one who really showed he was capable of that sort of knock back in the 05 ashes.

That South African tail is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen - Symcox averaging 30 coming in at number 11 and Klusener at 10!

 

[PrideOf]

You need two things to be a truly great batsman - talent and temperament.

Mark Waugh had his brother covered in the talent stakes. A truly gifted, flowing batsman who made batting look ridiculously easy.

Where Mark was deficient to his brother was in temperament. Mark Waugh almost looked bored when he got himself out; it was as if he was trying to do something creative to keep himself amused. And when he got out, he looked like he didn't care; he'd had fun.

Whereas Steve did everything in his power to not get out and then looked like he was dark on the world.

 

[Hamingja]

I think Mark Waugh's average belies his importance to the team during that time. He played many crucial innings in steering us to victory. Just as many, maybe even more than guys who averaged in the high 40's and low 50's.

It was a shame he didn't cash in with some bigger scores (only 1 150 from 20 tons, and heaps of 80's and 90's) because he was certainly a good enough batsmen to average 50+. But he didn't cash in, and thus didn't fully reach his potential, which is disappointing.

I do often wonder if cricket was individual scores weren't kept track of in cricket (only keep track of the teams scores) just where Mark Waugh's standing in the game would be. I reckon it would be a lot higher than it is. But ultimately cricket is a very statistical game and MW's are good but still slightly underwhelming. Most people are surprised when you tell them his average was only 41 or 42.

He averaged 40 against the bowlers that Hayden, Langer and Martyn failed against.

 

[the_interloper]

It's as bad as the Cricket Australia one. Hot messes.

It's a campaigner of a thing that site.

 

[The Speaker]

Cricinfo is now pretty much entirely desgined for tablets.

 

[t_94]

Cricinfo is now pretty much entirely desgined for tablets.

And it's pretty s**t to use on tablets too

 

[Damon_3388]

The CricInfo website goes back to the regular format if you click on one of the country pages, eg. Australia.

 

[The Speaker]

The CricInfo website goes back to the regular format if you click on one of the country pages, eg. Australia.

I was able to stay on the old design for a couple of weeks by not clearing my cache, but that stopped working two days ago.

 

[Registered User]

I didn't play a lot on turf, and quit cricket when I was about 20.
Pitches that are very easy to bat on are often described as being like concrete or a road, so I've always wondered if some pitches are in fact exactly like that, where a leather ball grips, comes off slow, and doesn't bounce much.

So, do any turf pitches play exactly like asphalt or concrete?

 

[KissKiss]

I was able to stay on the old design for a couple of weeks by not clearing my cache, but that stopped working two days ago.

Oh dear god, I hadnt realised that I had been lucky like that too. That new site is crap

 

[The Passenger]

I didn't play a lot on turf, and quit cricket when I was about 20.
Pitches that are very easy to bat on are often described as being like concrete or a road, so I've always wondered if some pitches are exactly like concrete, where a leather ball grips, comes off slow, and doesn't bounce much.

Those pitches that don't bounce much are more like clay than concrete to be honest. You can push your thumb into the pitch and it will leave a mark. Terrible pitches to play on. Offer nothing for the bowlers, and even though it's hard to get a batsmen out, the batsmen never really feels set and doesn't get full value for shots. If it has been raining and pitch preparation time was limited than you can forgive the groundsman. But if it had been perfect weather all week there was no excuse for dishing up that sort of crap.

Typically when they refer to a pitch like concrete, it's hard, bouncy and has no (or very little) grass on it. Generally pretty easy for batsmen because it's hard to extract and any movement of the pitch, and also the harder surface would cut up the ball pretty quickly so the period for conventional swing at the start of an innings was reduced a fair bit. Often the hard pitches would break up later in the day, so the general tactic on these pitches was to go aggressive early to try and get some edges with the new ball, then slow the scoring down through the middle of the day when it was best for batting, and then hope some nice cracks appear late in the day to take advantage of. Didn't always go to plan but that was the general gist of it.

I was happy to play on any type of wicket as long as it was hard. As a quick bowler a bit of grass was always appreciated, but even without grass you knew if you bowled well, you'd get rewarded as long as the pitch had bounce and carry. And that was good for batsmen because if they batted well they'd get good value for their shots. As you go up the grades having a bit of grass on the wicket was a little more essential as the batsmen make less mistakes, and you generally needed more than just a bit of a bounce to force an error. But once again if you got a grass-less wicket you just dealt with and bowled as best as you can.