Border v Waugh..how some...

[windyhill]

...could say that Waugh was a better captain than Border has me ****ed. Common sense would tell you that Border was 10 times the skipper Waugh was.
Common sense.

 

[The Passenger]

Explain how it is just common sense???


I think there are arguments for either....

Both players have been known to have cool heads under pressure, but as good as Border was in that category, very few go even close to Steve Waugh.

Both have played match saving, and match winning innings under pressure.

Steve Waugh is a ruthless captain, but it is much easier to do so when in charge of a team that is so dominating.

Allan Border got the best out of a team which wasn't seen as anything above average during the period he was at the helm.

 

[DaveW]

Chalk and cheese...

Border inherited an Australian team at its lowest ebb. He struggled with the captaincy at first and the poor results continued. Eventually the results came as he grew into the captaincy and they were almost the best in the world when he retired. (OK, they were probably still second to the Windies.) But he left the team in great shape for Taylor to take to the top.

Waugh inherited a team of worldbeaters and kept that going. He was probably a much more ready made captain than Border. And there wasn't really a whole lot to improve upon as there was with Border either. Perhaps we now score runs at a faster rate - ironically not usually through Waugh's batting though - than we ever did and we probably drop less dead rubbers than we used to too. But other than that, we've got much the same under Waugh as we did with Taylor.

I can't really compare them. Waugh obviously kills Border for winning %, but with the talent around him you'd expect that. It'll be the same for Ponting too.

 

[windyhill]

There you go Black.T, Dave. W. has hit , sorry , hammered the nail home.

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by windyhill
There you go Black.T, Dave. W. has hit , sorry , hammered the nail home.

he has???

 

[mellowyellow]

Originally posted by DaveW
Chalk and cheese...

Border inherited an Australian team at its lowest ebb. He struggled with the captaincy at first and the poor results continued. Eventually the results came as he grew into the captaincy and they were almost the best in the world when he retired. (OK, they were probably still second to the Windies.) But he left the team in great shape for Taylor to take to the top.

Waugh inherited a team of worldbeaters and kept that going. He was probably a much more ready made captain than Border. And there wasn't really a whole lot to improve upon as there was with Border either. Perhaps we now score runs at a faster rate - ironically not usually through Waugh's batting though - than we ever did and we probably drop less dead rubbers than we used to too. But other than that, we've got much the same under Waugh as we did with Taylor.

I can't really compare them. Waugh obviously kills Border for winning %, but with the talent around him you'd expect that. It'll be the same for Ponting too.

 

[Darky]

Border by a street.

- Better standard opposition (anyone remember the Windies as a power, the Paki's as dangerous, and the Kiwis, Poms and Indians as competitive?) Also not hard to make a great bowling change when you've got a gun attack.

- Batted anywhere between 3 and 6

- Took a team decimated by retirements and instability, and turned them into worldbeaters.

 

[Nandoz]

Border captained through the transition period when Australia begun to lose alot of its top notch players, Lillee etc. Steve Waugh has the power of a fantastic and consistant team behind him, which can often hide any captaincy mistakes.

Definately a close call, I'd probably say that Border was the better captain overall though, although Waugh's captaincy record is second to none. Stats dont always tell the whole story.

 

[pazza]

It's gotta be Border..the bloke made what Australian cricket today NOW is.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by Nandoz
Steve Waugh has the power of a fantastic and consistant team behind him, which can often hide any captaincy mistakes.

I don't think Steve Waugh has done anything wrong as captain, and on is own merits has been very good in the job, but his 75% (or whatever) win record is a misleading stat when you consider the quality of his team.

Probably a bit like Peter Rohde and Leigh Matthews swapping coaching jobs at the minute.... 16th and 1st.. or 15th and 2nd.... probably won't be a huge difference, because the cattle is what makes it happen.

 

[dogga16]

This argument is similar to the 1948 Invincibles compared to the Chappell and Waugh teams.

Like comparing apples with oranges.

This current Australian team is the best team ever !!

It has destroyed South Africa, Pakistan et al and risen the level of cricket to standards beyond ALL teams.

This is as a result of the leadership of Waugh who has empowered his players to play with flair, risk and entertainment.

It only lost in India in 2001 due to it's desire to totally dominate an opposition. If it had batted with an ounce more of patience a whitewash was on the cards.


Border was magnificent leader of men by actions in being a constant thorn in the side of other teams, who were vastly superior.

They were both the right men for their era.

P.S. Keith Stackpole had written an interesting article on the captains in Sunday's Herald Sun. Stacky makes some good points, but in my view he has always be a begrudging admirer of Steve Waugh.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by dogga16
This argument is similar to the 1948 Invincibles compared to the Chappell and Waugh teams.

Like comparing apples with oranges.

This current Australian team is the best team ever !!

Most successful by results, so "best ever" in relation to their opposition. How good was Australia's opposition in 1948, and how good was it in the mid 90s and in 2001-2003?

Along the same lines, would Hawthorn 1988 have beaten Essendon 2000? Woulda flogged 'em IMHO despite a lower win-loss ratio.

Originally posted by dogga16

It has destroyed South Africa, Pakistan et al and risen the level of cricket to standards beyond ALL teams.

Because Australia is great, or because the other teams are either rubbish or very fragile? Probably both, but the last time Australia played a series which involved a great standard of Test cricket all-round. was India away, which Australia lost.

Originally posted by dogga16

This is as a result of the leadership of Waugh who has empowered his players to play with flair, risk and entertainment.

Entertaiment would be more to do with Gilchrist, Ponting and Hayden having enough natural flair to tear apart the ordinary attacks that exist in the cricketing world.

Ability plays much more part than captaincy.

Originally posted by dogga16

It only lost in India in 2001 due to it's desire to totally dominate an opposition. If it had batted with an ounce more of patience a whitewash was on the cards.

Maybe it lost because the Indians played better cricket.

Originally posted by dogga16

Border was magnificent leader of men by actions in being a constant thorn in the side of other teams, who were vastly superior.

They were both the right men for their era.

No argument there, but Border's era was infinitely tougher than S.Waugh's, considering the quality of opposition worldwide, and the strength and stability of the team under him.

 

[windyhill]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
he has???

Yes.
Please read above posts.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

For mine, Mark Taylor was the best Australian captain I've seen, closely followed by Ian Chappell, then Steve Waugh.

 

[Dipper]

Taking the outsider's perspective I sometime's think that you underestimate what Steve Waugh has done over there, there was a big article in the Time's here in London when Waugh announced his retirement & the jist of it was enjoy his last series while you can because you may never see his like again.

What he's done to change the way that Test cricket is played is unmatched by anyone in the history of cricket, it would have been easy to continue in the same vain & Australia would have continued to dominate Test series but he took it a step further, he encouraged his team to put the opposition under pressure by scoring at a consistantly higher run rate than ever before & the rest of the cricket world has tried to follow.
I still remember a one dayer over here when he had about 6 or 7 slips & gulleys in for the quicker bowlers, really he's torn up the rule book in many ways.

Although of course he's made mistakes like in India where he enforced the follow on rather than bat again & make India bat last, I'm sure that Border wouldn't have done that he'd have known that that was the only way that that match could have been lost.

Darky says that the quality in the 80s was far tougher & maybe he's right but let's face it Border managed to lose the Ashes in 4 Tests in 86/87 to a very average England side, a side that won less than 25% of its Tests in the decade & a side who'd just lost 1-0 at home to both India & NZ & lost 5-0 away to Windies before that.



I'm not saying that Waugh was a better captain than Border, you need a different kind of leader to drag men up from the floor as you do to keep them on top.

I think it's definitely a subjective call rather than a black or white case either way.

It just surprises me how many Aussie cricket fans are down on Steve Waugh, maybe we'll get a truer reflection of his worth as captain when we see what Ponting manages to achieve with this team.