Mark Waugh v Damien Martyn (Test batting only)

[The Passenger]

this has gotta be the biggest troll of all time??

mark waugh is a fine internaitnoal cricketer.... not on the same level of the likes of ponting, chappel and s waugh...

and since when did a batsmens average against england become the be all and end all.... england were that shit during the 90's. i don't think they would have ever been considered in the top 5 teams during that period.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

FWIW - the two guys played 27 tests together

Waugh averaged 42.68, with 3 centuries

Martyn averaged 48.62, with 5 centuries

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Mark Waugh for me, just a more talented batsman than Martyn to put it simply.

I feel like Martyn got the absolute best out of himself, while Mark was going along at about 5/8 most of the time. If he really pushed himself, Waugh could have averaged mid 50's and been right up there with Ponting.

Now, obviously he didn't and he isn't, but he was still better than Martyn. They're both guns, though.

 

[Slax]

Mark Waugh for me, just a more talented batsman than Martyn to put it simply.

I feel like Martyn got the absolute best out of himself, while Mark was going along at about 5/8 most of the time. If he really pushed himself, Waugh could have averaged mid 50's and been right up there with Ponting.

Now, obviously he didn't and he isn't, but he was still better than Martyn. They're both guns, though.

That's the whole reason why Mark Waugh is the most overrated player to of played 50 Tests. the guy would plod along doing enough to make the dumb selectors pick him again because the side was winning. A batting average of 41 is crap. Brad Haddin is averaging 35 over his career and getting criticised, how he played so many tests is beyond me especially when players like Hodge and Law couldn't get a look in.

M Waugh = Medicority

 

[Plugger35]

Mark Waugh being a great fielder, particularly in the slips, and also being a handy off spin bowler/medium pacer probably helped keep his spot in the side.

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

41 wasn't that bad for a guy who played in the 90s. not great but probably equivalent to an average of ~45 over the last decade

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Mark Waugh being a great fielder, particularly in the slips, and also being a handy off spin bowler/medium pacer probably helped keep his spot in the side.

His surname probably didn't hurt, either.

 

[Scotland]

I feel like Martyn got the absolute best out of himself, while Mark was going along at about 5/8 most of the time. If he really pushed himself, Waugh could have averaged mid 50's and been right up there with Ponting.

Did you watch much of Damien Martyn's career?

Your description doesn't match how he played whatsoever.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I saw basically his entire career. I stick by my comment that he couldn't have played any better.

 

[dan warna]

Mark Waugh for me, just a more talented batsman than Martyn to put it simply.

I feel like Martyn got the absolute best out of himself, while Mark was going along at about 5/8 most of the time. If he really pushed himself, Waugh could have averaged mid 50's and been right up there with Ponting.

Now, obviously he didn't and he isn't, but he was still better than Martyn. They're both guns, though.

if he COULD have averaged mid 50s but only managed to average 41 in 128 tests sounds like he would have been a selfish lazy prick to not give test selection the honour it deserves.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Mark Waugh never managed to turn his hundreds into big ones. Very few not outs too. Needed both of those to boost his average.

It didn't seem like he lost too much sleep over it though.

How was that story about how he would sometimes nod off before it was his turn to bat?!

 

[The Passenger]

one thing mark waugh has perfected is the art of not ageing... at 46, he looks like he is 26. they say stress ages you, and most people reckon junior was the most relaxed bloke of all time.

good call Carl Spackler on the lack of big hundreds. highest score 153*. his only 150+ from 20 test centuries.

it's the third lowest highest score of any of the 112 batsmen who have scored ten test centuries (funnily enough Martyn is also six lowest on that list)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ndreds;size=200;template=results;type=batting

 

[dan warna]

Another player who I very much admire as a cricketer because of the value he placed on his wicket (NOT as a TV personality) is greg matthews.

Greg matthews played in the same era as Mark Waugh scored 1800 runs at 41....

NOW there was a player who had value on his wicket.

For those who extol the virtues of Mark Waugh with his 42 average as being better than ponting and greg Chappel, then surely Greg Matthews must be as good as them as well?

Certainly had 1/10 of the style of Mark Waugh. 4*100 and 12 * 50 from 33 tests suggests that he certainly dug in at every opportunity.

 

[Slax]

Another player who I very much admire as a cricketer because of the value he placed on his wicket (NOT as a TV personality) is greg matthews.

Greg matthews played in the same era as Mark Waugh scored 1800 runs at 41....

NOW there was a player who had value on his wicket.

For those who extol the virtues of Mark Waugh with his 42 average as being better than ponting and greg Chappel, then surely Greg Matthews must be as good as them as well?

Certainly had 1/10 of the style of Mark Waugh. 4*100 and 12 * 50 from 33 tests suggests that he certainly dug in at every opportunity.

Greg Matthews was an incredibly under-rated player in my book.

The simple reason why Mark Waugh had a crap average is that he didn't value his wicket. He would play the same game regardless of the situation or the wicket. He was one of the most selfish batsmen we've had in the last 30 years which covers my viewing time.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I'll say on Greg Matthews commentary - was that when he did radio, he was actually very insightful.

I quite enjoyed listening to the ideas that he had. The problem was his style was hard to swallow - i,e the Mr Bevan, Mr Hussey etc etc But what he said about the game was top notch.

On Martyn, the one thing I won't agree on was that he got the best out of himself.

In my 25-30 years of watching cricket, I'm not sure I've seen a more dominant batsman enter shield level than Martyn. It was like watching Viv Richards, the way as a teenager he'd swagger to the wicket and then show disdain and proced to punish the bowlers.

However the Windies debacle coupled with WA thrusting the captaincy on him far too early saw him go into the wilderness for a number of years. He was a bee's dick away from being dropped from WA when I think he scored a run a ball double century and eventually worked his way back into the Australian side.

The test cricketer we saw, was not the expansive dominant crickter that he once was. And whilst I appreicate a number of batsman come into shield level and have to rein in their scoring and tighten their technique - there was nothing wrong with Martyn's technique from the get go. He played with a beautiful vertical or horizontal bat and had sublime footwork.

 

[benny_cousins]

Who was better?

I'll vote Martyn. After Steve Waugh retired, Martyn became my favourite batsman in the side.

Anyway:

Mark Waugh - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/8189.html

Games: 128
Runs: 8029
Average: 41.81
Strike Rate: 52.27
Best: 153* v India, 1998
100s: 20
50s: 47

Best series was probably the 2001 Ashes where he topped the batting for Australia and managed 2 centuries. His best innings IMO was his 126 against the West Indies at Sabina Park in 1995. This was the same innings Steve Waugh scored 200, and the victory which brought the Frank Worrell trophy to Australia. All in all IMO his record leaves much to be desired, and I think he badly underachieved.

Damien Martyn - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6513.html

Games: 67
Runs: 4406
Average: 46.37
Strike Rate: 51.41
Best: 165 v New Zealand, 2005
100s: 13
50s: 23

His best series was 2004 v India. His 104 and partnership with Gillespie in the third innings of the match save our bacon big time after conceding a bad first innings deficit. I regard this as his best performance for Australia. The match was ruined on the last day with India needing a tick over 220 to win. In the next two innings during the third test he scored a hunted and a ninety and Australia took a 2-0 lead. He was named man of the series. Personally, I think he was scapegoated after the 2005 Ashes, where he was dropped despite being shot out by several umpiring shockers.

This isn't a thread about fielding or one-day play. I doubt anyone thinks Martyn was better than Waugh in those disciplines. Who was the better test batsman?

Brad Hodge.

 

[Wallaby]

In my 25-30 years of watching cricket, I'm not sure I've seen a more dominant batsman enter shield level than Martyn. It was like watching Viv Richards, the way as a teenager he'd swagger to the wicket and then show disdain and proced to punish the bowlers.

The 1992/93 series against the Windies was the classic 'selectors' blunder. We would probably have won the first test if Warne had played, and they were so desperate to get Martyn in the team that they dropped Jones. Apparently Martyn's form at the start of the 92/93 season was just out of this world. But Jones would have been better.

 

[Thommo 42]

Can't believe what I'm reading here. Did I actually see someone call Mark Waugh a flat track bully??!

Say what you like about Mark Waugh, but he was the best batsman on a difficult wicket we've had in the past 30 years alongside his brother and AB.

Martyn & Waugh are an interesting comparison in that they both were incredibly elegant players in the mould of a David Gower, and never made those huge 150+ scores as they were considered 'lazy' by some.

However, Martyn was arguably robbed of his prime years due to being outrageously blamed for the 1994 debacle vs SA at the SCG.

Having said that, Waugh I feel was the better player easily. Stats are such a crude way of measuring things, especially across different eras. Waugh averaged 41 and Hussey averages 52, but I would take Waugh ahead of him 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

Four innings of M.Waugh's immediately spring to mind for me when remembering how good he was on tough pitches.

His Day 1 Hundred vs the West Indies in the 5th Test at Antigua in 1991 against a rampant WI attack on a green pitch, his 126 and partnership with Steve in Jamaica in 95 and again against the West Indies, his hundred on the green bouncy WACA in 2000.

His best of all though, had to be his last day hundred against SA at Port Elizabeth to lead us to a 2 wicket win on a wet pitch where the 2nd highest score from an Australian was 44 and 3rd was 26 for the match. That was one of the best innings you will ever see.

Wisden Report:

Mark Waugh's magnificent fourth-innings 116 clinched a wildly fluctuating Test and, with it, the series - South Africa's first home defeat in six series since resuming Test cricket in 1992. Australia began and finished strongly, but for much of the match South Africa seemed bound to square the series. The key was the pitch, which had such a thick mat of grass that it looked like an Essex ground of the 1950s, Westcliff or Clacton maybe. It was automatic that Taylor would bowl.

...snip

The turning point came when Bacher ran out Elliott for 23, the top score of the innings. That started a collapse of seven wickets for 44, and Australia trailed by 101. Donald bowled with fearsome hostility and frequently beat the bat, but Blewett was his only victim in the Test - a statistic almost as extraordinary as the fact that Healy took only one catch. The tourists complained because hessian mats were not used under the tarpaulin covers to reduce overnight sweating, as they were in the First Test. Raman Subba Row exonerated the ground authorities, though he later recommended to ICC that covering should be uniform in each country.

Australia needed 270. Though two and a half days remained, another 40 or 50 might have defeated them. But the chance was there and Mark Waugh took it. He later described it as his best innings in any cricket: it lasted nearly five and a half hours and included a six and 17 fours. Stern defence was twinned with innate elegance after he arrived in a crisis

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

Flat track bully indeed

 

[dan warna]

yeah, you can probably add two or three other examples in his 128 test career where mark waugh actually was of value rather than tonking a few runs after the top order held it together for him.

Generally however if it was 2 or 3 down for less than 50 you could probably throw Mark Waughs wicket in as well for not much.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Greg Matthews was an incredibly under-rated player in my book.

The simple reason why Mark Waugh had a crap average is that he didn't value his wicket. He would play the same game regardless of the situation or the wicket. He was one of the most selfish batsmen we've had in the last 30 years which covers my viewing time.

Matthews was not under-rated. He is remembered fondly for what he was - a cricketer who made the most of his opportunity's and drained every last bit of potential that he had out of his limited talent. Matthews had great enthusiasm and effort, but he was just a good first class cricketer. (Nothing to be sneezed at, by the way). It is to his credit that he made it as far as he did. But he was (and is) certainly not under-rated.

 

[Gray Day]

Would Marto have finished with a lower average had he not been dropped in 93/94?

Would Marto have managed more tons than Junior?

I'd argue that Waugh had to face the tougher attacks of the 90s, whereas Martyn was able to pick runs off the comparitively piss-poor bowlers in the 2000s more easily.

Mark Waugh gets the nod for me.

 

[dan warna]

Would Marto have finished with a lower average had he not been dropped in 93/94?

Would Marto have managed more tons than Junior?

I'd argue that Waugh had to face the tougher attacks of the 90s, whereas Martyn was able to pick runs off the comparitively piss-poor bowlers in the 2000s more easily.

Mark Waugh gets the nod for me.

yeah well lets compare waugh with his peers then.

Dean Jones, 45, Greg Matthews 41, David Boon 43.6, s.waugh 51, Langer 45, Ricky Ponting 53, and boonie played in a HARDER era to Mark Waugh.

I concur that if M.Waugh played now, his average would probably be in the vicinity of 10% higher, but pretty much when s.waugh was captain, and m.waugh was in the middle order, he was the weakest of the batsman, looking down at:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Mark waugh
S.Waugh
Martyn
Healy/gilchrist

Throw in...

FWIW - the two guys played 27 tests together

Waugh averaged 42.68, with 3 centuries

Martyn averaged 48.62, with 5 centuries

would suggest that Martyn, when faced with almost the same conditions as Mark Waugh (it would never be exactly the same conditions) that Martyn outperformed Waugh.

the rewriting of history regarding M.waugh as an australian great is a bit sad.

Very talented player, many peoples favourite player, worthy international player (would probably have got into most batting line ups with a 42 average, maybe not India's), but an all time Australian great? a bit much.

 

[DaRick]

I decided to bump this thread because there's been some discussion of Mark Waugh's value as a batsman recently on this board, plus I placed both Martyn (23) and Waugh (18) fairly close together in my personal Top 50 cricketers who played after WSC.

For whatever it's worth, adjusted for sample size, I reckon Martyn was the better batsman. He was seemingly more likely to make a substantial score than Waugh relative to the entire innings, has fewer (adjusted) ducks, more (adjusted) 100's and a similar number of (adjusted) 50's. Although neither was great at making 'daddy' hundreds (150+), Martyn has two such scores to Waugh's one.

The notion that Waugh was a FTB, or even a downhill skier, is IMO mostly incorrect. He contributed a number of defining knocks over the 12 years he was in the Test side. All said though, some posters above seem to forget that Martyn played his share of defining (non-dead rubber) knocks as well, including ones that sealed iconic wins in the subcontinent. The centuries of his that I rate as clutch, or at least important, are the following:
- 124* vs SA, 2001/02 (set up a series lead)
- 110 vs SL, 2003/04 (helped set up a 1-0 series lead)
- 161 vs SL, 2003/04 (set up a series win in subcontinent)
- 104 vs IND, 2004/05 (helped save the Test)
- 114 vs IND, 2004/05 (set up a series win in India)
- 142 vs PAK, 2004/05 (gave us a lead and ultimately a big win)

I know the thread says 'batting only', but I do think M Waugh has a slight edge as a cricketer over Martyn. Longevity aside, he was a handy part-time bowler and a legendary fielder (Martyn was 'just' very good IMO).

One poster above said that he preferred M Waugh over Mike Hussey. Hussey's career had yet to finish at the time, but I can't agree with that. Hussey was very up-and-down, but he was more likely to make a match-defining contribution than M Waugh was, even though M Waugh at his best was as good as anyone.