Mark Waugh v Damien Martyn (Test batting only)

[Carl Hooper]

LOL the chest beating on the greatness of Mark Waugh is laughable.

A good international batsman averaging in the low 40s.

Mark Waugh never choked in his history? how about Sri Lanka, they made a mess of him. Hard Yards? Steve Waugh was one of the greats who held the lower middle order together during the Taylor years.

Is this is troll comparing Mark Waugh to Greg Chappel? Chappel is one of the greats of the post war era and arguably amongst the greatest batsmen in history, Mark Waugh isn't even in the same room.

Speed of his runs? you do know his career SR is about 52 right?

His mass of runs of 8000 at less than 42 took 128 tests to achieve
(edited 50 to 52 in SR)

Damien Martyn scored his 4400 runs at 46 with a SR of 51.5. a fraction slower but at a much improved averaged.

Deano 3600 runs at 46.5 with a SR of 49. I would say that deano batted at 3, not 4 and our openers were often rubbish so was in far earlier.

Mark Waugh had some decent openers for much of his career with slats, boonie, taylor, hayden and langer.

Boof, 1800 runs at 45 with a SR of 62. I note with boof played much of his career during his decline with regard to fitness. His FC form is superior to any of the previously mentioned players, this in an era when Australia could have fielded 3 sides of test quality from the FC competition.

Mark Waugh wasn't in the same league of S.Waugh, Chappel, Border or others in contribution to the Australian side. He was a good test batsman, with a tonne of talent and a long career.

Marto played in a weaker era with a stronger batting lineup around him, thats 100%.

He played with Langer, Hayden, Ponting, S Waugh etc all killing it. Plus he never had to play series against them West Indian fast bowlers (Well not in his glory days).

Jnr played against tougher opposition, but Marto had better stats.

Its a toughie, but I'd rather have my lineup saying:

Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh

then

Damien Martyn
Steve Waugh

Those comparing Mark to Ponting and Greg Chappell need to have their head checked.

 

[Blessed]

Haha surely that guy saying Waugh was better then Ponting is trolling.

Facts are facts.

Mark Waugh

Grouping Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
v England 1991-2001 29 51 7 2204 140 50.09 3946 55.85 6 11 0 240 7


Ricky Ponting

v England 1997-2010 35 58 2 2476 196 44.21 4024 61.53 8 9 2 279 15



The only real analysis you can use to compare Australian batsmen is performance against England because that gives you a view back to 1877.

Other countries did not start playing test cricket till much later.

Plus Australia v England is the major test series by some distance and has defined an Australian players real worth since the beginning of the sport in this country. Which is basically when this country began.

Mark Waugh trounces Ricky Ponting from an average perspective and they have scored approximately the same amount of runs with Ponting having played 6 more matches.

Ponting's strike rate is slightly superior but as far as net worth to Australia, Mark Waugh is superior to Ricky Ponting.

This is the only reasonable comparison between the two players and it shows that Mark Waugh was actually the superior batsmen statistically.

[YOUTUBE]r5RRP4fT6ag[/YOUTUBE]

I forgot, in my previous analysis also his innings v South Africa when he won us that series. South Africa with Donald and Pollock were easily the best bowling attack since the best of the West Indies and it was Mark Waugh who won us that series as well.

[YOUTUBE]8YWiUC-FwC4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Heisenberg_]

Doesn't matter how you put it and how many videos you out up you are wrong with comparing based on the performance against England, Waugh was playing against some of the most useless bowlers in Englands history and Ponting has been coming up against probably the strongest English bowling line up in living memory.
FFS the best they had was Darren Gough who was no plodder by any means but he certainly wasn't a star.

 

[Kyptastic]

If you take out Mark Waugh's average against England, he averages under 40. England between 1991 and 2001 were generally outside the top 5 teams in the world. It's not a great stat to measure someone's overall worth.

 

[Heisenberg_]

If you take out Mark Waugh's average against England, he averages under 40. England between 1991 and 2001 were generally outside the top 5 teams in the world. It's not a great stat to measure someone's overall worth.

It's ****ing stupid that's what it is.

Facts are facts and 1 player has twice as many test centuries as the other

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

england were literally worse than zimbabwe at one point in the 90s

 

[estibador]

Interesting comparison because Waugh was probably the most elegant batsman off his pads any of us will ever see, while conversely Martin was one of the most elegant off side stroke players I've seen.

I'd take Waugh, partly for longevity and partly just personal preference. Since I was a kid my all time favourite batsman time line consists of just three players: Jones to Waugh to Ponting. (tipping Mitch Marsh to be next in line btw)

 

[dan warna]

Dean Jones v England:

V england, 86-91, matches 17, innings 28, HS 184no, ave 50.76. SR 49. 3*100 8*50

Mark waugh v England:

V england 91-2001, matches 29, innings 51, HS 140 no, ave 50.09, SR 55.85

Noting that Deano played against stronger english sides than Waugh, you'd say that deano was better than chappel and punter as well? LOL.

I'm a massive deano fan, but I rate him a good step or two below chappel, border and steve waugh.

There are plenty of rumours why deano was dropped, but we know that border fought hard to keep him in his test side despite pressure from the ACB.

Mark Waugh was not a rubbish player, but to compare him with ponting and chappel is ridiculous and just trolling. Its fine to say he's your favourite player but to actually think he's ahead of these guys is a joke.

If martyn or deano or lehmann had played 128 tests, they would have all contributed or a 1000 runs or more over that span than Mark Waugh.

while M.Waugh average against england was 50, and he scored a massive 90 against a one off against zimbabwe, his next highest average is 42.5 against NZ (a NZ without Hadlee), 52 against WI (noting again that he was playing against increasingly weaker NZ sides).

 

[The Casey Cat]

Both terrific to watch and both a bit overrated. I would prefer Martyn in tests. Was just a bit better really. His knocks in Asia 2004 were series winning stuff and came under a fair ammount of pressure. Thats not to say M Waugh did not have important knocks for us to though like Sth Africa 98 and in the Windies 95.

 

[Black Diamond]

Ponting choked in the last Ashes series. Mark Waugh never did in his history.

In the West Indieis World Championship game, Mark Waugh set the table and Steve Waugh ate from it.

It was Mark Waugh who made all the hard yards.

Like most test matches.

Mark Waugh batted 4th and Steve Waugh came in when down the order when Mark had scored 60 or 70 in even time.

Name the matches.

The world championship v West Indies as I stated.

The Sydney test when we won the Ashes.

The Manchester test match.

The Lords test match...

Etc, etc, etc...

You are so ignorant it isn't funny. Honestly, where to start?

What test championship are you talking about? Is it the '95 series or the '99 series? Mark did not 'set the table' for Steve at all. Show me one scorecard from either of those series where Mark set down a good platform for Steve.

That's all I'll bother with.

 

[Tiff]

Mark was a delight to watch. A good Mark Waugh stroke was better than what anyone else could do. Some of his strokes were literally flawless.

However, as he's admitted himself, he never had the drive or the killer instinct to really make his mark as a great test batsmen, and a great test batsmen needs that.

Technically brilliant, but soft as butter.

 

[Kyptastic]

In the 95 Sabina Park match (which was the deciding match in the series), Mark came in at 2/50 whilst Steve came in at 3/73. Mark couldn't have been more than 10 or 15 when Steve came in. Both batted very well in that match, although Steve's series was outstanding (averaged over 100 where Mark averaged 40 and noone else in the Australian team averaged over 25)

In 1999, Mark only averaged 25.

 

[Black Diamond]

Thanks Kyptastic.

 

[dan warna]

It's ****ing stupid that's what it is.

Facts are facts and 1 player has twice as many test centuries as the other

Are you saying that because you play more cricket than another guy and accumulate more runs than another guy, that person is better, accumulation over performance?

That would make ponting better than the don because the don only has 29 centuries to Punters 41...

facts are facts

 

[Heisenberg_]

Are you saying that because you play more cricket than another guy and accumulate more runs than another guy, that person is better, accumulation over performance?

That would make ponting better than the don because the don only has 29 centuries to Punters 41...

facts are facts

No I am not, but I would suggest that had he stopped on 128 Tests he wouldn't have been far off having twice as many centuries as Mark Waugh, I really can't be bothered to look it up though.

Edit: he was on 36-37 centuries after 126 Test matchs.

 

[dan warna]

No I am not, but I would suggest that had he stopped on 128 Tests he wouldn't have been far off having twice as many centuries as Mark Waugh, I really can't be bothered to look it up though.

Edit: he was on 36-37 centuries after 126 Test matchs.

Ah I misread your post as justifying the arguement that Mark Waugh was better, here is the centuries per test match ratio.

Mark Waugh was on 20 test centuries after 126 tests = 1 century per 6.3 test

Damien Martyn was on 13 centuries after 67 tests = 1 test bper 5.15 test

Bradman 29 tests after 52 tests = 1 century per 1.8 tests

Ponting 40 centuries after 161 tests = 1 century per 4 tests

Jones 11 centuries after 52 tests = 1 century per 4.7 tests

Lehmann, 5 centuries after 27 tests = 1 century per 5.4 tests

again, by this measure, mark waugh was the weakest of the middle order batsmen.

 

[Tiff]

Are you saying that because you play more cricket than another guy and accumulate more runs than another guy, that person is better, accumulation over performance?

That would make ponting better than the don because the don only has 29 centuries to Punters 41...

facts are facts

You're right, facts are facts. Another fact is that Punter has 40 centuries not 41

 

[Kyptastic]

Thanks Kyptastic.

NP.

As an aside, on his first tour to the West Indies (which was his first overseas tour), he averaged 61. This is even more impressive considering he faced Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson in that series.

 

[Wallaby]

NP.

As an aside, on his first tour to the West Indies (which was his first - overseas tour), he averaged 61. This is even more impressive considering he faced Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson in that series.

Mostly because he pumped out 139* in the last test - after the series was decided. No Australian batsman performed well when the series was on the line (well, Boonie was Ok).

 

[Blessed]

You are so ignorant it isn't funny. Honestly, where to start?

What test championship are you talking about? Is it the '95 series or the '99 series? Mark did not 'set the table' for Steve at all. Show me one scorecard from either of those series where Mark set down a good platform for Steve.

That's all I'll bother with.

Mark Waugh set the table for Steve Waugh...

From this moment on....Australia was by all people's means, World test Champions...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63683.html

In a blood and guts battle Mark is the slick boxer, Steve the iron-hard fighter.

In the match which Steve described as the most important of their lives, the brothers registered twin tons for the first time in their Test careers and only their second century partnership in a Test after their 153-run stand at Edgbaston against England in 1993. Each celebrated his eighth Test century, Steve in his 76th Test, Mark in his 48th.


Double-century partnerships against West Indies on their home grounds have been about as rare as snow on the local beaches in recent times. These two put on 231 in 33/4 hours for the fourth wicket and become one of a select band of four brothers to have scored centuries in the same innings.

The partisan crowded stands were stunned into unaccustomed silence and even the reggae bands were muted at the sight of their side taking this kind of beating.

Sorry mate, just some examples.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63937.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63940.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63610.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63613.html

 

[Black Diamond]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63683.html


You make yourself look foolish suggesting Mark set any type of platform for Steve in this match. Honestly, look at that scorecard to see when the wickets fell. You've already been called on this one. Just give it up.

Sorry mate, just some examples.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63937.html

Yet Steve's seemingly poor effort of 45 still bests Mark's career average. Yeah, ok. Mark outperformed Steve in this one.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63940.html

Looks like they both got 100s. Who scored more with a dodgy calf?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63610.html

Gee, it was real tough going that day.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63613.html

Looks like another hundred to Mark with a solid 59 to Steve. In a dead rubber no less.

Now here are some examples of Steve scoring big while Mark gets lunch ready:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63630.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63756.html - check both innings
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63742.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63839.html

And many, many more.

And then there are the hundreds Steve made when Mark wasn't even good enough to be selected.

Steve Waugh > Mark Waugh.

 

[Blessed]

And then there are the hundreds Steve made when Mark wasn't even good enough to be selected.

Steve Waugh > Mark Waugh.

Steve Waugh was selected earlier than Mark for the Australian team that is true.

But he never really performed till his brother was in the team.

Fact is Steve was dropped so Mark could make his debut.

Steve found a lot of comfort with his brother Mark in the team.

He only blossomed once his brother Mark was there to help him.

That is a fact.

 

[legend166]

Blessed, stop trolling.

 

[Plugger35]

Steve Waugh had a pretty handy Ashes series in 1989 well before his brother was in the test team. Mark was probably more talented than Steve but Steve got a lot more out of the talent he had.

Damien Martyn was very talented too, just a pity he spent so many years in the wilderness after being made a scapegoat for that loss to South Africa. Could have been an all time great

 

[dan warna]

Blessed, stop trolling.

lol must admit I got hooked on Blessed's trolling as well, I thought he was serious.

nice one