Remove this Banner Ad

Mark Waugh

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeinDude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

S

SeinDude

Premiership Player
Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Posts
3,841
Reaction score
6
Location
Retired
While watching the cricket today, the commentators were talking about Mark Waugh's future in the one-day side and were looking back at his performances in 2001.

It was something like 16 games, 4 centuries and an average of 80.

I agree Mark Waugh appears down in form & confidence at the moment, but it seems pretty strange dropping a bloke who has performed like that over the last 12 months!!

How quickly we forget!!

SeinDude
 
Regardless of 2001 he is past it and should be replaced....
Did you see how crap Pollock made him look???

Anyway it doesn't matter as with our current selection policies this team will remain a mess...Fancy not giving Gilchrist a bat and resting bevan..2 out of our 4 best batsmen didn't bat.What hope have we got to make a decent score... Its like Brisbane resting Voss and Simon Black for the grand final and playing Johnathon Brown on the bench... :(
 
Mark Waugh has a great record over a long period of time, and statistically did have a great 2001, however form should be included in the selection process.

Most of the 2001 figures containing all those centuries and the 80 average, would relate to how he played in last year's triangular and on the Ashes tour (ie - up until about August 2001). Since the current season started in November, his form has just about deserted him. It appears 3-5 months is a long time in cricket. :p

The way he is playing at the moment, both in the recent Test series and the current triangular ODI tournament, he should be dropped, regardless of what his form was in 2001.
 
both mark waugh and hayden played like their careers in the one dayers rested on this match however the biggest joke was made by steve waugh.
1st you send in a player on reputation alone to hit the poteas all over the ground only to be out witted by a 2nd rate spinner and second you put you bring yourself in when clearly gilcrist SHOULD have been the better option.
while i admire steve waugh as a captain and a team man today waugh put himself ahead of the team interests.
cheers!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by tiger of old
the biggest joke was made by steve waugh.
1st you send in a player on reputation alone to hit the poteas all over the ground only to be out witted by a 2nd rate spinner and second you put you bring yourself in when clearly gilcrist SHOULD have been the better option.
while i admire steve waugh as a captain and a team man today waugh put himself ahead of the team interests.
cheers!
Click to expand...

Steve Waugh batting for his average with a dinky 20-odd (red ink) at the end?

Geez, that's a first... NOT!

Could see it coming a mile off though - no Donald and Ntini bowling today, and Elworthy had just about bowled his quota. All he had to face was the 125-130km/h brisk medium pace of Pollock and Klusener, and Boje's tame but disciplined spin.
Boje and Pollock have been economical this series, but most importantly for Captain Red Ink was the fact that they have bowled to contain, not so much to take wickets.

Klusener's form with the ball has been so-so, and is probably the medium pacer the batsmen are most likely to go after. So why not send in a batsman WHO WILL ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE BOWLING!
 
F*ck me, you can't win with you pr*cks. Yes, Gilchrist should have batted before Symonds, (personally I reckon Mark Waugh should be the one to go and Gilchrist open with Hayden) but if Waugh had sent him in you lot would have still been on his back about being too concerned about his average to come in at all. He still did the job when he came in for the last few overs, get off his f*cking back.
Look at his record recently. In the last 21 innings he's batted in, he's had 4 not outs, hardly the record of a man playing for himself. And he's batted at 4, 5 and 6, coming in anywhere from the 15th to the 50th over, depending on the position of the game. To say he looks after his own record all the time is ludicrous and you all know it. :rolleyes:
 
Mark Waugh should certainly be dropped, he's done nothing for the team since the Test matches, hes a liability

And what i still cant get over is the fact that when we had 10 overs to go and Ponting got out, we threw Symonds in, which is fair enough i guess, but when he got out, how could we possibly not send Gilchrist in????

The only reason i can see for this is that Steve Waugh wanted to face the last couple of overs and try and be a hero, he definetly put his interests before the teams and thats not something a captain should do

To think that one of the worlds most dangerous one day batsmen didnt bat in a one dayer is hard to believe
 
F*ck me, you can't win with you pr*cks. Yes, Gilchrist should have batted before Symonds, (personally I reckon Mark Waugh should be the one to go and Gilchrist open with Hayden) but if Waugh had sent him in you lot would have still been on his back about being too concerned about his average to come in at all. He still did the job when he came in for the last few overs, get off his f*cking back.
Look at his record recently. In the last 21 innings he's batted in, he's had 4 not outs, hardly the record of a man playing for himself. And he's batted at 4, 5 and 6, coming in anywhere from the 15th to the 50th over, depending on the position of the game. To say he looks after his own record all the time is ludicrous and you all know it. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Darky


Steve Waugh batting for his average with a dinky 20-odd (red ink) at the end?

Geez, that's a first... NOT!

Could see it coming a mile off though - no Donald and Ntini bowling today, and Elworthy had just about bowled his quota. All he had to face was the 125-130km/h brisk medium pace of Pollock and Klusener, and Boje's tame but disciplined spin.
Boje and Pollock have been economical this series, but most importantly for Captain Red Ink was the fact that they have bowled to contain, not so much to take wickets.

Klusener's form with the ball has been so-so, and is probably the medium pacer the batsmen are most likely to go after. So why not send in a batsman WHO WILL ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE BOWLING!
Click to expand...

I personally would've sent Gilchrist & Warne (maybe even Bichel!) in before Waugh at that stage of the game, to really go the slog. Waugh like Bevan is best suited to the 20 to 40th over milking the bowling period. Those two are both experts at that but Gilchrist & Warne (Bichel to a lesser extent) are real power hitters.

I'm just wrapt that we won one!
 
Steve Waugh should know that Gilchrist is a lot more aggressive with the bat, therefore he shouldve sent him in.

The fact that it was near the end of the game, and that there were only 7 odd overs left shouldve convinced him to send Gillchrist, but by going in himself, he put his own interests ahead of the teams. 21 off 19 balls??? a fair enough return but i feel Gilchrist couldve got more
 
Originally posted by SeinDude
While watching the cricket today, the commentators were talking about Mark Waugh's future in the one-day side and were looking back at his performances in 2001.

It was something like 16 games, 4 centuries and an average of 80.

I agree Mark Waugh appears down in form & confidence at the moment, but it seems pretty strange dropping a bloke who has performed like that over the last 12 months!!

How quickly we forget!!

SeinDude
Click to expand...

Seindude, sides should be picked on current form, not form from a year ago. On that alone, Mark Waugh should be out of the side.

As for the other opening spot, I haven't seen anything yet from Hayden to suggest that he is the one for the spot.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by The Hippie
F*ck me, you can't win with you pr*cks. Yes, Gilchrist should have batted before Symonds, (personally I reckon Mark Waugh should be the one to go and Gilchrist open with Hayden) but if Waugh had sent him in you lot would have still been on his back about being too concerned about his average to come in at all. He still did the job when he came in for the last few overs, get off his f*cking back.
Look at his record recently. In the last 21 innings he's batted in, he's had 4 not outs, hardly the record of a man playing for himself. And he's batted at 4, 5 and 6, coming in anywhere from the 15th to the 50th over, depending on the position of the game. To say he looks after his own record all the time is ludicrous and you all know it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

get off steve waugh,s back?
it was plain to see yesterday his decision to go in ahead of gilly was made not at the teams interest but the interests of his own.
he along with his brother have been under pressure to perform and to put gilly ahead of himself would have added more fuel to the fire for his head.
cheers!
 
You people are amazing.... you mean 12 months of fantastic form means nothing compared to 4 bad innings, one of which he was run out?

Thank god you're not selectors....

Mark Waugh is a quality player who will come good and shut up all the critics as he always does.

Alot of people are constantly on the Waugh's back, but it is rarely mentioned in here the inadequate performances of Warne over the last four years. He has one good ashes series and bowled well in the last two games of the 1999 world cup. He is the one who the selectors seriously need to be considering....
 
You can't knock Mark Waugh's performances over the past year but two aspects of his game are worrying.

Firstly, in the test matches this summer, against the quicker bowlers he took a large number of short deliveries on his body. Secondly, his catching lately has really gone downhill, in fact he would now be one of the least reliable catchers in the side. He would have put down more chances in the past 12 months than the rest of his career put together.

Both of these facts suggest that he's not seeing the ball as well or as early as he has previously. Against the spinners and medium pacers this isn't such a problem but against the quicker attackes he is going to start getting found out. At his age this problem is only going to get progressively worse.
 
Cricketers Briedis rates:

Mark Waugh
Stuart Macgill

Cricketers Briedis does not rate:

Shane Warne
Ian Harvey

Anyone see a pattern here?
 
Originally posted by Fat Red
Cricketers Briedis rates:

Mark Waugh
Stuart Macgill

Cricketers Briedis does not rate:

Shane Warne
Ian Harvey

Anyone see a pattern here?
Click to expand...

Gee, you wouldn't be suggesting he's a tad one eyed would you Red?
 
Anyone who says Steve Waugh bats for himself must have rocks for brains.

He hit 21 off 19 which was the best strike rate in the innings.

What was Marto doing? He had been in for two hours and seemed incapable of getting a boundary in the last ten overs.

Perhaps HE was playing for himself to get to his 100 safely

Other than Alan Border, Steve Waugh is probably the gutsiest cricketer I have seen for Australia and has been a brilliant player and captain

Before these three games they had won 18 WSC matches in a row for Gods sake.

Not to mention the test matches

Get off Steve Waugh's back. Typical Aussie tall poppy lopping.

ps

Andrew Symonds is a joke and a fraud. Bring in Boof.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Fat Red
Cricketers Briedis rates:

Mark Waugh
Stuart Macgill

Cricketers Briedis does not rate:

Shane Warne
Ian Harvey

Anyone see a pattern here?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the pattern is that Victorian cricketers are crap! :D
 
Originally posted by Jars458
Anyone who says Steve Waugh bats for himself must have rocks for brains.

He hit 21 off 19 which was the best strike rate in the innings.

What was Marto doing? He had been in for two hours and seemed incapable of getting a boundary in the last ten overs.

Perhaps HE was playing for himself to get to his 100 safely

Other than Alan Border, Steve Waugh is probably the gutsiest cricketer I have seen for Australia and has been a brilliant player and captain

Before these three games they had won 18 WSC matches in a row for Gods sake.

Not to mention the test matches

Get off Steve Waugh's back. Typical Aussie tall poppy lopping.

ps

. Bring in Boof.
Click to expand...

Agree with every word (except the ones I deleted!)
 
My 2 cents:

Adam Gilchrist and Mark Waugh should open (they did so with great success last year). Hayden should not be in the 1 day side. He has had a magnificent test series, there is no doubt about it, but he is not suited to the 1 day game. His strike rate yesterday was appalling. It is ridiculous having Waugh and Hayden open as both are fairly slow scorers, at least in comparison to players like Gilchrist and Symonds. That is why it is better having one stable batsman (Waugh) and one flashy batsman (Gilchrist).

And with the side they had yesterday, Adam Gilchrist should have come in before Andrew Symonds.

But I cannot understand the criticism of Steve Waugh - he played well yesterday and had a great strike rate (far superior to the others).
 
Steve Waugh did have the best strike rate, but so would anyone else coming in with 6 overs to go, with wickets in hand and the change bowlers on.

I agree with BT here (there's a first, mate) - Gilchrist AND Warne should have batted ahead of Waugh. Send in guys who attack the bowlers, and if it fails with both getting out, Steve Waugh can then send himself in to poke around for singles.

Waugh's 22 off 19 equates to about 7 runs an over. Sending in Gilchrist with 6 overs to go, I think Australia could have expected a return of at least 50% more off those overs.

The Hippie - yes, if Gilchrist had batted in his opening spot, this would not be discussed... but that's partly the contentious point - the fact that he didn't bat at all!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom