Steve Waugh: Remove the hype...

[Zeke]

Just wondering what the general concensus here is on Steve Waugh's place amongst the history of Australian Test Cricket Captains.

I have heard many people suggesting that Waugh is "the greatest Australian captain ever..." and their only real argument is to point at his superior win/loss ratio... I have utmost respect for what Steve as achieved throughout his career, but I struggle to accept that he is a better captain than anyone before him. He has had the luxury of arguably the best test team in our cricketing histroy, so it's little wonder that the win/loss ration is fantastic.

Allan Border took on an Australian team in tatters, who were struggling to win a match, let alone a series, and by the time he retired Australian cricket was on track and notching up victories on a regular basis. I see that as an outstanding captaincy contribution, in extremely pressing circumstances.

Steve Waugh has had amazing players under him, and enjoyed one of the most thorough and beneficial apprentiships under Border and Taylor. He walked into a cricketing unit that was already on top of world cricket, and has maintained that position.

Steve has also captained against opposition teams who are well below the standard of the generations before them - the very ones Border had to contend with.

He's a top captain, no doubt about that. Let's look at his captaincy without the hype, and judge him accordingly.

 

[Wicked Lester]

I guess the answer is we'll never really know.

Statistics are usually used to support an argument (I do it frequently myself) and, as you say, on a win/loss ratio nobody betters him.

Then again you could look at series won. The Windies went 15 years without losing a series. the Australian side doesn't go close to that.

So leave the stats aside and, as you say, look at what he inherited, and what he's done.

He's taken an already great team to new heights and revolutionsied the game in respect to fast scoring. He provided Hayden and Langer with the confidnece to excel and they owe him their careers.

On the other hand he was blessed with the tools to do this in having two of the all time great bowlers in Warne and McGrath at the peak of their powers, and lets face you can have the best batting line up in the world but ultimately bowlers win matches. He has also had the benefit of ascending at a time when other key teams in world cricket were facing major turmoil both on and off the field. At the same time the beneifts of Australia's structured academy based program really kicked in.

The single nagging doubt I suppose I have is the question of how he captains when the chips are down. He sometimes appears a little unimaginitive and lets things drift a little too long before making decisive moves.

All in all my gut feeling is that both Ian Chappell and Mark Taylor were more intuitive captains better able to 'make something happen' when the chips were down, but equally less able (or perhaps less inclined) destroy their opponent in the ruthless manner of Tugga.

But that's really all we can go with - gut feelings, because we'll never really know.

Perhaps most instructive outcome was when I was with a group of cricket tragics the other day and we were discussing Waugh's realtive greatness. Tellingly, and while not for one moment trying to downplay his record, we couldn't definitively include him in our best ever Australian team - needless to say another highly subjective exercise.

For what its worth:

Ponsford and Hayden opening (with Morris deparately unlucky)
Bradman at three (unanimous)
Greg Chappell at four (unanimous)
Keith Miller at six (an allrounder) and Gilchrist at seven
and attack of Warne and O'Reilly (Grimmett??) and pacemen Lillee and probably McGrath, though some went for Lindwall or Alan Davidson (a left armer)

Who's number five?

The was the difficult question - Border, Waugh, Neil Harvey, Stan McCabe all in the running, but the group went with Border (who played a similar role to Tugga but during a period that called for unbelievable fortitude).

We thought if you didn't go with the allrounder (Miller) at six you'd go with Harvey at four, drop Chappell back to five and bat Border at six.

The Captain - Bradman!

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I'm with you on most of that Lester. Personally, I don't even think that Steve Waugh is the best batsman in his family, let alone in the country.

Mark Taylor was far more adept strategically, as well as being a better "sport".

Alan Border showed amazing grit in a team that were often 3-50 when he went to the crease and not 3-250.

Agree almost entirely with your Best XI, although I'd probably still reluctantly have Healy or Marsh just above Gilly, as brilliant as he is with the bat. (And let's face it, with Bradman at 3, do we really need a number 7 batsman?!)

Oh, by the way, I'd have McCabe at five.

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
I'm with you on most of that Lester. Personally, I don't even think that Steve Waugh is the best batsman in his family, let alone in the country.

sorry, i just can't agree with that. in terms of style and grace, Mark has it all, but performances are what matter, and Marks got nothing on Steve.

in terms of Australian all-time XI

Hayden
Ponsford/Morris/Simpson/Lawry
Bradman (c)
Chappell
Waugh/Border (vc)
Gilchrist (+)
Miller
Warne/Grimmet/O'Reilly
Warne/Grimmet/O'Reilly
Lillee
McGrath/Davidson/Lindwall

Waugh/Border (12th man)

 

[amazingjosh]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess

Alan Border showed amazing grit in a team that were often 3-50 when he went to the crease and not 3-250.

And Waugh hasnt?????


...99 World Cup...

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by amazingjosh
And Waugh hasnt?????


...99 World Cup...

forget the 99 WC, Waugh has a reputation of coming out when the chips are down and resurrecting the innings.

 

[wagstaff]

The biggest advantage Waugh had over Taylor in his captaincy reign was the introduction of Gilchrist to his side.

It's easy to forget in the 12 months or so before Gilchrist's introduction that Australia's tail had become quite weak with Healy's batting falling away badly and genuine bunnies like Miller, McGrath, Dale and MacGill not being able to contribute much.

Not only has there been the introduction of Gilchrist, but the likes of Lee, Warne, Gillespie and Bichel have been able to support him in numerous valuable partnerships that have frequently demoralised the opposition.

 

[anduril]

Nice post Zeke.....for what it's worth.....Chappell.I. is the finest skipper this country has ever produced.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Originally posted by anduril
Nice post Zeke.....for what it's worth.....Chappell.I. is the finest skipper this country has ever produced.

Agree with you there I always like listening to him on Ch 9 even though everyone hates him.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by anduril
Nice post Zeke.....for what it's worth.....Chappell.I. is the finest skipper this country has ever produced.

and he'd like to keep it that way. Has he ever said a good word about a former/present captain of Australia?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by nicko18
forget the 99 WC, Waugh has a reputation of coming out when the chips are down and resurrecting the innings.

Well, I dunno the stats eactly, nicko, but I'd reckon Steve Waugh has walked to the crease with the score OVER 200 a hell of a lot more times than when it's UNDER 200, particularly over the last decade.

Look, it's not meant to be a criticism of Waugh. On the contrary, it's more a tribute to the brilliance of the top four batsmen in the team. I know we all want to have this romantic vision of Waugh as a batsman coming out time and again and rescuing us from the clutches of a perilous situation, but the fact is, Australia have been so dominant for so long now, that we've generally been cruising along when he's got to the crease.

Of course there's been exceptions, like the 99 WC, or even occasionally in Tests.

Originally posted by Black Thunder
sorry, i just can't agree with that. in terms of style and grace, Mark has it all, but performances are what matter, and Marks got nothing on Steve.

Well, personal tatse really.

A friend of mine always argues he reckons Ian Chappell to be a better, harder to dismiss bat, but I much preferred the grace and elegance of his younger brother Greg.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Well, I dunno the stats eactly, nicko, but I'd reckon Steve Waugh has walked to the crease with the score OVER 200 a hell of a lot more times than when it's UNDER 200, particularly over the last decade.

Geoff Lawson read out the stats once. It is a marked difference. When he came in when the score was below 70, he averaged something like 70. He averaged about 30 if he came in beyond 200.. and no, it certainly has not been like that for the past decade, more like the last 3-4 years. We'd often get into holes when Taylor was opening and Blewett, Slater, Elliott and company were up there, and Ponting batted at 6.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

Originally posted by wagstaff
The biggest advantage Waugh had over Taylor in his captaincy reign was the introduction of Gilchrist to his side.

It's easy to forget in the 12 months or so before Gilchrist's introduction that Australia's tail had become quite weak with Healy's batting falling away badly and genuine bunnies like Miller, McGrath, Dale and MacGill not being able to contribute much.

Not only has there been the introduction of Gilchrist, but the likes of Lee, Warne, Gillespie and Bichel have been able to support him in numerous valuable partnerships that have frequently demoralised the opposition.

Have to agree here.

Apart from what Steve Waugh does on the cricket field, it is very good to see him going around to various countries and looking after some of the very ill children.

 

[Nandrolone Stam]

Originally posted by goaldrush
Have to agree here.

Apart from what Steve Waugh does on the cricket field, it is very good to see him going around to various countries and looking after some of the very ill children.

You would've met him a few times then aye?

 

[EssJayW]

Originally posted by Nandrolone Stam
You would've met him a few times then aye?

You are a very bad person NS. Anyway Ive got the munchies

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Here's Steve Waugh's last FIVE years of Test cricket. I could only be bothered doing the last five - you're welcome to dig back further if you're that motivated. I'm not just at the minute.

Each row is a record of what the Aussie score was when he came to the crease, and what he went on to make.

I'm not sure if it supports what I claimed earier in the thread - you can decide.

What it does show, however, is that Waugh has only had to come in TWICE in the last five years when the score was under 50, for an average of 28.5, and ELEVEN (out of 46) when the score was 100 or less, for an average of 29.6.

As opposed to his 17 (out of 46) knocks when the score was 200+, for an average of 52.3

It also illustrates just how few times Waugh has had to bat in the second innings (just 7 times in 36 tests played), meaning that he rarely has to bat on a disintegrating fifth day wicket, or under "save the match" conditions.

This, of course, is not Steve's fault, but just an indication of how dominant the team is, and misrepresentative it is to see him as a "get us out of a hole" kind of guy.

Hope the columns below set up alright when submitted.

2003 1st Test Aust v Zimb 3-179 Waugh 78
2nd Test Aust v Zimb 3-148 Waugh 61

2003 1st Test Aust v Bang 3-184 Waugh 100*
2nd Test Aust v Bang 3-132 Waugh 156*

2003 1st Test Aust v WI 3-300 Waugh 25
2nd Test Aust v WI DNP
3rd Test Aust v WI 3-292 Waugh 115
4th Test Aust v WI 3-93 Waugh 41

2002/3 1st Test Aust v Eng 3-378 Waugh 7
2nd Test Aust v Eng 3-356 Waugh 34
3rd Test Aust v Eng 4-226 Waugh 53
4th Test Aust v Eng 3-265 Waugh 77 3-58 Waugh 14
5th Test Aust v Eng 3-57 Waugh 102

2002 1st Test Aust v Pak 3-272 Waugh 31 3-74 Waugh 0
2nd Test Aust v Pak 3-148 Waugh 0
3rd Test Aust v Pak 3-233 Waugh 103*

2001/2 1st Test Aust v SA 3-199 Waugh 8 4-273 Waugh 13
2nd Test Aust v SA 3-267 Waugh 90
3rd Test Aust v SA 3-253 Waugh 30

2001 1st Test Aust v NZ 3-235 Waugh 3
2nd Test Aust v NZ 3-253 Waugh 0
3rd Test Aust v NZ 3-122 Waugh 8

2001 1st Test Aust v SA 3-224 Waugh 32
2nd Test Aust v SA 3-162 Waugh 0 4-251 Waugh 14
3rd Test Aust v SA 4-90 Waugh 42

2001 1st Test Aust v Eng 3-234 Waugh 105
2nd Test Aust v Eng 3-195 Waugh 45
3rd Test Aust v Eng 3-69 Waugh 13 3-88 Waugh 1
4th Test Aust v Eng DNP
5th Test Aust v Eng 2-292 Waugh 157*

2000/1 1st Test Aust v WI 4-117 Waugh 41
2nd Test Aust v WI 4-123 Waugh 26
3rd Test Aust v WI DNP
4th Test Aust v WI 3-101 Waugh 21* 3-165 Waugh 20
5th Test Aust v WI 3-109 Waugh 103 3-46 Waugh 38

1999 1st Test Aust v Sri 3-9 Waugh 19
2nd Test Aust v Sri 3-179 Waugh 19
3rd Test Aust v Sri 3-182 Waugh 14

1999 1st Test Aust v Zimb 4-174 Waugh 151*

Australia … Steve Waugh
0 – 50.. (2) 38, 19
50-100. (9) 41, 14, 102, 0, 42, 13, 1, 38, 19
100-150 (9) 61, 156*, 0, 8, 41, 26, 21*, 103
150-200 (9) 78, 100*, 8, 0 , 45, 20, 19, 14, 151*
200-250 (5) 53, 103*, 3, 32, 105,
250-300 (9) 115, 77, 31, 13, 90, 30, 0, 13, 157*
300-350 (1) 25
350-400 (2) 7, 34

 

[Ripper]

In fairness to Steve Waugh it is pertinent topoint out that Mark Taylors Captaincy record would be far worse if HE didn't have Steve Waugh (at his best during that period IMO) in his side.
With the benefit of hind sight I think that Steve Waugh should have inherited the Captaincy from AB.
Having said that I still think he (Steve) is well past his "use by" date.

 

[EssJayW]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
With the benefit of hind sight I think that Steve Waugh should have inherited the Captaincy from AB.

your taking the pyss arent you?

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by EssJayW
your taking the pyss arent you?

No, he put his hand up for it and history has proved that he is a better Captain.

All Tubby did was keep the 2nd best ever Austrailian Batsman out of the side for too long.

 

[Ripper]

And Steve Waugh gave his players confidence.
Hayden , Langer, Martyn all failed under Tubby but shone under Waugh.

 

[EssJayW]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
All Tubby did was keep the 2nd best ever Austrailian Batsman out of the side for too long.

I think Greg Chappell had alreadt retired and Im quite sure Neil Harvey had lost a bit of his zest. Who are you talking about?

 

[markstaners]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
And Steve Waugh gave his players confidence.
Hayden , Langer, Martyn all failed under Tubby but shone under Waugh.

Well all three hardly excelled under AB's leadership either. Mark failed under steve as did Slater, and Martyn has hardly been a raging succes story.

Taylor was with out doubt the smartest captain on the cricket field hell imagine if he could have played half decent, he was a tactician Border was basically a school teacher on the field resurected a struggling team. Taylor was bloody unlucky he didn't have a Gilchrist mind you he would have prefered healy i think. Waugh got a Gilchrist a Brett Lee and Gillespie i can tell you now Taylor would be looking sweet even if he just had one of those guys under his rule. Albeit he did get Gilchrist for about 3 games very little time. He had Gillespie too but for about the same time as Gilchrist. Waugh got incredibly lucky with players.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by markstaners
Well all three hardly excelled under AB's leadership either. Mark failed under steve as did Slater, and Martyn has hardly been a raging succes story.

Taylor was with out doubt the smartest captain on the cricket field hell imagine if he could have played half decent, he was a tactician Border was basically a school teacher on the field resurected a struggling team. Taylor was bloody unlucky he didn't have a Gilchrist mind you he would have prefered healy i think. Waugh got a Gilchrist a Brett Lee and Gillespie i can tell you now Taylor would be looking sweet even if he just had one of those guys under his rule. Albeit he did get Gilchrist for about 3 games very little time. He had Gillespie too but for about the same time as Gilchrist. Waugh got incredibly lucky with players.

I'd learn my cricket before getting on the soapbox