Steve Waugh

[DaveW]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess

Or maybe it's the fact that finally Steve had to go in when we were 3 for 58, instead of 3 for 258, as it's been for the better part of the last decade when he's finally gone out to bat. If you're gonna hide at Number 5 or Number 6 for the entirety of you're international career, then excuse me if I don't rate your efforts as highly as someone who goes out their when the ball and/or the pitch is actually doing something.

I agree that Steve Waugh's time is up. But we mustn't forget he has often saved Australia in "3 for 58" type situations. I don't think the "3 for 258" type situations have been as common for Australia over the last decade as you might believe.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Must say I've often wondered why he has locked himself into the number 5 position for all these years and not taken the responsibility of batting a little higher in the order. This would have provided greater assistance to younger players who could have been eased into the team at 5 or 6 and avoided the circus we had for a few years in the number 3 position.

Anyway its been a great career Steve and you have definitely been the man for a crisis (though not very often in the past 2 years) on many occasions but it is time to call it a day and let the team start building a new middle order so that there is stability in the team when the true day of reckoning arrives in a couple of years time - the retirements or decline in form of the team's match winners - McGrath and Warne.

 

[dogboy23]

I think Waughs come back to form during this series.He has got alot of starts that would have turned into big scores had he not had to go for quick runs to make a declaration so any suggestion of him playing for himself is ridiculous.It is quite unbelievable to read some of the media after he batted with a migraine.Some are even trying to put down his style of batting and his unusual technique as pointers to the fact he should be dropped.He has always batted that way since he removed the pull and hook from his game and it has worked wonders for him.Get off his back and let him play cricket.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by nicko18
people overlook the fact that Steve Waugh was the 4rd best performing Australian in that test.

No, Waugh wasn't the fourth best Australian.... he was the fourth best batsman (out of six).

And it's easier making a slogging 77 when you come in at 3/900 facing Butcher and Dawson, than 3/50 facing Harmison and Caddick...

You might also notice that most of his initial 50 was made against the two soft pie-chuckers, and his strike rate the next morning (facing better bowlers) was about 40.

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
There's a common saying in football that as soon as you cross the white line, you're 100% fit. Especially when you have the likes of Love, Gilchrist or even Brett Lee who could quite easily have batted at Number 5. I think the Poms simply worked on his weaknesses. It was great cricket on their behalf, and whinging about their tactics of keeping him on strike was both hypocritical and unjustified.

In this situation there was nothing for Australia to gain by a "sick" Waugh batting at 5. He probably thought he could survive for an hour, chime in with a red ink 30 and get that average closer to 50 again. Rather that than let Love cement his place with another unbeaten 30 or 40, eh Cap'n?

All of a sudden his back injury is better and he can bowl again too... at the tail-enders of course. Think averages Steve...

I think rather than do the "courageous" thing and face the music with a migraine (then make excuses later), it would have been more courageous and certainly more dignified for Waugh to sit out the second innings, announce the Sydney Test would be his last, and go out as a man who had a little bit of dignity in him rather than a bloke who is clawing to hang on to a position that has passed him by.

 

[Becker]

I am growing increasingly tired of the borish attitude some people have on this forum towards certain players in the Australian team.
Whether a guy plays in the Test team is a matter for the selectors, and we should support those players even if we don't agree with their selection.
Just remember people ... jealousy is a curse.

 

[knuckles]

So is greed.

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by knuckles
So is greed.

Greed? You mean that thing that MOST people are guilty of? All I see is a player who takes enormous pride in playing for his country, and he wants to play as often as possible.
If you don't think he should be in the team then blame the selectors, don't hang rubbish on a man just trying to do what he loves doing.
I see no need for Steve Waugh to retire, the selectors' pen will put a line through his name soon enough. I don't know of too many other people who would gladly walk away from a job they love and one which pays in excess of a million dollars a year.
How many of us can honestly say if we were in Waugh's position that we would just walk away from something we love doing?
Just enjoy his final few days at the elite level, he will be gone all too soon enough.

 

[knuckles]

He needs to retire b/c there are better batsmen around - covered by others. Anyone would be proud to represent their country at any sport- moot point.

He said money wasn't the issue. I say bollocks, as do many others. And yes, you would have to shoot me to take me away from a 7 figure job. Or take me out of derivatives and put me in swaps

 

[Diego]

I have to question the merits of Trevor Hohns.

7 times played for Australia. Does that make you an automatic selector?

 

[P76]

Becker, there is some merit in what you say - who would retire in Steve's position. In fact what we have seen in recent times is that no cricketer goes willingly, and that is surely because of some form of greed. Don't forget that the 70's era cricketers usually retired to make more money out of cricket.

It's understandable these days that a Lehmann or a Bichel would want to play as long as they can, but I actually think Steve is shooting himself in the foot here - the more of a shamble his departure becomes, the less marketable he will be after his "retirement". There's plenty more money for far less work ahead of him, given his status of former Aus captain.

My feeling is that he is desperate for the stats, he wants to go at least one test more that AB, and get to 10,000. I think barring a miracle his average won't get back up to 50 (of course he'll now score 335 in this match......)

 

[red+black]

i would keep him for the Windies tour then dump him for good. if we get 2-0 up against the Windies then for me, the 2nd test over there would be his last.

i laugh at suggestions that he has been treated poorly. yeah, cos everyone gets to play 17 years of test cricket and make millions of dollars

oh the team's winning! so we should only retire players when the team falls in a heap. i agree that he doesn't have to announce his retirement, but he will have to accept that the selectors can and will dump him at any moment. saying he'll play until the next indian tour is laughable.

great innings steve, but the ball that dismisses you is about to leave the hand.

time for us all to move on.

 

[P76]

And of course the thing that looms over all this is the age of the Aus team. Not too many cats in there under 30, and we all remember what happened to Australia the last time we had three champions retire in close succession.....

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by P76
I actually think Steve is shooting himself in the foot here - the more of a shamble his departure becomes, the less marketable he will be after his "retirement". There's plenty more money for far less work ahead of him, given his status of former Aus captain.

I guess this is where I differ. I don't feel Steve Waugh's situation is a "shambles" in the least. He is leading his country to an Ashes victory, he MAY reach the magical 10,000 run mark, and then the selectors will possibly give him the golden handshake.
Steve Waugh was selected as captain for the series and he is just doing his job to the best of his ability.
Like others, I feel his time has come and he will be sacked at the end of this series. However, unlike others, I refuse to sit here and treat the man like a refugee with a deadly disease. He has been one of the greats, and I shall continue to respect him as just that.
As I've continued to say, if you disagree with his selection in the team then your argument is with the selectors, not Steve Waugh.

 

[P76]

Becker, what you say is fair enough, and I agree with you, Waugh is not selecting himself. However, with his sometimes farcical campaign to get back into the one day side, and his increasingly desperate attempts to inflate the scores he does get into something they are not, he is losing whatever dignity he had. That is the shambles on his part in my opinion. He is debasing our future memory of him by his actions at the moment.

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by P76
Becker, what you say is fair enough, and I agree with you, Waugh is not selecting himself. However, with his sometimes farcical campaign to get back into the one day side, and his increasingly desperate attempts to inflate the scores he does get into something they are not, he is losing whatever dignity he had. That is the shambles on his part in my opinion. He is debasing our future memory of him by his actions at the moment.

Inflate the scores he gets? How is he doing that? Maybe he is deasing your future memories of him, but not mine.

 

[P76]

Originally posted by Becker
Inflate the scores he gets? How is he doing that?

Don't you read the newspapers????

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by P76
Don't you read the newspapers????

Yes, sometimes I do, but they aren't my constant source of reference. Not everything in the papers require reading.
I repeat ..... how is he inflating his scores, does he sneak into the scorer's booth and add another 25 runs or something?

 

[P76]

Well, let's take his first fifty of the series - he described it in his column as a fine innings, which it wasn't, and his last one in Melbourne (which I saw) in similar glowing terms and yes he did play some good shots against bowling from Butcher and Dawson, who are hardly test standard bowlers, but really it was hardly anything to write home about. He is not playing well, and that started IMHO last year against Shane Bond - but he would have us believe otherwise. He is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That is what I mean by him inflating the scores he gets into something they are not - he has had a couple of 50's, only one of which had any semblance of good stroke-play, and he's writing about himself as if he is in as good a nick as he's always been.

But, as you say, the selectors keep picking him.

 

[DaveW]

There's no question that Steve Waugh wants to stay in the side for selfish reasons alone. He's putting himself before the team, and for this reason I've lost a lot of respect for him over the last couple of years.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by DaveW
I agree that Steve Waugh's time is up. But we mustn't forget he has often saved Australia in "3 for 58" type situations. I don't think the "3 for 258" type situations have been as common for Australia over the last decade as you might believe.

I've researched this via the Baggy Green stats filter, and basically looked only at his century scores, and looked up what the state of play was when S.Waugh came out to bat. Make what you will of the results.

Runs Pos Dismissal I Result Match

1989
177* 6 not out 1 W 1st Test v Eng in Eng 1989 at Leeds (came in at 4/273)
152* 6 not out 2 W 2nd Test v Eng in Eng 1989 at Lord's
(came in at 4/221, Eng batted first and made 286)
134* 7 not out 3 W 2nd Test v SL in Aus 1989/90 at Hobart
(came in at 5/253, plus 8 run lead on 1st Innings)
1993
100 3 caught 1 D 3rd Test v WI in Aus 1992/93 at Sydney
(came in at 1/42)
157* 6 not out 1 W 4th Test v Eng in Eng 1993 at Leeds
(came in at 4/321)
147* 6 not out 2 W 3rd Test v NZ in Aus 1993/94 at Brisbane
(came in at 4/277, NZ batted first and made 233)
1994
164 6 caught wk 1 W 3rd Test v SA in Aus 1993/94 at Adelaide
(came in at 4/183)
1995
200 5 caught 2 W 4th Test v WI in WI 1994/95 at Kingston
(came in at 3/73, WI batted first and made 265)
112* 5 not out 1 W 1st Test v Pak in Aus 1995/96 at Brisbane
(came in at 3/213)
131* 5 not out 1 W 2nd Test v SL in Aus 1995/96 at Melbourne
(came in at 3/219)
1996
170 5 bowled 1 W 3rd Test v SL in Aus 1995/96 at Adelaide
(came in at 3/96)
1997
160 5 caught wk 2 W 1st Test v SA in SA 1996/97 at Joh'burg
(came in at 3/169, SAF batted first and made 302)
108 5 bowled 1 W 3rd Test v Eng in Eng 1997 at Manchester
(came in at 3/42)
116 5 caught wk 3
(came in at 3/39, plus 73 run lead on 1st Innings)
1998
157 5 caught 2 W 1st Test v Pak in Pak 1998/99 at R'pindi
(came in at 3/28, Pak batted first and made 269)
112 5 caught wk 1 D 1st Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Brisbane
(came in at 3/106)
122* 5 not out 2 L 4th Test v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Melbourne
(came in at 3/98, Eng batted first and made 270)

AS CAPTAIN
1999
100 5 caught 1 L 2nd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Kingston
(came in at 3/46)
199 5 lbw 1 L 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown (came in at 3/36)
151* 5 not out 2 W Only Test v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare (came in at 3/96, Zim batted first and made 194)
150 5 caught wk 1 W 1st Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Adelaide (came in at 3/45)
2000
151* 6 not out 2 W 2nd Test v NZ in NZ 1999/00 at Well'ton
(came in at 4/51, NZ batted first and made 298)
121* 5 not out 1 W 4th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Melb.
(came in at 3/101)
2001
103 5 bowled 2 W 5th Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney
(came in at 3/109, WI batted first and made 272)
110 5 lbw 1 L 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Calcutta
(came in at 3/214)
105 5 lbw 2 W 1st Test v Eng in Eng 2001 at Birmingham (came in at 3/134, Eng batted first and made 294))
157* 5 not out 1 W 5th Test v Eng in Eng 2001 at The Oval (came in at 3/489)
2002
103* 5 not out 1 W 3rd Test v Pak in UAE 2002/03 at Sharjah (came in at 3/233)

 

[DaveW]

Thanks Darky.

There's enough 3-for-not-enough scores to support my conjecture.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by DaveW
Thanks Darky.

There's enough 3-for-not-enough scores to support my conjecture.

Definitely a pattern between about 1997-2000. But the last few centuries have come when Australia has been anywhere between comfortable & in command.

Nobody doubted his place in the team during 1997-2000, but when age started creeping up (35-ish), the centuries and 50s in the last 3 years (which I also looked at but couldn't be stuffed editing for readable posting) have come at easier stages of matches.

Of course a batsman doesn't have much choice about when he comes out to bat, but the last three years don't have all those gutsy knocks which are supposedly his trademark. Until a year or so ago there was no doubt about his position in the side either, but it's hard to draw a line on his form when the quality of the opposition has dropped away significantly.

 

[Dipper]

As an outsider one point I'd like to make in regards to the whole Steve Waugh should he go or not debate is that whilst it's clear that he's past his best as a batsman & the likes of Love or Carke may well score more runs than him given a go in the middle order it may well be outbalanced by what he gives the side as a leader.

At the moment with such a great side it's pretty easy to sit there & say let's get rid of him bring in a new bloke who scores more runs & the whole juggernaut will just keep on chugging but with even more power, but great leaders of men aren't two a penny.It's pretty obvious that a lot of blokes in this Aussie side really look up to him & when you have this sort of presence you become an almost talismanic symbol for the team.

Obviously Australia aren't about to slip into mediocricty in the short term but you may find under a new captain that you aren't as able to turn the screw in the pivotal moments of matches, standards may drop & blokes who always deffered to Waugh as captain may have trouble doing the same to Ponting.I mean to say when Waugh was made captain he'd been in the side longer than anyone but Ponting must step up knowing there's blokes in the side who've played Test cricket for a lot longer than him & who've proved themeselves much better Test cricketers than him.

It's by no means a done deal that a new captain comes in & the team continues to be as successful, if I was an Australian cricket fan whether I liked him or not I'd be hoping that Waugh stayed around-there's a phrase 'if it ain't broken then don't fix it'-couldn't be more applicable in my opinion.

So whilst he may not provide the runs that would be expected of another middle order batsmen his influence on the team as a whole might well be much more important............then again it might not(we'll find out over the next year or 2 though).

 

[Wicked Lester]

Dipper

We have this dilemna every time the captaincy changes - when Taylor took over from Border people were worried and likewise very similar concerns were echoed when Waugh replaced Taylor.

But, the team always copes - in fact it is always surprising how quickly the supposedly irreplaceable captain is forgotten. Will Ponting be as successful as Waugh? Most likely not and most likley it won't be anything to do with his captaincy. Quite simply Australia will slowly decline as a power as our two match winning bowlers slowly decline and eventually retire. Remember these two would now almost assured of selection in an all time Australian team. However there inevitable decline through form and/or injury will happen even if Tugga were captain in 5 years time.

I'm intrigued to know which current members of the team have proven themselves to be MUCH BETTER than Ponting, other than perhaps Warne and McGrath but it could be argued they are better than everyone else, the Captain included.

IN ODI's Ponting's up there with our best ever. In the test team his record is also up there and improving all the time. If he maintains his current average then he and Steve Waugh will be almost inseperable and of course Ponting is making his name at number 3.

Lastly while I don't deny Tugga has been the man for a crisis many times and has done well coming in at 3 for not many on occasions, I will always maintain it is easier to come in at 3 for 200, 3 for 100 or even 3 for 50 after the new ball has lost at least some of its shine than opening the batting or coming out at the fall of the first wicket.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I will always maintain it is easier to come in at 3 for 200, 3 for 100 or even 3 for 50 after the new ball has lost at least some of its shine than opening the batting or coming out at the fall of the first wicket.

Ponting and others like Langer thrive up the top of the order and would struggle more down the order. Vice versa for others. It depends what type of player you are. I was always a top order batsman and did much better batting in the top 3 than the middle order. This is because i liked the luxury of taking my time and building an innings. Quite often coming in at 5,6 or 7, the team could have 300+ runs on the board so the pressure is there to maintain the momentum. top order batsman also like the ball coming off quicker. you cannot make a sweeping statement that batting in the top order is harder than the middle order. if you shuffled the top 6, we'd be a lot more ineffective. as someone said before Love is a #3 batsman, but you wouldn't risk losing Pontings form by pushing him down to 6, its a totally different ballgame coming in at 4-300.

make what you will of these stats.

Langer:
#1 or #2: 1465 @ 56.34
#3: 2457 @ 41.64

Ponting:
#3: 1891 @ 54.02
#6: 1962 @ 50.30

Martyn:
#4: 398 @ 49.50
#6: 1113 @ 45.39

Waugh:
#3: 252 @ 36.00
#4: 196 @ 32.66
#5: 5828 @ 53.46
#6: 3095 @ 51.58

the batsman in this side are currently settled into the positions they are most comfortable with. Langer opening, Ponting up the top order, whereas Waugh is more suited to the middle order. horses for courses, not easier doing one or the other, otherwise everyone would go better at #6.