Remove this Banner Ad

Steve Waugh

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

H

hotpie

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Joined
May 1, 2002
Posts
16,707
Reaction score
29
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Steve Waugh is starting to make a goose of himself.

He is a specialist middle order batsman - a rare commodity in one day cricket - and understandably the selectors think there is no room for him in the team.

Now he reckons he can bowl offspin and replace Warney! And that its all the ICC's fault!

He needs to show a bit if dignity in his retirement phase, otherwise he will be remembered as a bitter man who thought of himself above his team.
 
Originally posted by hotpie
otherwise he will be remembered as a bitter man who thought of himself above his team.
Click to expand...

does this go for every fringe player who would like to be a part of any cricket team or are you just having a jealous stab because he is 37?
 
Would I be right in saying Steve Waugh has no chance of playing in the World Cup? There's been a big hoo-ha over whether McGill can make it, and the ruling seems to be that he's ineligible because he wasn't named in the original 30. So I guess that applies to Steve as well.
 
Originally posted by RogerC
Would I be right in saying Steve Waugh has no chance of playing in the World Cup? There's been a big hoo-ha over whether McGill can make it, and the ruling seems to be that he's ineligible because he wasn't named in the original 30. So I guess that applies to Steve as well.
Click to expand...

The rule states that a player may only be seleceted from outside the 30 if he is replacing a "like" player. ie a legspinner (MacGill) for a legspiner (Warne) which is a pretty crap ruling cause its very broad and interpretive.

Why should teams not be allowed to pick players from outside the 30???
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by hourn
The rule states that a player may only be seleceted from outside the 30 if he is replacing a "like" player. ie a legspinner (MacGill) for a legspiner (Warne) which is a pretty crap ruling cause its very broad and interpretive.

Why should teams not be allowed to pick players from outside the 30???
Click to expand...
If teams are allowed to pick from outside the 30 then what would be the point of picking the 30 to begin with?
 
Originally posted by kretchy
If teams are allowed to pick from outside the 30 then what would be the point of picking the 30 to begin with?
Click to expand...

the reasoning behind the 30 man squads was so that tournament organisers could have together all brochures and magazines and programs etc,. in place before the event according to Steve Waugh in the telegraph today.

sounds like a whole heap of crap if you ask me. Its a stupid idea to have preliminary 30 man squads. There is nothing to be gained and alot to be lost be it.
 
and why do you have to be bogged down by setting 30 players in concrete so far out from the event, wheras india still have the opportunity to assess who is in and not in form. the top 30 players in early december will not be the same as the top 30 in march, so why should india pick theirs closer to the event than others??
 
Originally posted by hotpie
Steve Waugh is starting to make a goose of himself.

He is a specialist middle order batsman - a rare commodity in one day cricket - and understandably the selectors think there is no room for him in the team.

Now he reckons he can bowl offspin and replace Warney! And that its all the ICC's fault!

He needs to show a bit if dignity in his retirement phase, otherwise he will be remembered as a bitter man who thought of himself above his team.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
It was totally unneccesary for Steve Waugh to declare so early. Australia should have batted on until an hour before stumps and made another 70-80 runs.

The only reason he declared then was to keep Martin Love's score below his own and to ensure Love did not make a ton on debut.
 
Originally posted by hotpie
It was totally unneccesary for Steve Waugh to declare so early. Australia should have batted on until an hour before stumps and made another 70-80 runs.

The only reason he declared then was to keep Martin Love's score below his own and to ensure Love did not make a ton on debut.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: never mind the fact that it could take 6-8 sessions to get 20 english wickets, at which time the typical melbourne weather could shorten the match even further. keep in mind our main spin weapon is out of action.

clearly gilchrist was sent in to blast quick runs. Love was scoring far too slowly to make continuing on worthwhile. all it takes is another big knock from Vaughan or Hussain and you pricks would be having a go at him for batting on too long and forcing the draw.
 
The weather is not an issue - there will be five days of clear weather. Three days and an hour is plenty of time to bowl out England - (MacGill has always filled in well for Warne) and would have given Love a shot at a century, and given Australia a huge score not just a solid score.

Waugh has put himself ahead of his team by declaring an hour early.
 
Originally posted by hotpie
The weather is not an issue - there will be five days of clear weather. Three days and an hour is plenty of time to bowl out England - (MacGill has always filled in well for Warne) and would have given Love a shot at a century, and given Australia a huge score not just a solid score.

Waugh has put himself ahead of his team by declaring an hour early.
Click to expand...

you are embarrasing yourself now. even richie benaud just said then he thought that the declaration should have come earlier than it did. as i said in another thread, the rate Love was scoring, it would have taken another session for him to reach 100. in which time England would have taken 6 wickets in 2 days, leaving us to get 20 in 3 days, and england are batter heavy on a good track that will hold up for 5 days. why would you put love's personal ambitions before the team? you haven't been following cricket for too long have you?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't see any problem with Waugh's captaincy here, or any selfishness in the decision taken. If 550-odd isn't enough to declare on, no score is.

What I do object to is the sustained campaign, aided and abetted by the media, to make a special case of Steve Waugh. I keep hearing talk about how the media are trying to drive him out of the game. Well, Peter Roebuck has written five articles in a row backing him, and most of the rest of the print media are playing the same tune.

His innings in this test was typical of the hype that now surrounds him. His form up until the last test against the sub-standard Pakistanis probably warranted dropping him, and it was only his captaincy that kept him there. He slugged most of his recent knock on a benign pitch against the terrors of Mark Butcher. But to read about it in the papers, you'd think that innings single-handedly saved Australian cricket.

It's good stuff, but it proves nothing. He still looks suspect against fast bowling, he's probably not as good as Lehmann or Love right now, and he stresses that he wants to be selected on merit, not reputation.

Both Taylor and Border were eased out while they still had something to offer. Australian cricket was stronger for it. Ponting is ready to captain, Love has put his hand up and Clarke is waiting around the corner. Whether Waugh likes it or not, the selectors are expected to look a few years down the track and prepare the side accordingly; and hanging onto a great player while his form slides into sporadic bursts isn't part of that picture.

Of course Waugh can't think that way, because it is signing his own redundancy slip. But that's the way it works.
 
Originally posted by RogerC


Both Taylor and Border were eased out while they still had something to offer.
Click to expand...

surely you jest??? Allan Border was virtually pushed out of the side and told to retire. They held team meetings between players and selectors in which he was not privvy to whilst still captain. he certainly did not do it on his own merit, and unwillingly by his own admission called a press conference in '94. Border was 38 years and 245 days old.

as for Mark Taylor, well i guess after going 20 innings without so much as a half century is being 'eased out'. Thankfully for him his triple century in peshawar masks the fact that he also was teetering on the edge of being dumped.
 
Looks like Steve Waugh has got away with it. His generous declaration nearly lost his side the match.

At least he got another chance to bat again, and remind the selectors that his time is up.

Its been a great career Steve. Enjoy your final Test match in Sydney - don't overstay your welcome because there's nothing worse in sport to see than a champion who will not retire despite the obvious signs.
 
Originally posted by hotpie
Looks like Steve Waugh has got away with it. His generous declaration nearly lost his side the match.

At least he got another chance to bat again, and remind the selectors that his time is up.

Its been a great career Steve. Enjoy your final Test match in Sydney - don't overstay your welcome because there's nothing worse in sport to see than a champion who will not retire despite the obvious signs.
Click to expand...

I agree with Waugh to go - $$ getting in the way of his decision.

However, his declaration was spot on. Mark Taylor started a great trend of making Captains responsible for providing an entertaining game, as well as trying to win it. I think it cost him a test or two V SA., but Test cricket was much better for it, I see no point in OZ making a gazillion runs and having a no-contest in Day 3.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by hotpie

Its been a great career Steve. Enjoy your final Test match in Sydney - don't overstay your welcome because there's nothing worse in sport to see than a champion who will not retire despite the obvious signs.
Click to expand...
I think we're already past that stage. He just didn't look like he belonged there today. And not for the first time recently either.
 
Nicko, without gettting into hair-splitting as to what exactly "having something to offer" consists of (although I do think that 334 doesn't happen by accident), in a way your point is not so far from what I was trying to say. Border's form before he was pushed wasn't appalling. Taylor's form before his mammoth Peshawar score wasn't dissimilar to Waugh's before the third test against Pakistan recently.

The fact is the selectors told them to go. Which is what they're probably going to do now to Waugh. And he has no more right to hang around than they did.

Waugh's a valuable player, but others are passing him by. Love looked way more comfortable today. The English bowlers virtually treated Waugh as a tail ender.
 
people overlook the fact that Steve Waugh was the 4rd best performing Australian in that test.

another world cup no show, Macgill, was the 2nd best
 
I think we may be forgetting a few facts re. Mark Taylor.

Like most people my memory is that his form was rotten, then he made 334, then retired shortly after.

Not quite the case - after he came out of his slump he made a further 5 centuries (including the 334) and 7 fifties over his last 4 or 5 series. In other words he played for nearly two years after the slump with some fairly good series results, though its fair to say that he was clearly not the batsman he was in his prime.

The big difference with the current situation of course was that Taylor was 31/32 during the slump and retired(!!) at 34. Waugh will be 38 just after the world cup and on the evidence of today is in serious decline.

I don't know how long this soap opera can go on. If he had a migraine then Love or Gilchrist should have been sent in.
 
The Melbourne Test match is finished and it looks like Steve Waugh did make the right decison and declare at 550 odd and put made Englan bat again has Australia won by 5 wickets with over 2 sessions still left in the test match
 
As an Australian cricket fan who is far more a fan of cricket than I am of Australian cricket, I'm finding Steve Waugh is getting more bitter and more twisted with every match.

At what point in time is he ever going to give an opposition player or team the credit he or they deserve, as opposed to just referring to how badly his team played or fielded, or whatever ?

So it was a migraine this time, hey Steve. From my angle, it looked like some of that "mental toughness" that he so strongly believes in might have been displayed by Nassar Hussein and his team on the last day. 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.

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.

Cricket will survive quite healthily without Steve Waugh.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom