Steve Waugh

[Wallaby]

I do not think the rule has been changed since. Besides Australia has used a similar tactic in home series recently anyway by taking top lower level fieldsman and using them as 12th men.

However all that is besides my point. Punter made a big public deal about that this and did so in the wrong way. He made both himself and the Australian cricket team look like fools by doing so as well. Sure make a comment of it if you want. However he went on and on about it and really did make a mess of the whole issue. Not what a captain is suppose to do.

I think you missed Ponting's point. Yes the supre-field-sub tactic has been used for years - by all teams (Peter Cantrell). Ponting was upset by the English tactic of taking the fast bowlers off the field when not injured A) for a rest so they could bowl more overs in the day and B) to get the sub into the field.

That is totally against the spirit of the game, is against the laws (subs are only allowed for injury, although in practise you can briefly nip off for a pee etc) and should have been stamped on by the umpires as soon as it was brought to their attention (half-way through the first test).

 

[Bomber Bears]

Well they have not exactly been unconvincing at the same time. I still rate Saffa a better side then India though. Australia although is well behind both teams imo. England may even find themselves ahead soon with the talent coming through there (mostly Saffa expats).

Have you seen the talent coming through in Australia? Best patch of young talent we've had since the early 90's IMO.

I think there has beena mediocre generation (for the most part some good players) between the waughs, gilchrists, warne, Mcgrath, Ponting etc and the current youngsters, Hughes, Khawaja, Copeland, Hazlewood, M Marsh, but there are some extremely bright prospects in that lot.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Well they have not exactly been unconvincing at the same time. I still rate Saffa a better side then India though. Australia although is well behind both teams imo. England may even find themselves ahead soon with the talent coming through there (mostly Saffa expats).

I don't disagree with South Africa being a quality side. India have not won a series in South Africa or Australia. A touring India would not beat Australia, England or South Africa.

 

[Santana]

Without having achieved that much? Man what are you smoking?

Currently the best test side in the world and 2nd in the ODI standings.

I would say that counts for achieving something.

Probably what everyone else are.

They only went so high in those rankings because we dropped off.

Impressive home test record with an unimpressive away one. One World Cup Final thrashing, one shared Champions Trophy and one Mickey Mouse Cup.

All in the last 10 years. Not bad at all, but nothing memorable really.

At least with Australia you could understand the arrogance. I mean they were one of the top 3 or 4 greatest teams to ever play the game. But with a few other teams, it’s harder.

 

[pickman]

I think Border layed the foundation, Taylor built it up and Waugh put the icing on the cake.

^^^

This. Three brilliant captains for different reasons. Border took charge with Australian cricket at it's lowest ebb, putting in the hard yards to make the team competitive again. Taylor was tactically the best of the three, using attacking flair to make a good side a world-beating one and Waugh gave the side an insatible winning desire.

 

[blackhead&boil]

^^^

This. Three brilliant captains for different reasons. Border took charge with Australian cricket at it's lowest ebb, putting in the hard yards to make the team competitive again. Taylor was tactically the best of the three, using attacking flair to make a good side a world-beating one and Waugh gave the side an insatible winning desire.

it would have been interesting to have each player swap eras. would waugh have been a successful captain had he inherited the side that border did? I very much doubt it. would border have had the success that waugh did having captained such a talented and experienced team? possibly not.

I'd say, of the three, taylor is the one who would have been as successful in either era as the actual captain was. he has the strength of character and communication skills to build up a side from scratch, as well as the killer instinct and tactical nous to be able to put together long winning streaks...

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Steve Waugh is king
[youtube]YKKVFAe5ZHg[/youtube]

no one got the SCG rocking like him

we lost that test!

 

[King Elvis]

I do not think the rule has been changed since. Besides Australia has used a similar tactic in home series recently anyway by taking top lower level fieldsman and using them as 12th men.

You don't think the rules have been changed, or you know they haven't been?

Maybe know the facts before you choose to use something as an example.

Australia did not do anything similar to it; they generally used young locals or state players as a twelfth man when one of them needed to go to the bathroom or was injured.

They didn't rotate their fast bowlers between the crease and the massage table so they could bowl longer, more frequent spells, and have a gun fielder out there instead of a ******* like Harmison.

It was completely against the spirit of the game, and if you don't see an issue with it, then I'd question how you could possibly question the sportsmanship of others?

However all that is besides my point. Punter made a big public deal about that this and did so in the wrong way. He made both himself and the Australian cricket team look like fools by doing so as well. Sure make a comment of it if you want. However he went on and on about it and really did make a mess of the whole issue. Not what a captain is suppose to do.

One of the biggest problems in Cricket in the weak Administration and weak Umpires.

They should've put a stop to it straight away, but they didn't.

Ponting was entitled to be pissed off, sure, the way he reacted wasn't perfect, but it's the Ashes for christ sakes, do you expect him to not care?

 

[blackhead&boil]

You don't think the rules have been changed, or you know they haven't been?

Maybe know the facts before you choose to use something as an example.

Australia did not do anything similar to it; they generally used young locals or state players as a twelfth man when one of them needed to go to the bathroom or was injured.

They didn't rotate their fast bowlers between the crease and the massage table so they could bowl longer, more frequent spells, and have a gun fielder out there instead of a ******* like Harmison.

It was completely against the spirit of the game, and if you don't see an issue with it, then I'd question how you could possibly question the sportsmanship of others?



One of the biggest problems in Cricket in the weak Administration and weak Umpires.

They should've put a stop to it straight away, but they didn't.

Ponting was entitled to be pissed off, sure, the way he reacted wasn't perfect, but it's the Ashes for christ sakes, do you expect him to not care?

all very good points...

 

[courtjester]

It surprises me the moderators dont do something about these threads, because they really lower the tone of BF. Calling Steve Waugh the things he was called in the OP is really pathetic and unnecessary.

It's reasonable to question his leadership or his character, it's unreasonable to call him a ####wit.

 

[Gough]

It surprises me the moderators dont do something about these threads, because they really lower the tone of BF. Calling Steve Waugh the things he was called in the OP is really pathetic and unnecessary.

It's reasonable to question his leadership or his character, it's unreasonable to call him a ####wit.

I called him a f***wit because I don't happen to like him, it's what I tend to call people I don't like. John Howard and Milton Friedman are also frequently so called. I certainly wouldn't be the first person to express an opinion in such a way on these boards and I won't be the last, so come on mate, lighten up a bit.
If anything I praised him for his ability to make the most of what he had, faint praise, his ultimate legacy.
As for lowering the tone, well it's not exactly the General Assembly of the U.N, although there are times...

And for what it's worth, I have it on pretty good authority that Steve Waugh is a prize f***wit.

 

[The King!]

steve waugh is a legend and the side had personality and were great to watch. Cricket now has become as boring as rat shit.

 

[Smokey_22]

Its comments like the OP that show that tall poppy syndrome is flagrant in our society.
Its nice to have an opinion but im not sure what you're hoping to achieve here...

 

[Gough]

Its comments like the OP that show that tall poppy syndrome is flagrant in our society.
Its nice to have an opinion but im not sure what you're hoping to achieve here...

I guess what I was hoping to achieve, and to a certain degree have, was people's opinions on Steve Waugh.
Not living in Australia at the time there appeared to be this worship of all things Steve here, not seen elsewhere. This seemed to coincide with an increasingly boorish manner of cricket played by our Test team.
Maybe I was being deliberately provocative, but it seems pretty clear he is a pretty polarising kind of guy.

 

[crownie]

I guess what I was hoping to achieve, and to a certain degree have, was people's opinions on Steve Waugh.
Not living in Australia at the time there appeared to be this worship of all things Steve here, not seen elsewhere. This seemed to coincide with an increasingly boorish manner of cricket played by our Test team.
Maybe I was being deliberately provocative, but it seems pretty clear he is a pretty polarising kind of guy.

Steve Waughs not that one whos character needs to be x-rayed then.

if you have come onto a internet forum to be deliberately provocative then you should maybe find something better to do with your life or get one for a start.

Steve Waugh was captain of our one of a best test teams ever, he like everyone else on this planet has their pros and cons and is liked and disliked.

what have you ever done?

 

[Indian_Hotdog]

Waugh could be quite ill-spirited although he camouflaged it well.He made up for it later with his charity endeavours.

 

[Gough]

Steve Waughs not that one whos character needs to be x-rayed then.

if you have come onto a internet forum to be deliberately provocative then you should maybe find something better to do with your life or get one for a start.

Steve Waugh was captain of our one of a best test teams ever, he like everyone else on this planet has their pros and cons and is liked and disliked.

what have you ever done?

Few things here and there, some good wins, couple of big losses, but I don't mind admitting, far less than Steve Waugh.
I just wanted to know what people thought of him.

 

[Oliver09]

Steve Waugh was a player who, when batting, put himself first & the team second. Cost us a Boxing Day Test match against England in 98. Was more worried about getting his average over 50 than batting for the team.

Quite regularly when making a 100 his strike rate would drop for the rest of his innings because he knew a not out was around the corner if he hung around long enough.

His refusal to go up the order was also a sore point for many who followed the game & inexperienced batsman at the time such as Ponting, Langer & Blewett were thrown in at the deep end & put in at 3 after Boons retirement before they were ready beause Steve wouldn't move up the order & were dropped.

His back to the wall century in the 99 World Cup was more to do with his captaincy being on the line as it was only his second or 3 third ton in one day cricket in 14 years. People believe it was this that won us the World Cup but it was Warne in the Semi & Final who won it for us. This wasn't long after Waugh dropped Warne in the West Indies which was a disgraceful decision.

Waugh had a charmed run with the selectors in the early stages of his career & was still just an average Test batsman up until about 93-94 but then became a much better player. His rise did come at the same time as the fast bowling stocks around the world started to drop & a few of the greats such as Ambrose, Walsh, Akram & Waqar got old & injuries. Ambrose for 1 used to toy with him until he had a shoulder reco in 94 but after he had that surgery he wasn't as fersome & Waugh was able to handle him a lot easier.

Waugh was a good player no doubt but the 'legend' got out of hand in the last 4-5 years of his career. The whole lucky rag & baggy green thing was just a big w**k. I would have Border & Boon (players of similar style) ahead of him any day day of the week.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Well Oliver09, that's some of the best bullshit I've read on BigFooty cricket forums.

 

[courtjester]

Let's examine this post bit by bit, just cos I have free time.

Steve Waugh was a player who, when batting, put himself first & the team second. Cost us a Boxing Day Test match against England in 98. Was more worried about getting his average over 50 than batting for the team.

He lost us the test by making 122 and 40 not out? We lost by twelve runs, and the six batsmen who came in after Waugh in the order made 13 between them. I fail to see how Waugh lost us the test. If one of Lehmann, Healy, Fleming, Nicholson, MacGill or McGrath had have stuck with Waugh for a little partnership, we would have won. Saying he put himself first is just not true. A lot of middle order players just slash when batting with the tail, Waugh instead played his natural game and backed them to bat through.

Quite regularly when making a 100 his strike rate would drop for the rest of his innings because he knew a not out was around the corner if he hung around long enough.

Unsubstantiated unless you can show some stats.

His refusal to go up the order was also a sore point for many who followed the game & inexperienced batsman at the time such as Ponting, Langer & Blewett were thrown in at the deep end & put in at 3 after Boons retirement before they were ready beause Steve wouldn't move up the order & were dropped.

Once again, not true. And ridiculous. Look at the facts. When Waugh first came into the team, he batted as low as seven and eight as he was selected as an all-rounder. In England in 89 when he made a name for himself as a batsman, he was at number six and averaged 126. Waugh batted at 3 against the WI in 92/93, and only averaged 25 (although Taylor only averaged 24, Martyn 28 and Border 33). Shows it was tough facing Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh and Patterson. He batted up there after Boon moved to open for a bit. It was after this that Waugh settled at 5, the position that suited him best. As for Blewett and Langer being thrown in at the deep end, get real. Any young batsman would jump at the chance to bat at 3, and Langer was a 3 for WA, and Blewett and opener for SA, so it made sense.

His back to the wall century in the 99 World Cup was more to do with his captaincy being on the line as it was only his second or 3 third ton in one day cricket in 14 years. People believe it was this that won us the World Cup but it was Warne in the Semi & Final who won it for us. This wasn't long after Waugh dropped Warne in the West Indies which was a disgraceful decision.

Neither of these things are related.

Waugh had a charmed run with the selectors in the early stages of his career & was still just an average Test batsman up until about 93-94 but then became a much better player. His rise did come at the same time as the fast bowling stocks around the world started to drop & a few of the greats such as Ambrose, Walsh, Akram & Waqar got old & injuries. Ambrose for 1 used to toy with him until he had a shoulder reco in 94 but after he had that surgery he wasn't as fersome & Waugh was able to handle him a lot easier.

1989? He was pretty handy in 1989.

Waugh was a good player no doubt but the 'legend' got out of hand in the last 4-5 years of his career. The whole lucky rag & baggy green thing was just a big w**k. I would have Border & Boon (players of similar style) ahead of him any day day of the week.

You conveniently forget so many things about Waugh. Do you remember him 'bouncing' Viv Richards and the WI quicks at his medium pace? He was basically throwing the hammer at them, saying "we're not intimidated anymore". His attitude started Australia's dominance in test cricket. I get so sick of people saying fast bowling stocks declined. I agree they did, but you can only play against what is offered.

 

[Ill Chicken]

I get so sick of people saying fast bowling stocks declined. I agree they did, but you can only play against what is offered.

I don't buy into any of the fast bowling stocks being not good enough in the last 10 years, let alone saying that after 94 they were on the decline. Ambrose had only played half is career by that stage, Walsh took another 280 wickets, Donald had played only 17 tests. Akram and Younis were virtually in the same stages as Ambrose/Walsh.

 

[crownie]

I don't buy into any of the fast bowling stocks being not good enough in the last 10 years, let alone saying that after 94 they were on the decline. Ambrose had only played half is career by that stage, Walsh took another 280 wickets, Donald had played only 17 tests. Akram and Younis were virtually in the same stages as Ambrose/Walsh.

its the pitches,fast grounds and shorter boundries that have given people the false acquisation that the bowling has declinced.

as for Pontings golden period of 03-06, bad bowling or not he was the stand out batsman in the world and the stand out Batsman in one of the best test teams ever seen.

has been a fair bit below his standards for a few years now and still averaging 55.

 

[RangaInTeal]

WOW, what a rediculous thread. Steve Waugh took a good side and created a GREAT side. We were not the agressors, we were not the powerhouse we are today and I doubt that we would have ever become the powerhouse we are/have been if Waugh/Warne had not taken the reigns! Warne wouldn't have done much different, he was an agressor, he would have taken cricket in a similar path.

Waugh changed the out look of test cricket.

As for Bowling stocks, they have fallen at a rapid rate. Ryan Harris and Clint McKay are 2 of our leading bowlers ATM, Mitchelle Johnson is our Strike Bowler and Nathan Hauritz is our Number One spinner these days (Hauritz has improved out of sight in the last 18 months) Mone Morkell and James Anderson are first selected bowlers for both England and South Africa these days. Heath Streak was a better bowler than most of the international Bowlers going around these days! Graheme Swan and Paul Harris are the leading spinners for there sides. Gone are the days where a test side has relentless pressure on the batters for 90 overs of the day! and gone are the batters that could bat for 90 overs in a day and punish the 5th ball of the 89th over as if it was the 3rd ball of the first over! Cricket has lost it soul at the moment. All the heart is there, but in general, it lacks it class, swagger and "ability" which is what I refer to as "Soul"

 

[Oliver09]

Let's examine this post bit by bit, just cos I have free time.



He lost us the test by making 122 and 40 not out? We lost by twelve runs, and the six batsmen who came in after Waugh in the order made 13 between them. I fail to see how Waugh lost us the test. If one of Lehmann, Healy, Fleming, Nicholson, MacGill or McGrath had have stuck with Waugh for a little partnership, we would have won. Saying he put himself first is just not true. A lot of middle order players just slash when batting with the tail, Waugh instead played his natural game and backed them to bat through.

He lost us the Test by putting those last 3 batsman on strike early in the over instead of taking the responsibility, like Border or Hussey would've, of controlling the strike & winning us the match. He made a ton in the 1st innings, teriffic. But when the match was on the line his tactics were bizzare.

Unsubstantiated unless you can show some stats.
From watching cricket for as long as I have batsman tend to up the ante once they've made 100. Waugh was 1 that didn't do that from what I saw. Many times when in a postion to declare he was happy to push singles & not really look for boundaries. He was more concerned with getting a not out.


Once again, not true. And ridiculous. Look at the facts. When Waugh first came into the team, he batted as low as seven and eight as he was selected as an all-rounder. In England in 89 when he made a name for himself as a batsman, he was at number six and averaged 126. Waugh batted at 3 against the WI in 92/93, and only averaged 25 (although Taylor only averaged 24, Martyn 28 and Border 33). Shows it was tough facing Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh and Patterson. He batted up there after Boon moved to open for a bit. It was after this that Waugh settled at 5, the position that suited him best. As for Blewett and Langer being thrown in at the deep end, get real. Any young batsman would jump at the chance to bat at 3, and Langer was a 3 for WA, and Blewett and opener for SA, so it made sense.

Langer came in for the match after Waugh made 100 against the Windies at 3. He should've stayed there ahead of a 1st gamer against one of the great attacks of all time but was more than happy to slide down the order. If you go through history most of the great no. 3 have started thier careers at 6 & even 7, including Bradman & Ponting. Blewett was a bit older so I'll grant you that. As for Ponting, who you left out, he was treated shamefully by the selectors. He had a hanful of Tests at 6 before being put in at 3 after Boons retirement. This was probably the time for Waugh to step up but he chose not to. Ponting got 3 matches at 3 before being dropped & was out of the side for a couple of years. When he did get back it was at 6 for a couple of years before he was ready to bat at 3 & the rest is history.

Neither of these things are related.



1989? He was pretty handy in 1989.
Everyone made runs in 89. England were average then half the side signed to go to Sth Africa. He was dropped 18 months later anyway.


You conveniently forget so many things about Waugh. Do you remember him 'bouncing' Viv Richards and the WI quicks at his medium pace? He was basically throwing the hammer at them, saying "we're not intimidated anymore". His attitude started Australia's dominance in test cricket. I get so sick of people saying fast bowling stocks declined. I agree they did, but you can only play against what is offered.

I bet Viv was packing bricks at Waughs bouncers. We got thumped that series & it took another 6-7 years before we beat the Windies so I think that was overplayed a bit. You can only play whats put up but you can't compare Waughs 50 ave compared to Borders 50 ave or even Boons 43 ave if you've seen the last 20-30 years of cricket. Those blokes did it in a much tougher era. Ponting is a gun but his ave would've dropped by 6-8 runs if he played the same time Border did, or would've he played with less flair to maintain his ave. Grounds are smaller, bats are bigger, flatter pitches etc.
Waugh was a top class player but the reputation/pedastal he was put on by the end was just way over the top.

 

[Oliver09]

WOW, what a rediculous thread. Steve Waugh took a good side and created a GREAT side. We were not the agressors, we were not the powerhouse we are today and I doubt that we would have ever become the powerhouse we are/have been if Waugh/Warne had not taken the reigns! Warne wouldn't have done much different, he was an agressor, he would have taken cricket in a similar path.

Waugh changed the out look of test cricket.

As for Bowling stocks, they have fallen at a rapid rate. Ryan Harris and Clint McKay are 2 of our leading bowlers ATM, Mitchelle Johnson is our Strike Bowler and Nathan Hauritz is our Number One spinner these days (Hauritz has improved out of sight in the last 18 months) Mone Morkell and James Anderson are first selected bowlers for both England and South Africa these days. Heath Streak was a better bowler than most of the international Bowlers going around these days! Graheme Swan and Paul Harris are the leading spinners for there sides. Gone are the days where a test side has relentless pressure on the batters for 90 overs of the day! and gone are the batters that could bat for 90 overs in a day and punish the 5th ball of the 89th over as if it was the 3rd ball of the first over! Cricket has lost it soul at the moment. All the heart is there, but in general, it lacks it class, swagger and "ability" which is what I refer to as "Soul"

As a captain you are right. He was very attacking, although he did have the bowlers to be that way inclined. When things went against us though he did run out of ideas quick. As a batsman though he was the opposite. He was more worried about himself than the team which was a pity because he had a lot of natural talent & flair in his early days. He should've tried harder to find some middle ground.