Steve Waugh

[Oliver09]

the red rag gradually turned pink over time as the colour faded. nothing to do with breast cancer.

and on the baggy green, it was always my understanding that every player is issued one baggy green and that is it. you'd only get another one if yours was stolen or lost.

as far as the mark waugh quote goes, it sounds familiar to me and seems to align with his overall cricket philosophy. I'd say it was genuine. pretty hard to summon up a source several years later, though.



a funny thing when you compare the career stats of steve and mark. public perception would be that mark was erratic and steve was mr consistency, but the facts don't actually support that.

steve finished with a considerably higher average, but was actually a lot less consistent than his brother. he had a very high number of ducks compared to mark (despite his run of 4 in a row), and mark had a much lower percentage of dismissals below 25. steve's average was high because when he made a score he made a BIG one. heaps of knocks of 150+ and a lot of them not out. in other words, he was good at grinding the bowlers into the ground once he was on top. mark, on the other hand, only had 1 score over 150 and many scores between 100-145 (a lot of them sequential, curiously enough).

personally, if I was a captain, I would prefer more frequent and dependable innings at a faster rate/lower average than a series of massive scores punctuating frequent failures...

Players seem to get rated higher for turning their starts into a big score rather than one who makes steady scores ie (5 Test series)
Player A scores 470 runs 1 century 1 n.o top score of 112 ave 52.2 10 Innings
Player B scores 480 runs 3 century 3 n.o top score of 174 n.o ave 65.5 10 Innings

Player A is clearly more consistent with a stream of steady scores wheras Player B would've undoubtedly had more failures, cashed in with a big score plus the bonus of not outs. Player A is probably a top order batsman compared to Player B being at 5-6 & benefiting from Not outs & good start from Player A. Player B though because of stand out scores would probably be in line for Man of the Series

I know which player I'd want but most cricketers & experts would take Player B. In footy I know I'd rather a guy kick 4, 6, 3, 7, 4, 3, 5, 6 goals over 8 games (38) than a player who kicks 9, 2, 9, 2, 3, 10, 1, 2 goals over 8 games (38). The former has turned up every week but the latter has kicked the same amount of goals but has had a few stinkers.

I've heard many cricket commentaters talk about 'big score' players as though it's something to aim for but these same players have more failures than normal. Most people look at the average & think they must be dependable but it's not always the case.

 

[ballanFYNE]

Shane Watson thread.

 

[blackhead&boil]

Players seem to get rated higher for turning their starts into a big score rather than one who makes steady scores ie (5 Test series)
Player A scores 470 runs 1 century 1 n.o top score of 112 ave 52.2 10 Innings
Player B scores 480 runs 3 century 3 n.o top score of 174 n.o ave 65.5 10 Innings

Player A is clearly more consistent with a stream of steady scores wheras Player B would've undoubtedly had more failures, cashed in with a big score plus the bonus of not outs. Player A is probably a top order batsman compared to Player B being at 5-6 & benefiting from Not outs & good start from Player A. Player B though because of stand out scores would probably be in line for Man of the Series

I know which player I'd want but most cricketers & experts would take Player B. In footy I know I'd rather a guy kick 4, 6, 3, 7, 4, 3, 5, 6 goals over 8 games (38) than a player who kicks 9, 2, 9, 2, 3, 10, 1, 2 goals over 8 games (38). The former has turned up every week but the latter has kicked the same amount of goals but has had a few stinkers.

I've heard many cricket commentaters talk about 'big score' players as though it's something to aim for but these same players have more failures than normal. Most people look at the average & think they must be dependable but it's not always the case.

agree with nearly all of that. I think the idea that batting late in the order helps your average because of a lot of not outs is a bit of a myth, though. lower order bats get higher averages because they are facing older balls and tired bowlers, not because they finish not out at the end of the innings. having to end an innings prematurely in which you have already made a start and established yourself is actually more likely to leave your average lower than if you were allowed to just bat on indefinately...

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Your detective work is on the money, they are my two examples.

Both the red rag and tattered baggy green were made an issue of and run with by the media as ockerish Australian traits. Waugh pandered to the public by continuing with this ruse. Instead of getting a new baggy green like any normal person would, he made a big song and dance by sending it to the maker and getting it refurbished. He could thus carry on the notion that he was playing in the cap that was soaked in blood, sweat, beer etc. to placate the media and public. It was a whole big wank...

Maybe, just maybe and I know this is a stretch, but he may have just been sentimental and wanted to keep his original Baggy Green? I guess the pretentious w***er theory is much more likely if you hate the guy like you seem to.

Edit: Is your username ironic?

 

[Bomber Bears]

Steve Waugh also allowed for one of my favourite 12th Man puns

And a good catch was taken by Steve Waugh!!! Woe woe woe, what is he good for

 

[Xtreme]

Would have him in my side wayyyyyyyyy ahead of Ricky Ponting.

 

[Ricketts]

give me Mark as a player anyday

 

[spanna050]

I thought I'd read it all until I came across this thread.

I'd love to know how many tailenders made their top scores while batting with him. This 'selfish' tag is absolute rubbish. Partnerships made with the lower order were a big part of the Aussies success.

As for this 'token' patriotism, have a look at the highlights of the 95 series in the WI and tell me this guy didn't play for his country.

Some of you guys are fools.

 

[dajesmac]

I thought I'd read it all until I came across this thread.

I'd love to know how many tailenders made their top scores while batting with him. This 'selfish' tag is absolute rubbish. Partnerships made with the lower order were a big part of the Aussies success.

As for this 'token' patriotism, have a look at the highlights of the 95 series in the WI and tell me this guy didn't play for his country.

Some of you guys are fools.

This.

I wonder how many people here have read his autobiography? Otherwise you might have a scrap of an idea of what makes him tick, otherwise you're just w***ers.

 

[who gives a]

Biggest f***wit to ever captain Australia. Under Taylor and Border, Australia was a team that was respected both on and off the field. It seems to me that under Waugh Australia's cricketers gained a reputation for being boorish bad losers and very poor winners. Sadly, this seems to have carried on in the Ponting era. Let's be honest about this, with the talent that Waugh had at his disposal, I could have probably captained that team and had a pretty fair win loss ratio.
The fact that most teams around the world now carry on in a similar fashion to the Waugh era Australian team leads me to believe that the legacy he has left world cricket is a very negative one.
I have always admired his ability to make the most out of his ability, Mark was certainly the more gifted of the twins but the way that he conducted himself on the field left a great deal to be desired.
I expect to be slaughtered for this opinion, but I know of a number of cricket writers who would not disagree with this hypothesis.

the biggest **** wit is you

 

[UpForGrabs]

Agree with the OP.

There isn't any more overrated Australian than Steve Waugh. His success as a captain wasn't due to his captaincy skills, rather the other 10 guys in the team.

More interested in self-promotion and self-preservation than anything else.

Don't get me started on that Ashes Century. Wow, he got a 100 off the last ball of the day. He was also out in the first over of the next day and we got thrashed by an ordinary Pom team whose only good player the whole series was Michael Vaughan.

 

[dajesmac]

Agree with the OP.

There isn't any more overrated Australian than Steve Waugh. His success as a captain wasn't due to his captaincy skills, rather the other 10 guys in the team.

More interested in self-promotion and self-preservation than anything else.

Don't get me started on that Ashes Century. Wow, he got a 100 off the last ball of the day. He was also out in the first over of the next day and we got thrashed by an ordinary Pom team whose only good player the whole series was Michael Vaughan.

Particularly in response to your first paragraph, you do realise Waugh was ranked the best batsman in the world quite a few times throughout his career and was rated in the same league as Lara and Tendulkar at the time, so saying that he relied on the other 10 blokes is quite a stupid comment.

As for the Ashes century, you're missing the significance of that. It wasn't that he got a hundred at all, or that he got it on the last ball, the significance of it was that it was a career saving (well, career prolonging) century that was typical of Waugh who always played his best when his back was against the wall.

As for getting thrashed by the Poms, we won the series 4-1, keep some perspective.

 

[RangaInTeal]

What about his Ashes 100 with the torn Calf? Or when Australia was getting bluuied by the Great, Big, West Indian Quicks and he hit up 200?

Hrmmm short memories all!

 

[crownie]

Agree with the OP.

There isn't any more overrated Australian than Steve Waugh. His success as a captain wasn't due to his captaincy skills, rather the other 10 guys in the team.

More interested in self-promotion and self-preservation than anything else.

Don't get me started on that Ashes Century. Wow, he got a 100 off the last ball of the day. He was also out in the first over of the next day and we got thrashed by an ordinary Pom team whose only good player the whole series was Michael Vaughan.

but thats got to do with the other 10 players in the team, right?

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

Personally, I liked the ruthless streak he brought to the team.

Under Taylor, we bacame notorious for dropping 'dead rubber' Tests. Waugh would have none of that. He wanted to obliterate the opposition in every single match and on most occasions did.

As a batsman, he's the player you'd want 'batting for your life'. No-one put a higher price on his wicket.

However, I wouldn't put him in the same category as Tendulkur/Lara/Ponting when it comes to talent. First, he batted most of his career at 5. That's a soft option. Great players bat in the first 4.
Second, he refused to play the pull/hook. The 3 others I mentioned made no compromise, they play/played every shot in the book and have an average as good as Waugh's.

 

[Cooldude]

However, I wouldn't put him in the same category as Tendulkur/Lara/Ponting when it comes to talent. First, he batted most of his career at 5. That's a soft option. Great players bat in the first 4.
Second, he refused to play the pull/hook. The 3 others I mentioned made no compromise, they play/played every shot in the book and have an average as good as Waugh's.

1. Do you ever watch Steve Waugh play? He is at his best in occasions when the situation is at its toughest. Cue twin centuries on a minefield at Old Trafford. Half of his runs are worth double because of when he scores them: when his team needs it most. I would never associate the word "soft" with anything Steve Waugh does

2. Refusing to play a particular shot doesn't make you any better or less of a player. I'd back Steve Waugh in a backs to the wall situation over those three, and that's a big call

 

[dajesmac]

However, I wouldn't put him in the same category as Tendulkur/Lara/Ponting when it comes to talent. First, he batted most of his career at 5. That's a soft option. Great players bat in the first 4.
Second, he refused to play the pull/hook. The 3 others I mentioned made no compromise, they play/played every shot in the book and have an average as good as Waugh's.

This is a fair enough assessment. I agree that Waugh isn't as talented a batsman as Lara or Tendulkar or even Ponting, but I feel he makes up for it with sheer grit.

 

[spanna050]

This is a fair enough assessment. I agree that Waugh isn't as talented a batsman as Lara or Tendulkar or even Ponting, but I feel he makes up for it with sheer grit.

Fully agree with this. In fact, on pure 'talent' alone, you could argue that he may not have even been the best in his family, but he knew his limitations and moulded his game around that. Having said that, no-one played the back foot cover drive as beautifully as this guy.

 

[WheatsWorshipper]

After reading this read there is one conclusion: Ian Chappell has bigfooty

 

[Johnson#26]

I will not hear a bad word about Steve Waugh. The man is an Australian hero. Would have him ahead of Punter as a batsman, and on par with Warney as a cricketer.

 

[spanna050]

I will not hear a bad word about Steve Waugh. The man is an Australian hero. Would have him ahead of Punter as a batsman, and on par with Warney as a cricketer.

Steve Waugh never cheated the game of cricket to get over a shoulder injury.

 

[pistonbroke23]

Steve Waugh never cheated the game of cricket to get over a shoulder injury.

You and the bloke to comment before you are both morons.Dont ever put waugh in the same league as Warne.Warne is in Bradman territory.Waugh is on the same page as Gooch,Gower,Grenich ect.

 

[Ill Chicken]

You and the bloke to comment before you are both morons.Dont ever put waugh in the same league as Warne.Warne is in Bradman territory.Waugh is on the same page as Gooch,Gower,Grenich ect.

And Warne is on the same page as the biggest cheats in the game.

 

[sudzz]

Oh come on guys, Steve Waugh is in my cricket watching career the grittiest of players I have come across.

With S Waugh at the crease you could never rule out a come back from any situation and it did not matter if he was batting with 9,10 or Jack.

I am not a Aussie nor do I know the legends etc but I think it would be ok to Say that Waugh took over the team when it was not fully done yet and he took it to a new level.

I don't think the losses in India should be held against him that much as he and the team happened to catch India on the ascendancy but that apart he has been a amazing leader and very very good batsman and don't forget he was a decent bowler too except that his back gave away for him to continue longer.

In my books Steve Waugh is a person who will deliver 99% of the times specially when the chips are down.

 

[krisholio14]

S.Waugh and Ponting in the same class as batsmen?

No freakin' way!