Waugh and this Ashes series

[dr nick]

Originally posted by P76
Ahh, I see Bunsen, it's Steve Waugh's magnificent captaincy that has improved Hayden's, Langer's, Martyn's et. al. averages.

Well then, I stand corrected - obviously Stevie is the greatest coach in cricket history.

well if you know your stuff, you'd know that waugh took langer aside when he was on the fringe of the team and told him he was the worlds best #3. that gave him enormous confidence from a man he so greatly respects. you'd also know it was steve waugh that advised him to revelutionise his batting from a gritty, grinding batsman to a dasher and flasher. this has seen langer improve out of sight.

you'd also know the reason he told langer to change his game... because matthew hayden struggled every time he had to shoulder most of the run scoring. with langers game totally changed, and now opening, it eased the pressure off hayden and he could bat without fear of him getting out, it would trigger a stagnant innings. this has seen hayden's game really open up. this, along with waugh's aggresive captaincy is why this team wins by far more games than any team in the history before them.

ive also heard reports waugh had a lot to do with slater's axing. he moulded this into a "team" not necessarily the best XI individuals, but the guys who contributed to team aura.

 

[moomba]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Waugh and this Ashes series

Originally posted by nicko18
same principle, you must be fooling. all those competitions, EPL, pura cup etc take into account wins, losses and draws. thus australia are absolutely streets ahead of south africa. everyone knows the current ratings system is flawed, but some are to stubborn/envious to admit it.

You say that South Africa got beat 5-1 by Australia and as such they can't be the best side in the world. The principle is that assessments of the best side should be made by judging their performances against ALL competition, not just head to heads against individual countries. If you can't see that then I guess we are just going to go around in circles. FWIW I haven't said anything about the fairness or otherwise of the current ratings system, just the flaw in your 5-1 reasoning.

btw, the current competition these days is a lot better than in the 80s. the reason the 80's appear more competitive was because they were able to match it better with the windies (and australia). they had after all as many draws as they did wins. the fact that australia is so far ahead of the other nations, who are all better than they were in 1980, makes the others appear weak.

Like I said, a matter of opinions. My opinion on this issue is that I am right and you are wrong

Moomba

 

[P76]

Well I guess we'll see how well the players cope after he has gone and how the new boys come along under a new captain.

Maybe Steve has got a future ahead of him as a cricket psychologist.

 

[bunsen burner]

I just might make a couple of points about Steve Waugh:

- Steve Waugh played the ultimate captain's innings at the '99 world cup. We looked like we were history, and Waugh scores 120 to win the match. Do you think the others players felt invincible in the final because of coincidence, or do you think Steve Waugh inspired them?

- It's only been since Steve Waugh has been playing that ALL test nations have dramatically increased their run rates. I would say that puts him ahead of all other current test captains. He is the one they all aspire to be.

- Every current Australian player is united behind Steve Waugh as captain. He has enormous support and this is reflected in the results.

- Almost every cricket expert would nominate Steve Waugh as won of the finest captains ever - so why are there a few who ignore the bottom line and don't rate him as great?

 

[P76]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I just might make a couple of points about Steve Waugh:

- Steve Waugh played the ultimate captain's innings at the '99 world cup. We looked like we were history, and Waugh scores 120 to win the match. Do you think the others players felt invincible in the final because of coincidence, or do you think Steve Waugh inspired them?

- It's only been since Steve Waugh has been playing that ALL test nations have dramatically increased their run rates. I would say that puts him ahead of all other current test captains. He is the one they all aspire to be.

- Every current Australian player is united behind Steve Waugh as captain. He has enormous support and this is reflected in the results.

- Almost every cricket expert would nominate Steve Waugh as won of the finest captains ever - so why are there a few who ignore the bottom line and don't rate him as great?

Bunsey, agreed, Steve's innings at the world cup was great, but it's drawing a long bow to suggest that was the reason for the great performance in the final.

-Think you'll find that run rates in the past were not necessarily lower (ie Aus in the '30's) - depends on the cattle running around at the time - we are in a period of good batsmen and (apart from Aus) not so good bowling attacks (although I think this could be changing).

-Everyone is behind Steve, true, more so than he was behind Tubby.

- And I know you think that everyone who disagrees with you is on drugs, but could it be that everyone in this big wide world is different, and values different things. I preferred Tubby as captain, and I think Steve was/is too concerned with his own performance to be a great captain. That is my opinion, based on the facts as I choose to see them, your opinion is different. Good on you.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Waugh has definitely had the better cattle available:

1. Waugh has rarely had McGrath or Warne out of the side (except for Warne briefly, though he was well covered by McGill at the peak of his powers).

2. Waugh has had far more of Gillespie than Taylor did.

3. Waugh has had Gilchrist for most of his captaincy - virtually an additional batsman.

4. Taylor did not have a settled number three.

As for captaincy records surely Viv Richards is the greatest ever - never lost a series I believe - which of course just proves what nonsense the argument is that a great captaincy record proves you are a great captain.

Waugh is I believe a very good captain though in adversity I think both Taylor and Ian Chappell proved far more intuitive.

I agree with the general gist of your comments although I would disagree with one or two of your numbered points:

2. Gillespie only played in 4 of Waugh's first 18 Tests as captain, and the side still managed to clean sweep against Pakistan, Indian and New Zealand without him.

3. Gilchrist's influence and effect as a batsman can't be underestimated, especially when one considers that in the previous few series before Gilchrist's arrival, Ian Healy's batting had fallen away significantly and Australia's tail had become quite weak.

The addition of Gilchrist to the side made a high-class side into one of the great cricket sides.

By Nicko18well if you know your stuff, you'd know that waugh took langer aside when he was on the fringe of the team and told him he was the worlds best #3. that gave him enormous confidence from a man he so greatly respects.

That may all be true but I do recall that after the New Zealand tour of 2000, Waugh commented that Langer was batting as well as anyone he's seen, yet just 8 Tests later Langer was dropped from the side.

Sometimes talk is just that - talk.

 

[RogerC]

Might as well chuck another two bob's worth into this discussion.

I think it would be difficult to dispute Waugh's claim to be one of the great captains. The team has done exceedingly well under his stewardship, and obviously his aggressive approach to the game, his confidence in his team as a unit and his personal approach (ie the way he plays the game) have been instrumental in our success.

The problem we have in assessing just how great a captain he is, is that he inherited such a talented team. Seriously, the Australia A side of about 1996/7 was a virtual test strength team. Many of them were just growing into their best form. And the cream of that best 22 are the current test team. You can't lose with a line-up like that.

So we can only guess what Border might have done with a team like this one. And similarly, we can't really know what Waugh might have made of a less talented line-up.

Waugh's achievement is to take a team he knew was top shelf, and push them to produce their very best. Many teams who have played us (India in this country along with Pakistan and England anywhere and, more comprehensively given their talent, South Africa) have appeared to give up before a ball was bowled. That comes about through a combination of aggession and confidence. Once you create an environment like that, as Waugh has done, anything is possible.

And that's where I believe Waugh is a better captain than Pollock. The last two series between us and South Africa should have been a serious knock-out competition between two evenly matched sides. We creamed them mentally, and mopped them up on the field. I don't think they're quite as good as us, but it's nothing like the 5-1 result suggests.

But again, Waugh's got class players playing well. Other countries simply don't have the class players to match us. England and the West Indies are a rabble. New Zealand have some good players, but not enough. Sri Lanka are perennially half way there. Pakistan can't get a team on the field with any regularity. India do have a good batting line-up, statistically, but their bowling stocks are lamentable, Harbajhan and maybe Kumble aside. Only South Africa come close to us in terms of talent available.

A glance at the up and coming players seems to indicate that we won't have a correlative player for McGrath or Warne in the next generation. There's no young Ponting carving up the Pura Cup right now, and certainly no Gilchrist. We're pushing to find a new Gillespie or Hayden as well. And of course no Steve or Mark Waugh. They may turn up, but I feel in five or so years' time we're going to be looking back at this era and marvelling at the collection of talent that came along at just the right time.

That's not pessimistic. It's just noting that Waugh has an abundance of talent and he marshalls it well. In terms of getting the best out of the talent available, I'd probably rate Fleming higher, but that's mainly because he has less to work with and he really does have them playing above themselves.

 

[Nige_Bix]

Originally posted by RogerC

A glance at the up and coming players seems to indicate that we won't have a correlative player for McGrath or Warne in the next generation. There's no young Ponting carving up the Pura Cup right now, and certainly no Gilchrist. We're pushing to find a new Gillespie or Hayden as well. And of course no Steve or Mark Waugh. They may turn up, but I feel in five or so years' time we're going to be looking back at this era and marvelling at the collection of talent that came along at just the right time.

That's not pessimistic. It's just noting that Waugh has an abundance of talent and he marshalls it well. In terms of getting the best out of the talent available, I'd probably rate Fleming higher, but that's mainly because he has less to work with and he really does have them playing above themselves.

I liked your post Roger and agree with it overall. I agree that we will not have as strong a side in a few years time - these things can be cyclic. Australia has an infrastructure and a tradition that ensures that we will always have a competitive side - but it wont always be the best! [ sadly!]

dzm

 

[dr nick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Waugh and this Ashes series

Originally posted by moomba



Like I said, a matter of opinions. My opinion on this issue is that I am right and you are wrong

Moomba

that is fine, but i'd like to know how you come to that opinion. what is it that makes you think that cricket players in 1980 are better than those playing in 2000?

 

[moomba]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Waugh and this Ashes series

Originally posted by nicko18
that is fine, but i'd like to know how you come to that opinion. what is it that makes you think that cricket players in 1980 are better than those playing in 2000?

Gut feel from watching plenty of cricket throughout that era. IMO there has never been as much rubbish in test cricket than there is today. Sri Lanka uncompetitive, England uncompetitive until the last few years, India and Pakistan useless away from home, Pakistan not that good at home, New Zealand getting there act together, West Indies appalling at the momentm Zimbabwe and Bangladesh nuff said, South Africa a good side.

Compare to the Windies era they had to beat Australia who always put a fight, England, Pakistan, India who were all competitive, New Zealand were about the only easy games and even they had their moments with Hadlee, Cairns, Crowe, Turner etc. There was no games against Zim, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and while I appreciate that Australia hasn't played a lot against the first two it all goes toward my feeling that Test Cricket today has never been more uncompetitive.

All about opinions.

Moomba

 

[dr nick]

yes, other teams were competitive, but that is because the top sides were not as much stand outs as the current australian squad. take out australia and all of a sudden world cricket is rife with competitiveness, and then you could say that south africa has heaps of competition, much like the windies.

anyway, rather than gut feeling, i can be confident in saying that current players spend at least double in terms of training, have specialist physios, mental training and preparation, video analysis of the opposition, proficient acadamies, all of which contribute to raising the standard of cricketers everywhere.

All sports progress in time, cricket is no exception. do you think dawn fraser would win a gold medal these days?

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by RogerC
Might as well chuck another two bob's worth into this discussion.

Waugh's achievement is to take a team he knew was top shelf, and push them to produce their very best. Many teams who have played us (India in this country along with Pakistan and England anywhere and, more comprehensively given their talent, South Africa) have appeared to give up before a ball was bowled. That comes about through a combination of aggession and confidence. Once you create an environment like that, as Waugh has done, anything is possible.

And that's where I believe Waugh is a better captain than Pollock. The last two series between us and South Africa should have been a serious knock-out competition between two evenly matched sides. We creamed them mentally, and mopped them up on the field. I don't think they're quite as good as us, but it's nothing like the 5-1 result suggests.

I would contend that the intimidation factor is less to do with Waugh, and more to do with Warne ( a once in a lifetime freak) and to a lesser extend McGarth.

You could visibly see the turnaround in England once Warne was injured. Take Warne out of the SA tests, and I bet they would lift 200%. They were scared of him.
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.

So I would say, that no matter who was captain, Australia would have had an intimidating factor against most sides. But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by grayham
I would contend that the intimidation factor is less to do with Waugh, and more to do with Warne ( a once in a lifetime freak) and to a lesser extend McGarth.

You could visibly see the turnaround in England once Warne was injured. Take Warne out of the SA tests, and I bet they would lift 200%. They were scared of him.
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.

So I would say, that no matter who was captain, Australia would have had an intimidating factor against most sides. But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.

darn spellcheck...... why do you fail me so???????













Note: 3rd test 2000/2001 v West Indies. Steve Waugh injured, Gilchrist captain. closest test match of the summer.

4th test 2001 v England. only test we lost.... steve waugh the only man out.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by grayham

NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.

So I would say, that no matter who was captain, Australia would have had an intimidating factor against most sides. But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.

well against NZ, border would have played for the draw instead of trying to achieve a win, no turnaround there. he also would have played for a draw in india, and probably would have come away with a drawn series 1-1, but i guess thats why he never went anything near 16 test wins in a row, and it doesnt look like anybody else will ever beat it.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by grayham
NZ adopted a very inovative approach to Warne and McGarth and came away with a drawn test series, and beating us in the one dayers.

There's a bit of truth in that, but Australia were all over NZ in the first two tests. It was only the rain that saved NZ. You have a short memory.

Originally posted by grayham
But a Border type, through better captainsy, might have improved the win/loss ratio. Especially in India. To make us undesputed No. 1.

You are so in denial.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
well against NZ, border would have played for the draw instead of trying to achieve a win, no turnaround there. he also would have played for a draw in india, and probably would have come away with a drawn series 1-1, but i guess thats why he never went anything near 16 test wins in a row, and it doesnt look like anybody else will ever beat it.

If a border type leader, led Australia and won the second test in India which they surely would have by batting rather than enforcing the follow on, then the momentum would be with Australia and a series win was on the cards.

I agree the NZ tests were mared by bad whether, but it did give a glimpse of how much Australia rely on Warne and McGarth by NZ nullifying them, which has again been underlined by England in the last test when they were absent. A dollup of further proof, just look at the game today.

Steve waugh, good batsman, good captain doesnt intimidate anyone, and is bloody lucky Gibbs dropped him in the last WC.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by grayham
If a border type leader, led Australia and won the second test in India which they surely would have by batting rather than enforcing the follow on, then the momentum would be with Australia and a series win was on the cards.

I never recall Border not enforcing the follow on. Do you have links to specific examples?

Steve waugh, good batsman, good captain doesnt intimidate anyone, and is bloody lucky Gibbs dropped him in the last WC.

Seems like you manage to find the negative in everything Steve Waugh has done. Does it worry you at all that akmost no cricket experts would agree with you?

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I never recall Border not enforcing the follow on. Do you have links to specific examples?

Seems like you manage to find the negative in everything Steve Waugh has done. Does it worry you at all that akmost no cricket experts would agree with you?

No, Steve Waugh has done some good things, its just that I feel if we had a super captain to match the super side we have had for the last few years, then we could have done even better.

But now as he is getting older, and the runs are drying up its time for a change. I dont really care who agrees with me, its only my opinion of course, but it seems the Australian selectors are also looking for a change, and they would have a clearer picture of Australian cricket than a journo.

Border didnt enforce the follow on, on numerous occations. Links, no. Just use your common sence.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
what a joke, you obviously dont have a clue and are now digging up the wildest of hypotheticals to back up your spirrilous claims. please tell me when border did not enforce the follow on after a side was bowled out for 170 odd, and none of his strike bowlers bowled more than 15 overs.

and now your comments are beginning to reek of jealousy. i suspect you are one tormented individual, steve waugh being so successful and all, and you, probably a knocker from the start, have many a time had to dig up pathetic excuses as to why steve waugh really didnt win us that world cup, and why 16 tests in a row doesnt make a patch on the west indies record.

Steve Waughs batting in the semi did get us into the world cup final.....but he was lucky he was dropped. If that catch was taken it was all over red rover. As Waugh allegedly said to Gibbs You just dropped the world cup", implying it was Gibbs mistake which determined the fate of that game as much as anything. Waugh just took his chance and ran with it.

Does anyone really think Waughs captaincy intimidates anyone?

West Indies won everywhere in the world.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
under a better captain, sri lanka would have been bowled out for 150. under a better captain, there would have been a player at third man to take that catch, under a better captain, they wouldnt have bowled hogg so much, under a better captain, symonds would have fielded where bevan was to take that catch. under a better captain, there would have been a fielder behind the keeper to save those runs. blah blah blah.

All todays game shows he that McGarth and Warne (& Gillespie) are the players who are sorely missed from the Aussie side.

Do you think Waugh would have made a difference, really?

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
well if you have sour grapes you can put anyone's efforts down. like when matthew hayden made 197 at the gabba, he was first dropped, then skied one down near fine leg which a fielder didnt get to, played and missed a couple, all of which could have been out. but sourkrauts like you will always find a way to bring people down to your level.

You read the Daily Telegraph to much.

But in general you are right, a chanceless innings is better than being dropped a few times.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
obviously your precious allan border would have.
and why do i remember you finding different reasons as to why we lost the 5th test. a steve waugh hater perhaps??

By that logic, you'd be a steve waugh appologist? (& Border hater).

This is not about taking sides and supporting someone no matter what. This is about getting the best out of the best cricketters in the land. You'd still have Bradman in as captain as his record is unsurpased.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by nicko18
cementing by belief that your knowledge of cricket is modest to be fair. it is well known thats not what he really said.

What did he say, if not those exact words, words to that effect.
Note the "alleged".

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by grayham
By that logic, you'd be a steve waugh appologist? (& Border hater).

This is not about taking sides and supporting someone no matter what. This is about getting the best out of the best cricketters in the land. You'd still have Bradman in as captain as his record is unsurpased.

During my lifetime, I have had 2 favourite players and followed their careers through from their first test. The first was Allan Border and the second was Steve Waugh. Border was a great captain who was very under rated, but I believe Steve Waugh is better than any other captain that I've seen.

Unlike you, who has decided that you don't like Steve Waugh and therefore will not acknowledge any of his great deeds, I do like Steve Waugh but can cast that aside when making opinions on his worth.

I do believe he should retire for the benefit of the Australian team. It is hard to accuse me of using my personal preferences to bias my opinions, but sadly the same can't be said about you.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by grayham
By that logic, you'd be a steve waugh appologist? (& Border hater).

This is not about taking sides and supporting someone no matter what. This is about getting the best out of the best cricketters in the land. You'd still have Bradman in as captain as his record is unsurpased.

Hang on a sec, let's not migrate from the original subject.

This isn't about whether Waugh has the goods to continue on as captain right now (that is very debatable), it's about his worth as a captain overall. You say that he is not a great captain, you say pollock is a better captain, you say he was out captained by Hussain in the 4th test etc.

Most others believe he is a great captain and have facts to back this up, whereas as you merely have a bunch of hypothetical "if" scenarios.