Waugh or Border

[acuguy]

Steve Waughs batting is reminiscent of Allan Border, he is the equal of border now if not better, Waugh would have to go down with the likes of G.Chappell, N.Harvey, A.Border,D.Walters, as the best batsmen post war for australia.
Where do u guys rate waugh and how do u think he fairs in comparison to border

 

[Beausgirl43]

Steve Waugh for me. He is the best batsman in the world bar none. Just read his career record to prove it.
cheers...

 

[ant]

I'd take Allan Border over Steve Waugh. You're right, they're quite similar batsmen apart from their batting stance. I just believe Border made his runs when Australia were not on top of the cricketing world and he was almost solely relied upon at times. Steve Waugh struggled for a little while before resurrecting his career and helping Australia become the best cricketing nation in the world.

Their career records are very close but Border averaged his fifty against the full might of the West Indies (Marshall, Holding, etc.) and back when England had a decent bowling attack. Not that the bowlers Waugh has faced were of a considerably lower standard but when everything is taken into account I believe the bowling might have been a tad tougher for Border (My opinion only). While Waugh has batted magnificently for some time now, I think we may forget just how good and courageous a player Border was, defying the best bowlers in the world at a time when we were struggling to win Test matches.

 

[johnson]

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

AB's durability and grit are second to none. He did what few were able to but he did also have some great compatriots come through eventually. When he took over from Hughes, the team was weak but in 4-5 years he had Boon, Dean Jones, Waugh himself, Taylor, Marsh, Healy, McDermott, Hughes, Lawson, Greg Ritchie, O'Donnell etc..

These guys are legends of Australian cricket in some form. In saying this, Border never led a dominant team. Cricket was more even worldwide compared to now.

Steve Waugh leads a dominant side with no apparent weaknesses. Aussie cricket has more depth and stronger players than 10 years ago. Tubby Taylor however had a similar group under his control (Brett Lee & Gilly are the obvious exceptions) but still could not dominate world cricket so....
How much influence does Steve Waugh have???

It's more than his batting, it's his pride in the Australian cap and his own personal work ethic which sets him apart from any other player/captain in post-war era.

If I had to choose, I'd take Border though.

 

[Grendel]

Ant and Johnson summed it for me too. Border did it in a harder time with better opponents and in a weaker side. Technically he was a better batsman as well imo. Toughest little bastard ive seen on a cricket field too. For all the mental strength Waugh has, Border was the supreme player here. Ian Chappell was tough as nails also.

 

[Dipper]

From an outside perspective I have often thought that Steve Waugh is underated as a batsman & I think this has a lot to do with him not being a showy or extravagant batsman.When the Aussies came over here in '89 he made 3 tons (I think) & we didn't get the bastard out till about the 3rd or 4th Test & he destroyed our attack(possibly the worst in our history) playing in a very attaking style ut when we next played you everyone noticed that he had cut a lot of shots out of his game(ie the hook) & was a much more solid player if also a little less dominating.Before the world cup an interviewer asked him 'so Steve who do you think is the best batsman in the world Lara or Tendulkar',Jees I would love to have seen his face,his answer was something along the lines of neither of them!They may both have more natural talent than him but he gets every ounce out of his ability & there's no-one you'd rather have batting for your life.He's just such a hard mean looking son of a gun,if you made a film of his life you'd have to get Clint Eastwood in to play him.Having said that I support Essex CC over here in England & we had Border playing for us for a couple of seasons so I know how good he was,it's a tough call alright but if I was really pushed I think I'd go for Waugh-but that doesn't mean that I like the bastard!

 

[Drakey]

AB was a slightly better bat (not much in it though)

Waugh is a much better captain.

 

[Darky]

Allan Border any day!!!!!

Border played in an era where the bowlers were heaps better than the garbage pie-chuckers of today (esp. NZ, Zimbabwe, Sri Lankans, etc). These days Australia and South Africa are strong and the rest are almost equally crap. I don't think cricket has been this lopsided in a long time.

Border used to take the strike when batting with the tail, he used to take the responsibility as the batsman and the tail just had to hang around.
Waugh supposedly has confidence in the tail. More like getting the tail to face the music while he protects his average with a not out from up the non-strikers end.

Watching Waugh bat at the MCG the other day, he made 98 on the first day and I don't remember him playing a shot. He personifies the boring side of cricket.

Also when the Aussies didn't have a class #3 for a couple of years (post-Boon), experts called for Waugh to assume the role. But then you can't get the "not out" batting at 3, can you Steve

------------------
Other bands play, Manowar KILL !!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Darky (edited 03 January 2001).]

 

[Dipper]

F@ck off Darky Geoff Boycott managed 'not outs' batting at 1!

 

[The Dutchman!]

Johnston...

Geoff (did I say batsman's weaknesses? Did I?)Lawson, Greg (fatcat hack)Ritchie and O'Donnell are hardly legends...

Drakey got it right. AB marginal better batsman and did it test after test whilst getting thumped when the best attacks in the world weren't Australian. SW: if he'd have batted at number 3 or 4 his whole career would potentially have shaved it as the better bat.

They both could bowl - AB won a test against the WI in Sydney with Warnesque figures (ie: not suit size)...

Both have even won World Cups as Captains...

But guys I'd take SW at a pinch because he is a more attacking captain and often murderously difficult to get out when we need him... Incidently, I reckon Tubbs was just as good a captain but didn't have the benefit of a decent openning pair (because he deteriorated so much himself), Brett Lee or Adam Gilchrist (with all due respect o Healy - Gilly has raised the all-rounder bar and averaging 55%+).

 

[acuguy]

Steve Waugh a boring batsmen , you dickhead, you obvioulsy don't know anything about this great game.

 

[ant]

Dutchman, it's a lot easier to be an attacking captain when you have a dominant side that bowls out the opposition for under 200 or makes 400 runs an innings. AB was just as good tactically as Waugh but it was only in his last couple of years that our team started to win regularly. Also, Border could be just as hard to get out as Waugh when set, AB was always there making runs whenever the top order failed, which was quite often. Some good points made though...

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by acuguy:
Steve Waugh a boring batsmen , you dickhead, you obvioulsy don't know anything about this great game.

You posted a topic asking for an opinion, I gave it and presented a few points to back it up. Disagree if you must.

Yes, I believe he is boring to watch, once again an opinion. I think he is less appealing to watch batting than players like Gilchrist, Lara, Tendulkar, Jones, Lehmann, Gower, V.Richards, Klusener, Akram, M.Waugh etc who are/were almost always entertaining even if they didn't make as many runs. If that makes me a dickhead, then I'm happy to be one.


------------------
Other bands play, Manowar KILL !!!!!!!!!

 

[The Dutchman!]

Point taken Ant. Pretty hard to attack when you open up with G.Wood and G.Cosier and you're regularly bowling R.Bright.

I've watched both of their careers and would just prefer SW.

Pity neither is a Victorian!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Steve Waugh is a better stroke maker than Captain Grumpy ever was.

But you can't beat Border for sheer guts and determination.

I hate statistical anecdotes but one is worth repeating : the overwhelming majority of ABs test centuries were made in losing or drawn tests, suggesting he played virtually a lone hand in those days, often batting on to save test matches from certain defeat.

Australia was crap in those days but think how much worse it could have been if we didn't have a rock like AB to cling to.

I also wonder what the Windies wouldn't give to have somebody like AB in their side at the moment instead of that callow cry-baby Lara ! Walsh dosen't count because he can't bat (shame)

cheers

 

[ghost]

Originally posted by acuguy:
Steve Waughs batting is reminiscent of Allan Border, he is the equal of border now if not better, Waugh would have to go down with the likes of G.Chappell, N.Harvey, A.Border,D.Walters, as the best batsmen post war for australia.
Where do u guys rate waugh and how do u think he fairs in comparison to border

Best batsman post war.......

Try Bradman for starters. He played post war. His last test was the last test of the 48 tour of England.

Steve Waugh rates right up there though. Without a doubt.

Best players post war are Bradman, Waugh, Morris, Barnes, McCabe, G Chappell, Border and Harvey. Ponting may join this group in time.

 

[acuguy]

i was aware bradman played post war, i just don't bother putting his name in the same sentence of other batsmen

 

[Bernie]

Both AB and Steve have been fantastic role models - esp. using Warne to bowl out teams after amassing huge ungettable scores. Both were scarred by their experiences V Windies and learnt the lessons that Viv Richards taught - grind them into the dust.

As a captain, I felt AB would let the game drift too much without making something happen. Waugh looked a little overwhelmed initially but that world Cup series lifted the shackles and now look at his record and the ability of the TEAM to conjure up victories. Having known the dark days of Bothamesque humiliation, let's revel in the current success.

 

[WCE2000]

Just a few stats on the two players

Career Record:
Allan Border - 11174 runs at 50.56
Steve Waugh - 8722 runs at 51.00

Against West Indies:
Allan Border - 2052 runs at 39.46
Steve Waugh - 1966 runs at 46.95

Against Pakistan:
Allan Border - 1666 runs at 59.50
Steve Waugh - 800 runs at 33.33

2nd Team Innings:
Allan Border - 4371 runs at 54.63
Steve Waugh - 1906 runs at 31.24

Matches Won:
Allan Border - 3186 runs at 51.38
Steve Waugh - 5052 runs at 74.29

Matches Lost:
Allan Border - 2771 runs at 33.38
Steve Waugh - 1837 runs at 35.32

Just looking at those stats contradicts what some people said about the two.

One person said Allan Border had scored a lot of runs when Australia lost, which that last stat doesn't suggest so.
Someone said that Allan Border has averaged 50 against the West Indies.

At the end of the day, theres nothing between them, theyd both be in my Australian team of the century.

 

[ant]

Sometimes stats can be misleading.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by WCE2000:
Just a few stats on the two players

Career Record:
Allan Border - 11174 runs at 50.56
Steve Waugh - 8722 runs at 51.00

Against West Indies:
Allan Border - 2052 runs at 39.46
Steve Waugh - 1966 runs at 46.95

Against Pakistan:
Allan Border - 1666 runs at 59.50
Steve Waugh - 800 runs at 33.33

2nd Team Innings:
Allan Border - 4371 runs at 54.63
Steve Waugh - 1906 runs at 31.24

Matches Won:
Allan Border - 3186 runs at 51.38
Steve Waugh - 5052 runs at 74.29

Matches Lost:
Allan Border - 2771 runs at 33.38
Steve Waugh - 1837 runs at 35.32

Just looking at those stats contradicts what some people said about the two.

One person said Allan Border had scored a lot of runs when Australia lost, which that last stat doesn't suggest so.
Someone said that Allan Border has averaged 50 against the West Indies.

At the end of the day, theres nothing between them, theyd both be in my Australian team of the century.

Another interesting variance is the amount of runs scored in drawn tests. By my rough calculations from WCE2000's post, Border scored around 5200 runs in drawn tests, and Waugh only 1900.

Obviously Border would have played in more drawn tests as draws have become somewhat of a rarity for the Aussies these days.

On its own it means nothing, but looking deeper it could mean :
a - Border batted to "save" a lot of tests, possibly lots of 50s 80s 100s in drawn tests
b - more outright results these days suggests a lopsidedness of competition with most teams being able to be beaten in 3-4 days

Similarly Waugh's higher average in Test wins could mean either :
a - he made the big scores that won the tests
b - he made the big scores when the whole side played well and the pressure was off

I'm not suggesting any of these possibilties are correct or incorrect, I'm just pointing out that statistics must be picked right down to the wire to be accurate, in which case you'd just about be analysis each innings on its separate merits anyway.

Hope that made sense to someone somewhere. If not, have another pint and read it again.



------------------
Listen through your eyes - See through your ears - Become one with the source
Light and sound are but one - in the heart of creation the rest is for you to discover