Welcome back Mass

[jenny61_99]

Yes Massie was excellent in our runaway victory over the Kangaroos but I don't think you should draw too many conclusions from that.

Perhaps Massie fans may think you are doing a "Mark Waugh" on him (as you accuse others of doing on Torney). And I don't honestly think either Torney OR Massie are overly endowed with natural ability, rather both of them are solid workers who give their all to the task at hand. As brilliant as Mark Waugh was, I don't believe he ever gave it 100%. I think he DID play lazy shots and he did get out many times far too softly. How good would he have been if he had have had the focus and tunnel vision of his brother!

 

[Crow-mo]

Perhaps Massie fans may think you are doing a "Mark Waugh" on him (as you accuse others of doing on Torney). And I don't honestly think either Torney OR Massie are overly endowed with natural ability, rather both of them are solid workers who give their all to the task at hand. As brilliant as Mark Waugh was, I don't believe he ever gave it 100%. I think he DID play lazy shots and he did get out many times far too softly. How good would he have been if he had have had the focus and tunnel vision of his brother!

sorry, but that's just a paragraph proudly outlining how you don't pay close attention to any of these subjects.

 

[jenny61_99]

sorry, but that's just a paragraph proudly outlining how you don't pay close attention to any of these subjects.

How do you figure that?

I like, and rate, both players - although probably lean more towards the Torney side of the fence. I don't agree with the Waugh analogy though as provided by Carl (hence my comments), as I believe Mark didn't live up to his amazing ability. IMO he had twice the ability but half the application of his brother. I don't believe Torney has twice the ability and half the application - I believe he is a good solid footballer who works his ass off week in, week out. I think Massie is the same (albeit to a lesser degree). Neither of them dripping with natural ability but both willing to do what is necessary for the team. Both, however, ARE constantly under-rated and under-valued by the masses and on this point I agree.

Perhaps it is you that doesn't have an understanding of what Carl was talking about?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't agree with the Waugh analogy though as provided by Carl (hence my comments), as I believe Mark didn't live up to his amazing ability. IMO he had twice the ability but half the application of his brother.

I guess Mark will be dogged forever by the belief that he didn't get the best out of himself, correct or otherwise. He doesn't seem to be much of an author but I'd be interested to hear whether he looks back on his career with some regret or whether he is frustrated by this perception.

I remember hearing a story about golfer Fred Couples. He has the easiest, most relaxed golf swing you've ever seen. Still manages to hit it 350 yards but makes it look absolutely effortless. Someone asked him once "Hey Freddie, how come you don't swing harder and really try to crush the ball?"

He replied "What use is a 600 yard drive on a 400 yard Par 4?"

 

[jenny61_99]

I guess Mark will be dogged forever by the belief that he didn't get the best out of himself, correct or otherwise. He doesn't seem to be much of an author but I'd be interested to hear whether he looks back on his career with some regret or whether he is frustrated by this perception.

I remember hearing a story about golfer Fred Couples. He has the easiest, most relaxed golf swing you've ever seen. Still manages to hit it 350 yards but makes it look absolutely effortless. Someone asked him once "Hey Freddie, how come you don't swing harder and really try to crush the ball?"

He replied "What use is a 600 yard drive on a 400 yard Par 4?"

And I guess the thing is, no matter what we believe about Mark Waugh, we will never actually know how much better he could have been.

I wonder if he had a report card during his school years "Mark would do much better if he just applied himself".

Do you honestly put Torney in that same category though?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I guess Mark will be dogged forever by the belief that he didn't get the best out of himself, correct or otherwise. He doesn't seem to be much of an author but I'd be interested to hear whether he looks back on his career with some regret or whether he is frustrated by this perception.

I'm with Jenny as I reckon Mark Waugh underachieved with an average in the low-40's batting in the prime #4 spot, when most of the other batsman around him were averaging around 50. Imagine if Darren Lehmann was given the prized #4 spot later in M Waugh's career, as IMO he would have made the Australian team even better.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I don't believe Torney has twice the ability and half the application - I believe he is a good solid footballer who works his ass off week in, week out. I think Massie is the same (albeit to a lesser degree). Neither of them dripping with natural ability but both willing to do what is necessary for the team. Both, however, ARE constantly under-rated and under-valued by the masses and on this point I agree.

Spot on IMO.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Do you honestly put Torney in that same category though?

No, I only was comparing their style of play, not so much their output.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'm with Jenny as I reckon Mark Waugh underachieved with an average in the low-40's batting in the prime #4 spot, when most of the other batsman around him were averaging around 50. Imagine if Darren Lehmann was given the prized #4 spot later in M Waugh's career, as IMO he would have made the Australian team even better.

Come on. I love Boof as much as the next South Australian but he was never the player Mark Waugh was. He made five tons for Australia - including two against Sri Lanka and two against Bangladesh. He was a masterful player of spin and could toy with mediocre attacks but wasn't completely at home against quick bowling. Should have played more tests on the subcontinent though.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Come on. I love Boof as much as the next South Australian but he was never the player Mark Waugh was. He made five tons for Australia - including two against Sri Lanka and two against Bangladesh. He was a masterful player of spin and could toy with mediocre attacks but wasn't completely at home against quick bowling. Should have played more tests on the subcontinent though.

IMO Boof was a better player than Mark Waugh, particularly as he never didn't play for Australia in his prime. Boof averaged 45 with the bat (striking at 62) & 27 with his under-rated bowling. Mark Waugh averaged 42 (striking at 52) & averaged 41 with the ball ... though his fielding was obviously superior. To suggest the Sri Lankan attack on their deck in mediocre is inaccurate, as not many batsman have had success over there. IMO, dropping Boof cost us the Ashes, just for his leadership alone.