- Feb 18, 2017
- 4,403
- 5,870
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
He was brilliant in first class cricket, had a better record than Steve iirc. Was my favourite batsman to watch, so elegant.
Guess it was mental?
Guess it was mental?
Why did Mark Waugh underachieve in test cricket?
- Thread starter Ohitsthatguy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don't think he underachieved as much as some people may think. He played most of his international career in the 90's. This was a tough time to bat and only a handful of greats really dominated that decade.
The most obvious answer is that his test average isn't amazing was because he couldn't convert his tons into massive scores (he actually had the 3rd most tons in the 90's), which would be a mental thing since he was pretty fit.
The most obvious answer is that his test average isn't amazing was because he couldn't convert his tons into massive scores (he actually had the 3rd most tons in the 90's), which would be a mental thing since he was pretty fit.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
Strong bowling attacks + lack of hunger for runs
- Feb 18, 2017
- 4,403
- 5,870
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #4
Strong bowling attacks doesn't add up, his brother thrived
Lack of hunger makes more sense
Shame
Lack of hunger makes more sense
Shame
Plugger35
The umpires are always right!
- Sep 27, 2008
- 136,111
- 156,813
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
Mark was more talented but Steve had more hunger and discipline.
Mark would be happy to hit a stylish hundred and throw his wicket away while Steve would try and push on to grind out a 150+ type score.
Despite being twins they are very different people, post career Mark has taken easy commentary gigs while Steve has taken on tough causes
,
Mark would be happy to hit a stylish hundred and throw his wicket away while Steve would try and push on to grind out a 150+ type score.
Despite being twins they are very different people, post career Mark has taken easy commentary gigs while Steve has taken on tough causes
,
Last edited:
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I could be wrong but my gut tells me he scored a lot of crucial centuries.
Like all batsmen, he's got a few "easier" centuries against lesser opponents but it feels like he has less of them than probably any other top batsmen of his era. The cash-in centuries that boost your average from low 40's to high 40's.
Looking just at his top scores...
His highest score was 150 batting second in India to keep us in a match when India scored over 400 and we ultimately win by 8 wickets. That's clutch.
139 against Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson and Marshall to set up a test win in the West Indies. Enough said.
126 again in the West Indies in the famous partnership with Steve Waugh.
Plenty of Ashes centuries, including a few in the first half of the decade when England was more competitive, albeit they were terrible in that 1993 series which was the beginning of the dark ages. And great Ashes performances are not to be sneezed at (averaged over 50) - no one derided McGrath's 8/38 or Warne's MCG hat trick just because the opposition where England.
Getting a century (or if it's a low-scoring affair an 80-odd), in an important match is far more crucial than moving from 120 to 180 against a demoralised touring side and that's where Mark Waugh's value came to the team. Mind you, plenty of our batsmen through that era did both.
Like all batsmen, he's got a few "easier" centuries against lesser opponents but it feels like he has less of them than probably any other top batsmen of his era. The cash-in centuries that boost your average from low 40's to high 40's.
Looking just at his top scores...
His highest score was 150 batting second in India to keep us in a match when India scored over 400 and we ultimately win by 8 wickets. That's clutch.
139 against Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson and Marshall to set up a test win in the West Indies. Enough said.
126 again in the West Indies in the famous partnership with Steve Waugh.
Plenty of Ashes centuries, including a few in the first half of the decade when England was more competitive, albeit they were terrible in that 1993 series which was the beginning of the dark ages. And great Ashes performances are not to be sneezed at (averaged over 50) - no one derided McGrath's 8/38 or Warne's MCG hat trick just because the opposition where England.
Getting a century (or if it's a low-scoring affair an 80-odd), in an important match is far more crucial than moving from 120 to 180 against a demoralised touring side and that's where Mark Waugh's value came to the team. Mind you, plenty of our batsmen through that era did both.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
SA vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, , 2nd Test at Gqeberha, March 14 - 17, 1997
Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, SA vs AUS, Australia tour of South Africa 1996/97 at Crusaders Ground, St George's Park, Port Elizabeth dated March 14 - 17, 1997.
116 in the fourth innings to win a series in South Africa... Doesn't give you an average boost like a big double ton but that is as clutch innings as any batsman has ever played, even taking into account that Shaun Pollock was injured.
Around the Wicket
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2021
- 5,934
- 3,898
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Anyone who has scored 20 test hundreds has not underachieved in test cricket! So why would you say he did?
Sure you don't mean Dean or Danny?
Averaging 41 with Marks ability is underachieving imo and he always batted in this best position to score big being number 4 but only scored 1 score of 150+...
Around the Wicket
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2021
- 5,934
- 3,898
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
You also have to remember there were a few in Marks era that were averaging 50+ in Shield cricket and never got a shot because Mark held the job while having long stints of low scores.
Probably didn't get the absolute best out of himself in the way that Steve did, but as others have said he played a lot of critical innings for us so not sure he was an underachiever, especially given the decade.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Because he thought he had ru.bbish siblings...or else he was rubbish to them,,,
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,385
- 152,108
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #13
Didn't cash in when he had easy opposition ground down and beaten
Opportunities to push on to really big scores passed him by
Perhaps his ability to concentrate for really long periods was lacking? Seemed to get bored at times
Wouldn't trade it however. Perhaps the most watchable player of an amazing era and made some crunch runs as others have pointed out
Opportunities to push on to really big scores passed him by
Perhaps his ability to concentrate for really long periods was lacking? Seemed to get bored at times
Wouldn't trade it however. Perhaps the most watchable player of an amazing era and made some crunch runs as others have pointed out
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,902
- 13,745
- AFL Club
- Richmond
His average iss poor because he never made the Daddy Hundreds needed to pad the stats.
In reality, runs above 100 rarely actually matter.
- Feb 18, 2017
- 4,403
- 5,870
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #15
He averaged low fortys against most opposition except England, he averaged 50 against them
A guy who averaged 55 in domestic cricket to only average 40 in test cricket is underachieving
Not Hick, Ramprakash or Bevan bad but still didn't realise his potential
The only "poor" opposition he didn't cash in on was Sri Lanka
- Sep 15, 2005
- 13,075
- 20,637
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Mark Waugh's record speaks for itself, but he's genuinely one of those cricketers for whom the bare statistics only tell part the tale.
His prowess in the field exerted it's own pressure; his bowling was the very definition of handy.
The very best bowling often troubled him; anything less he played with a nondiscriminatory disdain. He's not the first nor will he be the last batsman with a discrepancy between his First Class and Test averages.
He certainly entertained; I find it hard to look at him as an underachiever in any real sense of the word. Might he have got more from his talents? Maybe; perception is a funny thing. Maybe he knew exactly how hard he could push his temperament in International Cricket.
Worth acknowledging his enormous contribution to our ODI endeavours during his time in the National team; he was a huge weapon and the 50-over game often seemed to spark Mark Waugh to find another gear.
His prowess in the field exerted it's own pressure; his bowling was the very definition of handy.
The very best bowling often troubled him; anything less he played with a nondiscriminatory disdain. He's not the first nor will he be the last batsman with a discrepancy between his First Class and Test averages.
He certainly entertained; I find it hard to look at him as an underachiever in any real sense of the word. Might he have got more from his talents? Maybe; perception is a funny thing. Maybe he knew exactly how hard he could push his temperament in International Cricket.
Worth acknowledging his enormous contribution to our ODI endeavours during his time in the National team; he was a huge weapon and the 50-over game often seemed to spark Mark Waugh to find another gear.
SL were much stronger back in the day than they've been the last decade and a bit.
All accurate and contributing factors.
Also some have mentioned he did make crucial runs at certain times but going on memory I remember many more soft dismissals that stood out more compared to others in the team at the time.
I had no issue with him being in the team for most of his career but they did keep him in the team for at least 18 months too long.
Clearly the white form of the game suited him more and there's no shame in that.
I think I have heard Junior say on commentary before he got bored out there after posting 100s. And lost concentration easily.
He never played for the stat padding.
Pitches weren't as flat in the 90s as they are now as well.
Most wickets in Australia have become batting paradises for the first half of the tests.
He never played for the stat padding.
Pitches weren't as flat in the 90s as they are now as well.
Most wickets in Australia have become batting paradises for the first half of the tests.
Do the "didn't cash in" or "got bored once he made 100" answers have evidence? Did he get more starts, more 50s, more "little" 100s than other players of his era that have higher averages? My gut instinct is no, and that it's a bit of retrospective allowance given to him because he had such an enjoyable to watch style.
Does that mean he underachieved? Arguably yes, because if he'd had a different set of mental attributes, he might have achieved even more. But he had a very good career regardless, so it's almost unfair to say it.
It's like how Kobe was asked what Shaq would've been if he had his work ethic, and he said without a beat "The greatest player of all time". Shaq had an incredible career, but could've been somehow even more with some different traits.
Does that mean he underachieved? Arguably yes, because if he'd had a different set of mental attributes, he might have achieved even more. But he had a very good career regardless, so it's almost unfair to say it.
It's like how Kobe was asked what Shaq would've been if he had his work ethic, and he said without a beat "The greatest player of all time". Shaq had an incredible career, but could've been somehow even more with some different traits.
Feel the evidence is in the stats no? Only passed 150 once (his brother did it 14 times). 20 100's and 47 50's in 209 innings is not that far away to the greats in getting starts
Last edited:
Yeah, that's what I was after, thanks! I didn't have time to actually look at the stats, so guess my gut instinct was pretty off. How does that rate against the best of the era (Lara, Tendulkar etc)?
Similar threads
