He didn't. He was just never that good. His average is a more or less reflection of his ability.
Why did Mark Waugh underachieve in test cricket?
- Thread starter Ohitsthatguy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
His technique was great to watch but he played at a lot of balls he shouldn't and the way he used to like to clip the ball off his pads was great on the eye but also made him susceptible to LBW early in his innings.
He was always vulnerable for getting out cheaply for those reasons which is why his average isn't mid-high 40's.
Last edited:
Lots of opinions on here have been pretty lazy without actually reflecting on why he got out cheaply and why his average was low. Peoples memories are of a pretty technique, the nice leg glances, the pretty cover drives etc but he was very vulnerable early on in his innings partly because of the things that made him good to watch.
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
The average over a long career does tell you a lot of the story I reckon. And the ducks. He scored 19 ducks to Steve's 22, despite playing 51 fewer innings. It is one thing to write off the lack of big hundreds as losing focus. What are the ducks attributable to?
There is only a handful of recognised batsmen with more ducks than Mark Waugh.
There is only a handful of recognised batsmen with more ducks than Mark Waugh.
It was more of a poor conversion problem (no big 100's and lots of 70's-80's) than a underachievement problem? He probably also played internationals for a year too long in hindsight.
His fielding also meant he was was far more valuable than your typical 41 average player.
His fielding also meant he was was far more valuable than your typical 41 average player.
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,373
- 3,034
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Loved watching him bat. Always bewildered about his choice of life partner at the time though.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,847
- 56,218
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #58
Might sound a bit superfluous to say it, but you're precisely as good as the runs you put out there.
Nathan Lyon looks waaaaaay better than any number of no.10's, but he bats there for a reason.
Nathan Lyon looks waaaaaay better than any number of no.10's, but he bats there for a reason.
This.
There ARE exceptions, there always will be, but those exceptions are not guys with 120 tests to their name.
The exceptions are the guys with 30-60 tests who have sub-40 averages who play delightful innings, make the odd brilliant century and mix it with inexplicable failures accentuated by daft dismissals and poor shot selections and who develop bizarre patterns of dismissals etc
The only player I can really think of who played 100+ tests who’s record is a genuine non-reflection of his ability is Carl Hooper.
He averaged 36, which really does not show what he had in the tank and when he came back for the final quarter of his career he averaged close to 50 which was a far greater indicator of what he could have done had he not played so absent-mindedly.
Apart from him I really can’t come up with many long term examples of players no matter how gifted or talented they looked who ‘should have’ done much better than what they actually did over a long career.
- Jul 31, 2010
- 8,750
- 12,107
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- S'roos, New Jets, Cronulla
- Moderator
- #60
Maybe I've misread your previous misgivings on the issue but a very personal sledge to do with the appearance and promisciousness (I can't think of a better word) of a close family member appears to me to be the sort of sledge you would usually take umbrage with?
For starters, if someone asks me to rank sledges, I’m still going to pick a #1 aren’t I whether I have misgivings or not so yeah, well done on trying to ‘pick me up’ on that one. I think Rod Marsh saying ‘how’s your wife and my kids’ is hilarious as far as sledging goes as well, it doesn’t mean I think he should have said it does it.
Secondly if I walk out to bat I’m not going to turn around and tell someone that their wife is a fat old ugly s**t and that they’re a dumb c**t for marrying her am I. But if someone does start hooking into me verbally it might make me start thinking twice about whether I interact with the person behind me.
You seem to have more of an issue with my issue with this, than I do with anything.
All I’ve ever said is that I don’t really agree with the idea of any player or team who has a plan or just using it as a continuous tactic. It’s unnecessary and stupid.
- Jul 31, 2010
- 8,750
- 12,107
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- S'roos, New Jets, Cronulla
- Moderator
- #62
Hmmm okay. I only ask because I feel like I've taken away some interesting perspectives from you on this topic so when I then see you write something I feel contradicts what you've said on it, I just ask the question to understand your perspective further.
If I didn't respect your opinion on it I probably wouldn't interact with it further. I can let it go though, that's fine. I won't bring it up anymore if you don't want me to. I've probably done it to death now anyway.
The essence of my view on it is this, as best as I can summarise it:
- I don’t condone unmitigated abuse in sport in general. I don’t see a need for it in any circumstance really. Sometimes when you’re high on emotion things get said but generally you shouldn’t need to do it.
- I DO understand it, if someone is giving it to you. I respect guys more if they take the high road and just shut up, but I will always at least understand if they just give it back as a response to something said to them. People don’t like being abused or told they are s**t. A natural response is to bite.
- I certainly don’t have a problem with a small good natured barb that is said in good natured humour.
- I mainly have a problem with two things in particular and it is teams or players who rely on pre-conceived plans to just do nothing but abuse and sledge people, particularly the abuse aspect. Yes I think there is a bit of a difference. And no that doesn’t just apply to Australia or whoever else you want to name. I can think of heaps of players Australian or otherwise who do it to a point where it goes beyond just a well chosen word here or there and just gets stupid. So those teams/players who think it has to be part of their ‘method.’ I think it’s dumb beyond comprehension.
The other is players who just use it to a point of relentlessness even if it’s not planned. Players like Anderson and Rabada spring to mind. Can’t help themselves and get into a state where it drags on after every ball.
- Oct 28, 2009
- 795
- 780
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Fitzroy, Melbourne Storm
Mark Waugh was a star for the Aussies with the bat, bowl and in the field. Though I appreciate the topic starter suggesting his test batting stats arguably don't reflect what they may have been.
I find it interesting to compare Mark Waugh with Greg Matthews. Both players surprisingly averaged 41 with the bat. And that's with Waugh being in a stronger line up than Matthews. Both were highly skilled in the field and plucked catches from nowhere. Though as Greg struggled to hold his position as the side's first choice spinner his career is considered to be somewhat inferior to Waugh. The period in the 21st century where the Aussies had the brilliance of Gilchrist's batting and the heavy reliance on Warne/McGrath's bowling that I believe was tailored made for Matthews - if he was born later. Matthews might have played as a genuine all-rounder batting with Gilchrist at 6/7 and being our second spinner/fifth bowling option.
I find it interesting to compare Mark Waugh with Greg Matthews. Both players surprisingly averaged 41 with the bat. And that's with Waugh being in a stronger line up than Matthews. Both were highly skilled in the field and plucked catches from nowhere. Though as Greg struggled to hold his position as the side's first choice spinner his career is considered to be somewhat inferior to Waugh. The period in the 21st century where the Aussies had the brilliance of Gilchrist's batting and the heavy reliance on Warne/McGrath's bowling that I believe was tailored made for Matthews - if he was born later. Matthews might have played as a genuine all-rounder batting with Gilchrist at 6/7 and being our second spinner/fifth bowling option.
Disagree. He was extremely good. Mentally a bit weak. I remember him getting out in very lazy ways to part time opposition bowlers a lot. Back foot lbw a fair bit trying to cut or glide away to balls he just should have hit.
Kim Hughes is probably another one. I still rate him the best bat WA has produced but his stats won't have him in the top 3-5.
Some average team mates at the time with poor attitudes and playing the Windies at their peak every year really didn't help him much.
stats really mean half of the story, mark had a crazy low amount of not outs (batting at 4) look at someone like damian martyn who i love he had just about the same amount of not outs as mark with 100 less bats. so i feel like you can add 5 runs to his avg which is a dam good effort if you look who was around in the 90s ..
Along the lines of what Nicho50 said, Junior's focus was often on the somewhat speculative investment platform known as "the punt".
Mind you, he was an exceptional judge of LBWs when standing at second slip. If Waugh, M. appealed vigorously for an LBW, you knew the batsman was out. If he was half hearted, it was a not out.
Mind you, he was an exceptional judge of LBWs when standing at second slip. If Waugh, M. appealed vigorously for an LBW, you knew the batsman was out. If he was half hearted, it was a not out.
Always though Mark Waugh was a bit overrated. Because he played some pretty shots everyone thought his average should be high. He was on record several times putting his hand saying that he was working hard to get his average up but he was never good enough to average 50. He had a few great innings like the one at PE but also failed a lot under pressure. Ambrose certainly had his number on key occasions. He was a good slipper but still dropped a lot of catches too.
- Feb 18, 2017
- 4,403
- 5,870
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #71
So apparently he lost focus in test cricket, why did he dominate Shield cricket?
It just doesn't add up
It just doesn't add up
- Jan 18, 2015
- 4,892
- 12,295
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I was a massive M Waugh fan growing up and was so disappointed with the way his test career panned out. As others have said he had a great career but still underachieved at the highest level. Could have been our second best after Bradman up with Ponting and Greg Chappell had he had a bit more application and a bit more luck. Even with his habit of throwing his wicket away between 100 and 150 it's an unbelievable statistical freak how low his highest test score is. He found every way not to pad his average - in particular he made a specialty of not getting not out.
That said he did play some really good innings when needed which proved he had the capability to play like a legend, just not the consistency and desire. And I also suspect that he did actually succumb to pressure of expectation at times.
That said he did play some really good innings when needed which proved he had the capability to play like a legend, just not the consistency and desire. And I also suspect that he did actually succumb to pressure of expectation at times.
In his biography, he comes across as arrogant, complacent and dismissive. Plus his tendency to lose concentration was well known.
The upshot was that he'd quite often get dismissed cheaply or prematurely because he didn't always give opposition bowlers, especially spinners, the respect they deserved (e.g. trying to reverse-sweep Phil Tufnell on a turner when he'd never really played that shot before). This partially explains why he was prone to losing his wicket after a lovely little cameo, alongside the lapses in concentration. He'd also invariably get dismissed quite quickly after getting a century, because in his mind the job was done - complacency striking again.
He did have a few technical glitches - he wasn't that great against the short ball, but that didn't hinder his brother much. He could get trapped in front because he moved across his crease, but that sometimes happened to Ricky Ponting too. Those glitches alone don't explain why he averaged 42. In fact, during his peak in the 1990s, he averaged close to 45. In the 2000s, that'd be equivalent to 47-48, which is pretty good going.
He definitely had the talent to average above 45, if not 50 - after all, he crafted some of the best innings of the 1990s (Kingston 1995, Port Elizabeth 1997) - but on average, he was a big disappointment. I'd put that primarily down to mentality, not talent or technique.
The upshot was that he'd quite often get dismissed cheaply or prematurely because he didn't always give opposition bowlers, especially spinners, the respect they deserved (e.g. trying to reverse-sweep Phil Tufnell on a turner when he'd never really played that shot before). This partially explains why he was prone to losing his wicket after a lovely little cameo, alongside the lapses in concentration. He'd also invariably get dismissed quite quickly after getting a century, because in his mind the job was done - complacency striking again.
He did have a few technical glitches - he wasn't that great against the short ball, but that didn't hinder his brother much. He could get trapped in front because he moved across his crease, but that sometimes happened to Ricky Ponting too. Those glitches alone don't explain why he averaged 42. In fact, during his peak in the 1990s, he averaged close to 45. In the 2000s, that'd be equivalent to 47-48, which is pretty good going.
He definitely had the talent to average above 45, if not 50 - after all, he crafted some of the best innings of the 1990s (Kingston 1995, Port Elizabeth 1997) - but on average, he was a big disappointment. I'd put that primarily down to mentality, not talent or technique.
Because although the Sheffield Shield was the best FC competition in the world, Test cricket demands more mentally for various reasons (differing conditions, pressures of touring, arguably higher calibre of bowling). There was less room for complacency, and lapses in concentration were often more costly.
Similar threads
