Why did Mark Waugh underachieve in test cricket?

[gordo2016]

He said on Cricket Legends with Crash that once he got to 100 he could sometimes lose focus quickly. He regretted becoming casual and wished he had of converted some of those 100's into massive scores.

 

[Underarm]

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)?

Another way to look at it is to compare him with Younis Khan.

Khan: 213 Innings, 10,099 runs, 34 hundreds, 33 50's Average 52.
Waugh: 209 innings 8029 runs, 20 hundreds, 47 50s. average 42.

Same amount of 50+ scores, 10 average difference because he never cashed in. Khan had 12 scores above Jr's top of 153.

 

[Santana]

Another way to look at it is to compare him with Younis Khan.

Khan: 213 Innings, 10,099 runs, 34 hundreds, 33 50's Average 52.
Waugh: 209 innings 8029 runs, 20 hundreds, 47 50s. average 42.

Same amount of 50+ scores, 10 average difference because he never cashed in. Khan had 12 scores above Jr's top of 153.

Those big scores really do help. Just look at Lara. Only 6 not outs but an average over 50 helped by having the 3rd most 200's

 

[Kram]

Batting, bowling, fielding..

The dude was a triple threat!

 

[PhatBoy]

His average iss poor because he never made the Daddy Hundreds needed to pad the stats.

In reality, runs above 100 rarely actually matter.

Rarely is probably a massive exaggeration

 

[Pistol Night]

Knock up a century then get out before the last 2 quaddie legs. I think I heard a story about him being in the dunny listening to a race when a wicket fell and he was in

 

[Around the Wicket]

Wouldn't surprise me if Mark Waugh had spot fixing links, alot of odd things in his record.

 

[Underarm]

Rarely is probably a massive exaggeration

Probably. But there's a point of diminishing returns. Waugh only Lost 1 match where he scored 100+.

Those big scores really do help. Just look at Lara. Only 6 not outs but an average over 50 helped by having the 3rd most 200's

And of course the biggest statpadder of all made 12 doubles and 3 triples.

 

[PhatBoy]

Probably. But there's a point of diminishing returns. Waugh only Lost 1 match where he scored 100+.



And of course the biggest statpadder of all made 12 doubles and 3 triples.

Think you’ll find it was two triples, and he passed 200 nine times in all. Aside from the 375 and the 400 there wasn’t really much stat padding at all.

A couple of doubles in losing causes, a couple in winning causes, a couple in draws including one where the innings total didn’t even get to 500, and one in a very high scoring draw. It’s a pretty normal profile for a prolific batsman it just so happens that two of his high scores happened to be world record efforts

 

[Rob]

Wouldn't surprise me if Mark Waugh had spot fixing links, alot of odd things in his record.

I dunno whether you call it odd, he probably just didn't have the same level of concentration as others. Seemed to drop a lot of easy catches at slip only to take a blinder shortly after. Wasn't great at converting 50s to 100s, and even worse at converting 100s to 150s. An enigma.

 

[Tandy]

Everyone wanted to play like mark not Steve when I was growing up. So much talent and Soo good to watch

 

[Plugger35]

Everyone wanted to play like mark not Steve when I was growing up. So much talent and Soo good to watch

I admired Steve Waugh more than Mark Waugh, Steve was a gutsier and tougher test batsman even though Mark arguably had more talent.

Against the West Indies great fast bowling attacks of the 90s Mark would step away and try to hit them over the slips while Steve would just stand his ground and cop the body blows rather than take the easy option of stepping away to play those risky shots over the slips like Mark.

Steve's double hundred in the 1995 test series against the West Indies is a legendary test innings, better than any test innings Mark played.

 

[PhatBoy]

I admired Steve Waugh more than Mark Waugh, Steve was a gutsier and tougher batsman even though Mark arguably had more talent.

Against the West Indies great fast bowling attacks of the 90s Mark would step away and try to hit them over the slips while Steve would just stand his ground and cop the body blows rather than take the easy option of stepping away to play those risky shots over the slips.

Steve's double hundred in the 1995 test series against the West Indies is a legendary test innings, better than any test innings Mark played.

Yeah that’s not really true though, is it.

Mark made a century at the other end, while Steve was compiling that double century, and he wasn’t backing away edging them over slips. He also made incredibly tough runs against some fearsome South African attacks.

He wasn’t AS tough as his brother but he wasn’t lacking at all in the guts department, not one bit.

 

[Tandy]

I admired Steve Waugh more than Mark Waugh, Steve was a gutsier and tougher test batsman even though Mark arguably had more talent.

Against the West Indies great fast bowling attacks of the 90s Mark would step away and try to hit them over the slips while Steve would just stand his ground and cop the body blows rather than take the easy option of stepping away to play those risky shots over the slips like Mark.

Steve's double hundred in the 1995 test series against the West Indies is a legendary test innings, better than any test innings Mark played.

You're probably right in saying that
Wasn't that marks signature late cut?

 

[Plugger35]

Yeah that’s not really true though, is it.

Mark made a century at the other end, while Steve was compiling that double century, and he wasn’t backing away edging them over slips. He also made incredibly tough runs against some fearsome South African attacks.

He wasn’t AS tough as his brother but he wasn’t lacking at all in the guts department, not one bit.

I'm not saying Mark lacked guts, his method of stepping away and hitting the fast bowlers over the slips was quite a smart way to play them.

He made some tough runs against tough bowling attacks too but if you had to pick one of the Waugh twins to bat for your life I'd pick Steve,

Steve always put a high price on his wicket and he made the bowlers get him out while Mark could throw his wicket away with a lazy shot.

;

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Over 8000 Test runs, 20 Test centuries, averaged in the 40s, 182 catches. If that's underachieving, give me more of it.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm not saying Mark lacked guts, his method of stepping away and hitting the fast bowlers over the slips was quite a smart way to play them.

He made some tough runs against tough bowling attacks too but if you had to pick one of the Waugh twins to bat for your life I'd pick Steve,

Steve always put a high price on his wicket and he made the bowlers get him out while Mark could throw his wicket away with a lazy shot.

;

He didn’t do that, though. He would often sway, he didn’t step back.

It’s like you’re confusing him with Shane Warne or something.
He glanced off his hips, he rode bounce quite well, he had a very good fierce and conventional square cut.

 

[Plugger35]

He didn’t do that, though. He would often sway, he didn’t step back.

It’s like you’re confusing him with Shane Warne or something.
He glanced off his hips, he rode bounce quite well, he had a very good fierce and conventional square cut.

It seems like you are nitpicking, whether he would sway back or step back he wouldn't stand his ground like Steve did and just cop his licks.

It's not a knock on him though, he just had a different way of playing the Windies quicks than his brother or Border dd and it worked for him

 

[PhatBoy]

It seems like you are nitpicking, whether he would sway back or step back he wouldn't stand his ground like Steve did and just cop his licks.

It's not a knock on him though, he just had a different way of playing the Windies quicks than his brother or Border dd and it worked for him

lol, neither did Steve mate, really. One ducked one way, one ducked the other. Because Steve kind of made a very public commitment to not playing the hook or pull shots it became this big thing where he was some sort of punching bag for every fast bowler who wanted to drop short.

He did occasionally get hit but not really any more than anyone else; he used to just routinely duck on sight when the ball was pitched short.
Mark copped his licks from bowlers like Donald and Pollock from time to time and yes, some of the West Indians. Remove that famous innings at Sabina Park from the equation where Mark himself was there for most of it and the myth has probably outgrown the reality to an extent.

Mark batted 320 balls to hold SA out for a draw at Adelaide in the test where Pollock took 7-87 and famously if you’ll remember, wore a ball on the point of the elbow and a few moments later dislodged the bails with his bat, and was given not out controversially as it was deemed to be after the ball was dead (probably correctly). That was an innings where he was targeted around the body quite a bit from time to time.

 

[revo333]

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.

I never agree with this logic.

If Shaq had a better worth ethic he may have got injured more or he may not have enjoyed playing as much and retired earlier or got into more trouble off the court which may have effected his performance when he played.

To many if's and but's

 

[corbies]

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.

Pitches have been very difficult to bat on in Test cricket in the last 5 or so years. If you were comparing the 90s ptiches to the 2000s pitches it would be a true statement.

 

[caveman72]

How many fewer Centuries would Steve have if you took off the times he ran out his partner to save himself. He would have sacrificed his Nana on 99 in the backyard at Christmas

 

[BStaff17]

Pitches have been very difficult to bat on in Test cricket in the last 5 or so years. If you were comparing the 90s ptiches to the 2000s pitches it would be a true statement.

More referring to Australian pitches i feel like since the drop ins came in.

And the conspiracy theory that CA wanted pitches that last 5 days so they keep the networks happy have resulted in a lot of flat decks here in Australia.

Look at WACA in the 90s at times it was a minefield. WACA got pretty flat at the backend of its tenure.
SCG was a spinners paradise now its generally a flat road on the slow side
MCG has turned into a decent batting wicket with the drop-in. I dont think it was flat way back in the 90s.

Gabba i suppose has always been a decent wicket most of the time for everybody especially if you got yourself in with the bounce. Last year was a shocker but overall its always been fair with bat & ball.

 

[BStaff17]

How many fewer Centuries would Steve have if you took off the times he ran out his partner to save himself. He would have sacrificed his Nana on 99 in the backyard at Christmas

And punter may have had many more 100s as whenever Ponting was involved in a runout he always seemed the victim.

He got run out 15 times in his test career.

While he played 168 tests & 287 innings its a fair amount of times to be runout in a test match.

Once every 11 tests he got runout.

 

[caveman72]

And punter may have had many more 100s as whenever Ponting was involved in a runout he always seemed the victim.

He got run out 15 times in his test career.

While he played 168 tests & 287 innings its a fair amount of times to be runout in a test match.

Once every 11 tests he got runout.

Good man Punter he would never have run his nana out