The Steve Waugh myth

Stephen Vagg Roar Guru

By Stephen Vagg, Stephen Vagg is a Roar Guru

Tagged:
 , ,

26 Have your say

    It’s one of the most damaging myths in Australian cricket. A story that gets trotted out time and time again… that you should stick by a player because it took Steve Waugh 27 Tests to make a hundred.

    It’s constantly used to justify the selection of a talented enigma who’s struggling at the top level – particularly (though not always) all rounders. Mitchell Marsh. Shane Watson. Shaun Marsh. Moises Henriques. Ashton Agar.

    “If only we’d give him/given him time… say 27 Tests… like Steve Waugh.”

    Greg Chappell went on about it just recently, wistfully commenting that “we’d never be able to do something like that now”, as if giving 28 Tests to Mitchell Marsh who currently averages 27.8 isn’t a fairly good trial.

    It made me wonder, what actually happened in those 27 non-Test-century-scoring Tests of Steve Waugh?

    Was he just there on work experience?

    Making up the numbers as part of some affirmative action program? Being protected from the axe purely through the far-sighted genius of the selection panel?

    Or was there something else going on?

    Waugh came into the Test side in 1985-86, after only one summer of first class cricket.

    He was hyped at the time because he was (a) young (b) from New South Wales (thus had more access to press) and (c) an all rounder, that magical unicorn which Australian selectors are obsessed with. Keith Miller! Warwick Armstrong! Trevor Laughlin! Maybe not Trevor Laughlin but you get the idea.

    Mark and Steve Waugh

    Steve Waugh of Australia retires hurt in front of brother Mark during the third Test match at Trent Bridge in Nottingham (Laurence Griffiths/ALLSPORT)

    A case could be made for Waugh’s fast tracking. The South African rebel tours gutted Australian cricket of 16 top players, notably our pace bowlers (we took third choice pacers on the 1985 Ashes tour).

    A lot of noise is made about the Chappell-Lillee-Marsh retirements, and that didn’t help, but what really kept us weak in the 1980s was poor bowling, especially once Geoff Lawson and Craig McDermott lost fitness. We didn’t become a potent Test force again until the South African rebels came back in 1989. (Picking Wayne Phillips as keeper didn’t help either.)

    Australia’s selectors were desperate to boost our bowling attack but how to do that without weakening the batting? You pick all rounders, and they already had Greg Matthews, who had a purple patch in the summer of 1985-86, scoring three Test centuries. His bowling wasn’t as good as his batting though, so Waugh was brought in.

    For the first few years of his career, Waugh was mostly selected – and I think this was wise – in tandem with another all rounder eg Matthews, Peter Sleep. The two would balance each other out.

    In Waugh’s first Test, against the India at the MCG, Australia played only four specialist batters, plus Waugh and Matthews, and four bowlers. Waugh would’ve been 12th man but for a last minute injury to Greg Ritchie.

    Waugh scored 13 and 5 and took two wickets. Australia only escaped with a draw due to rain and some incredible Alan Border batting.

    For the next Test, Ritchie came back into the side but Waugh kept his spot and David Hookes was given the boot. Again, Australia were lucky to escape with a draw. Waugh made 8 and 0.

    It had been an underwhelming start and Waugh’s Test career might’ve been over then and there – like, say, Robbie Kerr, who played his first and only two Tests that summer, or David Hookes, who played his last four Tests that summer, or Simon O’Donnell, who played his last Test that summer. But Waugh offered a bowling option and had performed well in the one dayers (he established himself almost immediately in that format), and so kept his place for the tour against New Zealand.

    Australia’s balance was better – they played five specialist batsmen as well as Waugh and Matthews – but they lost the three-test series 1-0.

    Waugh scored 11 in the rain shortened first Test, came good in the second, making 74 and 1 and taking 4-56, but only scored 1 and 0 in the third, an embarrassing Australian defeat.

    Again, Waugh could arguably have been dropped after this series … Wayne Philips was, and he’d scored more runs in the Test series than Waugh. But Waugh again did well in the one dayers, the selectors could see his potential and good attitude, so he kept his place for the 1986 tour of India.

    In India, Waugh did not contribute much with the ball or bat, but to be fair he did not have many chances in a spin-heavy, rain-shortened tour.

    In the first Test (the famous second tied Test) he scored 12 not out and 2 not out and took 1-44 and 0-16 with the ball.

    In the second he scored 39 not out and in the third made 6. He didn’t succeed but he didn’t exactly fail either.

    So Waugh was still a fringe player at the beginning of the 1986-87 Ashes. In the first Test he took 3-76 and scored 0 and 28 in a disastrous Australian defeat.

    Then it finally clicked: in the second Test he took 0-90 and 5-59 and scored 71. In the third he made 79 not out and took 1-56.

    In the fourth he made 10 and 49 (a fighting innings in a collapse). In the fifth Test he made 0 and 73, and took the wicket of Mike Gatting, vital contributions in a narrow Australian victory – the first one Waugh had enjoyed at Test level.

    Waugh scored 310 runs at 44.28 that series making him Australia’s fourth highest run scorer, out batting Ritchie, Matthews and Boon (who were all dropped) – and taking ten wickets at 33.60. Eight catches too.

    He was pulling his weight as a batsman in his second summer of international cricket. He hadn’t scored a century, that’s true – but he was deserving his selection in the top six as a batsman and occasional bowler.

    I just want to emphasise that again.

    Steve Waugh was pulling his weight as a Test batsman in his second summer of international cricket. Yes, he didn’t score a Test century until 1989 but by 1986-87 he was already one of Australia’s best batsmen.

    And he was getting better. In 1987 he played county cricket in England and scored 340 first class runs at 113.33, as well as helping win the World Cup.

    In the 1987-88 series against New Zealand, Waugh was Australia’s fourth highest run scorer with 147 runs at 36.75. He had a bad tour of Pakistan in 1988 with 92 runs at 18.4 over three Tests but in the 1988 English summer made 1314 first class runs at 73.

    He kept his pot against the West Indies in 1988-89 and batted well, making 331 runs at 41.37, making him Australia’s second highest run scorer. He also took ten wickets at 47.2 including 5-92. In the first three live Tests, which Australia all lost, Waugh scored two 90s and took a 5-for.

    Then he went to England in 1989 and scored that precious first Test century.

    Australian captain Steve Waugh

    Steve Waugh (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

    So absolutely Steve Waugh took 27 Tests to score over a hundred.

    And absolutely he was given a fair few chances at Test level. The selectors were entitled to drop him after his first two Tests, and after the tour of New Zealand and (arguably) India but kept the faith. He started paying regular dividends as an investment after nine Tests, not twenty seven.

    To be sure, nine Tests is a lot more than other people get – Waugh would have been helped here by the fact he was earning his spot as an ODI player almost immediately – and the fact he was an excellent fielder and offered a bowling option.

    But he was pulling his weight within a year – something Mitchell Marsh never did.

    And you know something? They might have been better off dropping Steve Waugh earlier. Mark Taylor was ignored by Test selectors despite strong domestic performances from 1985-88, the early period of Steve Waugh’s Test career, and it didn’t seem to do Taylor much harm. Mike Valetta was given eight Tests to prove himself and it didn’t seem to do him much good.

    Steve Waugh didn’t really become Steve Waugh the champion until after he’d been dropped. Not once, but twice, in the summer of 1990-91. Poor returns against England saw him lose his spot to brother Mark; he was selected again in the West Indies as a bowler (every one forgets this) played two Tests and was given the boot again.

    He went away, worked on his game, and forced his way back in 1992-93 through virtue of runs. Only then he did he become the Test champion we know and love (unless you’re Shane Warne).

    So the next time someone goes “they gave Steve Waugh 27 Tests to score a century” can we remember he was pulling his weight after nine, and they still dropped him a bunch of times after that.

    It should stop being used as an excuse for people who aren’t up to it.

    Rebuild announcement

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (26)

    • August 13th 2018 @ 5:31am
      Warnie's Love Child said | August 13th 2018 @ 5:31am | ! Report

      Bob Simpson was another example.
      Took him quite a few Tests before making his first ton ( a triple !) but contributed with his spin bowling and fielding.

      I’ve sometimes wondered, how much emphasis is there on a batsman making centuries ?
      For example :
      Batsman A makes 10 centuries in his first 40 Tests, but also makes a number of low scores, and averages 45.
      Batsman B doesn’t score a single century in his first 40 Tests, but strings together a number of half centuries and averages 55.

      Which batsman would be safer in holding on to his spot ?
      Is the scoring of centuries a psychological blow against the opposition ?
      Would the selectors ( and public) feel batsman A is a superior player to B, even though his average is lower ?

      • August 13th 2018 @ 11:10am
        JimmyB said | August 13th 2018 @ 11:10am | ! Report

        Is batsman B Joe Root?

      • August 13th 2018 @ 11:12am
        JimmyB said | August 13th 2018 @ 11:12am | ! Report

        Is batsman B Joe Root?

      • August 13th 2018 @ 12:05pm
        Stephen said | August 13th 2018 @ 12:05pm | ! Report

        It’s also when the runs are scored eg in live tests, when no one else getting runs – Neil Harvey’s average doesn’t convey his brilliance / importance

      • Roar Guru

        August 14th 2018 @ 11:59am
        Cadfael said | August 14th 2018 @ 11:59am | ! Report

        Simmo took 32 tests, I think, to get his maiden ton

    • August 13th 2018 @ 6:37am
      Graham said | August 13th 2018 @ 6:37am | ! Report

      I feel like cricket should be the easiest sport to select for. Players who are given enough games rarely average much below or above their career 1st class average and players usually average around 10-15 runs lower in their first 20 games than their final career average. Recent 1st class form rarely matters much. Steve Waugh (wo wo wo what is he good for) wasn’t much of an outlier

      Mitch marsh I think averaged 20 in his first 20 games which means he probably averages 30-35 by the end of his career which is right in line of his first class average

      • August 21st 2018 @ 8:22pm
        James said | August 21st 2018 @ 8:22pm | ! Report

        But as mentioned above stats dont tell you when the person scored the runs, whether the match was still alive, what the other team scored, the weather, if you had to win the game thereby affecting how a batsmen played. Also the competition, 30 years ago the bowlers that batsmen faced in the sheffield shield were better and more organised than many international bowlers.

    • August 13th 2018 @ 6:57am
      peeko said | August 13th 2018 @ 6:57am | ! Report

      nice presentation of facts. 100 is just a number any way, i remember him scoring a few 90s early on

    • August 13th 2018 @ 8:00am
      bigbaz said | August 13th 2018 @ 8:00am | ! Report

      How many starts did Bobby Simpson have before his first ton ( a triple )?

      • August 13th 2018 @ 8:01am
        bigbaz said | August 13th 2018 @ 8:01am | ! Report

        SorryWLC, didn’t see your post

        • August 13th 2018 @ 6:31pm
          JohnB said | August 13th 2018 @ 6:31pm | ! Report

          The 300 was about his 53rd innings (more than half way through the first part of his test career). He’d scored 15 x 50s (including 3 x 90s) before that, averaging about 36 (the 300 took it to about 42). He’d also taken about 30 wickets. In the second half of the first part of his career he also got to 50 sixteen times – but turned 7 of those 16 into hundreds.

          These figures come from looking at Cricinfo’s chart of all his innings, so are a little inexact.

    • August 13th 2018 @ 8:42am
      Paul said | August 13th 2018 @ 8:42am | ! Report

      There are a number of points to take from this very good article.

      Waugh was contributing from an early stage in his career, either with bat, ball or in the field

      He was playing in a weakened Australia side, not dissimilar to out team at present.

      Australia came up against England, who were in their glory years with Gower, Gatting. Botham, etc, yet still took the WC off them. They were also beaten in Pakistan against a side that had Imran Kkan, Qadir, etc and this team had done really well against the outstanding West Indian teams.In other words, getting a score or taking wickets against these guys was a terrific achievement because they were very good teams. I saw Waugh battling for a great 90 in Brisbane against a red hot WI side in the 1980’s and if any bloke deserved a hundred, he did for sure.

      He got there on performances. He got into the team on the strength of some good performances at first class level and when he was dropped, went away and made too many runs to be ignored.

      There are many players who have played only one or two Tests, but I can’t think of any who have done so, gone away and either made a heap of runs or taken swags of wickets and still been ignored (maybe Colin McCool in the late 40’s, but he ended up playing in England). Waugh did it through hard work mixed in with a fair degree of talent.

    • Roar Pro

      August 13th 2018 @ 9:57am
      Andre Leslie said | August 13th 2018 @ 9:57am | ! Report

      Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing.

    Explore:
    , ,