Shane Warne's standout tour of New Zealand in 1993

Just a quick note that Munro Mike is as out of his depth on this topic as Dean Jones was in facing the West Indies bowlers in tests.

Maaaaaate ……. I just noticed your dim-witt-d comments about the 1991 tour of the West Indies, so just to wrap up: How messed up can you be to even suggest that one umpiring blunder cost Dean Jones his career. It made not one iota of difference to the match result in any case because it occurred at a point where the match was already well and truly unsalvageable for Australia. When you trail by over 200 against that quality of attack, with more than two days left, you have zero hope of hanging on for a draw. Forgetting the 5th test dead rubber, Australia did not get a second innings in the first test, were in complete lost causes in the their second innings in tests 2 and 4, with the latter facing a supposed ‘target’ well over 100 runs higher than the record successful chase to this very day more than 30 years later, and when Australia began their token second innings in test 3, it was already doomed to be a draw. When Jones went in at 3 down, they were nearly 120 in front, with less than 30 overs of playing time remaining. Therefore, the only relevant stats from that series are Australia’s first innings in the first four tests. Jones had four opportunities to stamp his impact on the series and he totalled a pathetic 77 runs with a top score of 34. Boon made a century and not much else in those four innings, Geoff Marsh, Mark Taylor and Mark Waugh two half centuries each, while Border had the third highest aggregate of the six but with a top score of only 47. Average runs per dismissal in those four only innings that had any bearing on the series result sees Jones’s pathetic 19.25 as 46% lower than the second lowest, while Mark’s 64.67 was 39.8% higher than the second highest. So, in the future, keep your ignorant comments to yourself whenever the topic of Mark Waugh and/or Dean Jones comes up. Keep your fingers away from the keyboard until you learn how to properly analyse stats in regards to player impact in the objective of actually winning test series against the strongest opposition.

OMG, now I am going to cherry-pick … going to pick out some id-otic comments you made that slipped my attention previously … Mark did not hurt teams? Far out, what are you on exactly??? Best leave that one, for now. A poor man’s David Gower? I doubt very much David Gower would agree about that. Gower used to drool over Mark’s batting when in commentary. As the for West Indies, forget 1999, the West Indies attack was no longer strong, look only at his first four series against them, and forget meaningless raw averages, and focus only on key moments in games and series. You think 44 is automatically superior to 41.9? I suppose you think 216 automatically trumps 126 FFS. And in 1999-00, Wasim Akram (Akram is not a surname by the way) was the same age as Mark, and by that time, Australia’s line-up was getting stronger with the likes of Ponting and Langer finally maturing and Hayden set to do the same a year or two later, so less was needed from Mark in tests 2 and 3. He did not come in at 1 for 269, he came in at 2 for 272, and this slumped to 5 for 342, still 25 behind. A lead of 50 is needed by the team batting second for an even game. So, a minimum of 75 runs needed from that point, and only a debutante and the tail remaining … doesn’t matter how talented that debutante was, it is still a bonus rather than uncompromising expectation that a debutante succeeds in his first test. For the next 70-80 runs, Mark guided the debutante through the murky waters enabling him to then unleash, and this onslaught (from Gilchirst) is what made things easier for Warne. Warne was not the worst 8-11 batsmen ever, in fact he holds the record for the most number of instances of a tailender top scoring in a test innings, 6 times. He had a very simply but effective technique: he had enough defensive skill to keep out good balls, and a good eye for picking bad balls to attack. Wasn’t pretty, but effective. In any case, all runs by all Australian batsmen in that first innings were valuable, as they were bowled out and then required a mopping up task of 80 odd runs second time around. If they had won by an innings and 100 runs and declared at 6 down, then capping would be employed big time.

Maaaaaaaaaaate ……………… There is nothing more pathetic and churlish than to use the cherry-picking accusation anytime somebody deeply analyses and properly dissects raw stats to give them actual meaning where no meaning existed within the overall solitary number. I never cease to roar with laughter at the desperate attempt of denigration regarding Mark not going too far beyond 100 very often. Australia won 15 of the 20 tests in which he scored 100 and lost only one. The four in draws were all in deciding tests in series, three of them enabled Australia to retain their lead and win the series, while the other ensure the rubber remained all square. In those four matches, only two other team mates scored centuries, neither in the same innings as Mark, and four members of the respective oppositions. So in those decisive tests in series, Mark scored 40% of all centuries across both teams. If you look at the circumstances of all 20 tons, he only had a theoretical mathematical opportunity to go even beyond 150 on six or seven occasions. Australia only needed him to go on significantly beyond the even 100 on three of those occasions, and on two of those three occasions he did so. The only occasion one could even remotely argue that not going on after reaching 100 cost his team was the one time they lost, so what exactly is your problem there? You rubbish a superb match winner simply because he wasn’t interested in scoring junk runs? How shallow are you? As for Jones, yes the 184 not out can be given proper credit for the reasons you mentioned, but the 216 cannot, nor can the 150 not out. The other two watershed dead rubber wins from the 1980s and 90s that were important watershed moments for Australian cricket were Antigua 1991 and Bangalore 1998. How ridiculous to claim Jones wore out the West Indies bowling. Only 28 wickets fell in the entire game for 1341 runs. Neither team was able to take more than 4 second innings wickets for 224 and 233 runs respectively. In such games, at the very best, there may be something in the pitch for the fast men up until no later than lunch on the first day, in reality, more often than not, not too far beyond the first half an hour. Jones went in only shortly before lunch after the top three had seen off any remote demons present. England had a more than decent attack in 1986-87. After that series, the strongest attacks during Jones’s career were the West Indies, Pakistan, and New Zealand with Richard Hadlee, who owned Jones to the same extent Warne owned Cullinan. In 17 non-dead rubbers against those teams, the only time Jones reached 50 was in that Adelaide game against Pakistan 1989-90. His next best performance was a nothing 38 not out going in at 1 down with a mere 59 runs needed to finish off the opposition. Would you really be dumb enough to compare that to someone who took 9 tons and 15 half tons in 41 non-dead rubber tests during the 1990s off the attacks of the West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa? Also, you seem to have missed the very important information that Jones did NOT see Australia safely through to a draw in that 2nd test in Sri Lanka in 1992-93. As I already correctly pointed out, due to constant inclement weather throughout the match, a draw was already certain when he went in, same as a draw was already certain when Imam-ul-Haq scored a ton on the last day of the recent test. The selectors also saw it that way. If you take that innings out, the rest of the series saw 176 runs in 5 innings from Jones, not exactly impacting and series defining. As for 1989, England had a club standard attack, as they also did 4 years later in 1993 and in both series all the Australian batsmen scored heavily. If you disregard not outs and just treat them as innings, and then remove other padding as well as separate the dead wood, Steve Waugh, Jones, and Mark Taylor all come out with more realistic meaningful averages in the 80-90 region, but, again, it was not exactly a stern examination of their class.

Mate.......really creative - - I especially love the way you pick and choose what to regard and disregard. Only way possible to talk up a run of 4 consecutive test ducks........ "We can disregard the two second innings ducks because they were made when the match was already doomed to be a draw. " I'll finish laughing sometime after 10pm tonight. re Dean Jones - - you've gone seriously on the attack there - - I simply mentioned the status of that Sri Lanka series. Now - - what's interesting there is you want us to focus on the 3 tests at home that M.Waugh did well in - during a run of 14 tests in which he was a dismal failure in the other 11 (outside of the 56 to kick off so optimistically his SL tour). Mate - if I was defending Dean Jones more broadly - I'd point out that your swipe of "had far more heart for a scrap in a crisis than Jones though" kinda completely disregards Chennai 1986, and then his 3 1/2 hour innings in Wankhede to safely guide us to a draw. You can decry a dead rubber all you like - however the 184* that Jones scored in the 5th test Jan '87 to set up our only win of the series was masterful - 184 out of a team total of 343, coming in at 1-8 after the dud Ritchie got out. And batted through for a 9 hour masterclass. You put down the 216* in the first innings against the West Indies in Feb '88 - recall though that Jones wasn't selected in the first 2 tests........y'see he'd been dropped after a pair in Lahore.........contrast to Waugh holding his spot after a pair of pairs....against Sri Lanka. The next best score in that innings was big Merv once Jones has worn out the quicks and before that Border 64. Jones didn't turn it up like many of the other batters - and faced up to Marshall, Patterson, Ambrose and Walsh to regain some national pride. The Ashes in England in '89 and averaged 70.75 with two hundreds and 3 50s...no big not outs like S.Waugh. And of course the twin tons in the Adelaide test Jan 1990 against Waqar and Akram (and Imran) - without support in the run chase he ensured we got to the draw to protect our 1-0 lead - far from a dead rubber - in each innings only one other Australian passed 50. Sydney was a wash out - - Jones's heart and skill had ensured a 1-0 series win rather than a 1-1 drawn series. And the West Indies tour......not sure you recall the ridiculous run out that should never have been - - bowled off a no-ball, the West indies ran him out because he'd walked (not having heard the call)....the mistake by the umpire to give him out run out was that he was not attempting a run. The other innings produced 242 at 34ish - on a par with Broder and better than Boon who profitted off an unbeaten 109 to boost his average, alas that false 3 brought it down. But based on your system of creative accounting - I'll disregard that 3. That's how it works isn't it? Cherry picking?? And Mark Waugh as a 'tease'. Definitely. Average of 41.81. Far too often got to 100 and didn't go on. Top score out of 20 centuries was 153 (yes, yes, not out). Avg 50 vs England.......less than half that vs Sri Lanka. Gotta laugh. For all his West Indies heroics you talk up - - 4 100s, 13 50s.....he average was 'only' 41.28. He did NOT hurt teams. He was like the English County cricket.....a good 3 day game knock. Clap him off. He was like the poor mans David Gower (at least Gower averaged 44 and that was mainly diminished by his average of 32.8 vs the great West indies 1980-88 era. And Mark Waugh - just couldn't get dropped. The '99 tour to the Windies - 202 at 25.25; followed by 29 from 4 at 7.75 again in a dismal trip to Sri Lanka....come to the rescue Zimbabwe for a 90 against a minnow and followed with a decent 100 against Pakistan (againg Akram) (althought Warnie got an 86 and Waugh came in at 1-269!! Followed that with 5,0,0 and 5,8 in the first test against India. So......again - a run of 11 tests with 190 in 2 hits in the middle - an island - surrounded by 249 at 14.6. Absolute tease. See...........I can cheery pick too. :silly:

I hope for the sake of your own credibility you don't take that nutcase seriously.

Mate …. That series in Sri Lanka saw Mark contribute equally with everybody else in the team in Australia’s scarcely believable come from behind victory in the first test, the only match in the series that had a result. We can disregard the two second innings ducks because they were made when the match was already doomed to be a draw. The same applies for Jones’s second innings century in the 2nd test, in which he gave about four chances – the selectors were most unimpressed, John Benaud said so in his book ‘Matters of Choice. ______ Prior to that, the home summer vs India, Jones returned 0, 59, 35, 18, 41, 0 and 7 before making the most of a zero-pressure situation in a dead rubber to make a century that was scored almost in its entirety after the match had already passed its decisive point – the selectors weren’t fooled. _______ Prior to that he had scored 120 runs in 7 innings in the West Indies, outside of his dead rubber 81, and 39 not out that was again made when the match was already doomed to be a draw. _______ Prior to that against England, he scored 17, 44, 60, 0, 0, 3 and 34. It was in an around those England and West Indies series that Mark scored 497 first innings runs for five dismissals with two centuries (from 5 for 124 and 4 for 188) and two half tons. _______ Nobody in the 1979-92 period came even remotely close to his 484 runs for his first five first innings dismissals against the West Indies. If the selectors had been dumb enough to drop such a big match performer for such a big match non-entity in Dean Jones we would have lost the 1992-93 series 4-0 rather than come with within two runs of winning it. _____ The last two tests of that 1992-93 home series was the only time in his first three series against the West Indies that he even remotely let us down when we needed him. And apparently, you missed the bit about the other five specialist batsmen averaging 17.8 between them across both innings in the Adelaide and the first innings in Perth – and that includes Langer’s second innings 54 in Adelaide. (They were just as dismal in the second innings in Perth but since the game was already well and truly unsalvageable by that point, everyone’s 2nd innings there can be disregarded as inconsequential). _____ Greg Matthews?? Get a grip! He was certainly a better batsman than a few of the specialists tried in the 1980s, but his only score above 50 against the West Indies was on the flat track high scoring draw in Sydney that 1992-93 summer. He was a good player of spin on slow low tracks and certainly had far more heart for a scrap in a crisis than Jones though. _____ Mark produced an infuriating career of tease? How deluded are you? If it wasn’t for him, we would have lost three series against South Africa, would have lost in the West Indies in 95, and then prolly not won in 96-97 either, would not have won in Pakistan in 98, and would not have won the 98-99 series against England. _____ Then there’s his 96 and 99 world cups. Four tons, two in sudden death matches, arguably three, how many tons did Jones ever score in world cups? The supposed one day king did not play a single major innings his entire career in a successful above par run chase target – Mark scored as many tons in such chases as Jones scored all up. Even on that 1992-93 Sri Lanka tour after the tests, who came in in the 3rd and final one day match at 3 for 58 chasing 208 and smashed 52 off 63? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t Jones. In one day cricket, Jones was a one dimensional, home track, bat first act. _____ For goodness sake, dealing with this kind of rubbish on the roar really does my head in sometimes.

Mate - the August/September 1992 tour of Sri Lanka saw Mark Waugh return 5,56,0,0,0,0. Prior to that - the home summer vs India and he returned 11,34,5,18,15,0. That was 144 runs from 12 innings, avg 12 with 5 ducks. He came into that home summer vs the West Indies purely on the memory of his 139* in Antigue in April of 1991. And as it was - 284 runs in Brisbane, Melb and Syd from 5 hits and then back to 'normal' with just 56 at 14 from the last 2 tests. Your defence of him is a 3 test island of form that was surrounded by absolute dross. And come to NZ just 12 and 13. So - - your 3 tests are countered by the surrounding 11 tests that returned 225 runs from 18 hits at the paltry average of 12.5. That M.Waugh survived that tour to Sri Lanka - arguably undeservedly - especially considering that Dean Jones who'd scored 276 at 55.2 didn't. It can be asserted Greg Matthews deserved a spot as a batter ahead of M.Waugh - with 5 consecutive 50+ scores (at @7) including a 96 in the last hit of that tour and a 79 in his last test at the SCG (remember his career avg of 41 and 4 100s is very much underrated and poorly acknowledged). Mark Waugh should've been no where near that test side - for the 92/93 series against the West Indies. He was soooo extremely lucky and he went on to produce an infuriating career of tease.

Thanks Stephen. :thumbup:

Mark Waugh was suffering from a shocking run of outs? Are you kidding?? Here’s a dose of reality: In the first three tests of the previous Australian summer, after which Australia was leading 1-0, Mark’s scores were 39, 60, 112, 16 and 57. The only Australian batsman who had matched him for runs was David Boon, who was well behind him in strike rate. In the 4th test and first innings of the 5th test, Mark’s scores were 0, 26 and 9 among 1, 39 not out, 20, 42, 19, 0, 7, 54, 4, 1, 10, 44, 13, 13 and 0 from the rest of the top 6. After the 54 and 44, the next top score in those three innings was 43 from a tailender. Come the NZ series, Mark’s scores were 13, coming in under no genuine pressure at 2 for 149 in a large total of 485 in a runaway innings victory, and 12, coming in at 2 for 105 when the match was already doomed to be a rain ruined draw. Not having been seriously needed in the series so far, Mark was punished by having to sit out the 3rd and deciding test. Had he not been dropped he would have faced genuinely serious pressure for the first time in the series, and his three test tons thus far had been made going in to bat under excruciating pressure on two of them, and genuine pressure on the other occasion, two of them against the West Indies and the other in a deciding Ashes test – all within the previous two years. Apart from Mark’s astonishing run, starting the following Ashes series in England, of 18 successive series for 17 50+ scores (6 of them tons) in the deciding tests, that was the only test Australia lost against a minnow or member of the weaker section of the test match community during his entire career.

I reckon Tubby would've as he had those captaincy skills lacking in Border. --------- I said captaincy skills, not Border's batting.

Thanks for the article, nicely written

Nice article Stephen

I don't remember Warney but I do remember Danny Morrison getting big hauls. Funny bloke who could bowl. I'm not sure Tubby would have got them over the line, the team was still sorting itself out.

Good to read about the days before he was a legend. Nice work Stephen, thanks. (So this wasn't the series when Shane accosted the young guy who photographed him smoking!)

I remember that series. It was actually the last time we beat Aus in NZ. I hope Australia comes back soon as a series here would be great. In the 3rd test Rutherford and Tony Blain (who replaced Ian Smith as keeper ahead of Adam Parore and Lee Germon) had a good partnership to get over the line. Also in the ODI series a 19 year-old bloke called Jeff Wilson (due to become one of the greatest rugby union wings of all time) scored 44 off 28 balls to win one of the matches. He didn't have time to play both and was an amazing rugby player, but could've been as good as Chris Cairns and Shaun Pollock had he stuck with cricket.