The Roar
The Roar

Renato CARINI

Roar Rookie

Joined April 2020

2.6k

Views

4

Published

358

Comments

A die-hard Test cricket enthusiast, with a special interest in Test history and the Golden age, in particular. Enjoy discussing the greatest players and the classic contests.

Published

Comments

5400 reads is one of the highest for a cricket piece on the Roar.

The readers have voted.

The ten greatest Test innings ever played

Thanks, Micko.

I’ll check him out.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Not quite true about Waugh.

He played three series against WI when they were still king’s, with the average I quoted.

And he played only one series in the absence of Ambrose and that was his worst.

Border never batted that well against the WI

even in his best three series.

My point stands

Junior handled the west Indian quicks better than any Australian between 1978-1995

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Yes Ian, we can disagree respectfully.

I have a hunch that your distaste for Brearley the batsman, affects your assessment of MB, the captain.

I could well be wrong.

In my own case, I find it hard to give players the credit they deserve when their behaviour is disgusting.

David Warner is a case in point.

The unsung heroes of Kiwi cricket (Part 1)

Hey Bernie.

This topic was an excellent choice, Mark Waugh’s status in the pantheon is one of those cricketing polemics.

It’s been a interesting discussion and nice to be on your side, too 😁

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Story goes that he sent a raunchy text to his wife that was meant for someone else.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Micko,

Border averaged 44 against the Windies (first innings).

Which is very good, of course.

In his best series, the 83-84 tour, he averaged 70.0

So this gives an indication of how good Junior’s numbers are (722 @60.2)

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

I’m doing my bit.

Running hard for my mate up the other end.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Micko,

I think Chappelli had a beef with Waugh getting the captaincy over Warne.

Claimed Tugga was too defensive, as a captain.

Same thing happened with Kim Hughes. Chappelli held a grudge against Hughes after the selectors snubbed his mate Rod Marsh (as captain).

Chappelli was funny like that.

He also hates Botham.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Hahaha

But I do rate Mark Waugh very, very highly.

In our best dozen, perhaps a shade behind Chappell and Punter.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

You had to watch him bat against Ambrose, Marshall, Bishop and Walsh or Donald.

Then you would see pure class.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

It’s not that hard, Pope.

This is speculation on your part, as to Warne and Chappelli’s motives.

I don’t think either would want to besmirch their credibility with an outrageous claim.

So, at the very least, they think Junior is close (assuming the bias you mention).

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

True

But this fictitious example would still be unbelievable, would it not?

Brearley’s record shouldn’t be wiped away because he had more than average luck.

The unsung heroes of Kiwi cricket (Part 1)

Yes, Trumper did pass 150 on four occasions

And each time his team was being trashed.

Chasing 482 (scores 214*)
Trailing by 144 (scores 166)
Trailing by 158 (scores 159)
Trailing by 292 (scores 185*)

Junior didn’t have this capacity by then no one in history has ever matched this come-from-behind ability.

But Waugh and Trumper do share the trait of losing concentration when the pressure is off. And lifting against high class opposition.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Hi Ian.
Just to add some detail to the points you’ve raised.
Brearley’s record in A v E is:
11-4
Winning almost 80 percent of decided matches.
In 1977, nobody thought England were a 3-0 better team, nobody.
The internal troubles you describe do not explain away 3-0
In 1978-9, England had no right to win the series 5-1
The same Aussie side drew 1-1 against Pakistan at full strength, with Imran, Majid, Safraz, Asif, the whole lot. Many of these Aussies would play in the full strength team a year later (Hughes, Hogg, Border, Dymock, Yallop and Higgs).
In 1981, Brearley had no right to beat Australia 3-0
The Aussies were buoyant, England were in tatters and their key players were out of form.
I shall never forget reading of Brearley’s captaincy genius in the Headingley match.
As you may recall, Australia began needing 130 in the final innings. After a few overs, the wind had changed direction and Willis found that he was now bowling uphill (slightly) at into the wind. He asked to change ends and Brearley refused.
Twenty minutes later, a furious Willis was given his wish.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Could any other captain have psyched up his strike bowler in this fashion? I very much doubt it.
Brearley was a genius at human psychology and cricketing tactics.
Was it a coincidence that players would hit their peak form under his leadership (Boycott, Willis and Woolmer, 1977, Randall 78-79, Botham and Willis 1981)?
Discounting Brearley’s unbelievable captaincy record because of SOME good fortune, is a bit like downplaying a 100 metre record of 8.5 seconds because the athlete had a 10 km per hour tailwind.

The unsung heroes of Kiwi cricket (Part 1)

@former Roarer

My thoughts exactly.

He got bored at the crease.

ME Waugh is in my top twelve Aussie bats of all time.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

😂 😂 😂

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Paul, I am reluctant to disagree with you as a value your opinion.

I think it is accurate to say that Mark Waugh rarely disappointed against the best teams and in the crunch matches.

Bernie’s analysis confirms what I’ve always believed. The disappointments you talk about were against the weakest bowling sides, New Zealand (post Hadlee), Sri Lanka (when they were minnows) and India (in Australia).

His average against the four best teams is 47.1

And that’s with no scores above 139.

Two judges who you probably respect, Shane Warne and Ian Chappell, think Junior is better than his brother – an opinion I share.

Averaging 41.7 when your not ‘run hungry’

Is the equivalent of 61.7
From those who are
(I e. Adam Voges)

IMHO

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

@the bush

I think the lack of big hundreds was due to his temperament.

Once he reached 100, the challenge was over and his concentration would wane.

Very much like Victor Trumper.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

For the life of me, I can’t understand why people wouldn’t take this into account when their considering Junior’s status in the game.

????????

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

@Sean

By your reasoning then, Adam Voges brought ‘hone the biscuits’.

Is there no difference between runs made against Sean Irvine and Trevor Gripper (Zimbabwe) compared with those against Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh (West Indies)??

How about those made in dead draws versus decided tests,
no difference??

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

@Ad-O
No it doesn’t.
An average needs to be dissected and closely examined, otherwise you end up making absurd conclusions like:
‘Adam Voges is the greatest player since Bradman’
On its own, a batting average means nothing. What matters, is how you perform against the strongest opponents when the match is being decided.
My favourite metrics are:
01 The first innings of decided matches against the strongest teams;
02 Performances when the team is losing.
Mark Waugh stands tall on both measures.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Great observation, Bernie.

Those 18 Tests that you cite is irrefutable proof that Junior performed when everything was on the line.

Of all the Australian batsmen that I watched take on the West Indian speedsters between 1978 and 1995, he was far and away the most impressive.

During this time, Waugh faced the Windies in three series (90-91, 92-93 and 94-95). His scores in the first innings of each game read:

39, 71, 64, 20*, 139*; 39, 112, 57, 0, 9; 40, 4, 2, 126

That is, 722 runs @ 60.2

I defy anyone to show me a player with a similar record against the West Indies during this era.

And just to add icing on the cake, he made it look easy, even against Ambrose.

Mark Waugh was far better than his Test average would suggest

Someone in this chain (Bernie and Ian, I think?) detracted from Brearley, the Captain, suggesting that his success in 1981 should be ascribed to Botham and Willis.

I would turn this around and ask, would Botham and Willis have performed their heroics without Brearley in charge?

I seriously doubt it.

The unsung heroes of Kiwi cricket (Part 1)

I agree that describing Coney as mediocre is somewhat harsh, and there is evidence that he improved over the second half of his career.

Your suggestion that one is unable to make a valid comment unless they have played Test cricket is bizarre. Sure, playing at the highest level provides insights that are not available to the average Joe but it is also true that some of the greatest athletes were unable to string two words together.

The correlation between ‘athletic performance’ and the ability to ANALYSE athletic performance, is not particularly high.

The unsung heroes of Kiwi cricket (Part 1)

close