STEVE WAUGH overated ? choker?

[bulldogs]

the two hardest days to bat in a test match are the 1st and last. mal how bout given us his figures batting on the 1st day. steve waugh legend

[mal]

He goes from 61 average 1st innings to 25 LAST innings in test matches
Thats a differential of 36
Has there been a higher differential of all Australian batsmen ?????????????????

Quite simply its a matter of partially choking ? [USING THAT C WORD IN CONTEXT]
Or simply the guy had a technique problem being a back foot player on wearing pitches.

I have reached this conclusion after
looking at the data provided by Spell Check

You can't make any conclusions on Spelly's stats because he hasn't done the analysis on any other player (ie, 1st innings v 2nd) ...... check that out and then come back to us. While you are doing that, re-read Tassie's post and then get yourself a copy of any cricket book written in the last 15 years and look for comments made about Steve Waugh by his team-mates and opponents.

Seriously there is no need to continue this. There are a couple of people that think Steve Waugh is a "choker" (the most overused and ill informed term in modern sport). mal has made up his mind again based on stats and mt79 has done so as well apparently. Let these people continue to live their lives based on stats and the rest of us can live in the real world. A perfect example was brought up earlier in this thread. Steve Waugh's best innings in Test cricket was quite possibly a 63*. Look purely at stats and that is just a half century and nothing overly special. Look at the reality of that dig and you appreciate how special it was.

To further kill this debate mal thinks very very highly of Shane Watson yet thinks Steve Waugh was a choker Draw your own conclusions but based on that mal could most likely get off any criminal charge with an insanity plea.

ROD get things in perspective
WATSON is a guy who gets a game and does enough [leave him outa this topic]
You say I keep calling WAUGH a choker BULLSHIT
Im saying this :

WAUGH is a champion batting in the first /2nd innings of tests [Ive said only 2nd to BRADMAN]
Im only calling him a choker or ordinary batsman in the last innings of test matches.
I can remember him failing too often in those circumstances.

[mal]

the two hardest days to bat in a test match are the 1st and last. mal how bout given us his figures batting on the 1st day. steve waugh legend

I a bit confused BULLDOG
If Im calling Steve WAUGH the 2nd best batsman in Australian history batting
in the first innings and already said he averages 2nd only to BRADMAN what is that telling you.

[rod_rooster]

You say I keep calling WAUGH a choker BULLSHIT

Statistically he is a choker and a failure

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story mal

I think Steve Waugh's career needs to be put in perspective. Pre 1991 his record as a batsman was just ordinary (especially if you take out the 1989 Ashes tour). After that time his record was incredible. To go from averaging mid 30's to over 50 is an amazing effort. His career was really in two halves.

Post 1991 Australia had a pretty successful era. Didn't have to bat a second time all that often. When they did it was generally on very poor tracks. Check out the stats on other players in the same era before you start calling S. Waugh a "choker". I bet you blame the 1993 loss to South Africa on Damien Martyn too. All his fault and nothing to do with the failure of the far more senior players in the batting line up.

The term "choking" is just such a ridiculous thing to say about most sportspeople and is so overused nowadays.

[smithy]

[mal]

[quote="spell_check"]I have used Cricinfos' filter to find his 4th innings totals, then worked out the targets:

Code: Select all

                    Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
unfiltered           168 10927 200   51.06  32  50  92  5/28   37.44  3 112  0
filtered             116   613  80   25.54   0   2  11  4/34   27.81  0  17  0
 
Runs  W/R   Ct St I *+ Result                        Match                       Target to win
  10   -     -  - 4    D 3rd Test  v NZ  in Aus 1987/88 at Melbourne [1087]         247 (made 230)
  19   -     -  - 4    D 2nd Test  v Pak in Pak 1988/89 at Faisalabad [1105]        374 (67)
  26   -     -  - 4    L 2nd Test  v WI  in Aus 1988/89 at Perth [1110]             404 (234)
   3   -     -  - 4    L 3rd Test  v WI  in Aus 1988/89 at Melbourne [1112]         400 (114)
  21*  -     -  - 4    W 2nd Test  v Eng in Eng 1989    at Lord's [1122]            118
   4   -     -  - 4    D 2nd Test  v Pak in Aus 1989/90 at Adelaide [1135]          304 (233)       
   4*  -     -  - 4    L 4th Test  v WI  in WI  1990/91 at Bridgetown [1169]        552 (208)
   4   -     -  - 4    L 4th Test  v WI  in Aus 1992/93 at Adelaide [1210]          186 (184)
  47*  -     -  - 4    D 3rd Test  v Eng in Eng 1993    at Nottingham [1225]        371 (202)
  26   -     -  - 4    L 6th Test  v Eng in Eng 1993    at The Oval [1231]          391 (229)
   0   -     -  - 4    L 1st Test  v SA  in SA  1993/94 at Johannesburg [1252]      454 (256)
   0   -     -  - 4    D 3rd Test  v Eng in Aus 1994/95 at Sydney [1281]            449 (344)
   0   -     -  - 4    L 4th Test  v Eng in Aus 1994/95 at Adelaide [1284]          263 (156)
  14   -     -  - 4    L 3rd Test  v Pak in Aus 1995/96 at Sydney [1314]            247 (172)     
  18   -     -  - 4    W 2nd Test  v SA  in SA  1996/97 at Port Elizabeth [1360]    271
   6   -     -  - 4    L 6th Test  v Eng in Eng 1997    at The Oval [1377]          124 (104)
  34   -     -  - 4    D 3rd Test  v SA  in Aus 1997/98 at Adelaide [1397]          361 (227)
  27   -     -  - 4    L 1st Test  v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai [1405]           348 (168)
  15*  -     -  - 4    W 2nd Test  v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Perth [1431]              64
  30*  -     -  - 4    L 4th Test  v Eng in Aus 1998/99 at Melbourne [1436]         175 (162)
  28   -     -  - 4 *  W 2nd Test  v Pak in Aus 1999/00 at Hobart [1469]            369
  15   -     -  - 4 *  W 2nd Test  v NZ  in NZ  1999/00 at Wellington [1491]        177
  18*  -     -  - 4 *  W 3rd Test  v NZ  in NZ  1999/00 at Hamilton [1493]          212
  38   -     -  - 4 *  W 5th Test  v WI  in Aus 2000/01 at Sydney [1527]            174
  24   -     -  - 4 *  L 2nd Test  v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata [1535]           384 (212)
   1*retired hurt 4 *  W 3rd Test  v Eng in Eng 2001    at Nottingham [1554]        158   
  67   -     -  - 4 *  D 3rd Test  v NZ  in Aus 2001/02 at Perth [1573]             439 (381)   
  14   -     -  - 4 *  W 2nd Test  v SA  in SA  2001/02 at Cape Town [1593]         334
  14   -     -  - 4 *  W 4th Test  v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Melbourne [1634]         107         
   6   -     -  - 4 *  L 5th Test  v Eng in Aus 2002/03 at Sydney [1636]            452
  80   -     -  - 4 *  D 4th Test  v Ind in Aus 2003/04 at Sydney [1680]            443 (357)

____________________________________________________________________________


One more look at his last innings efforts
Forget it is Steve Waugh and look at all those ordinary efforts
Just look at the number of ordinary performances.
Very uninspiring

[rod_rooster]

Thanks for that mal

[rod_rooster]

Still no answer to my question. I guess stats have you stumped there

[mal]

Still no answer to my question. I guess stats have you stumped there

I thought I explained that stats are a more than useful guide to grading a players ability.
Most times they are accurate
There are a few rare exceptions.

I tell you what ROD
Look at the above chart put up by SPELL CHECK.
Imagine the guy with that 25 average batting 4th is Shane WATSON and not Steve WAUGH .........

[smithy]

Still no answer to my question. I guess stats have you stumped there

I thought I explained that stats are a more than useful guide to grading a players ability.
Most times they are accurate
There are a few rare exceptions.

I tell you what ROD
Look at the above chart put up by SPELL CHECK.
Imagine the guy with that 25 average batting 4th is Shane WATSON and not Steve WAUGH .........

You said not to bring Shane Watson into this discussion........... but since you did........ Shane Watson can't have a 25 batting avg in the 4th innings because of 3 reasons.

1st is, his 1st innings batting avg doesnt even make 25 so why would his 2nd innings avg improve????

2nd - according to cricinfo he doesn't have a 4th innings avg so we can't compare him to steve waugh

3rd - we can't compare him to the 2nd reason because the useless f*cker is always injured and can't last 5 days.

[mal]

Still no answer to my question. I guess stats have you stumped there

I thought I explained that stats are a more than useful guide to grading a players ability.
Most times they are accurate
There are a few rare exceptions.

I tell you what ROD
Look at the above chart put up by SPELL CHECK.
Imagine the guy with that 25 average batting 4th is Shane WATSON and not Steve WAUGH .........

You said not to bring Shane Watson into this discussion........... but since you did........ Shane Watson can't have a 25 batting avg in the 4th innings because of 3 reasons.

1st is, his 1st innings batting avg doesnt even make 25 so why would his 2nd innings avg improve????

2nd - according to cricinfo he doesn't have a 4th innings avg so we can't compare him to steve waugh

3rd - we can't compare him to the 2nd reason because the useless f*cker is always injured and can't last 5 days.

SMITHY my point was that those 4th innings stats of WAUGH are ordinary
Because its WAUGH people are quick to defend him[BECAUSE THEY ADMIRE HIM]
Hypotheticly if those were WATSONS stats no one would defend those ordinary stats

WAUGH averages 25 last digs= people still want to defend him
If it was Cosgrove, Watson, Kevin Pieterson averaging 25 = piss weak, useless, hopeless.....

get my drift.

[rod_rooster]

Still no answer to my question. I guess stats have you stumped there

I thought I explained that stats are a more than useful guide to grading a players ability.
Most times they are accurate
There are a few rare exceptions.

I tell you what ROD
Look at the above chart put up by SPELL CHECK.
Imagine the guy with that 25 average batting 4th is Shane WATSON and not Steve WAUGH .........

You said not to bring Shane Watson into this discussion........... but since you did........ Shane Watson can't have a 25 batting avg in the 4th innings because of 3 reasons.

1st is, his 1st innings batting avg doesnt even make 25 so why would his 2nd innings avg improve????

2nd - according to cricinfo he doesn't have a 4th innings avg so we can't compare him to steve waugh

3rd - we can't compare him to the 2nd reason because the useless f*cker is always injured and can't last 5 days.

SMITHY my point was that those 4th innings stats of WAUGH are ordinary
Because its WAUGH people are quick to defend him[BECAUSE THEY ADMIRE HIM]
Hypotheticly if those were WATSONS stats no one would defend those ordinary stats

WAUGH averages 25 last digs= people still want to defend him
If it was Cosgrove, Watson, Kevin Pieterson averaging 25 = piss weak, useless, hopeless.....

get my drift.

mal, if it were Watson so what. I would base my opinion on him on what i see rather than purely stats. It depends on what the situation was, who the bowling attack was, what the wicket was like etc. I don't believe stats are a particularly effective way to judge a player.

[brod]

Gents, this has been going on four days short of a year now. I dont think that we are changing to many points of view here. From where I sit you can get stats to say whatever you want. They can be selected and manipulated to provide the result that you are looking for..... and because of this the stats tell me nothing Steven Rodger Waugh is a legend...enough said.

[rod_rooster]

Gents, this has been going on four days short of a year now. I dont think that we are changing to many points of view here. From where I sit you can get stats to say whatever you want. They can be selected and manipulated to provide the result that you are looking for..... and because of this the stats tell me nothing Steven Rodger Waugh is a legend...enough said.

[brod]

Cheers Rod

[bulldogs]

Cheers Rod

AMEN

[mal]

Gents, this has been going on four days short of a year now. I dont think that we are changing to many points of view here. From where I sit you can get stats to say whatever you want. They can be selected and manipulated to provide the result that you are looking for..... and because of this the stats tell me nothing Steven Rodger Waugh is a legend...enough said.

A legend except for 4th innings performances

[the wonder elephant]

mal get over it mate watson has never been or never will be within a bulls roar of steve waugh as smithy posted b 4 watson couldnt ever last 5 days

[mal]

mal get over it mate watson has never been or never will be within a bulls roar of steve waugh as smithy posted b 4 watson couldnt ever last 5 days

Thanks for stating the obvious.

[the wonder elephant]

just keeping u honest mal wouldnt want this to turn in to a shane watson fofum you enjoying the game mate ?