HORRIE

That last paragraph is a hoot.

Do you think he could choose a worst time for Australian cricket? A new captain for the most difficult series Australia play in.

Seems a bit odd that SRW would retire now, when he has said all along that he would like to travel to India next year.

He probably got a small tap on the shoulder, from the selectors and his family.

I agree Kiwi. The timing makes no sense. Unless the thing about spending time with family is really behind it. Then again after twenty odd years, what difference would a few months make.

The tap on the shoulder might have been that the Aust team has more chance of winning in India without him there.

Lehmann would be heaving a massive sigh of releif at this point.

It's not all bad in the Captaincy department.

Ricky ponting is more than capable of captaining the test team.

I come not to praise Ksnr but to bury him...friends, romans, cricket fans lend me your ears, bats (and a few bob)...the ides of March came late this year, but still aged koala caesar of the test team failed to hear the warnings...etc

ahem ....why was this thread called horrie...did you mean hooray

Steve Waugh's record as captain: 53 tests, 40 wins, 5 draws, 8 defeats.
3447 runs at 53.03, 15 hundreds, 8 fifties.

There must be more to it than just feeling that the time was ripe. Would actually have preferred him to go to India - that way he could take the blame for all the failures, and Ricky would have a much gentler initiation.
Wonder if that bit about his form means that he's not confident he would do that well in India? It has to be something like that, or else the selectors did give him a tap on the shoulder.

Well, hope he goes out on a high in Sydney, a century would be good. Will make the Boxing Day Test feel very different.

HOrrie, I called this thread HOrrie becasue I thought the news would make you especially happy.

well thank you powwow...must admit the news did wake me from the qbilly induced summer torpor....what will be interesting is if the unthinkable happens and we lose the first couple of tests and the koala plays poorly..ie has a string of agarkars..drops catches etc..do you think he would be dropped for the last two tests???

I must say that the same thought occured to me. Maybe the selectors re-iterated that he was being selected on a test by test basis, so he thought that he would take the decision out of thier hands.

The timing is just so odd. Why at the end of the Australian summer now rather than last year and not go on to India which has been the long stated gaol.

from the ABC website:
Originally posted by Jay
So how to rate him?

Determination- Top rank
Entertaining Cricket- Top rank
Australian Skippers- In the group of Armstrong, Woodfull, Benaud, Chappelli, Darling, Taylor and Waugh but not the greatest of those with failure in India and relatively weak recent opposition.
All-rounder (in his bowling days)- Behind Miller but with Davidson, Benaud, Walters, Chappellg etc. and arguably the best of those.
Batting- Best middle order red-ink milker, tail-end motivator but not protector, ever behind strong opening line-up but played small number of great innings under pressure.
Batting skills- In top 20 Australian batsmen of all time but bottom end that group based on Real Batting Average.

---

Pretty tough to not rate Steve as one of the best skippers Australia has ever had. I guess we went to India with a very strong team and managed to lose the series, but it was a pretty closely fought series, unlike when we went over under Tubby and were soundly beaten.

It's also tough on him to not rate him as we didn't have any opposition at the time- not really his fault and Australia have completely dominated all that has been put before them (bar India)- can't really do much more than that.

I think that he typified everything about being a top-level cricketer that spectators admire; a resolve to make the best of his skills in difficult situations, but also backing his team-mates to do their best and put up the same fight. At his peak he would have been the first player picked in a world side for his ability to give his all and play on any pitch in any conditions. The backbone of a team.

Will he be missed next time Australia is in trouble after losing early wickets?

Jay did put him amongst the best skippers - one of the top 7. That's not too shabby.
Part of the problem with the Indian series was the fact that it is generally perceived that his captaincy cost us the series - Viagra decision-making giving India a Test we should at least have drawn.

>>The timing is just so odd. Why at the end of the Australian summer now rather than last year and not go on to India which has been the long stated gaol.<<

Goal, please. Though it still makes sense / . . .

If I wanted to put the worst possible complexion on the timing of the announcement, I'd say that this way he's made as sure as he can of at least one thing.
Regardless of performance, everyone in the country (with the possible exception of shortkeeper and ccc) will be cheering him on.

It has almost made it as hard as possible for the selectors to drop him - again, regardless of form. And given his patchy start to the domestic season . . .

the fact that it is generally perceived that his captaincy cost us the series - Viagra decision-making giving India a Test we should at least have drawn.
I dunno how it's "generally perceived" in retrospect by the (ex-)ABC Forummers, but I think that enforcing the follow-on was the natural thing to do in the circumstances. Difficult to predict a 400-run stand and a score of 280 from a guy who had never really performed at test level before. And then we still only lost the third test by two wickets...

It has almost made it as hard as possible for the selectors to drop him - again, regardless of form. And given his patchy start to the domestic season . . .
Erm, but he's in the best form of all the Australian batsmen over the last three series. I think his average is over 100.
And I wouldn't say that his domestic season start has been that bad either.
0,117*,157,0,0 & 31 in the Pura and 101*,38 & 55 in the ING.

He's definitely not in danger of being dropped this series. But sure, if he didn't perform perhaps he wouldn't have been picked to go to India. But he's always had that hanging over him anyway.

I said patchy. ie, a bit up and down. Stop picking.

It wasn't far into the slump that people were baying for his blood (myself included). And if he's officially being picked on a "Test by Test" basis . . .

As for the captaincy thing - it was in India. The rubber was still alive. It was not a good time to bank on the likelihood of all the FTBs failing on a flat track.
And yes, that's hindsight to a degree. Though I didn't like the idea at the time.

with Poseiden on this one ...

Geez we hate to lose, don't we, and when some bloke or in this case two blokes from the other team turn a whole series on its head with unheralded miracle innings we steadfastly refuse to give credit where credit is due and instead turn on our own ...

for a whole day there we were within one wicket of a series victory. I can't see how that makes Waugh's captaincy bad.

Was Gilly's captaincy in his one Test appalling, too ??

... and another thing ...

I guess it was Kim Hughes' captaincy and NOT a miracle innings by Botham and miracle bowling by Willis that won Headingley 1981 for the Poms ??

Pieman, Gilly has captained two tests (won the first v. the Windies in Adelaide).

thanks for reminder, oji

we just squeaked home there too, really, one of Marto's better knocks

Yeah, it was a close one. I saw the Aus 2nd innings in the flesh and it wasn't pretty. JL played a good knock too. Speaking of that Kolkata test, you're right about being one wicket away - if that shout by Punter(?) had been given, I reckon we would have won that series 3-0.

It's harder to play Devil's Advocate for SWaugh than for Mother Teresa.

Kolkata was indicative of a certain tendency in his captaincy. Call me a grumpy old sod if you like, but I've always found Tugga too aggressive. (There is such a thing.)
There's nothing wrong with a draw, if the game is well-contested right to the finish. There have been some brilliant, absorbing draws played throughout the game's history. Some of the greatest performances have been by players fighting to salvage a draw.
And as I've said before, if you aren't capable of fighting for a draw, you can't turn a losing position into a possible victory. Save it, then win it.

This "win at all costs" mentality is also part of the impetus behind the sledging and bad behaviour. The "gentleman's game" may always have been more myth than reality, but it's a great ideal to aspire to.

The prosecution rests.

It just woke up again.

There is also the little matter of Steve's apparent favouritism with bowlers. MacGill? In the last Windies Test? Blee? All of last season? etc.

Going back to sleep.

I'm not surprised. I find the topic extremely sleep-inducing too.

Especially when it's broached by people plenty old enough to remember the armchair ride Thommo got from Greg Chappell in the early 80s (always the new ball, always the tail). Ironically when GC finally gave Henry the new ball instead of the rough end of the pineapple, and relegated Thomson to first change, it made Lawson, added huge cred to Thommo's latter days, and won the Ashes for Australia in 82-83.

... can't agree with you re Kolkota, taily. That game's loss was down to Dravid and Laxman, pure and simple. You can't plan for innings like that or you'd never win anything, anywhere.

Since you brought up "turning a loss into a win", why doesn't Waugh get your admiration for those occasions where his was achieved ...

v PAkistan in Hobart, and v Saffies in Saffieland (when Blewett effected a crucial run-out that turned the tide) for starters.

Waugh's overall results 40/53 speaks volumes. 8 losses is the price you pay for being aggressive enough to get 40 wins. Congratulations to Steve Waugh and for the team he made/led, with players like Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Bichel, and Lehmann openly acknowledging SRW's role in their rehabilitation from the scrap heap.

Can't we accept a middle of the road ground here. Enforcing the follow-on in India in the first of two back to back tests was not a wise decision, but in the end the Laxman and Dravid partnership was responisble for the Indian victory.

Enforcing the follow-on in India in the first of two back to back tests was not a wise decision
At the time, or in hindsight?
If it was a poor decision at the time, then it's poor captaincy, right?
If it was a poor decision in hindsight, then the Laxman and Dravid partnership was responisble for the Indian victory, and it was not a poor decision.

I can't see how you can have it both ways.

It was poor captaincy. I think at the time it was poor. Richie Benaud was astounded by it - at the time. I think what makes it worst in hindsight is that Waugh repeated the same mistake several times subsequently. (i.e enforcing a follow-on in the first of back to back tests. This issue was discussed on the ABC Forum.

HOwever, that poor piece of captaincy was not responsible for the Laxman- Dravid partnership. Waugh's captiancy in that test would not be a matter of discussion now several years later if Aust. had won the game.

It was if you want, poor captaincy highlighted by the Laxmann Dravid partnership. A more defensive position in that test would have seen Australia win that series - which is still the stated aim of playing a series.

To respond to an earlier post in this thread, I think that Gilchrist's over generous declaration and overly attacking fields for too long in that Headingly test enabled England to win the test.

Sometimes you can't win if you don't RISK a loss. Gilchrist could have drawn that game ...

You always looks silly if you enforce the follow-on, and lose. Ask Kim Hughes.

Bill Lawry never made this mistake of course. His captaincy in 1968-9, when he set the Windies some 729 to win, is something I hope we never see again.

Waugh's overall results speak for themselves - they are better than Tubby's or AB's.

It seems to me the Calcutta game has only been put back under the microscope since the Melbourne near-fiasco last summer.

As far as I am concerned a team that has seven wickets in hand with a session to play and two well-set batsmen in possession shouldn't lose a Test no matter what dramas happened on the first four days, and the anti-Waugh club can make whatever it likes of the fact that the first of the seven wickets to fall was Captain Viagra himself. But that was when the game was lost. All Laxman and Dravid did on day 4 was make the game nearly impossible for Australia to win, so from that viewpoint the follow-on did NOT cause Australia to lose.

But the main difference between Calc and Melb was in the fitness of the bowlers. At Calcutta, out of a full-strength bowling line-up, Warne bowled 20 overs in the first innings, the three pacemen all under 20. All were still fit, or at least no less fit (that's a shot at you, Shane) than when the match started. The first innings lasted 58 overs.

Not so in Melbourne, where McGrath was obviously on his beam end and Warne a non-starter, and the England first innings went for an extra 30 overs in extremely trying conditions. MacGill had the penetration of wet spaghetti (in both innings) and Lee, never famous for his stamina, had to bowl 44 overs in the two innings. And two days later in Sydney they had to do it all again.

Melbourne was an absolute shocker. What made it even worse was after Calcutta he should have seen it coming. But Calcutta was nowhere near as clear-cut.

What powwow said. And what Nerk said.

I don't have any trouble giving credit to Waugh. There are many aspects to the man and his career that I admire. But just about every man jack is admiring those things, and someone, sometimes, needs to remind the rest of you that he was mortal. Prone to failure, to mistakes, to weakness.

What really pisses me off with this is how everyone gets stuck into (for instance) Lehmann for his build - something he can't help - and that's fine. But say one little word to suggest that Steve Waugh is not perfect, and you're going to be crucified.

How about some balance? Some perspective?

Besides which, I am not going to turn around and say nice things about him, when you've all been giving me so much stick over it.
:-P

"Waugh's overall results speak for themselves - they are better than Tubby's or AB's."

Of course they are. Border was given a weak team when there were a number of strong teams elsewhere, and he had to drag them up by the socks. The wonders of Border's reign were that he survived it relatively sane, and ended up with as good a record as he did. I will always admire him more than Waugh simply because he did it hard from beginning to end.
Waugh has had it easy: the rest of the world are relatively weak - with the exception of India in India. Yes, he's done well, and a lesser captain would have had a worse record. But a good deal of his record is down to the relative quality of his players and his opposition.

I reckon Steve's great, BTW.