Confirmed News : Both Rohit and Virat are going to play the 2027 World Cup

[Ultimate_Game]

3 hours ago, diga said:

Have to agree with Warne . That was due to his habit of taking a single at every opportunity not shielding even a no-11... He would remain not out and boost his average

 

Warne never forgave Waugh from dropping an out of form Warne to play Stuart MacGill. Waugh actually made the right call as Warne was coming back from injured shoulder and was ineffective that series, and MacGill was at the top of his game.

[diga]

7 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Warne never forgave Waugh from dropping an out of form Warne to play Stuart MacGill. Waugh actually made the right call as Warne was coming back from injured shoulder and was ineffective that series, and MacGill was at the top of his game.

As a captain, cannot fault Steve Waugh.. after all he has a 75% win record. 

 

As a batsman, he was not exactly a paragon of virtue

[Nikhil_cric]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

What is your point. Steve Waugh was not even decent Odi batsman. 

Point is you are talking nonsense. Steve Waugh was a fine batsman at #5 in ODI cricket , on par with Ranatunga.  Only Jonty Rhodes was probably better for that time. 

 

Comparing top order batters with #5 batters based on the number of tons they scored is laughable. 

Edited March 11, 2025 by Nikhil_cric

[diga]

3 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Point is you are talking nonsense. Steve Waugh was a fine batsman at #5 in ODI cricket , on par with Ranatunga.  Only Jonty Rhodes was probably better for that time. 

 

Comparing too order batters with #5 batters based on the number of tons they scored is laughable. 

for the 90s , 220 to 250 was par score and a no-5 batsman hardly got any chance to score a 100

[Nikhil_cric]

7 minutes ago, diga said:

for the 90s , 220 to 250 was par score and a no-5 batsman hardly got any chance to score a 100

Yes. Also Steve Waugh was an allrounder for his first 173 ODIs.  He was a regular 4th/5th bowler who regularly bowled 8-10 overs and picked 159 wickets.

 

Only from 1995 or so he started playing as a pure batter .

 

Scores were also significantly lower on SENA pitches until the 2000's when Waugh was almost done. 

Edited March 11, 2025 by Nikhil_cric

[singhvivek141]

8 hours ago, putrevus said:

What is your point. Steve Waugh was not even decent Odi batsman. 

Steve Waugh was a late bloomer.

If I remember correctly, he was a medium pace allrounder, and was very good at it.

 

Due to injuries and multiple stress fractures, he later stopped bowling and evolved as a batter.

 

Mark Waugh often flies under the radar due to his elder brother. But he was a damn good ODI batter and had strokes all around.

[singhvivek141]

2 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Yes. Also Steve Waugh was an allrounder for his first 173 ODIs.  He was a regular 4th/5th bowler who regularly bowled 8-10 overs and picked 159 wickets.

 

Only from 1995 or so he started playing as a pure batter .

 

Scores were also significantly lower on SENA pitches until the 2000's when Waugh was almost done. 

I consider Mark as better ODI batter than Steve.

He was more flashy, stylish and talented. Just lacked discipline and seriousness which Steve had.

[diga]

18 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

I consider Mark as better ODI batter than Steve.

He was more flashy, stylish and talented. Just lacked discipline and seriousness which Steve had.

Yep ... Steve had that will to succeed inspite of his short ball issues

[Nikhil_cric]

1 hour ago, singhvivek141 said:

I consider Mark as better ODI batter than Steve.

He was more flashy, stylish and talented. Just lacked discipline and seriousness which Steve had.

Yes but Mark Waugh was an opener. 

 

I think it's just easier to appreciate Top 3 batters especially from that era. 

 

Batting at #4 and #5 was pretty tough. 5 fielders out , only 1 ball (harder to track the ball when it be came discoloured) , softer ball, more spin, more reverse (fewer cameras)

 

It's a bit unfair to the likes of Aravinda, Ranatunga , Rhodes, Steve Waugh , Bevan, Carl Hooper etc. who were good ODI batters but whose raw numbers could never compare to Top 3 batters. 

Edited March 11, 2025 by Nikhil_cric

[Chaos]

Just arrange all matches against pakistan for fisherman. To get his avg to 60.

[singhvivek141]

26 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Yes but Mark Waugh was an opener. 

 

I think it's just easier to appreciate Top 3 batters especially from that era. 

 

Batting at #4 and #5 was pretty tough. 5 fielders out , only 1 ball (harder to track the ball when it be came discoloured) , softer ball, more spin, more reverse (fewer cameras)

 

It's a bit unfair to the likes of Aravinda, Ranatunga , Rhodes, Steve Waugh , Bevan, Carl Hooper etc. who were good ODI batters but whose raw numbers could never compare to Top 3 batters. 

Not Hooper, he was very inconsistent.

 

Rest all were top class, specially Bevan & Aravinda.

Lance Klusener is highly rated because of that only...avg of 41 with SR of 90. Despite playing almost 0 games post 2003 WC due to his differences with Greame Smith.

[diga]

34 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Yes but Mark Waugh was an opener. 

 

I think it's just easier to appreciate Top 3 batters especially from that era. 

 

Batting at #4 and #5 was pretty tough. 5 fielders out , only 1 ball (harder to track the ball when it be came discoloured) , softer ball, more spin, more reverse (fewer cameras)

 

It's a bit unfair to the likes of Aravinda, Ranatunga , Rhodes, Steve Waugh , Bevan, Carl Hooper etc. who were good ODI batters but whose raw numbers could never compare to Top 3 batters. 

People underestimate how difficult it was to play on the 90s pitches with only 1 ball getting used for whole 50 overs... only batsmen with good technique could survive and score. 

[lemsip]

18 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

I would blame Gambhir here if he doesn't draw a line vee lost Aussie series due to this nonsense. 

 

Exactly. You don't have to wait for the problem to hit you to see it coming and take preventive action.

Just saw this info :

 

 

With 10 out of the 11 players being 30+, this team could be the oldest team to win an ICC Tournament in the new millennium at 32.27 years as average.

 

Shreyas Iyer (30)

Rohit Sharma (37)
Virat Kohli (36)
Ravindra Jadeja (36)
Mohammed Shami (34)
Varun Chakravarthy (33)
KL Rahul (32)
Hardik Pandya (31)
Axar Patel (31)
Kuldeep Yadav (30)
 

There was only one 25 year old in the playing 11 in Shubhman Gill.

23 year old Harshit Rana, who played initially was replaced with a 33 year old Varun.

 

All those who didn't play a single match, were under 30. Rishabh Pant (27), Arshdeep Singh (26) and Washington Sundar (25).

 

This team needs to be rebuilt for the 2027 cup. If not, this army of buzurgs will start showing up first in the fielding ( which it already has) and then in the inability of the older batsmen and bowlers to maintain the stamina over longer tournaments. They were fortunate the champions trophy was a very short tournament by ICC standards.

 

 

[Chaos]

Yay. Atleast rohit is fun while he lasts… fisherman is just boring to watch now

[putrevus]

2 hours ago, singhvivek141 said:

Steve Waugh was a late bloomer.

If I remember correctly, he was a medium pace allrounder, and was very good at it.

 

Due to injuries and multiple stress fractures, he later stopped bowling and evolved as a batter.

 

Mark Waugh often flies under the radar due to his elder brother. But he was a damn good ODI batter and had strokes all around.

Mark waugh unlike his brother was very good odi player.You said it best he had strokes all around the wicket.He could play spin and fast bowling too.

 

Steve waugh became more famous for his death bowling in 1987 world cup than his batting.He was very limited batsman unlike his brother.

 

That SA team had no business of losing that semifinal in 1999.That is why Warne was so great.He is the architect of that Aussie Era without him there would be no Aussies three peat.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2025 by putrevus

[sandeep]

13 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Warne never forgave Waugh from dropping an out of form Warne to play Stuart MacGill. Waugh actually made the right call as Warne was coming back from injured shoulder and was ineffective that series, and MacGill was at the top of his game.

Both Warne and Waugh have their own set of flaws.  As all humans do.  There's no point in being overly judgy about either.  Then again, its utterly foolish to be overly hagiographic about Waugh as many Indian fans tend to do. Overglorifying goras is a sycophantic instinct, and sometimes an unconscious one...

[sandeep]

7 hours ago, diga said:

People underestimate how difficult it was to play on the 90s pitches with only 1 ball getting used for whole 50 overs... only batsmen with good technique could survive and score. 

by the same token, fielding and bowling standards were lower in many ways. you had a significant chunk of cricketers who were regular smokers. So lets not anoint the 90s as some sort of golden era where batting runs are somehow worth 'more'. 

[diga]

34 minutes ago, sandeep said:

by the same token, fielding and bowling standards were lower in many ways. you had a significant chunk of cricketers who were regular smokers. So lets not anoint the 90s as some sort of golden era where batting runs are somehow worth 'more'. 

Sure ..same holds for fitness of the batsman and also the equipment used(bats). Fielding standard has improved but so has the ball flying off the bat due to better equipment or the technique. Having watched both eras , I still feel it's much tougher to play an older ball under lights

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

7 hours ago, Chaos said:

Yay. Atleast rohit is fun while he lasts… fisherman is just boring to watch now

The very shot that used to appeal to everyone was his downfall in Tests. So it looks more unappealing now.  Rohit always had an air of elegance. No question about that. Kohli was also good when he was in form. Now he is searching the ball by playing too much on the frontfoot.

[sandeep]

24 minutes ago, diga said:

Sure ..same holds for fitness of the batsman and also the equipment used(bats). Fielding standard has improved but so has the ball flying off the bat due to better equipment or the technique. Having watched both eras , I still feel it's much tougher to play an older ball under lights

 

 

I don't disagree that runs are a bit 'cheaper' today. But just take issue with overglorification of the 90s.  Reality is that T20 has broken some of the mental shackles in shot-making and what was considered 'safe/risky' in batting, and that's a big chunk of the difference.