Interesting Martyn article (was Marto selfish!)

[HevyDevy]

I can't believe all this crap about Martyn being great to watch. He was terrible to watch!! Always looked on the verge of getting out ... and usually was.

He's acting like a kid too now that he's gone walkabout.Played a few important innings over the past 12 months but typically he hasn't performed when most needed. Those Tests against Sth Africa were just an early example of that.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Damien Martyn was every bit as good of a batsman as Mark Waugh - his record is proof of that - you can argue all you like about what bowlers he faced that's just stupid - Martyn was superb against Murali I believe and faced plenty of Donald, Pollock, and Ntini, excelled in India etc etc - all stupid arguments.

you have got to seperate Batsman and cricketer though.

sure martyn may be the equal of waugh with the bat ( i'd still prefer waugh though) but the point is with everything else waugh offers he is the much better player.

you cant seriously think the world bowling stocks of the last 5 years are anywhere near that of the 90's, its a completeley relevant point and is one of the major reasons lots of batting averages a heading towards 60.

martyn is an excellent player of spin , thats one thing i'll remember him for.

 

[lockyno1]

Hodge never had a spot before the ashes

They picked Martyn before the Sth Africa tour becuase he was a important part of the Ashes! Well...remind me how that went? Oh thats right he walked out after 2 tests and failing in both tests! Hodge could not have done any worse!

 

[fish eel]

Mark Waugh was a good player - very good.

They were both, good, very good. Mark Waugh being a great match turning batsman is a myth...

I wouldn't agree with that. Mark Waugh had abilities to have an impact on matches that Martyn rarely did.

Mark Waugh would be well well well down the list of the best Australian batsmen ever, let alone the world's.

I'd rate him higher than Martyn though.

If I think from an opposing perspective, I'd rather bowl to Martyn than M Waugh....

 

[simon says]

Martyn better than M.Waugh....FFS,I have heard it all now.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Mark Waugh was a good player - very good.

They were both, good, very good. Mark Waugh being a great match turning batsman is a myth... he was a very good test batsman, who had an awful lot in common with Damien Martyn as a batsman.... including the remarkably graceful style both possessed.

Mark Waugh would be well well well down the list of the best Australian batsmen ever, let alone the world's. As the well timed comeback to yet another mindless sledge went, he wasn't even the best batsman in his family

again there is a major difference between great batter and great cricketer.

waugh may not be on the list of Australia's great batters but he would easily make a list of great cricketers.

And would be on a list of great one day batters ever.

If you asked 100 Australian cricket fans who they would prefer in the team at their peak , i doubt 1 person( maybe the west Austrlians) would take martyn over waugh.

 

[JJ]

all I'm saying is Mark Waugh is often over-rated, and Damien Martyn underrated.

Neither are great batsmen in their own right, and yes Waugh was the better all-round cricketer...

 

[spider]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing - especially for journo's.

Crap article.

 

[JJ]

but locky liked it :lol:

 

[simon says]

To be fair...you making fun of Locky is the pot calling the kettle black IMO.........or maybe dumb and dumber.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Marto is almost certainly a better test batsman than Mark Waugh was.

Marto averaged 46 while Waugh averaged 41. Over 2 lengthy careers, that is a fair bit of difference.

As for those who have never seen marto turn a match, obviously they missed that last sri lanka Indian and SA tours.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Marto is almost certainly a better test batsman than Mark Waugh was.

Marto averaged 46 while Waugh averaged 41. Over 2 lengthy careers, that is a fair bit of difference.

As for those who have never seen marto turn a match, obviously they missed that last sri lanka Indian and SA tours.

so your saying a difference in average of 4.5 would make you select martyn over Mark waugh even though waugh took 59 wickets @41 and 181 test catches ( a world record) and is probably one of the best all round fielders ever?

not too mention martyn played against inferior bowling( not including murali)

 

[JJ]

To be fair...you making fun of Locky is the pot calling the kettle black IMO.........or maybe dumb and dumber.

locky's ok, he's not delusional about himself like you and a couple of others I can mention.

perhaps you could say why you think I'm dumb, and back it up with some evidence rather than simply suggesting it's so because I disagree with you and your inbred, banjo playing, thumb sucking colleagues...

 

[JJ]

so your saying a difference in average of 4.5 would make you select martyn over Mark waugh even though waugh took 59 wickets @41 and 181 test catches ( a world record) and is probably one of the best all round fielders ever?

not too mention martyn played against inferior bowling( not including murali)

hmmm, ok, then you'd not have a problem with the suggestion that Kallis should be picked over Ponting - the difference in averages is 3-4, Kallis has 200 wickets and is a good slip fielder... brilliant!

 

[herbert henry1908]

all I'm saying is Mark Waugh is often over-rated, and Damien Martyn underrated.

Neither are great batsmen in their own right, and yes Waugh was the better all-round cricketer...

fair enough. I guess what i'm saying is that waugh wouldnt be rated so highly if it had just been on his batting alone. Waugh never did enough with the bat for his ability.

really he should have averaged 45-50.

 

[herbert henry1908]

hmmm, ok, then you'd not have a problem with the suggestion that Kallis should be picked over Ponting - the difference in averages is 3-4, Kallis has 200 wickets and is a good slip fielder... brilliant!

ponting is rated the 3rd greatest batsmen ever , i hardly think thats a fair comparison.

and picked in what team? my original response in this thread was to the suggestion that martyn should have been picked over mark waugh back in 94' . kallis versus ponting is purely hypothetical and a very different discussion.

 

[JJ]

ponting is rated the 3rd greatest batsmen ever , i hardly think thats a fair comparison.

of course it is, Kallis is a great batsman in his own right - Ponting only has that rating o current form, he's not seriously the third best batsman of all time - in some people's eyes he might be, but the rating is about a patch of form...

Kallis has a great record and 200 wickets, that's all I'm saying - Sobers is the only one with a similar record

yes - hypothetical, and in 94 I agree, Waugh was the better batsman and cricketer

 

[fish eel]

As for those who have never seen marto turn a match, obviously they missed that last sri lanka Indian and SA tours.

So Martyn turned a match against a weak south african line up

I remember Mark Waugh, doing the business against a far superior south african side on consecutive tours....one test in particular, 97 I think, the third test, scored a great 120 odd to guide us to victory with only 2 wickets in hand....then of course his exploits in the west indies....on his first tour there, he was a one man band averaging over 60 against marshall, ambrose and walsh. Then he backed it up the following tour there.

Mark Waugh's biggest problem was himself, mentally he was just far to lazy, but when he was 'on', he was a class above Martyn. The better the opposition, the better Mark Waugh played.

 

[JJ]

he was a class above Martyn. The better the opposition, the better Mark Waugh played.

just not true

Outside of Australia Martyn was far and away the better player, they score 9 centuries each by Martyn played half as many tests..

Waugh has a better record against England, but they were very ordinary England sides..

Martyn's record against all the sub-continent teams (Pak, India and Sril Lanka) is much better, as is his record against NZ and RSA Martyn only played a couple of tests against the Windies, vs 28 for Waugh - so apart from their averages (which are similar) there's not much to compare.

There's not really a sensible argument on their achievements that suggests Waugh was a much better batsman - they're quite similar really. But for whatever reason the perception seems to be that Mark Waugh was much the better batsman

 

[waltzing Meninga]

So Martyn turned a match against a weak south african line up

I remember Mark Waugh, doing the business against a far superior south african side on consecutive tours....one test in particular, 97 I think, the third test, scored a great 120 odd to guide us to victory with only 2 wickets in hand....then of course his exploits in the west indies....on his first tour there, he was a one man band averaging over 60 against marshall, ambrose and walsh. Then he backed it up the following tour there.

Mark Waugh's biggest problem was himself, mentally he was just far to lazy, but when he was 'on', he was a class above Martyn. The better the opposition, the better Mark Waugh played.

I wouldn't consider Pollock and Ntini weak opposition.

So Mark Waugh's excuse is that he was only an average batsmen because he faced average bowlers?

Some class player