Jump to content

Talk:Steve Waugh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Steve Waugh is the second highest run-getter in Test cricket history.

The opening blurb is incorrect. Waugh was Australia's ODI captain from 1997 until 2002, and its test captain from 1999 until 2004.

Well spotted. The cool thing about wiki's is that when you see something is wrong you can go ahead and fix it yourself, and it's no harder than writing this comment on the talk page. So go ahead and be bold. I will check back in a few days and change it if you haven't already. Steven jones 09:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about the exact dates, just the years. I'll look them up and make the change.

Most books

The latest edit reads

Steve Waugh also has the record for the most books published by a cricketer with his ever expanding series of tour diaries and thoughts providing an insight into the mind of Steve Waugh.

Is there any data to back it up that Waugh is the most prolific cricketer-writer or is it just an opinion ? Tintin 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am going for a politcally correct version. If the author or anyone else is certain about it, feel free to revert.
It is possible that SRW has written most books for an active cricketer, but IMHO when there are people like Jack Fingleton, it would be difficult to claim the record for a cricketer. Tintin 08:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I am aware Stephen Waugh only has three children.

Gay rights

I removed a sentence which was just added:

Steve is also an activist for gay rights

I was unable to verify this information, and it seemed a bit out of place. Does anyone know of a citation or source for this? --Hansnesse 06:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we get an actual picture of Waugh?

Is there any reason this article has a crude animated picture of Steve Waugh and not an actual picture of him? This seems to be a trend in many cricket player articles. Are cricket players simply more protective of their image than players in other sports? Rdysn5 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's that editors in most sports claim "fair use" on photo agency pictures that almost certainly don't qualify as fair use. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Uploaded my own picture. Darcyj 00:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I find a surprisingly lack of sources (only one) for a large-sized biography like this, which included such comments as "Like most Australian players, he has an array of strong off-side shots." Can anyone find some sources for the article? Aran|heru|nar 13:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking about sources, how there are those little {{Fact}} tags pointing at things like "he had an array of off side shots" and "his trademark shot was the slog-sweep". On Cricinfo, there are hundreds of images and probably most of them show him playing shots. There are many images of him playing the cut, square drive and slog-sweep, all which quite literally illustrate such statements (though maybe it would be better not to say one was a trademark). The query that leaves me with, is how can you tie that in? The paradox for me is that if someone wrote an article saying the cut was one of his favourite shots, it appears a lot more contentious and harder to prove than actually seeing dozens of photos. Is it possible to cite an image as a source of information? MrAngy 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if you were to reference to a picture all you would be able to say is he once played a cut shot or he once played a square drive. The pictures would not show that he was noted for these shots. 212.140.167.99 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Although even that would probably be classed as OR. 212.140.167.99 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

Aside from shortness, this article is a Steve Waugh fan-shrine hagiography. I'll put in the other stuff sometime hopefully - he was involved in many run-outs - using his newspaper column to market himself - failure to conquer India - bad average in 4th innings - taking single off the first ball of the over - perceptions of playing for red ink....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, every long standing cricketer has similar characteristics. Take Inzamam for eg., And quite naturally an experienced cricketer is able to rotate strikes easily.

Obviously some of these criticisms apply to many, but we should report criticism whether we agree or not. It is interesting that early in his career, I remember Waugh being praised for his policy of displaying trust in tail-enders, but later after it backfired he was criticised. That's cricket. Blnguyen has done a great job in expanding the captaincy section. I thought it would be best to integrate the mention of the handled the ball dismissal with the paragraph discussing that series, especially since it appeared to be a significant turning point in the innings - change it back if you don't agree. I also think that enforcing the follow-on being rare is a more recent phenomenon, in part caused by that match. JPD (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a fairly rambling sort of article, with a lot of match commentary masquerading as biographical comment. In an article on a sportsman, it is not always necessary to report every detail of a memorable innings or tour. The liberal sprinkling of {{fact}} especially in the opening paragraphs is not very helpful - would have been better to place a single template at the top of the article and then nominate specific instances on this discussion page. Certainly, some of the descriptions ("iceman" for example) have been heard before but finding a citation is not always easy. Darcyj 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a great biographical article, to be sure. However, I think it falls short of being a hagiography. Waugh was a unique cricketer, with an outstanding record. The article should rightly reflect this. Fair enough to say perhaps his (unintentional) skill for running out others could be mentioned - but then again, barely anything is made of his bowling, which really was at a high level until his injuries took hold. Furthermore, while you could criticise his taking singles with tail order batsman, where is the balance to this comment - that being that Waugh revolutionised batting with lower order batsman PRECISELY BY putting his faith in them. His numerous innings with Merv Hughes, Jason Gillespie, Shan Warne and Ian Healy all spring to mind. On the whole, while the article could be more tightly edited, this is not an unnecessarily hagiographic piece. jamesmassola

Opening blurb was shockingly wrong. Steve Waugh's nickname for years was Iceman - have adjusted the article accordingly. ~J

Article is now better balanced, so I have removed the neutrality tag. Phanto282 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Waugh's famous old baggy green hat

Is this mentioned in the article? If so I missed it. Thought it would be worth adding. Apparently he caused a bit controversy by wearing the original one he was given throughout his entire career. Some thought it looked too haggard and disgraced the baggy green.--Jeff79 05:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought all aussie players are only ever given one baggy green. If his looked too haggard it was probably because he played so many games. 212.140.167.99 10:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Steve was given his baggy green at a junior level, (u/18's?) (not even he knows why) and wore it throughout his career until its close.

The way Australian cricketers were awarded their bag green caps changed over the years. At one time they were given a new cap for every series but this changed sometime after the Second World War so that the players only received one at the star of their careers. (Note: Jason Gillespie had a cap stolen and this was replaced.) Waugh's cap was certainly battered by the end of his career and I believe he was offered a new cap at one point but declined as he considered the cap he had, and the state it was in, gave an indication of the battles he and it had been through. I'm of the view that Australian Test players should receive at new cap to mark their 50th and 100th Tests (and 150th!). These are major achievement and should be recognised as such. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Failure in India?

In the year 2000, Australian cricket team lost a Test series in India. I think his so-called "failure in India" is completely blown out of proportion. What about 3–0 victory against Pakistan and India respectively in 1999? I think we have to make some changes in the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't finished yet and I have been expanding steadily in recent months. The reason that the 2001 India series has been done first is because I adapted it mostly from articles that I already wrote on Harbhajan Singh and Australian cricket team in India in 2000-01. Secondly as to the relative magnitude of the victories, Australia was looking for their first win in India for 30 years, whereas India has never won a series in Australia and Pakistan ...not sure, but they normally aren't competitive in Australia. Whereas with India, Australia had been improving over time and everyone thought it would finally happen after the Test in Mumbai and then making India follow on...except then India managed to turn it around. Everyone still talks about that epic series whereas not many people talk about hopeless touring teams being mauled every time, but the other parts will be expanded, and you can do it yourself if you want. The 2001 India series isn't the only big thing, the 99WC, Australia played 10 one-day games, but the 2001 series there was 15 days of cricket. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, Blnguyen! What you are basically suggesting is Australia beating India 3-0 in Australia is ok because Indians are not supposed to be competitive in Australia. The 2001 India series was a very close series and Australia could have easily won that series. I think highly inappropriate to put the image of Harbhajan Singh in this article. The turning point of the series was the Dravid-Laxman partnership. Without that partnership, Australia would have won the series. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen, I reviewed your contributions and you've done a fantastic job for Wikipedia. You are one of the wiki-celebs. I want to promote this article to the FA status. Your help will be important. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Is he a bowler? A batsman? An all-rounder? All I know from reading that lead is that his nickname was Tugga. Can someone much more knowledgeable than me sort this out and sharpish? The lead is supposed to be a summary. Are the names "Tugga" and "Iceman" the most important things about Waugh? I hope not! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steve Waugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve Waugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Waugh/Archive_1&oldid=1137206125"