Mark Waugh may have been stubborn, naive, infuriating, but he was also the most graceful batsman of his generation and the best catcher of all, says his former team mate.

Mark Waugh Photo The Cricketer

I was doing a coaching clinic with former Australian leg-spinner Kerry O'Keeffe at a suburban Sydney cricket ground in the early 1980s when he mentioned two 15-year-olds of exceptional ability. The Waugh twins, he said, were 'the most talented youngsters I have seen since Richie Benaud was in short pants'. This was high praise indeed from one of the shrewdest judges of cricket in Australia and a man who hands out plaudits only when truly deserved.

Time has borne out the efficacy of that observation. Both Waughs have become household names in a sporting nation which puts cricketers, footballers, golfers and the like above Nobel Prize winners. Whatever the similarities in notoriety, they have certainly gone about the job of playing cricket in markedly different fashions.

In fact, if you weren't told that they were twins you might think that they were not related at all. They look different, talk different, walk different. They certainly bat in contrasting styles: Steve studied, disciplined and visibly determined; Mark ad hoc, ad lib, elegant, visibly nonchalant. A duck-footed waddle versus a graceful lope. Austere realism versus embroidered creativity. They are peas from opposite ends of the pod.

Mark has not, in essence, changed since he came into first-class cricket. He has always believed in his innate abilities to handle any situation, bowler, pitch condition or circumstance of the game. Intuition rather than analysis controlled the path to every solution. He has never seriously considered the need for advice nor direction in his sport or his life, the two barely separable so much has cricket dominated his lifestyle since his teenage days.

There is little wrong with the precept that you are your own man and are capable of making your own decisions, except that most mortals contrive a few stuff-ups along the way, and a tad of direction from confidants is often useful. His reluctance to question his own decisions, even when they appeared palpably awry, proved a hurdle to his early progress through Sheffield Shield cricket into the national team. Style and grace are wonderful things to the cricket watcher but the essential elements to selectors are runs and batting averages.

I would rather watch Mark Waugh make 70 than David Boon get 150. I have seen 'Junior', as the younger of the twins is known, make elegant 20s, then loft a catch gently to mid-off, leaving his team mates aghast at the languidity of the stroke and fans aghast that their entertainment has been terminated for the day.

Steve's willingness to analyse, criticise and evolve his style meant that he advanced to the higher level earlier and then climbed the rungs of Test cricket's ladder as that evolution continued. Mark could be stubborn in the way he fobbed off advice, even though coaches and confidants were only interested in his improvement.

The current style of the Australian team is based around attack and aggression, a style that Mark has effused throughout his career regardless of the score or match conditions. That style has alternatively complemented and strengthened the teams he has adorned. Criticism of flamboyance is not new in a sport that is scheduled over days rather than hours, especially from those who have grown up with stodge and conservatism.

There have been times when, as his captain, I asked - or wished - he would take fewer risks for the health of the team. But wow, how good was he to watch! The record shows that he has played in winning teams at every level. From Bankstown to Essex to New South Wales to Australia. He has certainly given enjoyment to the followers of all teams. I am glad he was on my side for most of those times.

Blemishes on the cricket field are minor hash, after all it is only a game (a fact that becomes much clearer once you retire); transgressions of the bank account and the conscience are another altogether. There is no doubt that he regrets taking seemingly innocuous money for what seemed like free information, but it is the public's response to the subsequent inquiry and the unforgivable bias shown by sections of the media that has hurt him the most.

He is a man without malice and cannot understand the malice expressed against him and the lack of objectivity that accompanies it. He is not alone in that belief. Whether the public discourse over his guilt or innocence strengthened his resolve to make more runs is hard to say. I think the best incentive for him to make more runs came from the selectors after a barren spell with the bat: his position in the team, and therefore his livelihood, was on the line.

He had entered the last two southern summers under significant threat. Lack of form and the corruption inquiry had conspired to cast a weighty net of pressure. He responded with arguably his finest and most consistent summer ever in 2000/01, culminating with that record Australian one-day score, a sesquicentury in a Final at the MCG. Just the kind of response champions rather than pretenders produce.

Whether weight of runs can express full contrition, or if the media and public will see onfield efforts as an offering of remorse, are perhaps moot, though certainly letting the lawyers speak for him was not a wise call. The course to full reparation will continue for some time yet, hastened, we hope, by Mark's personal revelations rather than ACB or legal firm mouthpieces.

Sadly the journalists who have vilified him in recent years have decided that he is one of a couple of players who were culpable for the loss of the hard-fought, thrillingly close but ultimately lost series in India early in 2001. This is, of course, hogwash. He made two 50s in the final Test and his catching was unmatched.

The contribution of his hands to the success of the Australian team has been phenomenal. He is simply the best I have ever seen, in any position. I compare him to Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Greg Chappell, Ian Botham and Mark Taylor in the slips, and he comes out number one.

A batting average in the low 40s has been supplemented by an inestimable value as a fielder. He has surely won matches with his catching skills, whether at slip or gully or in the infield, off fast or slow bowlers. Balance, such a key element in batting, was the cornerstone to magnificent catching. He rarely hit the turf when taking the swiftest of snares anywhere close to the bat.

In the recent series against Pakistan his footwork had lost an edge and he even put down some sitters by anyone's standard. The selectors have shown in the past, with their removal of Boon, Ian Healy and even Steve Waugh from the one-day team, that they have little room for sentimental departures. Curtain calls can be made from the comfort of broadcast booths or circuits of a Test arena in motor cars, but not in playing gear. Perhaps cricket is a far less sentimental sport now than at anytime since its invention.

'Junior' has returned to state cricket and most probably will continue with a county, where he will still take catches and make delightful runs for maybe another year or two. I hope he will skipper in one or both of those forums. While not appearing to be obvious leadership material during his playing career, he undoubtedly has the experience and the manner to be a good leader. Covertly he has always had the thoughts and vision that make a cricket brain. It would be criminal if he was to be lost to the wilderness of the commentary box, where opinions disappear like flotsam into the ether, when he is still physically capable of adorning the playing arena.

His love of horse racing coupled with the current ownership of several nags could see him with a future in racehorse training. The attractiveness of that career change may be tempered by his sleeping habits and the need to rise at 5am in the depths of winter.

Although he came late to Test cricket compared to his older twin, he made a sumptuous century on debut, the beauty and majesty of the innings matching the surrounds of Adelaide as if he intended his style to complement the parks and cathedral on perhaps cricket's most picturesque ground. He would often be annoyed by pundits who ventured that he played pretty digs but did not have the temperament to graft.

The South African attack at Port Elizabeth in 1996/97 would argue that point. He made 116 there as Australia chased 270 to win in the fourth innings on a deteriorating pitch, which ultimately won the match. The Indians playing at Bangalore the following year might concur. His 153 not out to allow Australia to reach parity in turning, dusty conditions, was no less vital.

Quick hands in the field translated to quick hands with the willow and he played spinners in unorthodox fashion against the turn, but so often with success. The chip to mid-wicket and the glide behind point brought productivity when the graceful drive and violent cut were curtailed through good bowling and difficult pitches.

Mark Waugh did not match his brother in batting average or weight of runs, but for sheer pleasure of viewing he must join the pages of Ranji, Trumper, May and Constantine.

Read The Cricketer - the Voice of the Game

© The Cricketer International