• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Flintoff and Warne in the Ashes...

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I thought it might be better to post this in this forum.

Try and name a series where somebody bowled better than Warne did in the 2005 Ashes?
And lets keep it intellectual and not just stat based. Anything against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or even the West Indies or NZ wont count. It has to be a a performance against one of the better teams.

Also try naming a more impacting series than what Flintoff did. Freddie fired at all the right times. Be it putting on a 50 run partnership with Simon Jones, to taking plenty of wickets in the 5th test. The man was built for the stage.

Of course we'll mention Botham's Ashes ahead of it... there's probably an Imran Khan series where he did awesome.

What a great series it was for both men. I never wanna stop talking about it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Warne almost certainly bowled better in 1993 than he did in 2005. It's just that his brilliance was far more noticable than in 1993 because so much of the rest of the team was utterly woeful.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
Warne was unquestionably better in the 2005 Ashes than in any series he participated in during 1993.

Warne had a bowling average below 20 in the 2005 and took 40 wickets. He had a strike-rate of below 38 balls per wicket. These figures rank up there with even the most skewered... only Warne's figures aren't skewered. You can go back to SF Barnes' figures. An average of 16, better than Warne's... and a slightly worse strike-rate of 41.

If anything, the fact that he had to carry the Aussie team stopped people from realising that he was actually having one of the best series ever.

In 1993 England were shocked by Shane Warne. After the Gatting Ball and another one that knocked over Robyn Smith, England went into uber defensive mode. Warne would bowl 40 overs and go for only 70 runs... but he wouldn't get wickets. It was a total shut-down on scoring runs off him. They were only successful against him in one match. Now granted, Warne captured the people's imagination in that series with his bamboozling. But his strike-rate was in the 70s - almost twice as much as his 2005 series. And his average was poor.

Warne might have a series from 1993-1997 where he did as good as he did in the Ashes. I always felt that period was the best peak in bowling cricket history before his finger surgery. But I can't think of one series where he would have done that well.

Maybe the 1994 Ashes in Australia? I don't know. I honestly think I saw one of the best bowling displays ever in the 2004 Ashes. I believe if you combine the economy of Lee, Kasprowitz and Tait... you might find they went at over 4 runs an over.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Warne almost certainly bowled better in 1993 than he did in 2005.
And you'd know that how exactly?

Best you can get is limited highlights, which are hardly likely to show anything except his good balls.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Warne terrified the life out of England in 1993, but he was nowhere near as effective as he was in 2005.

The true sign of a great bowler is to have the ability to do what the batsman doesn't expect, and that's what Shane did in 1993.

What he has done often since, and did so time and time again against England, especially in 2005, was to take things a stage further. He can now put the ball where the batsman doesn't want it - in their minds.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
And you'd know that how exactly?

Best you can get is limited highlights, which are hardly likely to show anything except his good balls.
And countless people who've said that Warne has never been as good since his shoulder and finger injuries as before.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
luckyeddie said:
Warne terrified the life out of England in 1993, but he was nowhere near as effective as he was in 2005.

The true sign of a great bowler is to have the ability to do what the batsman doesn't expect, and that's what Shane did in 1993.

What he has done often since, and did so time and time again against England, especially in 2005, was to take things a stage further. He can now put the ball where the batsman doesn't want it - in their minds.
Do you seriously not think that Warne's being, in Michael Henderson's words, the writer of the music, the arranger of the score, the conductor, and at times the player of all the instruments, might just have made a slight difference? In 1993 there were countless other contributors to Australia's superiority.
Fighting against the tide, especially so phenominally well, often makes a good performance look even better.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Francis said:
Warne was unquestionably better in the 2005 Ashes than in any series he participated in during 1993.

Warne had a bowling average below 20 in the 2005 and took 40 wickets. He had a strike-rate of below 38 balls per wicket. These figures rank up there with even the most skewered... only Warne's figures aren't skewered. You can go back to SF Barnes' figures. An average of 16, better than Warne's... and a slightly worse strike-rate of 41.

If anything, the fact that he had to carry the Aussie team stopped people from realising that he was actually having one of the best series ever.

In 1993 England were shocked by Shane Warne. After the Gatting Ball and another one that knocked over Robyn Smith, England went into uber defensive mode. Warne would bowl 40 overs and go for only 70 runs... but he wouldn't get wickets. It was a total shut-down on scoring runs off him. They were only successful against him in one match. Now granted, Warne captured the people's imagination in that series with his bamboozling. But his strike-rate was in the 70s - almost twice as much as his 2005 series. And his average was poor.

Warne might have a series from 1993-1997 where he did as good as he did in the Ashes. I always felt that period was the best peak in bowling cricket history before his finger surgery. But I can't think of one series where he would have done that well.

Maybe the 1994 Ashes in Australia? I don't know. I honestly think I saw one of the best bowling displays ever in the 2004 Ashes. I believe if you combine the economy of Lee, Kasprowitz and Tait... you might find they went at over 4 runs an over.
Warne's average was poor in 1995? 25.79 is poor, whaat?
If England had had the stupidity to play in 1993 as they played in 2005 I'd be willing to bet he'd have taken closer to 40, then... probably at about 15-16, if not even less.
In 1994\95, in fact, his figures were even better but that disguises the fact that he was actually pretty average in the final 3 games, and sensationally good in the First and Second. In 1993 he was much more consistent.
2005 is comfortably the worst attack Warne has ever bowled amongst in an Ashes... 1993 had Reiffel, Hughes, May and McDermott for 1 Test; 1994\95 had McDermott, Fleming and a McGrath who was just starting to improve (and Mark Waugh, too); 1997 had probably the best - McGrath, Reiffel, Gillespie, Kasprowicz; 2001 had McGrath and Gillespie; 2002\03 (though of course he only played the first 3 Tests) had McGrath and Gillespie again.
The fact that Warne was so obviously the shining-light not only meant he got more opportunities to take wickets, but also played a more herioc role.
As far as plenty fine conasseurs of the game are concerned, however, Warne's best days were between 1992\93 and 1997\98.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard said:
Do you seriously not think that Warne's being, in Michael Henderson's words, the writer of the music, the arranger of the score, the conductor, and at times the player of all the instruments, might just have made a slight difference? In 1993 there were countless other contributors to Australia's superiority.
Fighting against the tide, especially so phenominally well, often makes a good performance look even better.
I prefer to use my own words, Richard - at least then I have a reasonable idea of what they mean ;).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Give us your own words for 1993, then.
In MH's... he was the centrepiece-player of the orchestra (I don't know enough about orchestras to know what that'd be).
Give us yours.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
[q.u.o.t.e.]Warne terrified the life out of England in 1993, but he was nowhere near as effective as he was in 2005. [/q.u.o.t.e.]

Sums it up perfectly.

[q.u.o.t.e.]And countless people who've said that Warne has never been as good since his shoulder and finger injuries as before.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

And then there's people who think, since the Ashes and since Warne got 96 wickets in a calendar year, he is bowling better than ever. People like Ricky Ponting and Richie Benaud. Warne himself thinks he's bowling as good as he ever has (in 2005).

[q.u.o.t.e.]In 1993 there were countless other contributors to Australia's superiority.
Fighting against the tide, especially so phenominally well, often makes a good performance look even better.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

Doesn't just make him look good, it actually makes him good. I personally think Warne wouldn't have gotten 40 wickets if he had a full strength bowling line-up performing like they can. Although if you ask C_C, it's impossible to help your figures by bowling longer without pressure from the other end. I don't buy that. But still, 40 wickets is incredible.

[q.u.o.t.e.]Warne's average was poor in 1995? 25.79 is poor, whaat[/q.u.o.t.e.]

Don't recall ever calling it poor.

[q.u.o.t.e.]If England had had the stupidity to play in 1993 as they played in 2005 I'd be willing to bet he'd have taken closer to 40, then... probably at about 15-16, if not even less.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

Fair point. I disagree. Warne got wickets in 2005 not because England tried playing him more aggressively. The crowds were cheering every ball an Englishmen defensively played against him. Warne just asked more questions of the batsmen. To help your case I will add that, against common thought, England had good players of spin in 1993 like Gatting, Hick and Gooch who could defend their wicket better.

[q.u.o.t.e.]In 1994\95, in fact, his figures were even better but that disguises the fact that he was actually pretty average in the final 3 games, and sensationally good in the First and Second. In 1993 he was much more consistent.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

His figures were not better for the entire series in 1994/95. He took his best ever figures of 8-71 at the GABBA, got a hat-trick at the MCG, and had a lacking last three games. In 1993 he was consistent but not striking.

[q.u.o.t.e.]The fact that Warne was so obviously the shining-light not only meant he got more opportunities to take wickets, but also played a more herioc role.
As far as plenty fine conasseurs of the game are concerned, however, Warne's best days were between 1992\93 and 1997\98.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

I agree a little. Personally I think he would have gotten around 34 wickets if he had more competition for wickets. But the real teller is his strike-rate. Guys who carry teams and pad up wickets often strike much much higher when they're getting more wickets. Warne having a strike-rate below 38 for the Ashes is astonishing
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Francis said:
That's it. I'm going back to bold letters.
Oh sorry mate, guess I didn't explain myself before when I told you about it. As Scaly said, you have to remove the dots. I included them because otherwise I would have just written in a quote
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard said:
Give us your own words for 1993, then.
In MH's... he was the centrepiece-player of the orchestra (I don't know enough about orchestras to know what that'd be).
Give us yours.
Just one will do.

Revelation.

Change one letter and you'll realise why - for more than one reason
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
luckyeddie said:
Just one will do.

Revelation.

Change one letter and you'll realise why - for more than one reason
Quite true - 1993 was hailed as the revival of wristspin, but... what about Abdul Qadir?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Francis said:
And then there's people who think, since the Ashes and since Warne got 96 wickets in a calendar year, he is bowling better than ever. People like Ricky Ponting and Richie Benaud. Warne himself thinks he's bowling as good as he ever has (in 2005).
I'm sure - but Warne doesn't face himself and Ponting only ever faces him in the nets.
I can't recall Richie suggesting he was bowling better now or even as well as in the 1992\93-1997\98 period, but if he did... well, there must be something in it.
I don't, however, attach anything to the fact that he's taken more wickets in the calender-year last year than ever before. That says far more about the weakness of the rest of Australia's attack in 2005 and the fact that he bowled more overs in 2005 than any other year apart from 1993.
Doesn't just make him look good, it actually makes him good. I personally think Warne wouldn't have gotten 40 wickets if he had a full strength bowling line-up performing like they can. Although if you ask C_C, it's impossible to help your figures by bowling longer without pressure from the other end. I don't buy that. But still, 40 wickets is incredible.
Not really - Warne's bowling is equal whatever. It's just there's never been a time before when he's been part of such a weak attack and team as a whole. His virtuoso performance IMO made people think he'd bowled virtually beyond anything ever done, when he merely bowled extremely well.
Don't recall ever calling it poor.
Your words were "And his average was poor".
Fair point. I disagree. Warne got wickets in 2005 not because England tried playing him more aggressively. The crowds were cheering every ball an Englishmen defensively played against him. Warne just asked more questions of the batsmen. To help your case I will add that, against common thought, England had good players of spin in 1993 like Gatting, Hick and Gooch who could defend their wicket better.
I hardly see how the fact that England had good players in 1993 (better than in 2005, certainly - though Gatting by 1993 was long since past his best) helps the case for him bowling better in 2005? In 2005 England had few if any particularly good players of spin. Trescothick's ability against spin is well below most people's perception of it (Warne got him in each of the last 3 innings); Strauss and Bell ain't the best players of spin in The World; Vaughan was dreadful against all bowlers so rarely got the chance to even face him; Pietersen played him reasonably without playing him exceptionally; Flintoff has never been The World's best player of spin and never will be; Jones rarely faced him and on 1 of the occasions he did had 1 of his customary rushes-of-blood.
I maintain that England played him far better in 1993 than 2005. They just a) didn't have anywhere near the 2005 attack and b) had a stronger rest-of Austalia's attack to cope with.
I seriously think if Warne had been played in 1993 as he was in 2005 he'd have got 40 wickets at least. Maybe Warne asked questions of the batsmen in 2005 that he didn't in 1993, but equally it certainly works the other way around too.
His figures were not better for the entire series in 1994/95. He took his best ever figures of 8-71 at the GABBA, got a hat-trick at the MCG, and had a lacking last three games. In 1993 he was consistent but not striking.
Err - that's what I said, wasn't it...?
Guys who carry teams and pad up wickets often strike much much higher when they're getting more wickets.
Err... eh?
Don't understand.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I wrote my responses to the quote above but deleted them before posting them because I want to keep my argument focused. If anything I said confused you, explaining to make sense of it just takes focus off the facts:

Warne in the 1993 Ashes striked in the 70s.

Warne in the 2005 Ashes striked below 38.

Warne in the 1993 Ashes has a bowling average around 25.

Warne in the 2005 Ashes had a bowling average below 20.

Warne in 1993 had little help. Criag McDermott and maybe Tim May... neither steal many wickets.

Warne in 2005 had little help. He would've gotten more wickets at Lords without McGrath.


Now you can talk about competition, standards, pitches, help you had etc. You can talk about whatever you like, but if your getting wickets almost twice as quickly in a series you are ridiculous, you are so far ahead of what you did before that nothing else matters. That's Warne. So you can talk about anything that happened, but Warne was so much more effective in 2005 that any variables don't come close. Is it irrational to think that just maybe, if somebody is getting wickets twice as quick as before that it's not worth considering variables. It's not like Craig McDermott stole 30 wickets off him in 1993.

Again, Warne made more of a psychological impact in 1993 and changed perceptions of spin.

Warne was simply more effective in 2005... by a great great margin of striking.
 

Top