Warne would consider Test return

[Francis]

I don't understand you describing Tendulkar as "no more the force he was in 1998". If you are referring to the fact that he does not score so freely now, you can't be further from the truth. Since last year's home series against Pakistan, he's made over 800 test runs at over 65 SR, and this includes the Australian tour, where he made two hundreds, one of which IIRC he scored at almost 75 SR.

Like I said, Tendulkar is still very good and a world class batsman. But I can remember a one-day series in 1998 where none of the Aussies could get him in India for the entire series. Actually I believe they did get him out once. And those matches were won almost single-handedly off Tendulkar's bat.

And Tendulkar (for that matter the other members of Fab 4) showed what they can do to the spinner, even at this age, in Australia, where Brad Hogg was virtually tonked around. You don't need a barrage of sixers to get on top of spinners.

I don't see what this has to do with Shane Warne. My point was that I think Warne could have been effective in the first Indian test, especially since it was a spin-friendly pitch. Brad Hogg's not in Warne's league.

And thirdly, your suggestion that Warne would have won the test for Australia had he been in the team is ludicrous. First of all, the pitch was a road, and even given Warne's prodigy, he wouldnt have got much support from it in the first innings anyway. And at no point in his career has Shane Warne had the upper hand over Tendulkar & Co, so to expect a complete turnaround, given Warne's obviously age, would be laughable.

The pitch was spin-friendly on the 5th day, thus negating Australia's pace attack. They needed a spinner to get a few wickets.

I don't feel the need to argue with you that Warne was a great bowler who could have taken wickets against India in that test. Tendulkar would practice batting against leg-spin in the nets months prior to a game with Warne. He knows how great he was and the standard required to face him. Tendulkar's not unstoppable these days, though he is still great.

 

[Richard]

In my estimation these teams would have been world number one if they had a world class spinner. Admittedly the West Indies were world number one without a spinner... so much so that people began to question how necessary a spinner was. But as for South Africa and England... golly if they had a spinner they would have won so many games of the 5th day.

You could say that about any number of teams... but the fact is they didn't, because it just doesn't happen very often, due to the limitations associated with spin-bowling. You are only exceptionally rarely going to get a wristspinner of the very highest class who's even worth a look-in for a Test side, and fingerspinners just aren't (and haven't been for nearly 40 years) bowlers who can offer all that much on a macro scale. Fingerspinners can take advantage of turning pitches, but they cannot do anything on pitches that don't help them. And these pitches are in the majority. There have been good fingerspinners in the last 40 years, but they just haven't been anything close to as effective as the fingerspinners of the previous 70 years, because the game has changed.

I'm not saying Australia should find another Shane Wanr because it wont happen. I was expecting that they'd have someone decent. Like Brett Lee isn't remotely close to being as great as Glen McGrath, but he can take wickets. Cameron White is lucky if he takes two wickets in an innings.Some days he's lucky if he gets one. In fact I hear he hardly bowled in the recent Australian domestic series.

But before Warne Australia had no spinners who were remotely decent (apart from Ashley Mallett fairly briefly and, I suppose, Jim Higgs and Bruce Yardley even more briefly - ie, a year each) for 40 years. Australia just isn't a spin-friendly country. They'll either have one of the very best (like Warne, and before him Benaud) or they'll in all likelihood have no-one of any note at all.

On the other hand, quality seamers are far more common than quality spinners, because seam is simply generally a more effective style of bowling than spin and explores more options.

 

[Francis]

And lost many on the first and second....

It's true most spinners don't do as well in their first innings whilst bowling, but that doesn't mean great spinners can't win you games in the first innings. And I'm not talking about greats like Murali and Warne etc, I'm talking about the likes of Underwood etc. Anil Kumble bowled one of the best first innings I've ever seen earlier this year when he took 5 (I think it was 5) against Australia in Australia on a wicket not meant for spin.

A great spinner is a good thing to have. A great pace bowler is much more valuable overall...But saying that the spinner is the most important member is ridiculous, otherwise India would actually have a decent record in world cricket.

It takes all kinds. Like most sports in cricket you can't win off one player or one tactic. You need pace bowlers, you need spiners, you need specialist batsmen for various positions etc.

I think what really highlights the importance of spinners to me is that pace bowlers can only be effective for a limited amount of time in both the 1st and second innings. Most need a new ball and even with reverse swing there's only so much they can do. Fast bowlers struggle to become as effective as they can be when the ball gets old.

Of course there were greats like Lillee and Marshall who could use the old ball and bowl cutters and variations of pace. And Imran Khan seemed to be able to swing the ball no matter what. But by and large I think fast bowlers have a used by date on the cricket pitch.

Spinners, however, can bowl all day and all they need is a ball. They're the gamebreakers and don't require shine on the ball (though Warne found ways to sue shine). You can maybe argue they need a wicket condusive to spin, and are mroe effective in the second innings... but there's a lot of fast bowlers who struggle to be effective in either innings.

There's a counter argument to all of what I just said as well that pacemen are more effective with a new ball than spinners who can bowl all day and it's more important to use the new ball well than to have a great spinner etc.

And the list goes on and on... I'm just saying from my perspective (as I get older) I'm starting to view spinners as the gamebreakers of cricket.

 

[Richard]

It's true most spinners don't do as well in their first innings whilst bowling, but that doesn't mean great spinners can't win you games in the first innings. And I'm not talking about greats like Murali and Warne etc, I'm talking about the likes of Underwood etc.

You show me how many games Underwood was really effective in (first-innings or second), after wickets were covered. I guarantee you, they were in a small minority - a much smaller minority than that of any particularly good seamer.

 

[Francis]

You are only exceptionally rarely going to get a wristspinner of the very highest class who's even worth a look-in for a Test side, and fingerspinners just aren't (and haven't been for nearly 40 years) bowlers who can offer all that much on a macro scale. Fingerspinners can take advantage of turning pitches, but they cannot do anything on pitches that don't help them. And these pitches are in the majority. There have been good fingerspinners in the last 40 years, but they just haven't been anything close to as effective as the fingerspinners of the previous 70 years, because the game has changed.

I should perhaps take back what I said a little because I somewhat agree with you. I've never had much regard for finger spin. So instead I'll say that I think a wrist spinner (keeping in mind Murali is a wrist spinner) is the most important player in the side. I agree with Richie Benaud when he said he'd always take a wrist spinner in the side.

But before Warne Australia had no spinners who were remotely decent (apart from Ashley Mallett fairly briefly and, I suppose, Jim Higgs and Bruce Yardley even more briefly - ie, a year each) for 40 years.

Well it's no coincidence that they became the best team in the world when they had a world-class spinner. Admittedly they hit pretty awesome heights in the 70s with Lillee and Thommo... and the West Indies were able to duplicate that. But either side of that they really did need a good spinner.

Australia just isn't a spin-friendly country. They'll either have one of the very best (like Warne, and before him Benaud) or they'll in all likelihood have no-one of any note at all.

I disagree... well I agree Australia isn't a spin-friendly country. But they'll likely need a spinner for the 5 day of those SCG tests. I can remember talk of Australia having both Warne and McGill play in SCG games (and I think they both played in a few) because you need a spinner on the SCG. That's an example of them having the best and wanting some extra spin. Warne got a tremendous amount of fivers at the GABBA as well. Other grounds like the WACCA are of course, not spin friendly. However, they'll still need a spinner.

 

[tooextracool]

Is that directed at me? Of course he wasn't, he was only a threat sporadically - and the same applied to the 6 Tests against SA. I'm not for a second suggesting I want to see Warne come back - I said it in my previous post, I'm not a big risk-taker and if I'd had Warne's finish I'd never remotely risk giving it up to try and make it better still.

I simply don't think Warne thinks like I do. Well, TBH I don't think Warne thinks anywhere near as much as I do - without blowing my own trumpet, I'd say it's fairly obvious I'm smarter than he is, that's not terribly difficult. I'd not be astonished to see him give-up the finish to his career he's got in a shot at getting something better still.

I was referring to Macgill who could not have been blatantly more over the hill in his last test sting.

I honestly dont think Warne was any worse in 2006/07 than he was in the Ashes in 2005.

 

[Uppercut]

Is that directed at me? Of course he wasn't, he was only a threat sporadically - and the same applied to the 6 Tests against SA. I'm not for a second suggesting I want to see Warne come back - I said it in my previous post, I'm not a big risk-taker and if I'd had Warne's finish I'd never remotely risk giving it up to try and make it better still.

I simply don't think Warne thinks like I do. Well, TBH I don't think Warne thinks anywhere near as much as I do - without blowing my own trumpet, I'd say it's fairly obvious I'm smarter than he is, that's not terribly difficult. I'd not be astonished to see him give-up the finish to his career he's got in a shot at getting something better still.

Don't think Warne's stupid tbh. Well, not in cricketing terms. On a cricket pitch he's as smart as any player currently playing tests, and i'd guess he thinks a lot more than most. I haven't seen anything in interviews about cricket to suggest anything otherwise.

In general life though, bit of an airhead.

 

[Richard]

I was referring to Macgill who could not have been blatantly more over the hill in his last test sting.

He certainly bowled worse - the number of Full-Tosses and so were extreme even by his standards - but he'd been collared in West Indies before (in 2003) and he'd been collared by Sri Lanka before (in 2003/04) so the point was that even if he hadn't bowled worse than previously he'd have been extremely unlikely to have had any real effect.

I honestly dont think Warne was any worse in 2006/07 than he was in the Ashes in 2005.

I don't think he was unrecogniseable or anything, and certainly England played him better (one of precious few things you can say they did better in 2006/07 than 2005) but there were signs, and the same was true against SA in 2005/06, that he wasn't quite what he'd once been. He still, as whoever Wisden's correspondant was put it, "won the really big points", but he looked unlikely to get any wickets on plenty of occasions in both series'.

 

[Richard]

Don't think Warne's stupid tbh. Well, not in cricketing terms. On a cricket pitch he's as smart as any player currently playing tests, and i'd guess he thinks a lot more than most. I haven't seen anything in interviews about cricket to suggest anything otherwise.

In general life though, bit of an airhead.

Aye, but decisions about whether to retire or come out of retirement aren't quite the same as decisions about where to put the fielder or who to bring on to bowl or take off.

In a sense, which cricket to play and which not to is a career decision, and Warne doesn't strike me as the best from that POV.

 

[Uppercut]

Aye, but decisions about whether to retire or come out of retirement aren't quite the same as decisions about where to put the fielder or who to bring on to bowl or take off.

In a sense, which cricket to play and which not to is a career decision, and Warne doesn't strike me as the best from that POV.

Haha yeah. "Banned diuretic? Make me less chubby? Sounds good "

However, it's a very personal thing- there is no stupid answer to the question of whether to come out of retirement or not. If he's truly happy with his career and can look back on it with complete satisfaction, then he'll choose not to. If he misses tests more than he thought he would and feels the urge to have one last shot at it, then he will. Depending on his mindset, it won't be a bad decision even if he fails. He might think failing is preferable to watching Australia lose the Ashes then forever wondering what might have been. As i said, it completely depends on Warne himself.

 

[Richard]

I should perhaps take back what I said a little because I somewhat agree with you. I've never had much regard for finger spin. So instead I'll say that I think a wrist spinner (keeping in mind Murali is a wrist spinner) is the most important player in the side. I agree with Richie Benaud when he said he'd always take a wrist spinner in the side.

Oh I absolutely would as well - on one condition. If you offered me a Murali, Warne, Benaud, Grimmett or O'Reilly I'd snap your hand off unless I had four of the greatest seamers you could wish to see (which pretty well no-one has ever done, bar West Indies for maybe a year or five between 1979 and 1983). However, the truth is that the gap between bowlers like these and a "normal" wristspinner is absolutely huge. Wristspinners are generally either exceptionally special like the 5 above, or they're very poor and not close to Test-standard. Unless a wristspinner was of the level of one of the above 5, I'd almost certainly never want one unless my seamers were truly terrible.

Well it's no coincidence that they became the best team in the world when they had a world-class spinner. Admittedly they hit pretty awesome heights in the 70s with Lillee and Thommo... and the West Indies were able to duplicate that. But either side of that they really did need a good spinner.

For a few years between 1989 and 1993, Australia were easily the second-best going around with no spinner of note (the duties were shared between Trevor Hohns, Peter Sleep, Peter Taylor, Greg Matthews and the prematurely picked and initially very ineffective Warne, none of whom had any performances of real note whatsoever bar Warne's seven-for at The MCG against West Indies). Likewise, they were either best or second-best for the 5 years after Benaud's retirement without anyone of note until Mallett came on the scene. Even with Mallett they were sometimes below second-best because their seam was lacking, McKenzie being a lone light then Lillee likewise.

I disagree... well I agree Australia isn't a spin-friendly country. But they'll likely need a spinner for the 5 day of those SCG tests. I can remember talk of Australia having both Warne and McGill play in SCG games (and I think they both played in a few) because you need a spinner on the SCG. That's an example of them having the best and wanting some extra spin. Warne got a tremendous amount of fivers at the GABBA as well. Other grounds like the WACCA are of course, not spin friendly. However, they'll still need a spinner.

See, I think they'd be far better-served going in with four seamers, even at The SCG, this summer. I just don't see that the quality of spin is anywhere near good enough currently to merit anyone available playing. I'd absolutely love to see Australia go through the whole summer playing four specialist seamers. Barring injury, Clark, Lee and Johnson seem very likely to, and with more good performances the likes of Tait, Noffke, Bollinger and Siddle will also have considerable cases to play. It'd be so disappointing to see them spurned in favour of bowlers who are not even up to state standard like Heal, Krejza, Casson, White, Hauritz, Cullen etc.

 

[Richard]

Haha yeah. "Banned diuretic? Make me less chubby? Sounds good "

However, it's a very personal thing- there is no stupid answer to the question of whether to come out of retirement or not. If he's truly happy with his career and can look back on it with complete satisfaction, then he'll choose not to. If he misses tests more than he thought he would and feels the urge to have one last shot at it, then he will. Depending on his mindset, it won't be a bad decision even if he fails. He might think failing is preferable to watching Australia lose the Ashes then forever wondering what might have been. As i said, it completely depends on Warne himself.

It does - some are risk-takers, chancers. Warne is one such. Some are not. I emphatically am not and just cannot comprehend why one would risk something so wonderful (which is what Warne's ending was to me) for anything, really.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And lost many on the first and second....

How many times do you think that the fourth selected pace bowler has won a side a game of cricket?

 

[Richard]

Given the irregularity of such bowlers being selected (as part of a four-man attack)... not very often.

 

[tooextracool]

He certainly bowled worse - the number of Full-Tosses and so were extreme even by his standards - but he'd been collared in West Indies before (in 2003) and he'd been collared by Sri Lanka before (in 2003/04) so the point was that even if he hadn't bowled worse than previously he'd have been extremely unlikely to have had any real effect.

I do not agree with this. This is the same side that inflated Monty's figures by continually getting out lbw to straight balls that were bowled from around the wicket. Sorry, I cannot imagine any of the WI batters bar Chanderpaul and possibly Sarwan being good enough to tackle Macgill in his pomp and it is a joke to even consider it.

And if you think taking 20 wickets in a series is collared, then Id really like some of that stuff you have been smoking. Macgill didnt have a poor series in 2003 against the WI, far from it, he was only taken apart in Antigua (what a surprise) and that ruined his figures.

I don't think he was unrecogniseable or anything, and certainly England played him better (one of precious few things you can say they did better in 2006/07 than 2005) but there were signs, and the same was true against SA in 2005/06, that he wasn't quite what he'd once been. He still, as whoever Wisden's correspondant was put it, "won the really big points", but he looked unlikely to get any wickets on plenty of occasions in both series'.

I disagree with this. Warne in England in 05, got pitches that favored him considerably. Actually England in general offers a lot for wrist spinners and even finger spinners and its not particularly surprising that he was unable to take wickets at the same rate as he did in the Ashes of 2005. He was still hands down the difference between the teams in both Aus-SA series and he was still arguably the best bowler in Australia when he retired.

 

[Richard]

I do not agree with this. This is the same side that inflated Monty's figures by continually getting out lbw to straight balls that were bowled from around the wicket. Sorry, I cannot imagine any of the WI batters bar Chanderpaul and possibly Sarwan being good enough to tackle Macgill in his pomp and it is a joke to even consider it.

Admittedly the presence of Lara in 2003 made a huge difference. However apart from at Kensington MacGill made negligible threat to even moderate players like Ganga and Jacobs.

And if you think taking 20 wickets in a series is collared, then Id really like some of that stuff you have been smoking. Macgill didnt have a poor series in 2003 against the WI, far from it, he was only taken apart in Antigua (what a surprise) and that ruined his figures.

See, I consider the match at Kensington, not the ARG, the odd one out that series. He was poor in the opening two games, excellent in the Third and poor again in the Fourth. And that equals a mostly poor series IMO.

I disagree with this. Warne in England in 05, got pitches that favored him considerably. Actually England in general offers a lot for wrist spinners and even finger spinners and its not particularly surprising that he was unable to take wickets at the same rate as he did in the Ashes of 2005. He was still hands down the difference between the teams in both Aus-SA series and he was still arguably the best bowler in Australia when he retired.

I don't disagree that he was still good, nor one of the biggest differences between Aus and SA (though the catching was the biggest for mine and I've always said that) in 2005/06. But I don't think he bowled as well that series as he has in the past against SA and while he was certainly offered more by the surfaces in 2005 than 2006/07 I still think he bowled better in the former series.

 

[aussie]

See, I consider the match at Kensington, not the ARG, the odd one out that series. He was poor in the opening two games, excellent in the Third and poor again in the Fourth. And that equals a mostly poor series IMO.

Sorry to bump into your arguments but What?????. Did you watch that series, or this is another one of statistical interpretations of what occured..

 

[Richard]

5-189 (2 of which were tailenders), 4-151 and 2-156 are poor figures.

No two ways about.

The only time in the series in West Indies in 2003 that MacGill bowled well was the Third Test at Kensington Oval.

You can watch a ball-by-ball replay of every game and nothing is going to change that.

 

[Precambrian]

MacGill seems to be a bit overrated in the boards considering the fact that he never bowled any good spell at us. Even in Australia. Somehow I never felt that he was capable of even being a standby for Warne let alone his equal.

 

[aussie]

5-189 (2 of which were tailenders), 4-151 and 2-156 are poor figures.

No two ways about.

The only time in the series in West Indies in 2003 that MacGill bowled well was the Third Test at Kensington Oval.

You can watch a ball-by-ball replay of every game and nothing is going to change that.

Haha. McGrath took 0/100+ in the Chennai test of 04. By no means did he bowl poorly, same thing applies with MacGill, having seen them bowl.

Only time MacGill bowled poorly in 03 was the Antigua test, where if Warne was playing instead I am 100% sure Australia would have become to first & only team to have white-washed the windies at home.