Shane Warne.

[Retox]

How can Shane Warne be called the best bowler in the world. He has played More games then 6 of the top ten and around 25 (not sure) More then Muttiah Muralitharan I would have thought in theory that if I got 100 wickets in 50 games I would be better then say someone who got 101 wickets in 60 games. Discuss.

 

[Mr Casson]

Statistics only tell part of the story. Warney is a true legend, and you won't find too many people who will disagree with the fact that he has had a tremendous impact on the game.

 

[Retox]

He is a great player No doubting that but not the best bowler ever (as the papers say)

 

[Mr Casson]

And who are you to decide?

 

[Retox]

I am saying you all have to agree with me we all have our own views on the matter. I am just expressing my views.

Shane Warne is a awesome bowler I agree but He has played more games then most of the top ten bowlers of all time for only 10 more wickets or so. For 25 more games in Theory doesn't that make the other guy the better wicket taker?

 

[Mr Casson]

I am saying you all have to agree with me we all have our own views on the matter. I am just expressing my views.

Shane Warne is a awesome bowler I agree but He has played more games then most of the top ten bowlers of all time for only 10 more wickets or so. For 25 more games in Theory doesn't that make the other guy the better wicket taker?

For strike rates maybe. But stats don't tell you who he dismissed, or how he beguiled the batsman, do they? There are many factors that come into play, not just the games played to wickets taken ratio.

 

[Retox]

I understand but I am going on how they say Shane Warne is the best for taking so many wickets when he has had many more games then most.

 

[Sudeep]

For strike rates maybe. But stats don't tell you who he dismissed, or how he beguiled the batsman, do they? There are many factors that come into play, not just the games played to wickets taken ratio.

Or how many matches he has won for Australia...

 

[a massive zebra]

How can Shane Warne be called the best bowler in the world.

Who is calling him the best bowler in the world?

 

[a massive zebra]

Or how many matches he has won for Australia...

To be fair Warne gets far more opportunities to win matches for Australia than he would if he played for another country because his teammates are so good.

 

[Sudeep]

To be fair Warne gets far more opportunities to win matches for Australia than he would if he played for another country because his teammates are so good.

Remember Warne has McGrath and Gillespie alongside to bowl with...

 

[SJS]

And who are you to decide?

......either way

 

[C_C]

Warne is an alltime great.
Probably the greatest legspinner ever ( the only competition IMO is Subhash Gupte).
But best bowler ever ? naah. I would take Marshall, Hadlee, Imran Khan etc. before Warne in my team.

Best spinner ever ?
naah.
he isthe second best spinner of his generation and possibly alltime. Behind one certain dude who goes by the name of Murali.
Warne has a better loop and flight than Murali. Murali matches him in terms of movement off the pitch and betters him in variety and effectiveness.
Warne has McGrath and GIllespie to sustain pressure from the other end....Murali only has Vaas who aint in the Pidge-Dizzy category as a bowler.
Despite that, Murali out-performs Warne.

Plus Warne gets treated like a highschool bowler against IND(test matches)....Murali has been a helluva lot more effective against both IND and AUS.

 

[SJS]

Warne is an alltime great.
Probably the greatest legspinner ever ( the only competition IMO is Subhash Gupte).
.

Well. Bradman didnt think so. He rated Orielly higher (in fact the best bowler of all types as per him) and he rated Grimmett the best slow leg spinner of all type (the type Warne is) and
- Bradman knew something about the game,
- He was not showing a nationalistic bias
he had seen all the three bowlers though played with ony two (nothat any one else has done more )

So all this talk about Warne being the best leg spinner let alone the best bowler of all times has to be seen in the light of our limited credibility to comment on bowlers who played before we were born ! Lets remember that and forget this pointless debate

 

[C_C]

i tend to base my opinion on two things:

1. an in-depth statistical analysis of the said cricketer
2. Opinion of the peer group who've played against him/her.

Bradman was very knowledgable and a gentleman with negligible prejudice(negligible because at the end of the day, ALL human beings have some level of prejudice). However, one thing you'd notice amonst all human beings is that they always tend to have a bias for their generation.
In sports, culture,philosophy etc.... almost all generations claim that theirs was the best...as such, i am not too sure if bradman was impervious to that.

 

[SJS]

i tend to base my opinion on two things:

1. an in-depth statistical analysis of the said cricketer
2. Opinion of the peer group who've played against him/her.

Bradman was very knowledgable and a gentleman with negligible prejudice(negligible because at the end of the day, ALL human beings have some level of prejudice). However, one thing you'd notice amonst all human beings is that they always tend to have a bias for their generation.
In sports, culture,philosophy etc.... almost all generations claim that theirs was the best...as such, i am not too sure if bradman was impervious to that.

Okay. Let me take it one by one.

1. Analysis of the players concerned.
Please give the stats you are talking of.

2. Opinion of peer group.
Why should the word of Warne's peer group count for more than the peers of Orielly ? At least the latter can claim to have seen Warne, thew former cant even say they are basing their comparison on first hand knowledge !!

3. Humans are biased towards their own generation..
If so, what does it say for the cyurrent generations opinion about Warne being the greatest ??

 

[SJS]

1. Analysis of the players concerned.
Please give the stats you are talking of.

Let me help you.

The only statistic on which Warne does better is the
strike rate (bals/wkt)

Warne : 59.8
Orielly : 66.2
Grimmett : 66.9

However, as any student of cricket and cricket statistics will tell you a strike by itself tells nothing otherwise Agarkar would be India's best bowler and MacGill with a strike rate of 55.6 a better bowler than all the three being discussed her. Thats why the economy rate is also important. And the average (runs/wicket) generally accepted as , overall, the best available figure since it has built into it both the strike rate AND the economy rate of a bowler. Here are the figures :-

Economy Rate (runs/100 balls)

Orielly: 34.2
Grimmett : 36.2
Warne : 42.7

Average (Runs/wkt)

Orielly : 22.6
Grimmett : 24.2
Warne : 25.5

The other thing which makes us (figure hungry masses) seek greatness in volumes is the number of wickets by which standard of course Border is the greatest batsman produced by Australia )

So Warne has 527 wickets. But this is purely a function of how many tests you play. It must be seen with another bit, that is the wickets per test (Barnes regarded by many as the greatest bowler has 7 wkts per test 187 in 29 matches). Here are the figures of the legspinners in quetion.

Wkts/test

Grimmett : 5.8
Orielly : 5.3
Warne : 4.7

If there are other relevant statistics I have missed (like how well they bowled to people who knew how to use their feet) we can discuss again

 

[marc71178]

To be fair Warne gets far more opportunities to win matches for Australia than he would if he played for another country because his teammates are so good.

You often use this, conveniently ignoring the bowling attack he is a part of that limits his chances to be so effective.

 

[marc71178]

Plus Warne gets treated like a highschool bowler against IND(test matches)

This doesn't tend to be quite so true when you look at the recent series.

 

[Son Of Coco]

To be fair Warne gets far more opportunities to win matches for Australia than he would if he played for another country because his teammates are so good.

In my opinion it works in reverse..........it would be matches he is responsible for winning mainly due to great bowling, not every match Australia wins when he's in the team. Australia have a number of match-winners in their team....