Shane Warne

[Mister Wright]

I don't suppose if you had your way, he would have recieved his two year ban straight away, if not longer?

He should have been given the two years, he took a masking agent for steroids.

At first I was 100% sure he was a drug cheat, after he rcovered from that injury so quickly, I didn't think even he would be dumb enough to take an illegal substance just to make himself look pretty. However, after his actions in India, where he was gloating to the 'boys' how much easier it is to bat in gloves without padding, I am starting to think that he really is that stupid.

 

[Richard]

What stage did Warne carry his shoulder injury.

While I'm no huge fan of Warne, he has had his share of injury problems.

The shoulder and finger problems very probably had some effect.
Nonetheless, there were times when he was outbowled by MacGill and anyone claiming MacGill is the more talented of the two needs their head examined.
There are some other reasons for the failures that have come along, but the principal reason for them has been that Warne, at times, hasn't bowled as well as he can.

 

[Richard]

Richard,
please dont be a fool. If you think Murali doesnt throw then im afraid it is you who is ill-educated on cricketing matter. Im sorry to tell you also that im no bandwagon jumper. Ive said from the moment i saw his action that Murali was a chucker.
Im afraid you're totally wrong if you think there is no real differnce between them. Every respected expert in the game believes he chucks. So dont take my word for it, have a listen to every expert who has ever commented on it.

A fool? The fool is he who believes his eyes, not science. Any "expert" who is more willing to judge on what he thinks he sees rather than scientific evidence is not an expert, he's just a figure of renown. The experts are the scientists who've carred-out tests using equipment the most of us can only dream of.
Most people with any sense have accepted that they are not seeing what they think they are.

 

[Richard]

Science hasnt proven anything mate. The guy throws and thats all there is to it.

"He throws - because I say he does, and because lots of other people who can't take his success say he does".
Despite the fact that they have been overruled by a superior practitioner, these people continue to think that they know better.
If you can come-up with any decent reason why your eyes are a more valid tool to use in this judgement than what has been used in the scientific experiment, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Richard]

He came up against teams with great players of spin?

Yes, that wouldn't have helped - but Warne, being a bowler, controls the game and if he bowls like he can, we've seen so many times that it doesn't matter how good you are at playing spin, he'll still get you out.

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne, if he bowls like he can, we've seen so many times that it doesn't matter how good you are at playing spin, he'll still get you out.

As has been shown by his remarkable deeds against the likes of Lara and Tendulkar.

 

[a massive zebra]

Averaged 50 in his first 8 Tests, despite taking an 8-for in one of them, then in his next 55 matches was quite magnificent. He then endured 24 not-very-nice games, only a handful of which were good-'uns. His most recent 29 games have been much more like it, returning to the days of the best
Funny, far more inconsistent than I think many people tend to notice. I certainly didn't think it was quite this pronounced.
Atapattu is an even more pronounced story.

I wouldn't say that is inconsistency. It is really sustained spells of brilliance and mediocrity. Inconsistency, on the other hand, could be termed unreliable matchwinning - your fortunes varying drastically from game to game a la Afridi and (over the last couple of years) Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

As has been shown by his remarkable deeds against the likes of Lara and Tendulkar.

He's gone to pieces against them many times - but he's still bowled occasional balls like the one to Laxman in the First Test - and he's still bowled spells like his in the Second and Third - showing, finally, that he can do it against India.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say that is inconsistency. It is really sustained spells of brilliance and mediocrity. Inconsistency, on the other hand, could be termed unreliable matchwinning - your fortunes varying drastically from game to game a la Afridi and (over the last couple of years) Gilchrist.

How many matches has Afridi played a big part in winning (with the bat) since 2002? I'll be amazed if it's more than 1 or 2, maybe not even that. About the closest I can think of is the ICC CT group game vs. India, and even that wasn't exactly what I'd call a match-turning innings, just a stabilising one.
Personally I'd say inconsistency is going from good to poor. Yes, it's also playing a big part in winning one game then playing a big part in losing the next (eg Brett Lee) but the two do tend to go hand-in-hand.

 

[a massive zebra]

and he's still bowled spells like his in the Second and Third - showing, finally, that he can do it against India.

His comparative success was largely down to the poor form of the India batsmen. Furthermore, during the series he was still the most expensive bowler in the Australian side and the most expensive spinner on either side.

 

[a massive zebra]

How many matches has Afridi played a big part in winning (with the bat) since 2002? I'll be amazed if it's more than 1 or 2, maybe not even that. About the closest I can think of is the ICC CT group game vs. Pakistan, and even that wasn't exactly what I'd call a match-turning innings, just a stabilising one.

That may be true but you know perfectly well what my point was.

 

[biased indian]

He's gone to pieces against them many times - but he's still bowled occasional balls like the one to Laxman in the First Test - and he's still bowled spells like his in the Second and Third - showing, finally, that he can do it against India.

Shane warne aganist india

ODI

Career 193 1766.4 7514 291 5/33 4/19 25.82 4.25 36.4 12 1
India 18 162.2 844 15 3/38 2/36 56.26 5.19 64.9 0 0

Test

Career 116 5428.1 13958 549 8/71 12/128 25.42 2.57 59.3 28 8
India 14 654.1 2029 43 6/125 6/113 47.18 3.10 91.2 1 0

both form of the game show that he has really struggled aganist the best in the bussiness when playing spin is taken into account

 

[Richard]

His comparative success was largely down to the poor form of the India batsmen. Furthermore, during the series he was still the most expensive bowler in the Australian side and the most expensive spinner on either side.

India's batsmen were every bit as poor in Australia in 1999\2000 - Warne still came out of the series with an average of 42. They were also poor in The First Test at Bangalore.
Had he played in the final Test and bowled as he had in the two most recent, I'm pretty confident he'd have wreaked havoc - and Australia, sadly, would probably have won the match.

 

[marc71178]

wrong again my friend. Murili's action is closer to a baseball pitch than a legal off spin delivery.

I assume that's when Murali bowls left handed?

 

[a massive zebra]

Murili's action is closer to a baseball pitch than a legal off spin delivery.

Learn the facts before you make wild, baseless, arrogant statements like that.

 

[Camel56]

The bloke has been called for throwing before you clowns. Those are the facts. All the experts say he throws too so theres some more facts for you uphill gardening LOOSERS.

 

[Langeveldt]

The bloke has been called for throwing before you clowns. Those are the facts. All the experts say he throws too so theres some more facts for you uphill gardening LOOSERS.

You are giving the anti Murali contingent here a really bad name by resorting to personal insults...

 

[Neil Pickup]

You are giving the anti Murali contingent here a really bad name by resorting to personal insults...

And you've already got Cloete to do that, anyway...

 

[Neil Pickup]

The bloke has been called for throwing before you clowns. Those are the facts. All the experts say he throws too so theres some more facts for you uphill gardening LOOSERS.

You know, that post may have been more effective had you not spelt "losers" incorrectly.

 

[Mister Wright]

How many matches has Afridi played a big part in winning (with the bat) since 2002? I'll be amazed if it's more than 1 or 2, maybe not even that. About the closest I can think of is the ICC CT group game vs. Pakistan, and even that wasn't exactly what I'd call a match-turning innings, just a stabilising one.
Personally I'd say inconsistency is going from good to poor. Yes, it's also playing a big part in winning one game then playing a big part in losing the next (eg Brett Lee) but the two do tend to go hand-in-hand.

Did Pakistan play Pakistan?