Shane Warne

[Top_Cat]

Actually Richard, my baulking at the OT posts are more to do with the fact that people are bringing Murali into this thread and most of us are well aware of what happens when that occurs.

If a bowling average of 30 while you have an alltime great bowling crew around you is not getting smashed, particularly in a low-scoring series for the opposition, then what is ? you sport a 30+ bowling average when 2 other bowlers sport their average in teens/early 20s.......thats getting smashed....and this is his BEST series against IND.....he has been thoroughly smashed by IND every single series before as well......

For one, name me a leg-spinner who's played long-term who averaged lower than Warnie.

For two, name me an opposition leg-spinner visiting India with an average there of under 35. Even Abdul Qadir got belted on his trips to India. It's tough work if you're a leggie there.

And comparing the other bowlers to Warnie is erroneous too because by the nature of leg-spin bowling, the leg-spinner will concede more runs per wicket. It is FAR easier to bowl accurately (and therefore concede less runs) as a pace bowler than a leg-spinner. So comparing averages is somewhat disingenous and pretty easily refuted as a method of comparison in general.

 

[marc71178]

Thing is, there's no "if"s at all about first-chance averages.

No, they just do not exist at all.

 

[Richard]

No, you just do not recognise them.
They exist, same way any stat exists if someone compiles it.

 

[The Argonaut]

I'm not even going to start about the first chance averages bit. It's been argued many times before. Also any correspondence about Murali's action is redundant in this thread. There are countless other ones where the argument can be carried on.

I think that the comments that Top Cat makes are very good. Every bowler goes through bad patches. It must be said that Warne's worst series came in India when his shoulder was hanging by a thread. He also came back from injury too early and didn't bowl well at that stage. He is easily the best legspinner to have played the game.

Murali's record is inflated by playing a lot of tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as well as having to bowl more overs because of the low quality of the rest of the Sri Lankan attack. That said, it's Australia's own fault that they have been narrow minded and not played more games against the minnows of world cricket.

I agree with others that he should have been rubbed out for 2 years for drug taking. This would have been consistent with world sports.

I didn't think he bowled all that well against the Kiwis this series. It's bound to be that as he gets older he won't bowl as well. The wear and tear on the body must take its toll. It will be interesting to see how well Murali does when he comes back from a major injury. The Sri Lankans will rush him back I'm sure.

 

[SJS]

For two, name me an opposition leg-spinner visiting India with an average there of under 35. Even Abdul Qadir got belted on his trips to India. It's tough work if you're a leggie there.

----------Benaud.....Warne

Tests in India -- 8......9
Wickets ------ 52......34
Average --- 18.38......43.12
Strike Rate-- 56.8......81.0
Eco Rate ----1.94......3.2
1 in innings - ---5......1

 

[Pinkline Jones]

Mulelutheran is heaps better than the baked bean flatulator and he doesn't smoke either.

 

[Camel56]

Going to have to disagree with you Jonesy. When it comes to bowling Murili is just plain uphill gardening. When it comes to throwing, well thats a different story. But bowling he is nothing but a plodding LOOSER.
My ratings have Warne well on top.

 

[Top_Cat]

SJS: I'm not even going to begin to talk about the matting pitches or the quality of the Indian side in Benaud's time.

Still, you did what I asked I guess.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Thing is, there's no "if"s at all about first-chance averages.
Oh, and yes, it was a great shame Warne missed that final game - hopefully he might have gone even further to dispelling his Indian ghost were he to have done so... oh, and Australia would probably have won the game, too...

yes there is........'if a chance had been taken this is what his average would be', that sounds like an 'if' to me. By doing this aren't you skewing things too far in the one direction as you can't possibly tell what score a batsman might go on to make on the occasions where he is given out and later proven to be not out? You're basically stopping all the innings where you consider him to have offered a chance that wasn't taken etc but there's nothing you can do re: bad decisions that have gone the other way.

 

[Son Of Coco]

like i said, Warne is just as much of a thrower as Murali.
The ICC report outlined that over 99% of bowlers are throwers and the only international player who 'bowls' and isnt a thrower is Sarwan.

And regarding playing spin, i am sorry, AUS is a much better team than IND but they arnt in the same ballpark when it comes to playing spin.
And Murali has done far more against the best players of spin than Warne.

It was an estimate based on the number of bowlers they tested though wasn't it? They didn't test every bowler that plays the game......I've heard percentages from 90 - 99 does anyone know exactly what it is? As far as I know Warne wasn't present when the testing was carried out so suggestions as to whether his action is legal or not would be purely speculation.

 

[Slow Love™]

It was an estimate based on the number of bowlers they tested though wasn't it? They didn't test every bowler that plays the game......I've heard percentages from 90 - 99 does anyone know exactly what it is? As far as I know Warne wasn't present when the testing was carried out so suggestions as to whether his action is legal or not would be purely speculation.

Yeah, people should probably refrain from scoring points with specific bowlers over the throwing study, unless you've heard something specific about one of them (like McGrath, Pollock, etc). Seeing as Warne's not playing one-day cricket, it's unlikely he was part of the group study (the main body of which occurred during the ICC Champions Trophy).

The figure I kept hearing was 90%, but it's moved around to as much as 99%. I guess we'll have to wait until the ICC have their general meeting thingy to hear some more details.

 

[SJS]

SJS: I'm not even going to begin to talk about the matting pitches or the quality of the Indian side in Benaud's time.

Still, you did what I asked I guess.

Sorry to disapoint you but all these wickets did not come on matting wickets. Only one out of the eight games Benaud played in India was played on matting (at Green Park Kanpur in 1959). All others were on turf wickets. And yes I just provided the figures you asked for.

BTW, there havent been many leg spinners of quality in the world, outside Australia and India since the second world war. Qadir is the only one who comes to mind. So its not surprising if one cant find another visiting leg spinner to add to Benaud's name

Even in India, only Subhash Gupte is the orthodox leg spinner with Sivaramakrishnah and Hirwani having very brief careers. Chandra and Kumble being unortodox quickish , mainly googly and straight one, bowlers.

Where are the other leg spinners one can think of from England, West Indies, South Africa or New Zealand ?

 

[SJS]

SJS: I'm not even going to begin to talk about the matting pitches or the quality of the Indian side in Benaud's time.

Still, you did what I asked I guess.

You may also want to consider the fact that Benaud's bowling, rather than India's batting (which was not as pathetic as you make it sound) had something to do with Australia's success.

On the first tour in 1956, Benaud was by far the leading wicket taker for Australia with 23 wickets in 3 tests at 16.8 each !!

Lindwall was the next highest wicket taker at 12 wickets at 16.6. The other spinner, Ian Johnson, had 3 wickets at 26 each. The other leading bowlers had+- Davidson 1 wkt at 42.0 and Ken McKay 3 at 24.7.

In the next tour in 1959-60. Benaud was joint top wicket taker with Davidson with 29 wkts in 5 tests at 19.6 each.

Lindwall had 6 at 37 each, McKay 4 at 25.5 and McKiff 12 at 33.8.

Dont you think istead of comapring apples and oranges (wickets and oppositions of different times) it might be better to compare Benaud's and Warnes performance in India as against that of their team mates against the same opposition.

 

[Richard]

yes there is........'if a chance had been taken this is what his average would be', that sounds like an 'if' to me.

Only because you phrased it like that.
Personally I say "his score would have been that but for the let-off.
That much better illustrates the fact that it is not a guess, but a certainty.

By doing this aren't you skewing things too far in the one direction as you can't possibly tell what score a batsman might go on to make on the occasions where he is given out and later proven to be not out? You're basically stopping all the innings where you consider him to have offered a chance that wasn't taken etc but there's nothing you can do re: bad decisions that have gone the other way.

No, but you can do something equally fair in counting them as not-outs. Same thing with run-outs where the man dismissed is not at fault.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dont you think istead of comapring apples and oranges (wickets and oppositions of different times) it might be better to compare Benaud's and Warnes performance in India as against that of their team mates against the same opposition.

Considering you'd be comparing different types of bowlers (fast vs spin), how is that any more 'apples with apples' at all?

 

[SJS]

Considering you'd be comparing different types of bowlers (fast vs spin), how is that any more 'apples with apples' at all?

You are right. But then you just cant compare because you are unlikely (highly unlikely) to have two world class spinners of the same type playing at the same time under similar conditions. So the statement , which started it all, that Warne's performance in India is not that bad when you consider that no leg spinner over time has achieved an average under 35 in India .

I pointed out Benaud who IS a leg spinnner (and an orrange if leg spinners are oranges) but that argument was shot down citing different conditions, pitches, quality of opposition etc.

Then whats the alternative. The comparison with other players of the team at least shows how they fared against the same quality ofg batsmen and how much the leg spinner in question dominated the bowling atack as compared to other members of his team. Benausd was the spinner in the side but could not be termed THE best bowler in the team on either occasion with Llindwal and Davidson respectively, earning that respect on their overall performance around the world at that time. Stil Benaud, ON INDIAN SOIL AND IN INDIAN CONDITIONS, showed up as the leading Australian bowler.

Warne on the other hand IS, arguably, the best Australian bowler not just of this team but of these times. Still, on both his tours, he has been unable to be the dominant bowler in his side that he has been over all in the same period, around the world.

So the proposition that India conditions and Indian batsmen seem to be too much to handle for this great bowler seems to have lots of merit in it.
QED

 

[biased indian]

i think the best way to put it is
indians were too good For Warne

but Warne was too good for others

 

[Richard]

I think:
Warne was too good for everyone except India
would be more appropriate.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think:
Warne was too good for everyone except India
would be more appropriate.

In spite of the fact that he has only performed particularly well against England, South Africa and Pakistan.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Only because you phrased it like that.
Personally I say "his score would have been that but for the let-off.
That much better illustrates the fact that it is not a guess, but a certainty.

No, but you can do something equally fair in counting them as not-outs. Same thing with run-outs where the man dismissed is not at fault.

It's the same thing, written a different way.

Not outs still won't accurately estimate how many runs he'd go on to score on that occasion, he could go on to score 100 or be out legitimately the next ball.....with run outs do you then count the batsman whose fault it was as out?