How do you feel about Shane Warne?

[Top_Cat]

Have you ever been coached by him mate, or been to clinics where he's been?
For all the bad things you hear about Warne, I've heard he's pretty generous with his time. Example - some punters went on the last WI tour, and after a game the team all went into the sheds - the Aussies on tour (bare in mind they've come from the other side of the world to support the boys) apparently got brushed by the team who all just walked straight past them, except one fella - Warne, who stood there, signed everything, had photos taken and had a chat for the better part of 30 minutes.
Not sure is it was a female tour group, but it's still a good thing to do.
I went to a lunch after the 99 WC whent he side came back into Sydney, and at that function Warne, being Warne, was the centre of all attention. He handled himself brilliantly - tolerated the stupid, thanked the hosts, the fans, answered a lot of questions. I guess when I hear him criticised (mostly justified it has to be said) I remember those things, which redeem him in my eyes a fair bit.

AWTA. I've heard many things through the traps which say the same thing, even when the media isn't on him.

 

[subshakerz]

Not saying that I agree with it but the argument does hold some merit

1. World record holder

2. Significant contributor to more victories in test history than anyone else

3. Arguably the only bowler to come close to mastering the art of leg spin

4. Achievements in an era of unfriendly bowling conditions

I don't see how being a record holder or a master of leg spin makes one the greatest. Warne bowled in more tests than any other bowler, and Murali probably won more matches by himself. And McGrath/Murali bowled in the same era with equal or greater success, so it's not like Warne's unique.

He is one of the most influential, I will give him that. But I don't see how someone can seriously claim Warne is the greatest when:

-Statistically he is impressive but is still far behind many others

-Against the best batting lineup of his era and best players of spin, India, he is at best, unproven, and at worst, a complete failure

-For someone who is supposed to be the greatest, he ended up on the receiving end against many fine players of spin (Malik, Sidhu, Tendulkar, Lara, Peteirsen)

I could compare Warne's claims to a host of others and pick out weaknesses in all of them, e.g. great fast bowlers in the 70s and 80s played with a ball with raised seam, on some dodgy tracks, and with, for a time, no limitation on the number of bouncers or number of overs that had to be bowled in a day

Really? You mind telling me what weaknesses Malcolm Marshall had as a bowler, or even Imran Khan, rather than small advantages of playing in a certain era?

 

[bond21]

yea its easier for Murali to win matches when his team is absolutely dire against decent opposition.

When/if Warne bowls in the 4th innings, the match is basically decided before that thanks to the batsmen and the superb pace attack.

Warne never really got many chances to save matches because we were too good.

 

[social]

I don't see how being a record holder or a master of leg spin makes one the greatest. Warne bowled in more tests than any other bowler, and Murali probably won more matches by himself. And McGrath/Murali bowled in the same era with equal or greater success, so it's not like Warne's unique.

He is one of the most influential, I will give him that. But I don't see how someone can seriously claim Warne is the greatest when:

-Statistically he is impressive but is still far behind many others

-Against the best batting lineup of his era and best players of spin, India, he is at best, unproven, and at worst, a complete failure

-For someone who is supposed to be the greatest, he ended up on the receiving end against many fine players of spin (Malik, Sidhu, Tendulkar, Lara, Peteirsen)



Really? You mind telling me what weaknesses Malcolm Marshall had as a bowler, or even Imran Khan, rather than small advantages of playing in a certain era?

Murali is a relative failure in India (averaging 40) and Pontingesque in Australia (averaging over 100) - the latter being far more damning than anything Warne did or didnt achieve against India

However, a likely career total of 1000 test wickets demands that he be considered for the title of World's Best Ever Bowler

Same with Warne

As for Malcolm Marshall and others, the point is that anyone can make an argument to suit a certain point of view.

For example, rather than those guys being so good, I could counter that the batting of the 80s was pretty poor overall (have a look at some of the lineups produced by Australia as an example), potentially the best team in the world during this period (SA) was banned, and conditions favoured the fast bowlers far more than they do today

Realistically, the truth is somewhere in between

 

[Jono]

Agree with Social.

And SS, its hard to take you seriously when you discuss spinners because you don't give them their due and have an obvious bias to fast bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Murali is a relative failure in India (averaging 40) and Pontingesque in Australia (averaging over 100) - the latter being far more damning than anything Warne did or didnt achieve against India

However, a likely career total of 1000 test wickets demands that he be considered for the title of World's Best Ever Bowler

Same with Warne

As for Malcolm Marshall and others, the point is that anyone can make an argument to suit a certain point of view.

For example, rather than those guys being so good, I could counter that the batting of the 80s was pretty poor overall (have a look at some of the lineups produced by Australia as an example), potentially the best team in the world during this period (SA) was banned, and conditions favoured the fast bowlers far more than they do today

The point is that there is a difference between having played in certain advantageous conditions (which is not even true in the cases of Marshall and Imran, who succeeded against strong batting lineups in batting friendly conditions in India and Pakistan) and having failed (which Warne has by his lack of success against India and getting pasted by good players of spin time and again). Just because most bowlers have shortcomings doesn't mean they are all the same, nor should spinners be given special treatment.

Warne's record is simply not that amazingly impressive and his failures are too glaring for him to be a top contender as the greatest ever. The same may well apply to Murali as well.

 

[honestbharani]

Which is why he was picked as a Cricketer Of The 20th Century, in fact. Despite the fact he's not even indisputably the best wristspinner ever, and despite the fact it'd be very easy to argue he's not even in the top 10, never mind top 2 or 3, bowlers.

There are a lot of things that can be argued easily, Richard... Doesn't make them necessarily true.

 

[honestbharani]

Completely understand why he was selected as the five cricketers of the century (criteria wasn't necessarily the best - it was influence).

Would he be on my top ten bowlers all time? Nope. But he still is probably the greatest leg spinner of all time, and would make my all time side (as sometimes you need a spinner, and he is about as good as you get). Unlike a fast bowler, no spinner has really had a fantastic record everywhere. It just comes with bowling spin.

Warne was sometimes quite ineffective against India, and he had a couple other downturns which were probably anomalies, but on the whole, he still beats out pretty much every other spinner, because all the rest of them have a lot more blotches on their cricketing record. Steroids or not, he still showed up in all the big games, and has an excellent cricketing brain, so he would make my all time XI if I decide to put a spinner in there.

In the modern era, his obvious rival is Murali but he played on less helpful pitches, plus he is also largely ineffective against India, just like Warne. And he is also ineffective vs. Australia, just like Warne (Warne averages 35 in the Aussie domestic scene, but Murali wasn't that effective even in SL against Australia, while I'd back Warne to be more effective in SL vs. Australians - but obviously that's just conjecture). Plus, a personal preference of Warne being more beautiful to look at while being at least as effective, and the additional skills you'd get in the batting department means he comes out ahead.

At the risk of starting this age old debate again..... Define "less helpful".......

 

[social]

The point is that there is a difference between having played in certain advantageous conditions (which is not even true in the cases of Marshall and Imran, who succeeded against strong batting lineups in batting friendly conditions in India and Pakistan) and having failed (which Warne has by his lack of success against India and getting pasted by good players of spin time and again). Just because most bowlers have shortcomings doesn't mean they are all the same, nor should spinners be given special treatment.

Warne's record is simply not that amazingly impressive and his failures are too glaring for him to be a top contender as the greatest ever. The same may well apply to Murali as well.

Number of great fast bowlers - heaps

Number of great legspinners - less than 5 and the one before Warne died of old age in the same year as Warne made his test debut

That should tell you:

a. how hard it is to bowl; and

b. why he is regarded as so special

 

[honestbharani]

Have you ever been coached by him mate, or been to clinics where he's been?
For all the bad things you hear about Warne, I've heard he's pretty generous with his time. Example - some punters went on the last WI tour, and after a game the team all went into the sheds - the Aussies on tour (bare in mind they've come from the other side of the world to support the boys) apparently got brushed by the team who all just walked straight past them, except one fella - Warne, who stood there, signed everything, had photos taken and had a chat for the better part of 30 minutes.
Not sure is it was a female tour group, but it's still a good thing to do.
I went to a lunch after the 99 WC whent he side came back into Sydney, and at that function Warne, being Warne, was the centre of all attention. He handled himself brilliantly - tolerated the stupid, thanked the hosts, the fans, answered a lot of questions. I guess when I hear him criticised (mostly justified it has to be said) I remember those things, which redeem him in my eyes a fair bit.

you can read up some of my posts on him in my tribute thread to Shane Warne... He is easily the best cricketer I have met in terms of approachability.

 

[Richard]

And SS, its hard to take you seriously when you discuss spinners because you don't give them their due and have an obvious bias to fast bowlers.

I'd call it "common sense" rather than "obvious bias to seam-bowlers". I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that, since covered wickets, the best spinners are worthy of compare to the best seamers. Outstanding seamers > outstanding spinners, and good seamers > good spinners. Simple as that IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Number of great fast bowlers - heaps

Number of great legspinners - less than 5 and the one before Warne died of old age in the same year as Warne made his test debut

That should tell you:

a. how hard it is to bowl; and

b. why he is regarded as so special

Indeed... You can say the same about bowling offspin through a wrist spinners' action and adding in the doosra. Look at how hard it is... Saqlain has totally gone off the boil, Harbhajan hasn't turned his offie in God knows how long, and the others are nowhere to be seen. Spin bowling is treated way too easily here. Go to the nets and try to land a few at the same spot with varying degrees of turn, length and speed. You don't have to even bowl it, just stand there and try to put the ball there.... This is what I used to tell kids from my old school, who thought spin bowling was just running up and throwing it up to the batter for a few overs while the pacers were resting. This attitude could cost us quite a few spinners, this and the fact that they are bringing in boundaries everywhere and bats are becoming powerful and more powerful (I mean, did Afridi even time one shot of his yesterday???)... Way to destroy the spinner.....

 

[honestbharani]

I'd call it "common sense" rather than "obvious bias to seam-bowlers". I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that, since covered wickets, the best spinners are worthy of compare to the best seamers. Outstanding seamers > outstanding spinners, and good seamers > good spinners. Simple as that IMO.

Spinners != Seamers.......




Simple as that, IMO.

 

[bond21]

how the hell do you bowl an off spin through a leg spin action? You mean the wrong un???

 

[honestbharani]

how the hell do you bowl an off spin through a leg spin action? You mean the wrong un???

I said wrist spinners' action. Most offies tend to have a finger spinners' action. Murali was different.

 

[bond21]

leg spin = wrist spin

murali doesnt release from the back of the hand

 

[Top_Cat]

leg spin = wrist spin

murali doesnt release from the back of the hand

You use your wrist when bowling finger spin too, ya know. Guys who don't simply don't turn the ball at all.

 

[Richard]

Spinners != Seamers.......




Simple as that, IMO.

That's true, obviously. But I'd say if spin ceased to be bowled, cricket would live on, whilst the same thing would categorically not be true of seam.

Seam |= spin, sure. But equally, seam >>> spin.

 

[Richard]

leg spin = wrist spin

No, leg-spin = a stock-ball that turns away from the right-handed batsman.

Wrist-spin = spin which uses the wrists more than the fingers. Finger-spin = spin which uses the wrists very little and gets almost all spin from the fingers.

You'd have to be pretty clueless to think Murali doesn't get most of his spin from the wrist.

Legspin\offspin and fingerspin\wristspin are not remotely connected. It just so happens that wristspin is the general technique used for legspin and fingerspin the general used for offspin. There's no reason at all that it can't be the other way around, though obviously it's much harder to bowl legspin using fingerspin, and very difficult indeed to bowl offspin using wristspin.

 

[weldone]

Indeed... You can say the same about bowling offspin through a wrist spinners' action and adding in the doosra. Look at how hard it is... Saqlain has totally gone off the boil, Harbhajan hasn't turned his offie in God knows how long, and the others are nowhere to be seen. Spin bowling is treated way too easily here. Go to the nets and try to land a few at the same spot with varying degrees of turn, length and speed. You don't have to even bowl it, just stand there and try to put the ball there.... This is what I used to tell kids from my old school, who thought spin bowling was just running up and throwing it up to the batter for a few overs while the pacers were resting. This attitude could cost us quite a few spinners, this and the fact that they are bringing in boundaries everywhere and bats are becoming powerful and more powerful (I mean, did Afridi even time one shot of his yesterday???)... Way to destroy the spinner.....

Agreed...But the whole point is if something is more difficult that doesn't necessarily mean it's better...Hitting the ball outside the stadium (of course when the stadium is of decent size) for a six is difficult...very few batsmen have done that... That doesn't mean you have to do it in order to be considered a great batsman...