Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's not what I meant at all. There might have been other top-class wrist-spinners, inspirational leaders, talismanic figures and massive wicket-takers with phenomenal longevity. There were plenty of players who sledged to great effect, who implemented plans to pinpoint specific weaknesses in a batsman (or, just as often, to get into their head), or could use going around the wicket to the right-hander as an attacking option, who had a knack of making something happen, who had a great sense of humour, who were great characters, who attracted thousands of people to the game by their own hand, who continually courted controversy, who made every game of cricket they played in infinitely more exciting, who ended up being just as loved by their greatest enemies as they were by their own fans, who somehow managed to come across as a bit of an asshole yet very likeable at the same time. But I'm pretty sure Warne's the only one who was all of those things.
Gideon Haigh said there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. It's difficult, but that's the best explanation I can give for what he meant. It doesn't mean Warne was a better cricketer than Bradman. I don't believe anyone thinks that. But when people talk about who they consider the great cricketers to be, that's not necessarily what they mean.
