Should Shane Warne make a comeback???

[social]

One of the best spells of spin bowling I've seen in the last few years was bowled by Warne earlier this year at Lords in some dodgy T20 match

The guy had just come straight off a private jet from Vegas where he'd been playing in a Poker tourney and he left straight after the game yet his genius was there for all to behold

He could step straight back into the Ashes and make an impact but it wouldnt do him or cricket any good whatsoever IMO

 

[tooextracool]

not applicable here.... australia going through a bad patch now is part of a team going through transition... bringing warne back to the team when no one knows how good he is as a cricketer these days will be a regressive step...it is not like all the quality players have left the team to play for someone like packer and they had to bring back bob simpson for a series or two....

Sorry mate, but this is BS. You have a Dad's army of a team at the moment with half of the batting lineup over 35 with no long term future. Katich, Hussey, Ponting and North will all be out of the side within the next year. To argue that Warne is a regressive step and then have these guys in the side is hypocritical to be honest.

The bottom line is that at this moment, you aren't picking a team for the future. You are picking a team to win the Ashes. If you can convince me that the random Joe Blow spinner that you pick for the next 3 tests is better than Warne even with the long layoff that Warne has undergone then fine I'll agree with you. But if you are going to continue to pick players with no long term future like D. Hussey and Clark as most people on this forum seem to be suggesting then you would think him playing makes complete sense.

 

[smash84]

Sorry mate, but this is BS. You have a Dad's army of a team at the moment with half of the batting lineup over 35 with no long term future. Katich, Hussey, Ponting and North will all be out of the side within the next year. To argue that Warne is a regressive step and then have these guys in the side is hypocritical to be honest.

The bottom line is that at this moment, you aren't picking a team for the future. You are picking a team to win the Ashes. If you can convince me that the random Joe Blow spinner that you pick for the next 3 tests is better than Warne even with the long layoff that Warne has undergone then fine I'll agree with you. But if you are going to continue to pick players with no long term future like D. Hussey and Clark as most people on this forum seem to be suggesting then you would think him playing makes complete sense.

Well said

 

[social]

Sorry mate, but this is BS. You have a Dad's army of a team at the moment with half of the batting lineup over 35 with no long term future. Katich, Hussey, Ponting and North will all be out of the side within the next year. To argue that Warne is a regressive step and then have these guys in the side is hypocritical to be honest.

The bottom line is that at this moment, you aren't picking a team for the future. You are picking a team to win the Ashes. If you can convince me that the random Joe Blow spinner that you pick for the next 3 tests is better than Warne even with the long layoff that Warne has undergone then fine I'll agree with you. But if you are going to continue to pick players with no long term future like D. Hussey and Clark as most people on this forum seem to be suggesting then you would think him playing makes complete sense.

We havent picked Dussey, Rogers or Clark so far and there is absolutely no suggestion that we will

Everything points towards us picking 2 * 21 year olds plus reserve batsman of the same age and if Starc were available, he'd be in too

It appears as though we've finally woken up

 

[vcs]

Sorry mate, but this is BS. You have a Dad's army of a team at the moment with half of the batting lineup over 35 with no long term future. Katich, Hussey, Ponting and North will all be out of the side within the next year. To argue that Warne is a regressive step and then have these guys in the side is hypocritical to be honest.

The bottom line is that at this moment, you aren't picking a team for the future. You are picking a team to win the Ashes. If you can convince me that the random Joe Blow spinner that you pick for the next 3 tests is better than Warne even with the long layoff that Warne has undergone then fine I'll agree with you. But if you are going to continue to pick players with no long term future like D. Hussey and Clark as most people on this forum seem to be suggesting then you would think him playing makes complete sense.

Ponting will be around for atleast two more years. He'll play one more Ashes series in England.

The issue with Warne is not whether he has forgotten his mastery over his art but handling the long workloads in a Test match. Expecting him to come in cold and bowl 30 overs in an innings is lunacy.

 

[social]

Ponting will be around for atleast two more years. He'll play one more Ashes series in England.

The issue with Warne is not whether he has forgotten his mastery over his art but handling the long workloads in a Test match. Expecting him to come in cold and bowl 30 overs in an innings is lunacy.

Warne will not play again in tests

 

[Blaze 18]

Ponting will be around for atleast two more years. He'll play one more Ashes series in England.

In my opinion, Ricky Ponting's future hinges on the result of this series.

The issue with Warne is not whether he has forgotten his mastery over his art but handling the long workloads in a Test match. Expecting him to come in cold and bowl 30 overs in an innings is lunacy.

Agreed.

 

[GotSpin]

You don't have to pick a spinner though, do you ? Like I mentioned in one of the Ashes threads, Australia will be better off with four fast bowlers.

You're missing the point. Since his departure the selectors have felt obligated to pick a spinner every test, going from one to the next. Of course we'd better off with four fast bowlers, but that hasn't been done for years and the current selectors don't really like changes. So if we have to pick a spinner, Warne would still be far and away the best option

 

[tooextracool]

Ponting will be around for atleast two more years. He'll play one more Ashes series in England..

You speak as though Ponting gets to retire on his own terms. As long as Australia continue losing, the odds him getting pushed/forced out of the side improve.Someone will be made scapegoat and unless hes averaging 50+, he will be one of them.

The issue with Warne is not whether he has forgotten his mastery over his art but handling the long workloads in a Test match. Expecting him to come in cold and bowl 30 overs in an innings is lunacy.

You are right. Though it has been done before, one Bob Taylor has come in and kept wicket at 41 having not played any form of cricket in 2 years. Keeping arguably requires even greater fitness, so its not impossible. Honestly, Warne himself would know best as to whether or not he would be capable of getting through a test match.

 

[Furball]

You're missing the point. Since his departure the selectors have felt obligated to pick a spinner every test, going from one to the next. Of course we'd better off with four fast bowlers, but that hasn't been done for years and the current selectors don't really like changes. So if we have to pick a spinner, Warne would still be far and away the best option

3rd Test: Australia v India at Perth, Jan 16-19, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 20-23, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Probably why they don't fancy playing 4 quicks tbh.

 

[GotSpin]

3rd Test: Australia v India at Perth, Jan 16-19, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 20-23, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Probably why they don't fancy playing 4 quicks tbh.

Those losses were more down to the batting IMO

 

[tooextracool]

Playing 4 quicks is fine but it depends on the surface. Playing 4 quicks at Perth is okay but at Adelaide and Sydney they need to pick a twirler IMO. You can only pick 4 quicks at these grounds if they are all quality bowlers which is hardly the case.

 

[pasag]

Playing 4 quicks is fine but it depends on the surface. Playing 4 quicks at Perth is okay but at Adelaide and Sydney they need to pick a twirler IMO. You can only pick 4 quicks at these grounds if they are all quality bowlers which is hardly the case.

Perth is just as dead as everywhere else these days.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The Australian pitches are just too flat..All that talk about Perth being the fastest pitch and all that is now rubbish.. It will be a huge gamble to play 4 quicks.

Hauritz is bowling well, they have to pick him now.

 

[andyc]

The Australian pitches are just too flat..All that talk about Perth being the fastest pitch and all that is now rubbish.. It will be a huge gamble to play 4 quicks.

Hauritz is bowling well, they have to pick him now.

Clearly expecting logic from the selectors is expecting too much.

 

[honestbharani]

Looks like they will have Smith at 6 and play Mitch, Moobs, Hilf and Harris.. Guess that is a better combination than what they have been trying all this while, though I am still not sure Smith is the best bet at 6.

 

[stumpski]

Have there ever been instances where picking a guy who hasn't even played First Class cricket for over 2 years have worked out?

Thought someone would have mentioned Bob Simpson by now, tbh. He was out of cricket for a whopping ten years when he answered the SOS to lead Australia in 1977-78. Played ten Tests in six months, but IIRC was struggling by the end of the Windies tour.

Ted Dexter came back after three years out of the game and played for England in 1968, but he at least had a couple of games for Sussex beforehand. If Warne had been serious about playing in this series he should at least have had a Shield game under his belt.

 

[Prince EWS]

Should bring back Simpson again IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Shane Warne is not even close to being "in the same shape as three years ago".

Looks slimmer, actually. Said himself on one of his commentary stints that physically he's probably the fittest he's ever been.

"Match" fitness a lot harder to work on away from the game tho.

Thought someone would have mentioned Bob Simpson by now, tbh. He was out of cricket for a whopping ten years when he answered the SOS to lead Australia in 1977-78. Played ten Tests in six months, but IIRC was struggling by the end of the Windies tour.

Ted Dexter came back after three years out of the game and played for England in 1968, but he at least had a couple of games for Sussex beforehand. If Warne had been serious about playing in this series he should at least have had a Shield game under his belt.

In fairness to bagapath, someone had:

not applicable here.... australia going through a bad patch now is part of a team going through transition... bringing warne back to the team when no one knows how good he is as a cricketer these days will be a regressive step...it is not like all the quality players have left the team to play for someone like packer and they had to bring back bob simpson for a series or two...

if they dont have a quality spinner to paly in tests, they should play four pacers... warne can always be brought on as a coach so that youngsters learn the game from him.

 

[wpdavid]

You are right. Though it has been done before, one Bob Taylor has come in and kept wicket at 41 having not played any form of cricket in 2 years. Keeping arguably requires even greater fitness, so its not impossible. Honestly, Warne himself would know best as to whether or not he would be capable of getting through a test match.

Was Taylor's return in that game in 1986 when he took a break from hosting duties after England's keeper was injured? Didn't have to play for very long until a proper replacement was found IIRC.