Could Nathan Lyon break Shane Warne's wicket tally?

[Red]

Not gonna happen, guys. He'll be lucky to get to 400. Never underestimate Australia's hard on for quicks, Pattinson will get fit or the next fast bowling wunderkind will come along and Lyon will be the one to make way.

Disagree strongly. What we're actually starting to realise is just how good he is, both as a wicket-taker, and as a part of a four pronged attack. No way he is dropped in favour of a 4 man pace attack any more.

but he's not remotely in Warne's league in terms of quality and never will be.

You dont say!

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yet in your post you highlight the fact that all the players who have achieved longevity are spinners....

No. I specifically cited those spinners because of the topic. Even amongst spinners they're ridiculously rare.

 

[Red]

No. I specifically cited those spinners because of the topic. Even amongst spinners they're ridiculously rare.

As I've said, it's probably absurd, but it is conceivable.

Barring injury, Lyon is gonna take 500+ wickets

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Mujeeb Zadran and Rashid Khan stands a better chance of surpassing Shaynee than the GOAT.

 

[Gob]

He would have already passed Warne had Matt Wade not kept for him

 

[Zinzan]

No.

The more realistic question is will he finish up as one of Australia's top 5 spinners of all time?

ATM I'd say he's just outside the top 5 with Warne, Grimmett, O'Reilly, MacGill & Benaud all ahead of him. That said, his SR of 60 is pretty good for a spinner, so that's something to consider.

 

[Gnske]

Sure, he can play til he's 40 if he wants. He's been that injury-free.

It's sort of strange knowing Nathan Lyon is destined to be a 100 test player. Fortunately, no one will be able to claim that he'll be the worst to achieve 100 tests for very long since Ishant is destined to walk the same path of immortality.

 

[Starfighter]

Not gonna happen, guys. He'll be lucky to get to 400. Never underestimate Australia's hard on for quicks, Pattinson will get fit or the next fast bowling wunderkind will come along and Lyon will be the one to make way.

Also, he's a good bowler and in decent form right now, but he's not remotely in Warne's league in terms of quality and never will be.

Hahahahaha. That'll be the day.

Australia have already dropped him several times after he didn't perform for about five minutes. If an exciting young leg spinner comes around in the next few years it'll only take a brief dip in form for him to be unceremoniously booted.

Definitely what concerns me most about our spin selection. The idea that leg spinners have some magical quality even if they have no control whatsoever. At least we got it right in Bangladesh and didn't play Swepson.

Sure, he can play til he's 40 if he wants. He's been that injury-free.

It's sort of strange knowing Nathan Lyon is destined to be a 100 test player. Fortunately, no one will be able to claim that he'll be the worst to achieve 100 tests for very long since Ishant is destined to walk the same path of immortality.

I really, really do look forward to Ishant's 100th test. Only 21 to go. The reaction on here will be hysterical.

 

[Adders]

He would have already passed Warne had Matt Wade not kept for him

Quality post.

 

[Gnske]

Hahahahaha. That'll be the day.


Definitely what concerns me most about our spin selection. The idea that leg spinners have some magical quality even if they have no control whatsoever. At least we got it right in Bangladesh and didn't play Swepson.


I really, really do look forward to Ishant's 100th test. Only 21 to go. The reaction on here will be hysterical.

Actually he'll probably get there before Lyon too if India's schedule remains as overloaded.

 

[Daemon]

Who's the worst to 100 tests right now? Bell? Hooper?

 

[morgieb]

Who's the worst to 100 tests right now? Bell? Hooper?

Stats say Atherton but I feel like his career had more substance than Bell’s.

EDIT: Harbhajan, Gayle and Strauss worth considering too.

 

[GIMH]

Stats say Atherton but I feel like his career had more substance than Bell’s.

EDIT: Harbhajan, Gayle and Strauss worth considering too.

Don’t think any of those three in the edit belong in the discussion. Strauss was a better opener than Atherton and a better captain too.

Always found it a bit of a high bar discussion anyway.

 

[Red]

Hooper, Atherton and Vaas are IMO the "worst" to play 100. But they're pretty handy cricketers all the same.

Any cricketer who has played 100+ matches would walk into almost any test side ever.

 

[Dan]

Vaas is a ****ing hero. Go sit in a corner and think about what you've just said.

For shame.

 

[Dan]

re the thread question, well, yeah, it's theoretically possible. But it's hard to imagine Lyon performing at that same level for that long (at least without rough periods that will pull him right back). Plus the whole issue of a younger, better spinner showing up meaning Lyon fades out in his mid-30s having done little wrong.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah Vaas was gun, but a bit like Anderson in that he relied on certain conditions. He had quite a poor record in England, SA and Australia, but considering the sort of wickets SL used to play on at home, his record there was really good.

 

[morgieb]

Don’t think any of those three in the edit belong in the discussion. Strauss was a better opener than Atherton and a better captain too.

Always found it a bit of a high bar discussion anyway.

Yeah I remember making a thread called “worst player to make 50 Tests” in response to a worst player to play 100 ODI’s and was absolutely slammed for it, I’ve never really been a fan of the question as the cricketers in question were at least at some point in their careers high-quality Test cricketers.

WRT Strauss/Atherton, I think Strauss had better peaks but Atherton was a Test quality batsman for longer. Captaincy probably swings it though, but Strauss also lead better teams.

 

[Gnske]

Yeah I remember making a thread called “worst player to make 50 Tests” in response to a worst player to play 100 ODI’s and was absolutely slammed for it, I’ve never really been a fan of the question as the cricketers in question were at least at some point in their careers high-quality Test cricketers.

Thank the goodness of god in that case that Guptill was stopped short of the big 50.

 

[Red]

Vaas is a ****ing hero. Go sit in a corner and think about what you've just said.

For shame.

As I said, they're all pretty good cricketers. Who would you pick as the worst three to play 100+ tests?

Guess Vettori might nudge in there?