• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
A
Reaction score
0

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I want to tell you about a game i play called E-Sim. It's a free to play browser based strategy game. It is web text based game that can be played on, every pc, smartphone etc.
    :
    Be a bussinessman, become Party Leader, Congressman, President or Militia Leader, be Journalist, be a rebel

    India is occupied by Iran and we need new players to help fight off the invaders and defend our home land. Together we can hold of the Iran waves of assault. Iran has insulted our

    traditions.Time to demand them to pay back their faults

    Newbies Guide: Tutorial for new players

    our channel: - If you need help, join to US chat channel.
    India channel
    add the nick you want and click "go"

    contact us

    vivek, soumo1989, Kate2,siddesh,


    Join this game :

    Help India! Jay Hind! xx
    As a heads up, I will read your reply but won't respond. This discussion has been done to death in threads dedicated to it alone, let alone us rehashing it all here. I think we're set in our positions.
    You're ignoring the fact that they didn't know how serious it was till they came home after the ODIs. The guy was repeatedly injured throughout 98-02 - none of this is controversial, it is just fact. He didn't only have one injury either; he had several, and to his finger and shoulder (both career-ending injuries for a spinner).

    It's not that Warne could do no wrong. But you are talking about a bowler who was/is widely considered the greatest of all time. His performances against India fly in the face of his performance against similar teams like SL - who also destroyed spinners at home. It's unfortunate that almost all his series against India came in that period. He would have undoubtedly done better. How much better is conjecture but averaging 47? Please. There were far worse spinners who did much better against India. Next you'll be telling me Ashley Giles was unplayable.
    "Again, I think its an insult to to the Indian batsmen to say he was injured almost every time he played them"

    How is it an insult? It is a statement of fact. He was never fully fit against them apart from his debut series. Even in 04 he injured his finger again.
    They didn't have the arthroscopic surgery till he went home, so again, they didn't knw the extent of his problems till they opened him up. I think it was in May that he actually had surgery.

    Whether you think the Indians would have still played him well is conjecture (although it is well founded as they were awesome players of spin) but what is indisputable IMO is that Warne wasn't really near 100% and more to the point that Warne never faced India at his prime without being injured until 04.

    It's you wishing to believe they'd still have handed him vs me wishing that he'd have done well enough to hold his own - I don't say he would have dominanted them like SL batsmen because that is a bridge too far. No matter how good they were, they werent that much better than batsmen in SL at playing spin and, again, I think his record against India is a disservice to him.

    Anyway, it was nice talking to you. ;)
    Cricket: Shoulder injury forces Warne out of Sharjah - Sport - The Independent

    According to this, it was only after this injury that they actually opened him up. They knew he had wear and tear on his shoulder, but as it later turns out they didn't realise the extent. Prior to the above episode they thought he'd be out 3-4 months max, when the question turned to whether he was ever going to bowl again.
    He was diagnosed for what before the tour? As Benaud paints it, they had no idea what the injury was like till after the tour. If they had diagnosed him for anything before the tour, they ****ed it because after the tour they were surprised how bad his shoulder was.

    As for the strength of the Indian line-up; again, I think mid 30s average, mid 60s SR would be a better reflection of Warne at his prime. And no, the Indian prowess for playing spin is statistically very little to differentiate between the SL players of spin. Actually, statistically the best is Australia but I wouldn't say they were better than India.
    It did bother him but he hadn't been diagnosed so he probably didn't know the extent of it. In 02 he still tried to play, and did, but was forced out again for the last 2 tests.

    One wonders how bad it was bothering him and how much he let on but, from a medical standpoint, as Benaud explains, he should not have been bowling at all. Being in pain aside, he shouldn't even been able to bowl properly. It was a wonder how he got through it at all.

    In general, I'd say the Indians were always going to play him well but injury hurt his record much more than it would be otherwise IMO. I don't think he'd be averaging in the 40s against them...not at all. For as good as Indians were, Sri Lankans were only negligibly worse and look how he routed them. I think the best indication of how Warne would have done against the Indians without all these problems was in 04. Not dominant, but not completely dominated.
    Warne Put Under For A Stretch

    According to the above, he had surgery first in May and then again on it in August.
    Obviously he didn't recover mate because he needed surgery after it. I am just telling you what Benaud says and he said after that his trip to India in 98 they opened his shoulder up and they said he should not have been playing cricket in that condition. If I can find an excerpt of that video I'll post it for you.
    WC was a year after the series in India , not that relevant.

    If warne returned with serious injury problems after the tour to India in 98, why would he go back only just ~ 10 days later and play the full tri-series ( Ind-Aus-NZ ) ?
    When I said after the series I meant when he came back from India. The interview with Benaud is on his DVD when he was selecting his best ever XI IIRC where he discusses this story. I am not sure exactly when it was but it was after the Indian series - obviously had to be after those ODIs (of which he did poorly as well in, even against Zimbabwe). Benaud said they opened up his shoulder and it was being held together by something 'like a string'. It's known that Warne struggled throughout the tour but he bowled on. I mean, it required surgery. If you think that's an excuse then I am not sure what to tell you. He had dislocation problems with it for years - almost infamously missed out on the WC because of it.
    LOL, yeah, warne's injuries were so bad that immediately after the test series in India in 98, he went and played the ODI tri-series ( Ind,Aus,NZ) in Sharjah ... Just excuses after excuses ....

    I didn't follow the NZ series in 2001 much, but that was a weird series with all 3 test being draws and both warne,mcgrath being taken to the cleaners. Not sure what exactly happened there ....But the fact that he lasted 2 full series : IndAus 2001 and Ashes 2001 averaging just 18 tell us enough , he also played the ODI series in India in 2001. He only played 2 ODIs in the Natwest series in 2001 after the Ashes, so probably the injury was after the test series or it bothered him only after that
    Not really; with Warne and Murali it IS a difference of opportunity. One plays in a far weaker side and gets to bowl much more. The same can't be said between pacers and spinners because it is a question of ABILITY. Pacers can't bowl that much and stay affective. That is why spinners like Murali and Warne are so lauded. Both have been considered the greatest bowler of all time.

    McGrath was a fantastic bowler but was in his shadows because Warne, more often than not, made the telling contribution. He may have had worse figures but he'd have taken the batsman causing us most trouble; getting 2-3 very quick wickets and for that he would regularly overshadow McGrath. An awesome feat in itself.
    Those pacers are up there with him, sure. But they are naturally advantaged due to some of the points I brought up earlier. As I say, it's because he is a spinner and achieved all that, that he is special. As a bowler he does have peers, sure.

    As for polls; ask people who they consider the best bowler ever to be. We already had a top 50 and Warne was the highest placed bowler. Cricinfo ran a huge poll for a world XI - only 2 other players got a vote by every person (Sobers and Bradman). Warne was considered the 5th greatest cricketer of all time back in 2000 - let alone what they'd think of him now.

    I really don't care about opinions of who is more "complete". It is a factual argument, not a popularity contest.
    Please stop with that tripe about how Ponting has only been good for 4 years of a 16+ years career. I already showed you how he has as many good years as Lara has. It's ridiculous and you lose credibility with it.

    To your point why Warne is rated so highly: because outside of his magnificent stats for a legspinner, he was arguably the greatest match winner in history. He was especially awesome when the game was on the line. It's a testament to him that despite how awesome McGrath was; he was always in the shadow of Warne. What more; McGrath himself considers Warne the greatest bowler of all time.
    Well, that's the whole problem with Warne. He'd heal and have recurring injuries. He had to learn to bowl all over again in that period. Benaud recalls that the first time they opened him up (right after the 98 series) they were surprised he could move his shoulder, let alone bowl. His finger injuries were so bad he could no longer bowl his best balls properly - notice how from about 99 beyond Warne pretty much solely relies on his stock leg break?

    His big problem was consistency. Consistency of length and line, especially. Warne later revealed that he basically had to learn how to bowl all over again. It was right after the 01 Eng series that people thought Warne had turned a corner but the series right after against NZ he averaged 72 and was all over the place.

    Certainly a bit more serious than the Tennis elbow ;).
    The only blot over RP's career has been his record in India. Even as youth he did well against great attacks. As good as Sachin is, he's not as complete as Ricky IMO. And as good as Ricky is, he is not as complete as Chappell who is a better batsman than both IMO. And please, as much as I argue Ricky's case I am not his fanboy. He just deserves a ****load more respect than he gets. He has no danger of being overrated to the point of being compared or claimed to be better than Bradman.

    You can't compare a spinner who bowls more, to more settled batsman, later on when the ball has lost it's shine to all-time pacers who bowl less, to more unsettled batsmen, when the ball still has its shine for speed and bounce. That's why spinners like Warne and Murali are special. They can do the job of two bowlers if need be. You wouldn't think this needs explaining.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top