Allan Donald vs Joel Garner

[Burgey]

Surprised how many ODIs they played vs SA back in that era cf everyone else.

 

[sunilz]

Does that explain the flogging he received in ODI game in the hands of Indians, even ones like Ajay Jadeja and Robin Singh?

View attachment 29862

Wait for another 500 words response.
And my response to that will be OK again. ?

 

[Burgey]

Ok

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

McGrath simultaneously the best and the worst. Schrodinger's fast bowler, if you will.

The real Schrödinger's fast bowlers are Lillee and Akram.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, how do you explain ODI record? Even in Warne's ATG 1999 world cup, he got some good spanking from India's lower order (top order was cleaned up by McGrath)

If Australia never had McGrath, Warne's Sc performances would have become nightmarish.

 

[stephen]

Yeah, how do you explain ODI record? Even in Warne's ATG 1999 world cup, he got some good spanking from India's lower order (top order was cleaned up by McGrath)

Well it's not like he had a good world cup, with the exception of the last two games. He also went at over 6 RPO against Zimbabwe the game after that India game.

 

[subshakerz]

It's really not misleading at all. Taking wickets against England in England is far less physically demanding than taking wickets in Australia. And you'd hardly say that taking wickets at an average of 27 against NZ is particularly flattering, given their lineup at the time. And like I said, a year later he averaged 70 against NZ. He was clearly way below his best during this period as evidenced by his average during this period being way higher than his average outside this period even if we exclude the three series he played against India.



Nah mate, his shoulder was basically completely rooted at this point. You can clearly see in this video he just wasn't landing them - accuracy all over the place and nowhere near the energy in the ball that you normally saw in early era Warne:

Compare his bowling there to:

How exactly is taking wickets in Australia more physically demanding than England, and therefore means his record against India shouldnt count?

I mean, at what point can we just say Warne was in poor form?

Also you are comparing clips of Warne towards the end of a 35 over spell with a highlights reels against a spastic Pakistani lineup?

 

[stephen]

How exactly is taking wickets in Australia more physically demanding than England, and therefore means his record against India shouldnt count?

I mean, at what point can we just say Warne was in poor form?

Also you are comparing clips of Warne towards the end of a 35 over spell with a highlights reels against a spastic Pakistani lineup?

Australia is by far the worst country in the world in which to bowl spin. England, for a SENA country is actually pretty good for spin. And the Indian batting was far better against spin than the English as well.

As for your second point, Warne was noticeably worse in 1998 as his shoulder started to play up. I remember Benaud talking about how damaged it was when the doctors cut it open.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia is by far the worst country in the world in which to bowl spin. England, for a SENA country is actually pretty good for spin. And the Indian batting was far better against spin than the English as well.

As for your second point, Warne was noticeably worse in 1998 as his shoulder started to play up. I remember Benaud talking about how damaged it was when the doctors cut it open.

When Tendulkar had his tennis elbow injury and went through a loss of form from 2004 to 2006, we still consider those performances representative of Tendulkar, no?

 

[Slifer]

My 2 cents. My take on Warne vs India is that they simply owned him. The idea that he was not at 100% whenever he faced them imo is not particularly valid. And here is why. Versus every other team in world cricket , Warne had at least one outstanding performance series wise. Against India, though his best was passable at the most. But that's nothing to be ashamed of. Almost all greats have that one bogey team.

 

[honestbharani]

Almost all greats have that one bogey team.

*one broken fingernail series.

 

[subshakerz]

My 2 cents. My take on Warne vs India is that they simply owned him. The idea that he was not at 100% whenever he faced them imo is not particularly valid. And here is why. Versus every other team in world cricket , Warne had at least one outstanding performance series wise. Against India, though his best was passable at the most. But that's nothing to be ashamed of. Almost all greats have that one bogey team.

I agree. I think injuries did maybe hamper his performances somewhat but that is part of the game and he would have likely ended up with poor figures against India anyways. The idea that these performances dont count is something I dont buy.

 

[Immenso]

The most difficult thread in cricket web history to dip in and out of and be able to understand even 1 out of 10 posts?

 

[stephen]

My 2 cents. My take on Warne vs India is that they simply owned him. The idea that he was not at 100% whenever he faced them imo is not particularly valid. And here is why. Versus every other team in world cricket , Warne had at least one outstanding performance series wise. Against India, though his best was passable at the most. But that's nothing to be ashamed of. Almost all greats have that one bogey team.

That's fine. I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously the Indian batting was the greatest challenge of Warne's career. However, 4 out of the 5 test series he played against them were at times when he was nowhere near his best. Perhaps his best against them was a 30 average. However, I don't think it's fair at all to think his overall record against them is indicative of anything except timing.

I remember discussing Warne with mates in 2002 and we were convinced his shoulder surgery had turned him from the GOAT to patchy bowler at best. It really wasn't until his sustained run of form after his drug ban that he was performing near his best (and he really was a better bowler in the early period while being smarter in the later period).

Yes, Tendulkar's slump wasn't indicative of his entire career. But then he didn't play the majority of his cricket against England (for example) in that window of time.

 

[subshakerz]

That's fine. I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously the Indian batting was the greatest challenge of Warne's career. However, 4 out of the 5 test series he played against them were at times when he was nowhere near his best. Perhaps his best against them was a 30 average. However, I don't think it's fair at all to think his overall record against them is indicative of anything except timing.

I remember discussing Warne with mates in 2002 and we were convinced his shoulder surgery had turned him from the GOAT to patchy bowler at best. It really wasn't until his sustained run of form after his drug ban that he was performing near his best (and he really was a better bowler in the early period while being smarter in the later period).

Yes, Tendulkar's slump wasn't indicative of his entire career. But then he didn't play the majority of his cricket against England (for example) in that window of time.

Do we judge cricketers only by the best phases of their career though? Maybe it was bad luck that his series against India coincided with bad form in his career but that is just part of the game.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Australia is by far the worst country in the world in which to bowl spin. England, for a SENA country is actually pretty good for spin. And the Indian batting was far better against spin than the English as well.

As for your second point, Warne was noticeably worse in 1998 as his shoulder started to play up. I remember Benaud talking about how damaged it was when the doctors cut it open.

Noted surgeon Richie Benaud

 

[_00_deathscar]

That's fine. I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously the Indian batting was the greatest challenge of Warne's career. However, 4 out of the 5 test series he played against them were at times when he was nowhere near his best. Perhaps his best against them was a 30 average. However, I don't think it's fair at all to think his overall record against them is indicative of anything except timing.

I remember discussing Warne with mates in 2002 and we were convinced his shoulder surgery had turned him from the GOAT to patchy bowler at best. It really wasn't until his sustained run of form after his drug ban that he was performing near his best (and he really was a better bowler in the early period while being smarter in the later period).

Yes, Tendulkar's slump wasn't indicative of his entire career. But then he didn't play the majority of his cricket against England (for example) in that window of time.

But that doesn’t answer why Warne was bitchslapped by practically every Indian even in ODIs…I’m assuming the majority of which he didn’t play in a specific period of time which coincided with broken toenails.

 

[Burgey]

a spastic Pakistani lineup?

well this is new

 

[Burgey]

When Tendulkar had his tennis elbow injury and went through a loss of form from 2004 to 2006, we still consider those performances representative of Tendulkar, no?

No, his performances during that period are often qualified by his having that injury tbf

 

[Burgey]

The most difficult thread in cricket web history to dip in and out of and be able to understand even 1 out of 10 posts?

Fairly common when subshakerz and deathscar get involved in a discussion tbf.