Gary Kirstin slams Warne

[Francis]

http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Cricket/0,6119,2-9-839_1890455,00.html

Cape Town - Former Proteas opening batsman Gary Kirsten believes Australian legend Shane Warne will struggle in the upcoming Test series against South Africa now that Glenn McGrath has declared himself unavailable.

Veteran paceman McGrath has opted to remain in Australia with his cancer-stricken wife and is only expected to return to international cricket during the ICC Champions Trophy in November later this year.

Kirsten, who played 18 of his 101 Tests matches against Australia, claims Warne's record 659 Test wickets have been captured mainly because of the pressure created at the other end by the miserly McGrath.

"Our batsmen can play Warne out," Kirsten told the Melbourne Herald Sun.

"Previously McGrath has been at the other end and he is almost impossible to score off. Naturally batsmen have tried to go after Warne a bit because he is seen as easier to get away than McGrath.

"Not having McGrath will affect how Australia plays because he and Warne bowl so well together. Batsmen can now try to see out Warne and go after the bowler at the other end."

While Kirsten's comments are sure to annoy Warne, the Proteas should be wary of challenging the record-breaking leg-spinner.

Warne has bewildered the Proteas for more than a decade and boasts the brilliant tally of 46 wickets in nine Tests against the South Africans in their own backyard.

Meanwhile, McGrath's potential long term successor - Stuart Clarke - who is struggling to shake off an injury ahead of the second one-day international at Newlands on Friday believes he has the all right attributes to take the veteran's place in the current Australian bowling lineup.

"Brett (Lee) bowls extreme pace, Nathan's (Bracken) left-handed and hopefully I can do that Glenn McGrath-like job. It's worked well at times. We complement one another," Clark told the Sydney Morning Herald.

"[McGrath] has said to me that I can call him or contact him at any time, but I've stayed away from that at the moment because he's going through some family problems.

He'd always be there if I rang him and sent him a message. We live five minutes apart from each other and I'm always bumping into him in the street."

What an idiot! OK I'll be honest, it's just mind games. It seems the South Africans want to give as good as the Aussies have in the past. The Aussies are masters at sledging and they've really retaliated though the media. Smith especially has been antagonistic.

But yeah my theroy is that you can sledge if you want, but don't look stupid... try not to look stupid! Anybody who's seen Darrell Cullinan play Warne knows how hard SA find him.

 

[Francis]

I think this explains Gary's bad feelings...

http://forum.cricketweb.net/archive/index.php/t-10191

 

[Top_Cat]

I've personally seen enough of the (frequent) prodding defensive shots by nervous Saffies to know that Warnie doesn't only get wickets because they're going after him having failed to score off McGrath......... The above = stoopid.

 

[Dasa]

A lot of slamming going on these days.

 

[Langeveldt]

A lot of slamming going on these days.

Agreed, too much slamming as usual..

To be honest, I don't think Kirsten is trying to "slam" Warne, they are after all good mates off the field, but whats the point in saying stuff like the above? It just tempts fate

 

[Slifer]

I actually do see some truth in what Kirsten is saying (whatever his motives). I too believe that some of Warne's success is due in large part to the pressure exerted at the other end by Mcgrath. Im almost certain that Warnes record is considerably worst when Mcgrath is in the team versus when he is out. And this is not pertaining to his record against RSA but his record overall.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Im almost certain that Warnes record is considerably worst when Mcgrath is in the team versus when he is out. And this is not pertaining to his record against RSA but his record overall.

It is worse, but not by much.

I'd also wager that McGrath's average goes up when without Warne, too, but I'm not certain.

 

[Slifer]

I reckon so. I think the relationship between the 2 greats is muck like that of other great pairs from the past where both bowlers feed off each other. I do think however, Warne does feed a little more off the pressure exerted by Mcgrath than the reverse.

 

[social]

Warne has it easier when McGrath is around.

However, this is just hype and ridiculous hype at that.

Give credibility to these statements when SA produces a decent player of spin.

 

[Natman20]

I'm sure with or without McGrath no-one would really like to face Shane Warne. McGrath is also very classy.

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised Gary Kirsten would say something like that. It's the sorta thing I expect from people like Kepler Wessels and Patrick Symcox, not from him.
Ditto Rich... what does he have to gain by saying this? It can only make Warne more determined to bowl better, and I don't really think he can increase the desire of his countrymen - seldom can anyone ever have wanted to win a series so badly.
I fully expect Warne to bowl pretty well in the upcoming 3 games (barring injury) but GK has it quite right that they don't need to do anything OOTO against him - the rest of the attack is likely to be pretty average, and certainly very wayward.

 

[aussie]

Kirsten doesn't know what he's saying i really cant see how Warne will stuggle in South Africa.

 

[andyc]

Umm... was he watching the Ashes?

 

[howardj]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/archive/index.php/t-10191

Percy Son's love child

I'll pay that

 

[GotSpin]

Umm... was he watching the Ashes?

What ashes?

 

[Francis]

I have two points...

Warne gets more wickets when McGrath isn't taking wickets.

To guage how good Warne is without an in-form McGrath one shouldn't just look at the matches McGrath hasn't played in. Cricket fans have very short memories and can easily forget things like the fact that McGrath wasn't anything special until around 1995... even then he wasn't as good as Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh. In fact it wasn't until 1998 (I think) that he got that nod from Wisden as one of the best cricketers of the year. Today I'd rate McGrath over all of them, with the debatable exception of Wasim.
Craig McDermott was the spear-head for so long. McGrath was nervous uncertain starter.

The reason I'm saying all this is because Warne's most prolific wicket taking years in the 90s were 1993-1997. 1994 being his best year where he striked at about a wicket every 42balls. Warne was a more prolific wicket taker when McGrath wasn't doing too well. Even look at the Ashes last year, McGrath was either playing with injury and struggling or not playing at all. Warne has one of his most successful series from a wicket-taking stand-point.

It's one of those things that sounds right, but isn't. Warne gets more wickets when McGrath isn't playing or not playing well. If you look at Warne from 1993 he's not that different to say, Murali or Hadlee, in that he needed to bowl extra long marathon spells.

In the Ashes there were times Warne averaged over 20... like he normally does, but because nobody else was getting wickets, he could bowl more and maybe get some tail enders out. Ashley Giles had a horrid time against Warne, so did Harmison. Warne would get those extra wickets that took his average below 20 for the series. Do you see what I mean? Warne's average wasn't going to change much unless he could bowl more.

Another reason why I don't trust stats because little things take an average of 22-23 down to 18-19. Lets just say your not bowling as successfully without a great bowler, we'll say McGrath, and you have 5-110, an average of 22. Then you take the last wicket of a nothing tail ender, since you don't have great competition. 6-110, an average below 19. See? Stats don't mean your a better player when they're close. Warne could have a great day with competition and average 20... but without competition, he's free to skewer his ratios. That's why I find it silly for people to say "Oh Malcolm Marshall had a better average than Lillee, he's greater." Your free to think what you like, but 3 runs isn't much of a difference. It's nothing... it's a tailender, or a bad decision gone your way. Maybe you had a catch dropped etc.

Either way, Warne could have better figures if McGrath didn't play. The real winner is Australia, not Warne.

2. You have to be great to get wickets.

It's one of the reasons I don't trust stats. People say so and so fed off each other when it might not be like that. There's obvious examples such as the West Indies from the 80s. It never got easier for bowlers there. And then we can look at Wasim and Waqar, and I'm not sure they got wickets mostly because of each other. They get wickets because they bowl balls in the right spot.

I mean why don't Sri Lankan bowlers feed off Murali? Or why didn't New Zealand bowlers feed off Hadlee? The answer is because they didn't have bowlers who could bowl good balls on such a basis that makes them great. I mean if your stuff's better to go after, that doesn't mean wickets, that means your gonna go for runs like the Aussie seamers did in the Ashes. So when your saying somebody is feeding off each other, your basicly saying they're bowling balls good enough to apply pressure. You don't get wicket consistently other than by bowling well. For me, that automaticly makes you great if you can tie an end down.

Am I saying Warne never got wickets because of McGrath? No. The 2001 Ashes were one of the few examples of Warne and McGrath both having a prolific series. But I am saying that you don't get consistent wickets unless your bowling good balls. The guys at the other end isn't going to bowl the ball for you.

If anything, why would the run-rate go down nearly everytime I watch those two bowl in tandem? If they're going out trying to score runs, why is the run rate going down. The run-rate isn't going down because they're feeding off each other, it only goes down because of economical bowling. I honestly don't remember many times a batsman really tried that many flamboyant shots against either of them because of pressure. I mean I get that people think that when the run-rate goes down, there's pressure to hit out, but my memories of teams playing both men were of them happy not to lose wickets.

Could it be that the reason wickets go down when they bowl in tandem isn't because of pressure from the other end, but rather good bowling?

 

[C_C]

Your free to think what you like, but 3 runs isn't much of a difference. It's nothing... it's a tailender, or a bad decision gone your way. Maybe you had a catch dropped etc.

3 runs is a significant difference for a quality bowler as its more than 10% of his career average.

Warne without McGrath has Kumble-esque figures ( which is why i rate Warne close to Kumble than to Murali) - higher wicket/match but something close to 27 average.
And even without McGrath the OZ attack through the 90s has been significantly better than that of SL - SL only has Vaas apart from Murali, who is on par with Gillespie IMO.... but SL has no one remotely close to Lee, McGill, Fleming, Kaspa, etc.
Warne rarely has had to carry a bowling like Murali does day in and day out.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Warne without McGrath has Kumble-esque figures ( which is why i rate Warne close to Kumble than to Murali) - higher wicket/match but something close to 27 average.

Yet you find it so easy to say that Murali's Kumble-esque average away from home is irrelevant...

 

[Craig]

3 runs is a significant difference for a quality bowler as its more than 10% of his career average.

Warne without McGrath has Kumble-esque figures ( which is why i rate Warne close to Kumble than to Murali) - higher wicket/match but something close to 27 average.
And even without McGrath the OZ attack through the 90s has been significantly better than that of SL - SL only has Vaas apart from Murali, who is on par with Gillespie IMO.... but SL has no one remotely close to Lee, McGill, Fleming, Kaspa, etc.
Warne rarely has had to carry a bowling like Murali does day in and day out.

You never miss an opportunity to diss anything Australian don't you?

 

[Francis]

3 runs is a significant difference for a quality bowler as its more than 10% of his career average.

It can simply be a ratio of the last wicket you took from a tail ender each test. My example above explains that.

Australia had good bowlers in the 90s, but people believe Warne and McGrath are soo tight that one gets choked up. Fleming and co were always capable of having runs scored off them.

Perhaps the Ashes was just Warne at his best, but I swear he would have averaged 25 as he normally does if McGrath was there at his best to take up wickets that keep averages down.