Rank the 10,000 club

[TheJediBrah]

If not losing Tests you played in was the be all and end all, then Eldine Baptiste would be the greatest cricketer to have ever lived

**** off how many Tests did Mark Cameron win

 

[GoodAreasShane]

**** off how many Tests did Mark Cameron win

How many did he lose

 

[h_hurricane]

And he averaged 55 vs England and 134 vs the West Indies earlier in 1999. In fact the only two series he did well in between 1998 and 2001 were on rank turners or against minnows.

So we agree that he was no good then. If he averages 134 against a WI lineup which had possibly only Lara as a great player against spin, how exactly he would do good against a lineup containing some of the best players of spin in history who had chewed him up previously ? This is beyond belief..

 

[stephen]

So we agree that he was no good then. If he averages 134 against a WI lineup which had possibly only Lara as a great player against spin, how exactly he would do good against a lineup containing some of the best players of spin in history who had chewed him up previously ? This is beyond belief..

Because the series we said his presence would improve was outside this time period?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So we agree that he was no good then. If he averages 134 against a WI lineup which had possibly only Lara as a great player against spin, how exactly he would do good against a lineup containing some of the best players of spin in history who had chewed him up previously ? This is beyond belief..

**** this painful to watch. Stephen is saying that Warne was **** in 1999-2000 and that's why you shouldn't extrapolate from his stats against India in that series. I don't agree with him but I thought his point was pretty clear.

 

[h_hurricane]

Because the series we said his presence would improve was outside this time period?

Warne had a great end to the WC in England 1999 and good series against Pakistan in 1999/00. It wasn't as if something was troubling him then.
Nothing suggests he discovered some unique cheat code in 2003/04 which he was about to use against Indians before he was banned. They had already seen his leg spin, his flippers(if they still existed), googly, top spin etc.

He absolutely bowled like a champion when up against batsmen with amateurish skills against spin. Against batsmen of the calibre of Lara, Sehwag, Laxman and Tendulkar who picked up the line quickly and smothered his spin, he was club class.

 

[honestbharani]

I love Warney as much as any other fan but **** me this is some bs arguments here. Warne was NEVER gonna be good against India. You wanna bring up every mitigating factor in the world about the times he was tonked and yet you forget there were just as many when he took his only decent haul in India, a 6 fer at Chennai when Sehwag was smashing him all around the park, along with Parthiv and even ****ing Irfan and an injured Kaif. That 2004 Indian batting line up was at its worst form and its interesting even then Warney could not be anywhere close to a match winner.

The only time he proved useful was when he switched to being a defensive bowler who had 4 guys on the boundary every time he bowled and cut off the boundaries against an woefully out of nick Indian side and enabled the seamers to do the damage. And even then, Aus lucked out with an absolute greentop at Nagpur due to BCCI politics and Ganguly sulking, as well as a fresher than normal wicket which aided seamers at Bangalore.

Lets face it, Warne against India anywhere and Ponting against India in India were just woeful for a major part of their careers. That is that.

 

[h_hurricane]

**** this painful to watch. Stephen is saying that Warne was **** in 1999-2000 and that's why you shouldn't extrapolate from his stats against India in that series. I don't agree with him but I thought his point was pretty clear.

ok, fair enough. The 134 average only strengthens the point though, that Warne wasn't all that good against batsmen who knew how to play him.

 

[Migara]

True, but he still took wickets at an absurd rate. And he outbowled Warne when they played together. India were just great players of leg-spin at the time.

MacGill was extremely poor against is too.

 

[stephen]

I'm not saying he was great against India, I'm saying that his form in 1999 can't be used to extrapolate a hypothetical performance in 2003. I'm also saying that his presence in 2003 would have made batting harder for the Indian batsman than MacGill's presence did.

It's as though what I'm writing is being deliberately misinterpreted to say that I think Warne would have taken 10 wickets in each innings. He would only have had to average less than 50 with the ball across the series to be better than MacGill.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not saying he was great against India, I'm saying that his form in 1999 can't be used to extrapolate a hypothetical performance in 2003. I'm also saying that his presence in 2003 would have made batting harder for the Indian batsman than MacGill's presence did.

It's as though what I'm writing is being deliberately misinterpreted to say that I think Warne would have taken 10 wickets in each innings. He would only have had to average less than 50 with the ball across the series to be better than MacGill.

You can say that but the fact is Warne sucked against India everytime he played against us. Just because Macgill also sucked, does not mean Warne would have miraculously not sucked. MacGill was a key guy in you guys squaring that series, FWIW.

 

[stephen]

ok, fair enough. The 134 average only strengthens the point though, that Warne wasn't all that good against batsmen who knew how to play him.

Warne got Lara 5 times in the 96/97 series which was the previous series (5 tests) vs the West Indies. In 05/06 (3 tests) he got Lara twice. In both series he averaged in the 20s.

My point was that 1999 was an exceptionally bad year for Warne and his performance didn't improve until around 2001.

 

[stephen]

I feel like Warne is a bit like Botham in that how good he was is being forgotten due to a period of bad form.

 

[h_hurricane]

I feel like Warne is a bit like Botham in that how good he was is being forgotten due to a period of bad form.

Warne against India

1991/92 - averages 228
1997/98 - averages 54
1999/00 -averages 42
2000/01 - averages 51
2004/05 - averages 30

That isn't a period. That is a career.

 

[morgieb]

I feel like Warne is a bit like Botham in that how good he was is being forgotten due to a period of bad form.

Nah. Warne's slump was more like 3 years and plagued by injury (in fact in 99/00 he wasn't even that bad). It also only affected his career averages by like 1-2 runs, literally every cricketer has had a run like that. Nothing like Botham who's averages declined like 5 points each.

If you want an Aussie who best might be forgotten because of a period of bad form, it's Ponting who's average went down 8 runs from its peak.

And even then, I don't think anyone with even a quarter of a brain would talk down a Botham because of the second half of his career.

 

[stephen]

Nah. Warne's slump was more like 3 years and plagued by injury (in fact in 99/00 he wasn't even that bad). It also only affected his career averages by like 1-2 runs, literally every cricketer has had a run like that. Nothing like Botham who's averages declined like 5 points each.

If you want an Aussie who best might be forgotten because of a period of bad form, it's Ponting who's average went down 8 runs from its peak.

And even then, I don't think anyone with even a quarter of a brain would talk down a Botham because of the second half of his career.

See: post above you.

Brings up debut series and 3 series inside Warne's terrible window and one series outside it where he was very good to "prove" that Warne had a bad career.

So according to the logic of posters in this thread, Warne would not have been any better than MacGill in 03/04 despite MacGill averaging 50 with the ball. To prove this, Warne's record in 1999/00 is brought up. In this series (smack bang in the middle of Warne's injury related form slump) he averaged 42, which is 8 runs per wicket less than MacGill averaged in 03/04. I rightly pointed out that in the 2004 series Warne averaged 30 and that is far more indicative of what his performance would have been in the 03/04 series, but even if it wasn't and Warne averaged his career average against India (45) he would still have improved the side.

But Warne bad, Indians invincible apparently.

 

[h_hurricane]

See: post above you.

Brings up debut series and 3 series inside Warne's terrible window and one series outside it where he was very good to "prove" that Warne had a bad career.

So according to the logic of posters in this thread, Warne would not have been any better than MacGill in 03/04 despite MacGill averaging 50 with the ball. To prove this, Warne's record in 1999/00 is brought up. In this series (smack bang in the middle of Warne's injury related form slump) he averaged 42, which is 8 runs per wicket less than MacGill averaged in 03/04. I rightly pointed out that in the 2004 series Warne averaged 30 and that is far more indicative of what his performance would have been in the 03/04 series, but even if it wasn't and Warne averaged his career average against India (45) he would still have improved the side.

But Warne bad, Indians invincible apparently.

So 4 series over 13 years, and you still aren't convinced that Warne was poor against Indians ? Look, if one starts giving excuse to every single performance, one might reach a stage where it looks like 0 matches, 0 runs, 0 wickets and 0 excuses. If I look into Anil Kumble's overseas record in 90s and offer explanation to each of those poor performances, they will look stupid to me even before I post anything, and that is the direction your posts are going.

Another fact : Macgill averaged better against India in 2003/04 than Warne did in Mcgrath's absence. Does that tell anything ? Yes, Warne was far too reliant on Mcgrath against India than any ATG bowler ever has been on another ATG bowler.

I looked into his 2004 series against India as well. He took 14 wickets in 3 tests. Dismissed Laxman 3 times(good on him) and Sehwag twice. The other 9 wickets came against non entities, boosted by Mcgrath dismissing top order batsmen. Didn't dismiss Dravid (supposedly Warne's bunny), Tendulkar or Ganguly in that series.

I never said Warne had a bad career, he was bad against Indians though. And that doesn't make Indians invincible either.

 

[harsh.ag]

Dude India had very little to worry about from Warne. Form, no form. Injury, no injury. Terrible, not terrible. End of.

 

[trundler]

I just like McGrath even more now tbh

 

[stephen]

Dude India had very little to worry about from Warne. Form, no form. Injury, no injury. Terrible, not terrible. End of.

So 4 series over 13 years, and you still aren't convinced that Warne was poor against Indians ? Look, if one starts giving excuse to every single performance, one might reach a stage where it looks like 0 matches, 0 runs, 0 wickets and 0 excuses. If I look into Anil Kumble's overseas record in 90s and offer explanation to each of those poor performances, they will look stupid to me even before I post anything, and that is the direction your posts are going.

Another fact : Macgill averaged better against India in 2003/04 than Warne did in Mcgrath's absence. Does that tell anything ? Yes, Warne was far too reliant on Mcgrath against India than any ATG bowler ever has been on another ATG bowler.

I looked into his 2004 series against India as well. He took 14 wickets in 3 tests. Dismissed Laxman 3 times(good on him) and Sehwag twice. The other 9 wickets came against non entities, boosted by Mcgrath dismissing top order batsmen. Didn't dismiss Dravid (supposedly Warne's bunny), Tendulkar or Ganguly in that series.

I never said Warne had a bad career, he was bad against Indians though. And that doesn't make Indians invincible either.

I have merely asserted that Warne was a better bowler than MacGill and that Warne's form in 2003 was much closer to his form in 2004 than it was to his 1999 form. Thus, having Warne would have made batting more difficult for the Indians in 03/04.

Go right back to page 19 and read what I said again. Indian batsmen got lucky to avoid McGrath and Warne in 03/04 and combined with the roads we've rolled out for India over the last two decades, Indian batsmen have inflated averages in Australia compared to other overseas batsmen. That's not to say that Indian batsmen are ****, it's to say that you need to look at the context to make sense of the numbers.