What out of 10 do you think of Shane Warne?I think 10/10.
1. No dispute there. But many other great players didn't take banned substances. He's less great in my eyes because of it.1. Yep. Did the crime, did the time.
2. Yep. Got him heaps of wickets too.
3. DWTA. he had a huge impact on cricket here, and i mean huge.
4. DWTA to an extent - he was a big part of why things seemed to be stacked in their favour. Australia no more scored 550 plus every time they batted during his career than WI always bowled sides out for 50 in the 80s.
As a bowler, I believe your record can be damaged by having great bowlers around you. Warne had less wickets up for grabs with so many awesome bowlers around him taking them too.I agree they're both all-time greats. However you can't assess their records fairly without having regard to the context in which they achieved those records.
And there's not the slightest doubt that both Richards and Warne benefitted from the (other) great players who played with them.
Yeah probably, guess a bit ignorant for me to not think about the world instead of just this country.Doubt you could classify cricket as 'cool' in most countries, but you could in Australia, and I guess that's where Warne's impact is obviously most likely to have had influence.
Actually that would be an entirely legitimate argument IMO which is why I would rate Viv at 8/10 as well and below Lara and Tendulkar. Having a great opening pair is a huge advantage for any middle-order batsman and having bowlers who routinely demolish the opposite side will put the opposing captain on the defensive when you are batting.If Warne's greatness is taken away because of his great batting line-up, Sir Viv's greatness as a batsman is taken away because of the awesome bowling unit that was within his team, not to mention some fine batsman around him as well.
Well Tendulkar hasn't exactly had a pack of duds around him for most of his career...Actually that would be an entirely legitimate argument IMO which is why I would rate Viv at 8/10 as well and below Lara and Tendulkar. Having a great opening pair is a huge advantage for any middle-order batsman and having bowlers who routinely demolish the opposite side will put the opposing captain on the defensive when you are batting.
Viv and Warne are very similar in that their "aura" tends to get them overrated compared to their achievements IMO. Not surprisingly they tend to provoke the most furious arguments among cricket fans as well.
But what made Warne "Warne" was not that he was consistently great (although he was) because he had a superb batting line-up to support him. What made him great was when no one in the side could hold it together he ended up changing the match, turning it on it's head, and in the most dramatic fashion. I've never witnessed a bowler do the "unbelievable" as many times as Warne. I've never witnessed a cricketer affect a game merely by being in it.Fair point. However there was an advantage to him in having McGrath, specifically, bowling with him because of the control which he (like Warne) was able to exert. There's no doubt whatsoever that they were a great pair of bowlers as well as being great players in their own right.
The strength of the Australian batting was more of a factor though imho. Runs on the board messes with batsmen's heads and creates wickets for the bowlers, and Warne frequently benefitted from this (although he was clearly capable of taking wickets in less favourable circumstances too).