Rate Him: Shane Warne

[PhoenixFire]

Don't get why people would rate him 10/10 TBH. 10/10 suggests he is the perfect bowler, which he clearly isn't.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't get why people would rate him 10/10 TBH. 10/10 suggests he is the perfect bowler, which he clearly isn't.

Nobody's perfect. If you only give someone a 10 when they're perfect, why is that number even included on the scale?

 

[PhoenixFire]

For comparisons sake. The highest I would ever give anybody (and I made a mistake in the rating Tendulkar thread) would be a 9, and I'd only give that to Bradman.

 

[weldone]

Let me think...9.126575034 seems just right (although it's a rounded-off figure)

 

[Anil]

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.

not really...any aura that warne had worked for him only against spin-phobic english and south african teams, he of course did very well against other teams as well but there was no fear or intimidation factor there....while viv's presence unsettled all the best bowling combinations of the time(excluding his own of course which is obviously not his fault)....

 

[Richard]

So bowling 5 or so overs more per inning is going to induce fatigue enough to perform badly... sure.

And if we are talking spin bowlers...it's nothing.

No. Far more than 5 overs. 15 or 20.

No, and that you will take more wickets. Otherwise there would be NO difference bowling in team A or B.

Err, yes, there would - the number of overs you bowl.

Um, yeah, you do have to bowl better to achieve the same figures. You ever watch Australia? There were times Gillespie was bowling awesomely but everytime he looked like he was going to strike Warne or McGrath would take the wicket instead. Again, that is one less wicket he can take in that match to improve his figures, regardless how much he bowls. Every wicket is not the same. What if Gillespie was zeroing on one batsmen and he didn't get his wicket because of competition whereas the next batsmen performs much better and makes his record look worse. If his teammate hadn't taken that wicket he would have taken it and gotten a better return also.

Look at Gillespie's record for example and compare it with Pollock's. The difference between their bowling per match is something like 4 overs? Gillespie has a better SR but is so behind in 4/5w hauls. You think it is easier or harder to take a bunch when you are bowling right and less people can threaten your haul or when you are bowling right yet cannot put more than 3-4 together in most instances because your attack keeps chipping away at the opposition.

You think it didn't affect his average? This is where momentum plays a big part. Their overall career records won't reflect that Gillespie had to do it all over again the next day building up that momentum and getting the batsmen on the backfoot. You think if he played in Sri Lanka instead of Australia he wouldn't have gotten more wickets - even bowling the same amount? I'm sorry, but you're in denial if you think it wouldn't have been better for him.

If all other factors had been the same, Gillespie would have done exactly the same even if he'd played for Sri Lanka.

However, all other factors wouldn't have been the same - he'd have bowled far, far, far, far more overs.

unbelievable. You have absolutely no appreciation for his aspect of the game. "Your support makes zero impact on [your wicket taking ability]." It makes me cringe to read it even.

Haha, so of course you read what you want to read. Try telling the difference between "your support makes zero impact on your wicket-taking ability" and "your support makes zero impact upon how many wickets you're likely to take in X number of overs".

Only the bowler himself can influence this.

 

[haroon510]

10/10

 

[Burgey]

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.

The same might be said about Tendulkar having Laxman, Dravid and Ganguly around him.
I was reading a book t'other day in which the author (Gideon Haigh) was noting how much Warne enjoyed being "the man" when it came to the captain going to him. He made a point that in matches Warne and MacGill played together, Warne took his wickets at more than 30, whereas without MacGill it was baout 23 (CBF looking up the precise figures).
Anyway, ego was obviously a big thing for Warne, as it seemed to be for guys like Lara and Richards. It's interesting the same sport can throw up greats like these three, then also produce a fella like a Dravid or a Tendulkar who seem almost bereft of ego, yet still do their jobs so amazingly well.

 

[Uppercut]

The same might be said about Tendulkar having Laxman, Dravid and Ganguly around him.
I was reading a book t'other day in which the author (Gideon Haigh) was noting how much Warne enjoyed being "the man" when it came to the captain going to him. He made a point that in matches Warne and MacGill played together, Warne took his wickets at more than 30, whereas without MacGill it was baout 23 (CBF looking up the precise figures).
Anyway, ego was obviously a big thing for Warne, as it seemed to be for guys like Lara and Richards. It's interesting the same sport can throw up greats like these three, then also produce a fella like a Dravid or a Tendulkar who seem almost bereft of ego, yet still do their jobs so amazingly well.

Ah i like that post. It sums up one of the things i love about cricket, the conflicting personalities. You can watch Andre Nel bowl to Shiv Chanderpaul, it feels like watching a gorilla be introduced to the crab who slept with his wife.

 

[Burgey]

 

[silentstriker]

Very interesting to see rating breakdown by country.

 

[silentstriker]

1. Yes, he took drugs, but really, steroids don't really interest me one way or another. If he took them and it made him better, well good for him.
2. He was an excellent spin bowler.
3. He had weaknesses, but compared to other spinners, he had less of them, making him one of the top spin bowlers of all time.
4. Comparing him to all time great bowlers, he falls short quite a bit. The top five-ten bowlers of all time should be close to impossible to neutralize. Warne could be, albeit by excellent players of spin (Lara, Sachin, etc). It was much rarer to see other fast bowlers (all time greats like Marshall, Mcgrath, etc) neutralized to that extent.
5. Overall, he gets a 7 (a very very good bowler) compared to all bowlers, and 9.5 (exceptional, one of the best ever) compared to spin bowlers.

Just my 2 cents.

EDIT: On the other hand, if you say 5 is the average bowler, than 7 is not far enough away from the average to do Warne justice. He was certainly better than 'above average'. Hmm...

 

[Ikki]

No. Far more than 5 overs. 15 or 20.

There are no such differences between like bowlers, where one bowls 15-20 overs more. The difference between a Murali and a Warne is 7 per inning, for example.

Err, yes, there would - the number of overs you bowl.

If all other factors had been the same, Gillespie would have done exactly the same even if he'd played for Sri Lanka.

You're saying, had Gillespie bowled the same amount of overs, he'd have done the same with Sri Lanka as he did with Australia? Wow.

Haha, so of course you read what you want to read. Try telling the difference between "your support makes zero impact on your wicket-taking ability" and "your support makes zero impact upon how many wickets you're likely to take in X number of overs".

Only the bowler himself can influence this.

LOL, so the fact that your support keeps picking away at batsmen that you are setting up for yourself (because they are better than you) has ZERO impact on your record? That if Gillespie was in a side where he was going to be the main bowler, the main threat, you don't think he would have taken more wickets? Only so if he bowled more?

You seem to think wicket-taking is an ongoing exercise where players try to divide how many runs they give up to each batsmen and how many balls they are going to concede to each batsmen. Understand, that it's much more than that and bowlers have plans for batsmen, whether that means letting the batsmen get over them for a while and then putting a short one in, or blitzing balls full and then giving a slower ball...it is very much a stop/start thing. To have someone picking off batsmen you are trying hard to get kills your momentum and likewise if you are taking wickets it will increase your momentum.

You are essentially saying whether Gillespie plays for Bangladesh, Australia, India, x, y, and z he is ALWAYS going to take the same amount of wickets if he bowls the same amount of balls.

Even mathematically: when Gillespie bowls, and no wickets are taken, he can take 10 wickets. As soon as McGrath takes one, he can only take 9 wickets. As soon as Warne takes one, he can take only 8 wickets, and so on. Whereas in a team like Sri Lanka, the amount of wickets you can take is always larger because you have less teammates threatening the wickets.

You seem to think that Gillespie only took wickets every 54 balls (or whatever his career strike rate is). To think this is what happens in a match situation, and will always happen given x overs, is incorrect.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

What out of 10 do you think of Shane Warne?I think 10/10.

Hey u copied my ideas........but no problem dude......go.on best of luck.....

 

[Jono]

Ah i like that post. It sums up one of the things i love about cricket, the conflicting personalities. You can watch Andre Nel bowl to Shiv Chanderpaul, it feels like watching a gorilla be introduced to the crab who slept with his wife.

Gold

 

[Laurrz]

not really...any aura that warne had worked for him only against spin-phobic english and south african teams, he of course did very well against other teams as well but there was no fear or intimidation factor there....while viv's presence unsettled all the best bowling combinations of the time(excluding his own of course which is obviously not his fault)....

It was every country not just England and South Africa... just because India played him well doesn't mean he wasn't an intimidation factor. Tendulkar said that he is one of the best bowlers hes faced didnt he? because you always had to be on your toes against him, and Tendulkar pretty much had the better of him....

and Pak, Lanka, NZ, Windies have all had their troubles against him

 

[Jono]

You are vastly underselling Warne's aura Anil.

He didn't just dominate SA and Eng. He had a good strangehold over SL as well. His come back tour to SL in 2004 was inspiring. That 2nd and 3rd test, how he bowled them to victory was a top effort. SL shouldn't have lost those two tests (should have won the 2nd and drawn the 3rd), but Warne somehow ripped wins from nowhere.

 

[SJS]

I really struggled in this one. I had almost decided to rate him at 7 and would not have exceeded 7.5 if half marks were available but then rated him 8, bowing a bit to statistical achievements I suppose. I dont like doing that and hate myself for it.

 

[Ikki]

You are vastly underselling Warne's aura Anil.

He didn't just dominate SA and Eng. He had a good strangehold over SL as well. His come back tour to SL in 2004 was inspiring. That 2nd and 3rd test, how he bowled them to victory was a top effort. SL shouldn't have lost those two tests (should have won the 2nd and drawn the 3rd), but Warne somehow ripped wins from nowhere.

He was amazing, he had 4 consecutive 5fers!

 

[DaRick]

You are vastly underselling Warne's aura Anil.

He didn't just dominate SA and Eng. He had a good strangehold over SL as well. His come back tour to SL in 2004 was inspiring. That 2nd and 3rd test, how he bowled them to victory was a top effort. SL shouldn't have lost those two tests (should have won the 2nd and drawn the 3rd), but Warne somehow ripped wins from nowhere.

Don't forget Pakistan. His figures against them border on mind-blowing.

BTW, his efforts during that Sri Lankan series probably made the difference between a series whitewash and a loss. He bowled as well there as I've seen anybody bowl anywhere.