Ricky Ponting - most wins as player and captain

[Sir Alex]

Ikki do you seriously think Warne at peak would have outbowled Sachin at peak and other Indian batsmen? Over their entire careers, I can't remember one instance of Warne dominating Tendulkar on a consistent basis for even a short duration.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki do you seriously think Warne at peak would have outbowled Sachin at peak and other Indian batsmen? Over their entire careers, I can't remember one instance of Warne dominating Tendulkar on a consistent basis for even a short duration.

Dominate Sachin? No, but he certainly would not have been shellacked. A large reason for that would be a) playing him in India where Sachin grew up eating spin for breakfastn and b) playing him in Australia where it is very difficult to bowl spin full-stop. I could see Warne doing well in Sri Lanka for example. But do I think he'd be averaging in the 40s against India? No way.

 

[Sir Alex]

Dominate Sachin? No, but he certainly would not have been shellacked. A large reason for that would be a) playing him in India where Sachin grew up eating spin for breakfastn and b) playing him in Australia where it is very difficult to bowl spin full-stop. I could see Warne doing well in Sri Lanka for example. But do I think he'd be averaging in the 40s against India? No way.

That is reasonable. Warne may not have averaged in 40s and 50s at his peak in India but he certainly would not have averaged in the 20s or even lower 30s. I love him he is a great champion but I think his position as No.4 in CW all time list is overrated.

 

[Ikki]

That is reasonable. Warne may not have averaged in 40s and 50s at his peak in India but he certainly would not have averaged in the 20s or even lower 30s. I love him he is a great champion but I think his position as No.4 in CW all time list is overrated.

In 2004 which is really the only series he played against India where he was a) established and b) fit, Warne averaged 30 IIRC and missed the best pitch of the series where Hauritz and Clarke cleaned up for peanuts.I think low 30s is a pretty reasonable estimate.

And if he had, that would still put his record on par with the likes of McGrath and many other pacers in it's completeness. For a spinner to achieve that is somewhat amazing. But Warne was so much more than dollars and cents...he was magic - I say this in reference to why CW rated him so highly. You take a poll anywhere and 95% of the time they will tell you Warne was the most important player for Aussie dominance in this last era. Heck, the players in question say it is him. By 2000, he was already regarded as one of the best cricketers of all-time; McGrath wasn't even seen as the best bowler at that moment, Ponting was still growing up and Gilchrist was just starting out.

 

[aussie]

Warne's dominance is massively over-rated . Warne was more skillful and entertaining but got dominated by pretty much most great batsmen of his era, Ricky OTOH has dominated bowlers including the best ones.

For my money I Put Ricky a better cricketer than Warne.

What?

 

[aussie]

In 2004 which is really the only series he played against India where he was a) established and b) fit, Warne averaged 30 IIRC and missed the best pitch of the series where Hauritz and Clarke cleaned up for peanuts.I think low 30s is a pretty reasonable estimate.

And if he had, that would still put his record on par with the likes of McGrath and many other pacers in it's completeness. For a spinner to achieve that is somewhat amazing. But Warne was so much more than dollars and cents...he was magic - I say this in reference to why CW rated him so highly. You take a poll anywhere and 95% of the time they will tell you Warne was the most important player for Aussie dominance in this last era. Heck, the players in question say it is him. By 2000, he was already regarded as one of the best cricketers of all-time; McGrath wasn't even seen as the best bowler at that moment, Ponting was still growing up and Gilchrist was just starting out.

Exactly.Case closed.

 

[Sir Alex]

In 2004 which is really the only series he played against India where he was a) established and b) fit, Warne averaged 30 IIRC and missed the best pitch of the series where Hauritz and Clarke cleaned up for peanuts.I think low 30s is a pretty reasonable estimate.

And if he had, that would still put his record on par with the likes of McGrath and many other pacers in it's completeness. For a spinner to achieve that is somewhat amazing. But Warne was so much more than dollars and cents...he was magic - I say this in reference to why CW rated him so highly. You take a poll anywhere and 95% of the time they will tell you Warne was the most important player for Aussie dominance in this last era. Heck, the players in question say it is him. By 2000, he was already regarded as one of the best cricketers of all-time; McGrath wasn't even seen as the best bowler at that moment, Ponting was still growing up and Gilchrist was just starting out.

However the key point was India missed it's major players of spin in Tendulkar and Ganguly in that series and Dravid was not really upto the mark. So 2004 is not exactly a indicator of "what could have been" Warne's case. That's why I said, he wouldn't have averaged 40s+ but wouldn't have averaged less than 30s also.. maybe around 35.

The second paragraph is just adulation of your idol and nothing much replyworthy there (in a positive sense because I respect your opinion from a fan point of view).

 

[aussie]

However the key point was India missed it's major players of spin in Tendulkar and Ganguly in that series and Dravid was not really upto the mark. So 2004 is not exactly a indicator of "what could have been" Warne's case. That's why I said, he wouldn't have averaged 40s+ but wouldn't have averaged less than 30s also.. maybe around 35.

The second paragraph is just adulation of your idol and nothing much replyworthy there (in a positive sense because I respect your opinion from a fan point of view).

Tendy yes.

Dravid wasn't up to mark because the AUS bowlers kept him quiet, not because he was out of form or anything.

Ganguly was never a threat againts AUS. So his struggles then was a continuation from past series when McGrath/Warne played.

Plus Laxman argulably the biggest wicket for AUS againts IND was completely kept quiet. I'm sure you haven't forgotten that BIG leg-break that Warne bowled Laxman with in the first test in Bangalore??

Warne definately would have averaged under 30 in the 2004 series if he didn't get injured before the Mumbai test, which was the most spin friendly wicket of that series.

 

[Burgey]

They didn't play that badly during the Ashes, they just lost those critical moments, which is very un-Australian cricket team like, not sure what that coems down to, lack of mental toughness or not respecting the opponent enough. Who knows.

Inexperience, and rain in Cardiff tbh.

Chatted with Ricky's brother-in-law when we played against him the other week. He said he's now enjoying playing and captaining more than ever, and that with they young blokes coming through he sees the chance to make this team his own more than any Aussie skipper since Border. He seems to be getting more relaxed in his own way - no longer trying to defend a legacy which isn't theirs to start with.

 

[Sanz]

And Kiwi/S.African batsmen had it over McGrath in Australia.

Yes now are going to filter out 10 or tests to claim that Warne was a better bowler than Mcgrath for most of his career.

At least Warne had an excuse; he was injured throughout the period in question and was playing against the best players of spin at their home or mostly on pitches that weren't conducive to spin bowling - Australia.

That's what it was, an Excuse. Even when Warne was up against an Injured Tendulkar and a Dysfunctional Indian team in 2004, he still managed poor bowling average in India.

Warne didn't do much better on pitches conductive to Spin Bowling(Sound like India), so the last line of the argument does not hold much water.

As a player; meaning leader, bowler, fielder and often handy bat...Warne was the most important player during our dominant era, then probably McGrath and then Ponting/Waugh.

That's your opinion which I believe is tad biased because of how much you admire Warne. Warne was great but I would not put him greater than Ponting in the list of aussie cricketers.

 

[aussie]

That's what it was, an Excuse. Even when Warne was up against an Injured Tendulkar and a Dysfunctional Indian team in 2004, he still managed poor bowling average in India.

- Firstly how is an average of 30.07 poor?

- Secondly thre was nothing disfunctional about the IND team in 2004. Only problem i remember was before the Nagpur test when Ganguly had some quarrell with groundsmen about the pitch preparation of something.

India's failures in that series (especially in the batting) was solely down the AUS bowlers owning the batting - not no disfunctional team. This is as much of an excuse & far less legitimate one, than what Ikki said about Wane's failures in IND.

 

[Sanz]

- Firstly how is an average of 30.07 poor?

It is poor when you are Shane Warne, fully fit bowling on supposedly Spinner Friendly tracks and you end up being the worst spinner from either team in that series.

 

[stephen]

I am fairly certain that a number of the people questioning Warne's importance to the Australian team during its peak are talking complete rubbish because they have not followed the Australian team during its peak.

The thing is that during that time the side which had always caused Australia the most trouble was India. India caused Australia the most trouble largely because of Warne's struggles against them. India during that time period never looked like being anywhere near the number 1 side until they played against Australia and when they did they looked like world beaters.

Do you think that it's coincidental that Australia's only drawn home test series in that time was against India? Do you think it's coincidental that Australia only managed to beat India at home once in that time - in a series in which they finally had a fully fit Warne (for all but the best spinning wicket mind you)?

The fact of the matter is that Warne never faced India in his 93-97 peak, nor did he face them in his 02-07 peak, except once where he did a very good job on roads. Coincidentally the only team that ever looked like beating Australia between 95-07 was the WIndies until Ambrose retirement and India.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Ponting was absent for the wins in that series in India.

 

[Top_Cat]

I am fairly certain that a number of the people questioning Warne's importance to the Australian team during its peak are talking complete rubbish because they have not followed the Australian team during its peak.

The thing is that during that time the side which had always caused Australia the most trouble was India. India caused Australia the most trouble largely because of Warne's struggles against them. India during that time period never looked like being anywhere near the number 1 side until they played against Australia and when they did they looked like world beaters.

Do you think that it's coincidental that Australia's only drawn home test series in that time was against India? Do you think it's coincidental that Australia only managed to beat India at home once in that time - in a series in which they finally had a fully fit Warne (for all but the best spinning wicket mind you)?

The fact of the matter is that Warne never faced India in his 93-97 peak, nor did he face them in his 02-07 peak, except once where he did a very good job on roads. Coincidentally the only team that ever looked like beating Australia between 95-07 was the WIndies until Ambrose retirement and India.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Ponting was absent for the wins in that series in India.

Was with you until this point. Whilst it's true he didn't play against India when he was really humming, can't completely excuse his relatively poor figures with injuries in either 1998 or 2001 in India. The Indians just played him really well on pitches which Warne didn't adapt well/quickly enough to bowl well on.

Just to consider '98 alone; no other opener ever really went after Warne like Sidhu did. Was such gutsy but aggressive play. And, Warne also had to contend with Sachin landing big turning balls from outside leg over the wide mid-wicket fence which, again, very few players have the skill and confidence to pull off. Cronje did, to an extent, even during Warne's early peak. To Warne's credit, I don't remember him dropping his head at all and he kept throwing it up there. Just that what he was sending down wasn't good enough to beat top players at the peaks of their form in conditions that they knew very well.

2001 was similar except it was different players going after him. Laxman batted well in 1998 but was unbelievable in 2001. The top players still played him well and blew out his figures but he bowled pretty well to the lesser lights, especially well in Mumbai.

That said, this really shouldn't impact on how he's regarded too much. Check through the archives and you'll see India has dismembered every visiting leggie since Benaud. Warne's easily the best performed there.

 

[Jono]

Ikki to respond to TC

 

[Black_Warrior]

A fantastic acheivement nonetheless, but he is not a better captain than Waugh nor is he a better cricketer than Warne. Waugh built this team. Ponting inherited it.
That does not undermine his acheivement in any way..he is still a very good captain, very intelligent, just not better than Waugh thats all.

 

[Ikki]

Yes now are going to filter out 10 or tests to claim that Warne was a better bowler than Mcgrath for most of his career.

Point was McGrath has his own skeletons. Stop talking about him as if he never got hammered or ever had a problem.

That's what it was, an Excuse. Even when Warne was up against an Injured Tendulkar and a Dysfunctional Indian team in 2004, he still managed poor bowling average in India.

So in 2004 he was poor?

Warne didn't do much better on pitches conductive to Spin Bowling(Sound like India), so the last line of the argument does not hold much water.

Bowling spin in India is easily off-set by the fact that the pitches are a) too slow and b) are pitches the greatest players of spin have grown up on. Sri Lanka are not far behind in their playing of spin. Look how Warne did there. More bounce there with oodles of turn and he owns.

That's your opinion which I believe is tad biased because of how much you admire Warne. Warne was great but I would not put him greater than Ponting in the list of aussie cricketers.

Pretty sure you're in the minority, but agree to disagree.

However the key point was India missed it's major players of spin in Tendulkar and Ganguly in that series and Dravid was not really upto the mark. So 2004 is not exactly a indicator of "what could have been" Warne's case. That's why I said, he wouldn't have averaged 40s+ but wouldn't have averaged less than 30s also.. maybe around 35.

The second paragraph is just adulation of your idol and nothing much replyworthy there (in a positive sense because I respect your opinion from a fan point of view).

Sure, Tendulkar not being there is something to warrant discussion. Still, Warne missed the test Clarke took 6/9 off. I think it is fair to say that Warne would have likely averaged under 30 and would have had the best stats a spinner had in India for ages.

As for T-C - replied because of Jono - we just disagree. Warne was too loose and gave away pressure too often throughout the time. He was wayward and way short of confidence. Of course, he makes the good point at having to play the best spinners of his time at their prime makes it debatable as to whether Warne would have fared largely better, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that Warne wasn't near his best then. Not even close. It's in this period his shoulder gave way and his finger injury meant he had to change his approach totally. You only see it post 2000 where Warne's flipper becomes a rarity and he relies merely on short variations of spin and deception in flight.

 

[Cruxdude]

Point was McGrath has his own skeletons. Stop talking about him as if he never got hammered or ever had a problem.

So in 2004 he was poor?

Bowling spin in India is easily off-set by the fact that the pitches are a) too slow and b) are pitches the greatest players of spin have grown up on. Sri Lanka are not far behind in their playing of spin. Look how Warne did there. More bounce there with oodles of turn and he owns.

Pretty sure you're in the minority, but agree to disagree.

Sure, Tendulkar not being there is something to warrant discussion. Still, Warne missed the test Clarke took 6/9 off. I think it is fair to say that Warne would have likely averaged under 30 and would have had the best stats a spinner had in India for ages.

As for T-C - replied because of Jono - we just disagree. Warne was too loose and gave away pressure too often throughout the time. He was wayward and way short of confidence. Of course, he makes the good point at having to play the best spinners of his time at their prime makes it debatable as to whether Warne would have fared largely better, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that Warne wasn't near his best then. Not even close. It's in this period his shoulder gave way and his finger injury meant he had to change his approach totally. You only see it post 2000 where Warne's flipper becomes a rarity and he relies merely on short variations of spin and deception in flight.

Actually he wasn't that great in 2004.

Here are his bowling figures

1st Test - 28 overs 78/2
32 overs 115/2 (India all out for 239)

2nd Test - 42 overs 125/6 (His wickets were Yuvraj, Pathan, Parthiv, Kumble, Bhajji, Sehwag) Even in this match the middle order got out to Gillespie and Kasper.


3rd Test - 23 overs 47/2
14 overs 56/2

It was an ok series for him. He got Laxman 3 times Sehwag twice and Yuvraj once. It wasn't anywhere near great but not bad either. It was mainly the pacers who got to India.

 

[MrIncredible]

Warne is the greatest cricketer of the last 20 years and the 3rd or 4th name id put down in my all time team behind only Bradman, Sobers and Marshall. Mcgrath was great and had better figures but i think people give him extra brownie points because he supposedly did well on flat surfaces and supposedly had fewer holes in his cv. Now that would have been fine if the other greats (Amby, Donald etc) had faded post 2000 but they were retired by then so we have no idea how they would have fared post 2000. I for one think that if Mcgrath wasnt a standout in the 90s then had those bowlers been around post 2000 he wouldnt have been a standout either.

 

[aussie]

It is poor when you are Shane Warne, fully fit bowling on supposedly Spinner Friendly tracks and you end up being the worst spinner from either team in that series.

Haa dont bring that "you are Shane Warne" argument to make it seem as if Warne was supposed to spin out India. 30.07 is not poor series average under any circumstances for any bowler.

The Indian batsmen have to be given some credit here, they proved with both Warne & Murali that they play spin better than anyone. The MAIN reason Warne didn't spin through them in those 3 tests was because the fast-bowler owned the Indian batting. The only innings where Warne had to step up when the quicks where get no reverse swing was the first innings in Chennai where he took 6 wickets.

Plus the most spinner friendly pitch in that series was Mumbai & Warne didn't even play on it.