Shane Warne - the myth

[mr_mister]

i mean compare the australian open to the brisbane international

or the soccer world cup to a friendly

there's so much more at stake in every cricket WC game than any JAMODI and so it all feels like a better indicator of player quality to me

 

[Howe_zat]

i mean compare the australian open to the brisbane international

or the soccer world cup to a friendly

there's so much more at stake in every cricket WC game than any JAMODI and so it all feels like a better indicator of player quality to me

You know this isn't true of every non-world cup ODI though, and it's lazy to treat all of them as the same.

 

[mr_mister]

howe i'm a pretty lazy guy

 

[h_hurricane]

howe i'm a pretty lazy guy

Hehe, any plans to complete the top 33 opening batsmen of all time ?

 

[a massive zebra]

A few weeks ago Mr_Mister told me he was planning to restart the countdown in the following week, but clearly it didn't happen.

 

[Coronis]

I think Hobbs might win.

 

[stephen]

Back in the 90s and even into the 00s sides would play their first choice XI for ODIs. In the 10s though first choice bowlers (in particular) have played far less ODIs than the batsmen.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd say even up until the mid to late 2000s the tri series in Australia felt like the teams involved were taking it 100% seriously with most of the first choice players taking part. The 03 and 08 tri series involving India I remember being contested like important games by both teams.

yea it was only last decade jamodis truly evolved into their final form.

i remember the 07 tri series nz fans and media absolutely slaughtering john bracewell for his 'rotation policy' he copied from the graham henry all blacks.

given he was a murali spell away from the wc final i think he did a good job building squad depth and keeping bowlers fit.

 

[Flem274*]

You know this isn't true of every non-world cup ODI though, and it's lazy to treat all of them as the same.

yep, it's very noticeable teams don't want to lose home series to highly ranked sides and all of a sudden a full strength eleven appears unless we're immediately before a wc.

 

[Dan]

i remember the 07 tri series nz fans and media absolutely slaughtering john bracewell for his 'rotation policy' he copied from the graham henry all blacks.

Australia got slaughtered for doing it in 2001/02, and pretty much every time they've lost a home ODI with a second-string quick playing in place a not-completely-injured Test quick since.

Top_Cat put it best in 2006, apparently

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia got slaughtered for doing it in 2001/02, and pretty much every time they've lost a home ODI with a second-string quick playing in place a not-completely-injured Test quick since.

Top_Cat put it best in 2006, apparently

Yeah the Mark Waugh/Gilchrist/Hayden trio were rotated through the opening spots IIRC starting on the 2001 India tour

They were even more extreme the previous summer, every game in that Tri-Series had funky batting-order and bowling changes, but they got away with it because Zimbabwe and Windies were terrible

 

[Migara]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've read that bio-mechanical studies have determined that in a quick bowler's delivery stride 7-8 times their bodyweight comes down through their leg so, even if the stride after delivery halves or even quarters that downward force, Chaminda could likely make some useful rough for any offie to exploit, 10 stone dripping wet or not.

Issue you try to brush off is Vaas is 6" shorter than average Australian fast bowler and what ever little rough he creates is closer to batsman's side making it less useful. Any one who bowled legspin in SC will know that the rough our pacemen creates is too full to be exploited. Even Pakistanis with there galore of left arm pacies rarely created enough rough, because the mechanics of SC fast bowlers is much different to hit the pitch hard bowlers. Guys like Vaas just glided to the crease, in contrast to a bowler like Dilhara Fernando, who stamped and hit the pitch very hard.

 

[the big bambino]

Warne sucked against India and he would have sucked in any circumstances any time. There can't be any escape from this. Stephen has been hiding behind the excuse that Warne was never fit or in best form when playing India in tests. One should not accept such a weak excuse but even if you do, what explains his terrible record against India in limited overs then? He had a dream world cup in 1999 you'd say but even then when he played India, Ajay Jadeja and Robin Singh smashed him around at almost 8 rpo after the top order was cleaned up by McGrath.

Murali was also smashed by India on occasions but several times he came on top winning MoMs in both forms of the game against India. Extrapolating from that it's really not such an unreasonable view that in an ATG contest where he will bowl to batsmen at least as good at playing spin and likely better than Indians of 90s and 00s, Warne will likely come up short; Murali gives you a chance.

Learn to except that as a well reasoned point of view even if you disagree just like Indian fans on this board accept that rating Lara over Tendulkar is a perfectly reasonable position. Failure to do so shows you for a blue eyed fanboy and nothing else.

It used to be on CW that posters would disqualify the achievements of previous generations of players on the grounds they'd not played enough tests. "How do we know how good they really were when they only played a handful of games?" For that reason I look at team instead of individual averages for comparisons because no one can argue a team plays insufficient tests can they? That's to counter an argument I never respected because I think it was only ever a rationalisation to protect a parochialism towards modern players. I suspected anyone who advanced it did so because it was a convenient disqualifier of discussion and no other reason. I wondered that if it was contrarily convenient for someone to damn a player on a limited number of games if they would shamelessly do so too.

Warne played 145 tests. And here you are judging him on 14 of them. (Or 194 Odis and you judge him on 18). Now do Murali in Australia ... This is important because of the different conditions the two bowlers experienced at home. It has been stated too often on here that Australia is the worst country to bowl spin for anyone to try and dissemble now. While Sri Lanka one of the more friendly places to bowl spin. Murali's best efforts against India were almost solely recorded at home. Neither had good test records in India but ironically Warne has a better average of the two there, in tests. Murali's superior record overall v India could just be down to the fact he encountered them in home conditions that at least gave a spinner a chance. Whereas Warne was bowling on flat rock in Melbourne. Both players have holes in their records. But isn't it just a little unscrupulous to judge a man on small number of matches taken from his whole record when it is a meme here that we don't judge players on a handful of games? And the unfairness is exaggerated when you don't subject the other player to similar scrutiny and where he didn't do so well?

I'm sure there are instances where you'd prefer one then the other, depending. Most often you'd pick both if you could but the difference between them isn't as great as your comparison implies. Now i don't know if that makes me a blue eyed fanboy but at least its not jaundice.

 

[honestbharani]

Warney sucked against India does not = Warney was a bad bowler. It simply means he was one against India. That is all.

 

[the big bambino]

That wasn't the point being made nor was it ever said.

 

[Daemon]

It used to be on CW that posters would disqualify the achievements of previous generations of players on the grounds they'd not played enough tests. "How do we know how good they really were when they only played a handful of games?" For that reason I look at team instead of individual averages for comparisons because no one can argue a team plays insufficient tests can they? That's to counter an argument I never respected because I think it was only ever a rationalisation to protect a parochialism towards modern players. I suspected anyone who advanced it did so because it was a convenient disqualifier of discussion and no other reason. I wondered that if it was contrarily convenient for someone to damn a player on a limited number of games if they would shamelessly do so too.

Warne played 145 tests. And here you are judging him on 14 of them. (Or 194 Odis and you judge him on 18). Now do Murali in Australia ... This is important because of the different conditions the two bowlers experienced at home. It has been stated too often on here that Australia is the worst country to bowl spin for anyone to try and dissemble now. While Sri Lanka one of the more friendly places to bowl spin. Murali's best efforts against India were almost solely recorded at home. Neither had good test records in India but ironically Warne has a better average of the two there, in tests. Murali's superior record overall v India could just be down to the fact he encountered them in home conditions that at least gave a spinner a chance. Whereas Warne was bowling on flat rock in Melbourne. Both players have holes in their records. But isn't it just a little unscrupulous to judge a man on small number of matches taken from his whole record when it is a meme here that we don't judge players on a handful of games? And the unfairness is exaggerated when you don't subject the other player to similar scrutiny and where he didn't do so well?

I'm sure there are instances where you'd prefer one then the other, depending. Most often you'd pick both if you could but the difference between them isn't as great as your comparison implies. Now i don't know if that makes me a blue eyed fanboy but at least its not jaundice.

Has ankitj personally "disqualified the achievements of previous generations of players on the grounds they'd not played enough tests"? You're criticising ankitj for not using an argument you have no time for in this context because apparently it's a meme on CW.

14 Tests is not much but it's not insignificant when it spans a long period across multiple series. It's 4 short of Bond's Test career, and people rate him pretty highly. When the same pattern repeats across such a sample size then it's fair to make certain assumptions imo, and I think you agree, given your first paragraph.

The post you quoted has also acknowledged that Murali got hammered against India at times, but at least he did have some success, even if it was in home conditions. It would be nice if they both played 100 Tests against India in the same conditions bowling side by side but based on what they actually did, it's not unreasonable to think Murali would do better than Warne against India. That was the point of the post.

 

[stephen]

Australia got slaughtered for doing it in 2001/02, and pretty much every time they've lost a home ODI with a second-string quick playing in place a not-completely-injured Test quick since.

Top_Cat put it best in 2006, apparently

It's been off the charts insane in the last decade though. Batsmen have played tons of ODIs but bowlers have not. It's been far worse than previous decades.

 

[Burgey]

At least part of it will be down to T20s coming into play as a whole new format. That and the policy itself becoming more accepted.

 

[stephen]

ODI top wicket takers for the 2010s:

2010s Cricket Team Records & Stats | ESPNcricinfo.com

Read about Records, / , 2010s, / , One-Day Internationals, / , Most wickets Cricket Team Records only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Check the Stats & Records of Records, / , 2010s, / , One-Day Internationals, / , Most wickets Players in ✓ Wicket keeper ✓ Batting ✓ Bowling

stats.espncricinfo.com

2000s:

2000s Cricket Team Records & Stats | ESPNcricinfo.com

Read about Records, / , 2000s, / , One-Day Internationals, / , Most wickets Cricket Team Records only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Check the Stats & Records of Records, / , 2000s, / , One-Day Internationals, / , Most wickets Players in ✓ Wicket keeper ✓ Batting ✓ Bowling

stats.espncricinfo.com

It's a massive difference.

 

[Line and Length]

14 Tests is not much but it's not insignificant when it spans a long period across multiple series. It's 4 short of Bond's Test career, and people rate him pretty highly.

I think you are missing the big bambino's point. To focus on 14 of Warne's 145 Tests is to pass an overall judgement on less than 10% of his Test career. It would be like finding fault with Bond on the basis of just 2 of the Tests in which he played.