Is Warne really bowling at his peak as he suggests?

[Ice goddess]

I've heard Shane say this ad nauseam since halfway through the Ashes series. The number of wickets might be testament to this and he still has a wide array of deliveries at his disposal and relative accuracy. Nevertheless he had the chance to bowl us to victory in the Ashes and despite taking lots of wickets, never seemed likely to crash through a team like he used to. Quite often his figures IMHO, were flattered by picking up the tail and he was often expensive. These days he goes for a lot more runs than he used to, at his peak (which I think was mid 90's for a few years), and when he takes bags invariably has a lot of runs to his name. Batsmen don't seem to fear him as much. The South Africans, Kiwis and poms used to quake at the sight of him. Furthermore, he does often get the chance to bowl to very attacking fields but doesn't seem to tie the batsmen in knots and have them poking around like they did in the past. Am I speaking out of turn in this regard? To me the stats don't always tell the full picture.

[usalion]

He's bowling very well right now, but i would say he was better back in the period 1995-1998- more variety, and there was consistent support from the three pronged pace attack- there has not been that since the eginning of the Ashes series.

Having the big three take early wickets helped rest Warne- look at his workload in the Ashes of 2005 and how early he was bowling in a lot of the innings- several times he was on in the first hour on pitches not doing much, although he coaxed turn from the pitch.

His variety is not what it used toi be, but he has learned, and cunning and guile are truly elements in his arsenal, as much as a flipper or wrong 'un.

Still a fine, inspiring player- and came very close to helping us retain the Ashes. His best? No- but VERY good.

[Sunny]

I'd say pre 95 (before Warne's shoulder injury) is when Warne was at his best in full flight imo, with the flipper and googly. Also had the support of a rising McGrath, McDermott in the closing stages of career (unfortunately cut short by injury), and a underrated Reiffel.

He hasnt been the same since then 95 imo, with a few lean periods since. But still, has been good in the later stages of his career.

[Viking Wizard Eyes]

If he's not bowling at his best, he is very, very close.

[Sunny]

If he's not bowling at his best, he is very, very close.

Agree there, still has at least 2 years in him at Test level.

[usalion]

I'd say pre 95 (before Warne's shoulder injury) is when Warne was at his best in full flight imo, with the flipper and googly. Also had the support of a rising McGrath, McDermott in the closing stages of career (unfortunately cut short by injury), and a underrated Reiffel.

He hasnt been the same since then 95 imo, with a few lean periods since. But still, has been good in the later stages of his career.

Well, McGrath began in early 1995, as did Reiffel, who was indeed under rated. Saw Warne quite a bit in 1995- magical.....

[Cooldude]

I think you're talking ********, not the first time that you constantly suggest he takes a lot of tailender wickets

And btw, it was only a Test ago that he ripped the heart outta the Windies, so you're wrong

He might not rip the ball as far as he used to, he might not have that flipper anymore, but he is a smarter than before, watching him bowl is a great sight to behold, trying to prey into his mind and work out what exactly he's trying to do to every individual batsmen

Stats also don't tell the whole story of Warne having to bowl on the first day and missing out on getting last use of the pitch (Something he did a lot under Taylor who always batted first), yet he still take 5fers and keeps the runs down, where any other leg spinners would've failed.

He might not look as brillant a bowler as he used to, but because of his experience and the plans he set to the batsmen (Which are often the correct plans) and the ability to execute those plans with his wide variety of tricks and accuracy, makes him a more efficient and effective bowler than he's ever been. His last 4 years have proven that

[usalion]

well said, cooldude- watching Warne at any time in his career is a true treat....I think you and I will agree to disagree on which period was greater- but I definitely take your point on the intelligence aspect...in many ways, he is MORE dangerous today, even though his bag 'o tricks does not have the variety of balls to bowl

Enjoy him while you have him- when he goes, there will be a HUGE gap in australian cricket- I don't care how good Dan Cullen or Cam White become

[Cooldude]

I agree with you that mid-90 was where physically and technically, he was at his very very best. His action looked magnicificent then, nowadays his arm's a lot lower than it used to be, and back in the Ashes 3 months ago, his action looked as high as I've seen it for years, and he took 40 wickets and spun the ball a long long way even though he bowled first day at 4 of those Tests.

Will never forget the way he bowled when he took 11 wickets at the Gabba against the Pakistanis, he was awesome

But often, technique and physique ain't what make a great bowler. Bowling's a thinking art, and Warnie's a lot smarter than he's ever been.

I'll shred more than a tear the day he retires, we won't ever see the likes of him ever again

[Sunny]

imo, as I said before Warne has at least 2 years in him left. I may tend to think different on which period of Warnes was the greatest, but still today he is pretty close to any of his past great periods (take your pick).

Enjoy him while you have him- when he goes, there will be a HUGE gap in australian cricket- I don't care how good Dan Cullen or Cam White become

Lets wait on how they go in a few years, they maybe aint flash statistically right now (I realise Cullen had a good debut season with a lot of variety and control) but both are earmarked on "potential".

[Cooldude]

Warnie can easily bowl for another 5 years at his peak, if he is willing to

[usalion]

Will never forget the way he bowled when he took 11 wickets at the Gabba against the Pakistanis, he was awesome

But often, technique and physique ain't what make a great bowler. Bowling's a thinking art, and Warnie's a lot smarter than he's ever been.

I'll shred more than a tear the day he retires, we won't ever see the likes of him ever again

Again, good analysis- I was at that Test- briliant bowling from Warnie.....You're right- we won't see his likes again

[Ice goddess]

I think you're talking ********, not the first time that you constantly suggest he takes a lot of tailender wickets

And btw, it was only a Test ago that he ripped the heart outta the Windies, so you're wrong

He might not rip the ball as far as he used to, he might not have that flipper anymore, but he is a smarter than before, watching him bowl is a great sight to behold, trying to prey into his mind and work out what exactly he's trying to do to every individual batsmen

Stats also don't tell the whole story of Warne having to bowl on the first day and missing out on getting last use of the pitch (Something he did a lot under Taylor who always batted first), yet he still take 5fers and keeps the runs down, where any other leg spinners would've failed.

He might not look as brillant a bowler as he used to, but because of his experience and the plans he set to the batsmen (Which are often the correct plans) and the ability to execute those plans with his wide variety of tricks and accuracy, makes him a more efficient and effective bowler than he's ever been. His last 4 years have proven that


Just because I suggest he's not at his peak doesn't mean I think he hasn't got time left in front of him. The question posed was is he bowling at his peak, not whether he's bowling well etc. So to say my post was shyte because you thought I was having a go at Warne is a bit arrogant. In any case he didn't really rip the heart out of the Windies, many of the wickets he took were the tailenders and we all know what their tail is like. Also he was lucky that the umpire gave Lara out a few times when he clearly wasn't.

[Cooldude]

I already said he is a more effective and efficient bowler than he's ever been, meaning he is at his peak in terms of creating results (Aka taking wickets)

Not for the first time you've found ways to have a dig at Warne, even after he's had brillant performances. Good to see you nitpick about tailender wickets (How many times have you said that) and how Lara ain't really out and so on. For your information, he only illegally got Lara once, and hardly his fault, and it was a brillant piece of bowling as well

[Ice goddess]

I already said he is a more effective and efficient bowler than he's ever been, meaning he is at his peak in terms of creating results (Aka taking wickets)

Not for the first time you've found ways to have a dig at Warne, even after he's had brillant performances. Good to see you nitpick about tailender wickets (How many times have you said that) and how Lara ain't really out and so on. For your information, he only illegally got Lara once, and hardly his fault, and it was a brillant piece of bowling as well

Well I disagree that he's more effective than he's ever been. If he was he would have found a way to win us the Ashes. When he bowled at his best against the poms they used to succumb, collapse etc. Last series he took the wickets eventually but quite often after the damage was done. And he's had to bowl a ********load of overs to take his wickets. He didn't when he was at his top.

[Cooldude]

Well I disagree that he's more effective than he's ever been. If he was he would have found a way to win us the Ashes.

That is the single most stupidest thing you have ever said, he was the only reason why we could even had a chance to grab the Ashes coming into the last day of the 5th Test, he carried the whole team and dragged everyone along with him, and he almost did it

You can count in one hand on the cricketers who could've done what he did in the Ashes throughout the history of the game.

To say such a thing just shows that you clearly just have something against Warne and would find any excuses just to push your little agenda across.


When he bowled at his best against the poms they used to succumb, collapse etc. Last series he took the wickets eventually but quite often after the damage was done. And he's had to bowl a ********load of overs to take his wickets. He didn't when he was at his top.

What a load of rubbish

Not his fault that the new ball bowling was ********ing rubbish and he had to continually come in and bowl to two set openers (and often got us the first wicket). Not his fault that we kept losing the toss and had to bowl on the 1st day when the pitch was as flat as Natalie Portman's tits

Not his fault that Ponting had to keep bowling him over after over because he was the only one who could bowl, keep it tight, and get wickets

You're wrong btw, back then under AB, he bowled far more overs per innings than he has ever done during his career. Better do your research first

[Sunny]

Warney and to a lesser extent McGrath carried the whole bowling attack throughout the Ashes due to the rapid decline of Gillespie and Kasper, Lee's pie throwing and a very inexperienced Tait. I dont it was Warnes fault that he had to bowl more overs than usual to keep it the runs tight and to get the wickets, as a result of everyone else getting tonked.

At that time (and probably arguably today), the future bowling stocks doesnt really look very good asides from a young Tait, 30 somethings such as S.Clark and Lewis, and many other like Dorey and Rofe waiting in the wings. But at least the "young-ins" are given a chance to play at ODI top level as of late.

[Sunny]

Warne bowled about 2000+ career overs under Taylor, so a third of his bowling was during Taylors era, followed by 1300+ overs during his time under Border as captain.

The rest of the overs where under either Waugh or Ponting.

[Ice goddess]

But Cooldude we're not talking about what the other bowlers didn't do, we're talking about Warne. In his prime he would have found a way. And you can't point the finger at the support bowlers not being as good otherwise you detract to an extent from how great he was in the past. You're effectively saying that he needs McGrath and co. to soften up the batsmen to be at his best. Remember the great pacemen have to blast through the top order from the start. Also Warne had the opportunity the last day to bowl them out if he was good enough. And he dropped Pietersen to boot. No question he was easily our most effective bowler. But the fact remains England didn't appear as vulnerable to him as they did in the past when they feared him and often surrendered meekly.

[Cooldude]

He DID find a way, FFS

And HE WAS AT HIS BEST, FFS

You must be blind

He didn't even need the new ball bowling to soften up to get 40 wickets for the series, he didn't need any help, he carried the whole team on his own, and he almost did it. So what you just said was totally irrelevant and just a complete utter bunch of bull********

And the Poms WERE vulnerable to him, they were ********e against him, they had no ********ing clue, but this is far better an England side than Warne's ever played against in his career, yet he still had his best series he's ever had against the Poms. How do you wanna twist it next time?

The Poms won the Ashes not because they were any good against Warne, but their bowling killed us and our quicks were ********.

And Warnie was the only one who did all he could on the last day of the 5th Test, he got the crucial wickets, he kept the flame alive, but one man can only do so much.

I'm sorry if you're gonna keep twisting facts just to suit your agenda against Warne, but please, don't serve up rubbish like this.

To even blame Warne for losing the Ashes is the single stupidest thing ever said this year, even worse than anything eddiesmith or starz have said

I'm eagerly awaiting your next reply, where you will probably change your word to, "Oh, but if Warnie's so good, why can't he take more than 40 wickets and won us the Ashes blah blah blah"

[Ice goddess]

He DID find a way, FFS

IAnd HE WAS AT HIS BEST, FFS

You must be blind

He didn't even need the new ball bowling to soften up to get 40 wickets for the series, he didn't need any help, he carried the whole team on his own, and he almost did it

And the Poms WERE vulnerable to him, they were ********e against him, but this is far better an England side than Warne's ever played against in his career, yet he still had his best series he's ever had against them.

The Poms won the Ashes not because they were any good against Warne, but their bowling killed us and our quicks were ********.

And Warnie was the only one who did all he could on the last day of the 5th Test, he got the crucial wickets, he kept the flame alive, but one man can only do so much.

I'm sorry if you're gonna keep twisting facts just to suit your agenda against Warne, but please, don't serve up rubbish like this.

To even blame Warne for losing the Ashes is the single stupidest thing ever said this year, even worse than anything eddiesmith or starz have said

didn't blame Warne for losing the Ashes, but I said in the past he would have found a way. Fact is HE DIDN'T. Remind me who holds the Ashes!!!!! And yes he took 40 wickets, a great effort, but he also went for plenty. On several occasions his figures were flattered by winding up the innings when the poms already had seized the initiative. The Warne of old would have had 5/50 odd against the pommies. They didn't fear him over there. Notice too, this pitch (and backed up by the curator's comments), is one of the slowest at the WACA for years. The Proteas minus a spinner are playing their first test ever in Perth. Bit of a coincidence you might think ; obviously tailored for Warne. But anyway feel free to keep defending the drug cheat.

[Cooldude]

In your opinion, in the past he would've found a way

You're talking utter bull********

Then you say you didn't blame him for losing the Ashes, yet the next sentence you said Warne of old would've won us the Ashes. You are just on a roll, aiin't ya?

I have never seen Warnie bowled better than the Ashes, and I've watched and studied Warne far more than you would've ever had in your life. You have no evidence to suggest in the past he would've found a way either, apart from your opinion, which is twisted, moronic and anti-Warne.

And he almost singlehandedly won us the Ashes, and I tell you, not a single bowler in the history of the game could've kept a rabble of a team in with a shout like he did in the Ashes. We were a rabble, and Warnie nearly dragged that rabble to beat an extremely good England outfit on their home turf, despite many factors going against him that wasn't under his control.

And from your comments about Warne's performances, I can bet that you either watched the Ashes with rose-tinted glasses, or you didn't watch it at all, you're just talking eddiesmith-sque bull********.

Warne of the past wouldn't have done much better than what he did 1st day 5th Test when he took 6 fer on one of the flattest decks you'll ever see, when the Ashes were slipping away, and he pulled it back without our grasp.

England had the Ashes, and I REPEAT AND GET THIS IN YOUR THICK HEAD, it was not because of Warne in any way, in fact, they would've breathe a sigh of relief that they barely escaped the magic of the Great Man and to even have their hands on the Ashes.

[Viking Wizard Eyes]

I think you're talking ********, not the first time that you constantly suggest he takes a lot of tailender wickets

And btw, it was only a Test ago that he ripped the heart outta the Windies, so you're wrong

He might not rip the ball as far as he used to, he might not have that flipper anymore, but he is a smarter than before, watching him bowl is a great sight to behold, trying to prey into his mind and work out what exactly he's trying to do to every individual batsmen

Stats also don't tell the whole story of Warne having to bowl on the first day and missing out on getting last use of the pitch (Something he did a lot under Taylor who always batted first), yet he still take 5fers and keeps the runs down, where any other leg spinners would've failed.

He might not look as brillant a bowler as he used to, but because of his experience and the plans he set to the batsmen (Which are often the correct plans) and the ability to execute those plans with his wide variety of tricks and accuracy, makes him a more efficient and effective bowler than he's ever been. His last 4 years have proven that
They should just be grateful they've lived to see the greatest bowler the game has ever seen.

[Ice goddess]

They should just be grateful they've lived to see the greatest bowler the game has ever seen.

That's a debatable point. One of the greatest. Longevity wise he's up there and sheer number of wickets. But if you want someone to frighten the batsmen or blast them out, there's a queue of great fast bowlers with better strike rates and averages to more than match him.

[Cooldude]

That's a debatable point. One of the greatest. Longevity wise he's up there and sheer number of wickets. But if you want someone to frighten the batsmen or blast them out, there's a queue of great fast bowlers with better strike rates and averages to more than match him.

Stupid to compare fast bowlers with spinners, especially wrist spin, hardest art in the game by a mile

Warne frightened batsman, not physically like quicks do, but mental. He blasted out his fair share of teams. His strike rate of 57 is absolutely amazing.

And he has everything you want in a bowler, the ability to be a strike bowler and stock bowler, to get wickets when he is needed to, to keep it tight when it's needed to. To bowl in all conditions, to adapt to any game situation.

And he did all that in an era where spin was thought to be dead, because modern cricket doesn't suit spinners, especially leg spinners. There might've been many great quicks of the past, but there is only one Warne

He is the greatest the world is ever seen, and many better judges than me agree

[Ice goddess]

Stupid to compare fast bowlers with spinners, especially wrist spin, hardest art in the game by a mile

Warne frightened batsman, not physically like quicks do, but mental. He blasted out his fair share of teams. His strike rate of 57 is absolutely amazing.

And he has everything you want in a bowler, the ability to be a strike bowler and stock bowler, to get wickets when he is needed to, to keep it tight when it's needed to. To bowl in all conditions, to adapt to any game situation.

And he did all that in an era where spin was thought to be dead, because modern cricket doesn't suit spinners, especially leg spinners. There might've been many great quicks of the past, but there is only one Warne

He is the greatest the world is ever seen, and many better judges than me agree

It remains a subjective point/argument. Warne's leg spin is unique but you could also argue that when he came onto the scene many players hadn't been accustomed to leg spin as it was a dying art. I think he benefited a bit in this regard, players were very reluctant to use their feet like they did in earlier times.

[Cooldude]

What bull********, they better be brillant on their feet if they're gonna come down to Warne

Always better back in the days and all that......

Only Tendulkar and Lara has really blasted Warne by using their feet out of the crease. Many of them have failed miserably doing it.

Back in Clarrie Grimmett's era, good luck to anyone who tries to constantly use their feet against him, and there were some pretty good batsmen then. Warne is in the same case

Both are very similar bowlers in the way they ping batsmen down with relentlessly accurate leg breaks, so accurate, you'd be stupid to use their feet to them without being any good at it. Warne is much bigger a ripper of the ball than Grimmett, too

[Ice goddess]

What bull********, they better be brillant on their feet if they're gonna come down to Warne

Always better back in the days and all that......

Only Tendulkar and Lara has really blasted Warne by using their feet out of the crease. Many of them have failed miserably doing it.

Back in Clarrie Grimmett's era, good luck to anyone who tries to constantly use their feet against him, and there were some pretty good batsmen then. Warne is in the same case

Both are very similar bowlers in the way they ping batsmen down with relentlessly accurate leg breaks, so accurate, you'd be stupid to use their feet to them without being any good at it. Warne is much bigger a ripper of the ball than Grimmett, too

Laxman and Salim Malik also destroyed him and the latter predicted he would. BTW if you can't compare fast bowlers and spinners how can you confidently say that Warne is the greatest bowler ever?

[Sylvia Saint]

You a fan of ******** Sparrer Ice_goddess?

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/27/b8/368886-music-resized200.JPG

[Cooldude]

Bowling leg spin is way tougher than bowling quick, I never compared Warne with Lillee, or Marshall, or any quicks, I already stated the reasons why he is the greatest.

Good to see you count Laxman's one innings, he was brillant that day, and quite frankly some of the shots he played off Warnie by using his feet was the best I've ever seen. Then 3 years later Warnie bowled to him again and kept getting him

Salim Malik played Warne as well as anyone I've seen, he was a brillant batsman, but a cheat.

So, who are you gonna nitpick out of one or two just to prove that Warne's not really that good (Which suits your silly agenda)

[spell_check]

What bull********, they better be brillant on their feet if they're gonna come down to Warne

Always better back in the days and all that......

Only Tendulkar and Lara has really blasted Warne by using their feet out of the crease. Many of them have failed miserably doing it.

Back in Clarrie Grimmett's era, good luck to anyone who tries to constantly use their feet against him, and there were some pretty good batsmen then. Warne is in the same case

Both are very similar bowlers in the way they ping batsmen down with relentlessly accurate leg breaks, so accurate, you'd be stupid to use their feet to them without being any good at it. Warne is much bigger a ripper of the ball than Grimmett, too

Remember in Grimmetts' day the pitches weren't covered and suited bowlers more often. Now they favour batsman more often and Warne still regularly takes wickets.

[Cooldude]

Remember in Grimmetts' day the pitches weren't covered and suited bowlers more often. Now they favour batsman more often and Warne still regularly takes wickets.

Thank you, I already stated that and I agree. Warne is bowling in an era where modern cricket is the least favourable to spin bowlers compare to any other era, yet he has had success without equal.

Grum did bowl on some absolute roads back in his time, but yes, they were uncovered and invariably gives spinners more

[spell_check]

I'll bring the stat out again showing the number of wickets by batting position.
(Before this current Test)
Top Order
(1-3) 149 (23.0%)
Middle Order
(4-7) 257 (39.7%)
Tail
(8-11) 242 (37.3%)

The reason he hasn't got as many wickets at the top order is because traditionally as spinners do, they don't open the bowling. The likes of McGrath, Gillespie, McDermott, Lee, Kasprowicz and others such as Bichel and Hughes have all had first crack at the top order before Warne comes in. Also, he doesn't take the most wickets at the tail, so anyone who says that should look here. Warne deserves to be called a legend.

[spell_check]

Thank you, I already stated that and I agree. Warne is bowling in an era where modern cricket is the least favourable to spin bowlers compare to any other era, yet he has had success without equal.

Grum did bowl on some absolute roads back in his time, but yes, they were uncovered and invariably gives spinners more

I didn't see that before I posted the post above this one and I agree with you totally.

One more thing for people to think about - Warne said that he has only played one Test against Zimbabwe and none against Bangladesh, so it's not as if he bowls to rabbits all the time (Unlike another current famous spinner).

[Cooldude]

I'll bring the stat out again showing the number of wickets by batting position.
(Before this current Test)
Top Order
(1-3) 149 (23.0%)
Middle Order
(4-7) 257 (39.7%)
Tail
(8-11) 242 (37.3%)

The reason he hasn't got as many wickets at the top order is because traditionally as spinners do, they don't open the bowling. The likes of McGrath, Gillespie, McDermott, Lee, Kasprowicz and others such as Bichel and Hughes have all had first crack at the top order before Warne comes in. Also, he doesn't take the most wickets at the tail, so anyone who says that should look here. Warne deserves to be called a legend.

One thing with Warnie and openers is, when the new ball quicks haven't made any breakthroughs, Warnie is the one who continually just come in and remove one of the set openers or even both. He is that good

[spell_check]

I just looked at the total number of wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for Warne - 6 (0.009% out of his total 648.)

That other spinner I was talking about - 121 wickets against those two countries! (20.93% out of 578)

[spell_check]

Ice_Goddess, here's another one for you:

Analysis of Wickets Taken against
Batsmen B C CB LBW St HW Total
Stewart, A J (ENG) 4 5 3 2 14
Hussain, N (ENG) 1 5 4 1 11
Atherton, M A (ENG) 3 3 2 2 10
Thorpe, G P (ENG) 1 5 1 2 9
Richardson, D J (SAF) 1 6 1 8
Cronje, W J (SAF) 1 6 1 8
Caddick, A R (ENG) 2 3 1 2 8
McMillan, C D (NZL) 1 4 1 2 8
Dravid, R (IND) 3 3 2 8
Giles, A F (ENG) 1 3 1 3 8
Trescothick, M E (ENG) 1 4 2 1 8
Boucher, M V (SAF) 1 6 1 8
Astle, N J (NZL) 2 4 1 7
Vettori, D L (NZL) 6 1 7
Butcher, M A (ENG) 1 4 1 1 7
Lara, B C (WIN) 2 5 7
Gough, D (ENG) 1 2 1 2 1 7

Lots of tailenders in there. ;)

[spell_check]

I'm on a roll here:

Bowling averages by year:
Year O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
1992 153.3 32 503 12 1 0 7/52 41.92 76.75 3.28
1993 842.2 316 1697 72 2 0 6/31 23.57 70.20 2.01
1994 629 217 1274 70 6 2 8/71 18.20 53.92 2.03
1995 508.3 156 1254 52 1 1 7/23 24.12 58.67 2.47
1996 215.1 55 571 15 0 0 4/95 38.07 86.07 2.65
1997 681.5 194 1661 68 2 0 6/48 24.43 60.16 2.44
1998 268.1 62 796 24 2 1 6/34 33.17 67.04 2.97
1999 464.1 125 1253 38 2 0 5/52 32.97 73.29 2.70
2000 154.2 38 496 15 0 0 4/68 33.07 61.73 3.21
2001 583.3 113 1809 58 4 1 7/165 31.19 60.36 3.10
2002 479 109 1310 67 3 1 7/94 19.55 42.90 2.73
2004 578.4 124 1685 70 5 2 6/125 24.07 49.60 2.91
2005 626.4 106 1896 87 6 2 6/46 21.79 43.22 3.03
Overall (13) 6184.5 1647 16205 648 34 10 8/71 25.01 57.27 2.62

Have a look at the strike rate for 2002 to 2005 - all less than 50 balls a wicket, nothing before that was under 50 balls a wicket...THREAD OVER! :p :)

[Ice goddess]

Bowling leg spin is way tougher than bowling quick, I never compared Warne with Lillee, or Marshall, or any quicks, I already stated the reasons why he is the greatest.

Good to see you count Laxman's one innings, he was brillant that day, and quite frankly some of the shots he played off Warnie by using his feet was the best I've ever seen. Then 3 years later Warnie bowled to him again and kept getting him

Salim Malik played Warne as well as anyone I've seen, he was a brillant batsman, but a cheat.

So, who are you gonna nitpick out of one or two just to prove that Warne's not really that good (Which suits your silly agenda)

I'm not saying that Warne's not good because some play him well ; merely pointing out that the great batsmen who use their feet against him can make him look mortal. Anyway Laxman played a couple of good innings against him. But to call Salim a cheat (which he was), is also a touch of the pot calling the kettle black. Warne has been found guilty of taking a banned substance, involved in a betting scandal in which the major witness mysteriously disappeared and regularly appeals when he knows the batsman's not out. That could be called as a form of cheating in some quarters.

[Ice goddess]

I'm on a roll here:

Bowling averages by year:
Year O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
1992 153.3 32 503 12 1 0 7/52 41.92 76.75 3.28
1993 842.2 316 1697 72 2 0 6/31 23.57 70.20 2.01
1994 629 217 1274 70 6 2 8/71 18.20 53.92 2.03
1995 508.3 156 1254 52 1 1 7/23 24.12 58.67 2.47
1996 215.1 55 571 15 0 0 4/95 38.07 86.07 2.65
1997 681.5 194 1661 68 2 0 6/48 24.43 60.16 2.44
1998 268.1 62 796 24 2 1 6/34 33.17 67.04 2.97
1999 464.1 125 1253 38 2 0 5/52 32.97 73.29 2.70
2000 154.2 38 496 15 0 0 4/68 33.07 61.73 3.21
2001 583.3 113 1809 58 4 1 7/165 31.19 60.36 3.10
2002 479 109 1310 67 3 1 7/94 19.55 42.90 2.73
2004 578.4 124 1685 70 5 2 6/125 24.07 49.60 2.91
2005 626.4 106 1896 87 6 2 6/46 21.79 43.22 3.03
Overall (13) 6184.5 1647 16205 648 34 10 8/71 25.01 57.27 2.62

Have a look at the strike rate for 2002 to 2005 - all less than 50 balls a wicket, nothing before that was under 50 balls a wicket...THREAD OVER! :p :)

So you're obviously a complete slave to stats. I know people well regarded in the cricket world who suggest Warne bowled his best in about 1994. Sometimes a batsman out of form can make a ton but bat the next week, make fifty and it's a better innings if you take into account everything, including the quality of bowling, state of the game, whether or not he gave chances etc. The slave to stats would always rate the ton better though.

[spell_check]

Oh yeah, I forgot - I love stats. :) :thumbsu:

[spell_check]

So you're obviously a complete slave to stats. I know people well regarded in the cricket world who suggest Warne bowled his best in about 1994. Sometimes a batsman out of form can make a ton but bat the next week, make fifty and it's a better innings if you take into account everything, including the quality of bowling, state of the game, whether or not he gave chances etc. The slave to stats would always rate the ton better though.

However the quality of opposition is debatable under the much posed question - Is the opposition worse than it was 10 years ago, or is Australia that much better than everyone else? That opens up a keg full of worms.

[Ice goddess]

The pitches might have suited the bowlers more in the days they were uncovered, but in those days they gave very few leg befores. In fact even in the 60's they reluctantly gave them. Warne certainly gets many LBW's when the batsman is on the front foot and the ball is spinning a lot. In the past they simply didn't give those. Excessive appealing is one of the biggest reasons for this ; allegedly.

[Ice goddess]

I didn't see that before I posted the post above this one and I agree with you totally.

One more thing for people to think about - Warne said that he has only played one Test against Zimbabwe and none against Bangladesh, so it's not as if he bowls to rabbits all the time (Unlike another current famous spinner).

But Murali does have to bowl more often on the sub-continent (against sub-continent teams), where in theory it spins more but the batsmen are much more adept at playing this type of bowling. Warne's record against India in India is hardly flattering. Salim Malik tore him apart in Pakistan as well. Warne does have the advantage of playing at least one test in Sydney each year ; a pitch custom made for spinners.

[spell_check]

This is Murali in Sri Lanka and away from Sri Lanka.
Bowling
Venue O M R W 5w Best Avg S/R E/R
Home 3266.2 902 7314 373 33 9/51 19.61 52.54 2.24
Away 2193 535 5549 205 15 9/65 27.07 64.19 2.53
Overall 5459.2 1437 12863 578 48 9/51 22.25 56.67 2.36

This is Warne in Australia and away from Australia.
Bowling
Venue O M R W 5w Best Avg S/R E/R
Home 2851.5 732 7352 285 14 8/71 25.80 60.04 2.58
Away 3333.0 915 8853 363 20 7/94 24.39 55.09 2.66
Overall 6184.5 1647 16205 648 34 8/71 25.01 57.27 2.62

This shows that Warne gets wickets on all kinds of wickets around the world and not just his home ground. Muralitharan doesn't necessarily take all (or most) his wickets against sub-continent teams at home.

If anything, see my post on the number of wickets he and Warne have taken against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

[ablettjnr]

I just looked at the total number of wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for Warne - 6 (0.009% out of his total 648.)

That other spinner I was talking about - 121 wickets against those two countries! (20.93% out of 578)
Just make that 1%. Impressive, but not that impressive.

[Ice goddess]

This is Murali in Sri Lanka and away from Sri Lanka.
Bowling
Venue O M R W 5w Best Avg S/R E/R
Home 3266.2 902 7314 373 33 9/51 19.61 52.54 2.24
Away 2193 535 5549 205 15 9/65 27.07 64.19 2.53
Overall 5459.2 1437 12863 578 48 9/51 22.25 56.67 2.36

This is Warne in Australia and away from Australia.
Bowling
Venue O M R W 5w Best Avg S/R E/R
Home 2851.5 732 7352 285 14 8/71 25.80 60.04 2.58
Away 3333.0 915 8853 363 20 7/94 24.39 55.09 2.66
Overall 6184.5 1647 16205 648 34 8/71 25.01 57.27 2.62

This shows that Warne gets wickets on all kinds of wickets around the world and not just his home ground. Muralitharan doesn't necessarily take all (or most) his wickets against sub-continent teams at home.

If anything, see my post on the number of wickets he and Warne have taken against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.


It's not Murali's fault that Warne doesn't play against Zim and Bang. Anyway how do you know that the quicks wouldn't run through them and stop Warne from taking wickets. While Murali's home record is much better, his away one is still good for his type of bowler ; in fact very good.

[Cooldude]

I'm not saying that Warne's not good because some play him well ; merely pointing out that the great batsmen who use their feet against him can make him look mortal.

I'll tell you a little something about Lindsay Hassett and Tiger O'Reilly, Tiger was considered by many back in the days as the greatest bowler of all time, but Lindsay Hassett hit ton after ton on him, and used his feet beautifully to him. He defeated the greatest bowler many has seen at the time, so your point being?

But you continually miss the point, batsmen who has that ability to do that to world class spinners are rare. You can probably count around 20 odd who has the ability to do that in the history of the game. They don't come around often. Some can do it in patches like Laxman did

You make it sound like Warne is playing in an era where no one uses his feet on him, well, that's because batsmen who can do that well are rare anyway at any era. So your point is mute and pointless.


Anyway Laxman played a couple of good innings against him. But to call Salim a cheat (which he was), is also a touch of the pot calling the kettle black. Warne has been found guilty of taking a banned substance, involved in a betting scandal in which the major witness mysteriously disappeared and regularly appeals when he knows the batsman's not out. That could be called as a form of cheating in some quarters.

Good to see you coming outta the woodwork and showing why you love to put it on Warnie so much

Receiving a few bucks from John the bookmaker for a few innocent tips on the pitch, or taking a non-performance enhancing drugs (And don't you start moronic talks like it maskes steroids), is nowhere near as bad as fixing match after match. Don't even compare, thank you.

[Cooldude]

But Murali does have to bowl more often on the sub-continent (against sub-continent teams), where in theory it spins more but the batsmen are much more adept at playing this type of bowling. Warne's record against India in India is hardly flattering. Salim Malik tore him apart in Pakistan as well. Warne does have the advantage of playing at least one test in Sydney each year ; a pitch custom made for spinners.

What a load of rubbish again from you

Going by your extremely flawed logic, so even though Warne bowls on flat roads all the time for all his life at home, in theory he has an advantage over Murali because the tracks are so flat no one knows how to play spin?

Warne has destroyed Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and Pakistan in Pakistan, last tour, he did very admirably in India against some of the greatest players of leg spin you're ever likely to see.

Pakistan is the second best nation for Warnie in terms of his record against them, he kills Pakistan all the time

Murali constantly gets pitches doctored for him in Sri Lanka, so when he comes out of that and bowls at Australia, his average is higher than Sir Don's batting average.

Continue with your blinkered crap

[Cooldude]

It's not Murali's fault that Warne doesn't play against Zim and Bang. Anyway how do you know that the quicks wouldn't run through them and stop Warne from taking wickets. While Murali's home record is much better, his away one is still good for his type of bowler ; in fact very good.

So you say Warnie keeps getting tailenders, yet it's okay for Murali to keep getting Bangers and Zimmers wickets? Don't set double standards, coz it just proves your agenda even more

[Cooldude]

The pitches might have suited the bowlers more in the days they were uncovered, but in those days they gave very few leg befores. In fact even in the 60's they reluctantly gave them. Warne certainly gets many LBW's when the batsman is on the front foot and the ball is spinning a lot. In the past they simply didn't give those. Excessive appealing is one of the biggest reasons for this ; allegedly.
Yep, as if back then umpires never give dodgey lbs

How many more silly little points are you gonna dig out to suit your agenda again? So it's no advantage bowling on uncovered pitches back then coz the umpiring was stricter? What kind of stupid argument is that?

And go to see you let in another dig on Warne again

[ablettjnr]

I am quite enjoying this.

[Ice goddess]

So you say Warnie keeps getting tailenders, yet it's okay for Murali to keep getting Bangers and Zimmers wickets? Don't set double standards, coz it just proves your agenda even more

Murali has only played 4 tests against the Bangers ; hardly a heap. My point re. the sub-continent is that Murali does have to contend with Sachin and co. on their pitches and Warne's record there is not great. The Pakis have been vulnerable against spin in recent times but Salim showed very good players of spin can beat him. Salim's 'cheating' doesn't compare with Warne but the drug (and it could have masked steroid, you wouldn't really know), is a black mark against him. One thing which does annoy me about him is how ungracious he is towards Murali, always pointing out who he plays against etc. He never concedes though that he's enjoyed the benefits of playing in a great team which has allowed him to have attacking fields, runs to play with, great fieldsmen and batsmen constantly under pressure.

BTW, just to back up my point about the dearth of LBW's in the 60's, often referred to by players back then, Richie got 28 out leg before, while Warne has 127. Even allowing for the fact that Warne has more overall wickets so of course will have more, it does point to the trend that they gave a lot fewer. In fact people who watched cricket in that era have commented that many of the things Warne goes up for, and sometimes gets, the bowler wouldn't even have appealed for in those times.

[spell_check]

This is another thing to consider about the Murali/Warne matchup:

Muralitharan Overs per match: 5459.2/ 98 matches = 55.70 Overs
Warne Overs per match: 6184.5/ 133 matches = 46.5 Overs

See how much more Muralitharan gets to bowl than Warne?

[Cooldude]

bAgain, you're talking bull********

Is this the same Shane Warne who took 26 wickets in 3 Tests against the Sri Lankans and smashed them 3-0? I'm sure his record there is ********, I'm sure also that you will find some way to say "Oh, but the batsmen were ******** blah blah blah"

Again, you must've conveniently ignore my Tiger O'Reilly story, there's always two or three batsmen who does well over any bowler, just to pick out a Salim Malik to try to discredit Warne is purely clutching at straws. And good to see you come outta the woodwork and change your tune and said Pakistan can't play spin, only a minute ago you said Warnie had a ********e record at the sub-continent.

No, it didn't mask steroids, because you can't prove it, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but in your mind, he must've, eh? He took a drug that's irrelevant to his playing condition, of course, he's a cheat in your mind then for doing that? You should check up the meaning of the word cheat first

You are laughable, Warne bowls to attacking fields because his accuracy is so good, Warne made the Aussies great. What other moronic point are you gonna twist to make it into a negative next to Warne's name?

And btw, Warnie gets lbws, perhaps because his bowling's so good, do you ever think that? The flippers and sliders he has would always mean he gets a fair amount of lbws, I'm afraid you know nothing about his bowling

Warnie is the pioneer for spinners getting the lbws they deserve, Richie himself agrees. He just basically changed the way the game's been looked at, that is another point to his greatness, but in your blinkered eyes, he has it lucky :rolleyes:

Just to put out Richie and say Warnie has an unfair advantage because he has more lbws is just ********ing stupid, what other mother********ing mindnumbing bull******** are you come up with next? I can easily say that Murali gets more bowleds than others because the batsmen's technique is ******** against him compare to other eras, how's that different to your spindoctoring rubbish?

[spell_check]

Just make that 1%. Impressive, but not that impressive.

Sorry, make that 0.92% out of 648, I forgot to carry the decimal point!

[Ice goddess]

This is another thing to consider about the Murali/Warne matchup:

Muralitharan Overs per match: 5459.2/ 98 matches = 55.70 Overs
Warne Overs per match: 6184.5/ 133 matches = 46.5 Overs

See how much more Muralitharan gets to bowl than Warne?

But you must take into account that Murali hasn't got other great bowlers softening up the batsmen. He quite often has to come on and separate the openers. He hasn't got someone with the pace of Lee in his team, nor quite the steadiness or status of McGrath. Of course he will bowl more overs. But he still has a lower average despite this. It might give one the chance to take more wickets, but especially when one's fingers tire, the chance to get carted more. Let's not forget that Murali keeps his average down.

[ablettjnr]

but especially when one's fingers tire, the chance to get carted more. down.
What about elbows? :D :D

[Cooldude]

But you must take into account that Murali hasn't got other great bowlers softening up the batsmen. He quite often has to come on and separate the openers..

You are unbelievable, only two pages ago people said that about Warne, yet you ignored it, because it didn't suit your ********ing argument

Warnie does it all the time, if the quicks don't get the early breakthroughs, he is the one who gets them.


He hasn't got someone with the pace of Lee in his team, nor quite the steadiness or status of McGrath. Of course he will bowl more overs. But he still has a lower average despite this. It might give one the chance to take more wickets, but especially when one's fingers tire, the chance to get carted more. Let's not forget that Murali keeps his average down.

Okay, I will adopt your approach and use the spindoctoring ******** you're doing: Perhaps Murali's average is so low because other bowlers are so ********, batsmen look to survive against him rather than attack him, while Warne gets attacked because of the other great bowlers around him, so that makes Warnie's record even that more impressive?

Vaas is as steady as anyone going around, but that doesn't suit your argument so that's not going in your posts, eh?

[usalion]

I've already agreed to disagree with cooldude, although I'll recognise Warne's bowling now as quite brilliant, if not his very best....here are Warne's stats by series against England

2005
SK Warne 5 252.5 37 797 40 19.92 6-46 3 2 37.9 3.15

2002-3
SK Warne 3 131.1 29 347 14 24.78 4-93 - - 56.2 2.64

2001
SK Warne 5 195.2 41 580 31 18.70 7-165 3 1 37.8 2.96

1998-9
SK Warne 39 7 110 2 55.00 1-43 - - 117.

1997
SK Warne 237.1 69 577 24 24.04 6-48 1 - 59.2 2.43
Note- 6 Tests played in 1997

1994-5
SK Warne 5 256.1 84 549 27 20.33 2 1 - - 8/71 2.14

1993
SK Warne 439.5 178 877 34 25.79 5-82 1 - 2.00
Again, a 6 Test series

Conclusions- I dunno.....His economy rate was up, yet he took more wickets than ever, even though in two of the series, he bowled close to the same number of overs and one (1993), he bowled far more than in 2005.

Fact is, his work rate does damage his body...you can say all you want about not needing a run up like a fast bowler, but the tweak he has to give with his wrist and fingers really do cause strain, to the point that his variety is smaller these days.

As I said before, he has been great all along- don't think you can really differentiate that much...

Good discussion, though...one of the best going at the moment

[Ice goddess]

bAgain, you're talking bull********

Is this the same Shane Warne who took 26 wickets in 3 Tests against the Sri Lankans and smashed them 3-0? I'm sure his record there is ********, I'm sure also that you will find some way to say "Oh, but the batsmen were ******** blah blah blah"

Again, you must've conveniently ignore my Tiger O'Reilly story, there's always two or three batsmen who does well over any bowler, just to pick out a Salim Malik to try to discredit Warne is purely clutching at straws. And good to see you come outta the woodwork and change your tune and said Pakistan can't play spin, only a minute ago you said Warnie had a ********e record at the sub-continent.

No, it didn't mask steroids, because you can't prove it, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but in your mind, he must've, eh? He took a drug that's irrelevant to his playing condition, of course, he's a cheat in your mind then for doing that? You should check up the meaning of the word cheat first

You are laughable, Warne bowls to attacking fields because his accuracy is so good, Warne made the Aussies great. What other moronic point are you gonna twist to make it into a negative next to Warne's name?

And btw, Warnie gets lbws, perhaps because his bowling's so good, do you ever think that? The flippers and sliders he has would always mean he gets a fair amount of lbws, I'm afraid you know nothing about his bowling

Warnie is the pioneer for spinners getting the lbws they deserve, Richie himself agrees. He just basically changed the way the game's been looked at, that is another point to his greatness, but in your blinkered eyes, he has it lucky :rolleyes:

Just to put out Richie and say Warnie has an unfair advantage because he has more lbws is just ********ing stupid, what other mother********ing mindnumbing bull******** are you come up with next? I can easily say that Murali gets more bowleds than others because the batsmen's technique is ******** against him compare to other eras, how's that different to your spindoctoring rubbish?

The thing about the steroids is, you can't prove he didn't take them. The drug issue will always be a cloud over Warne's career whether you like it or not. And with the sub-continent, I was principally talking about India because they're good players of spin ; have been much better than the Pakis in recent times. It's partly due to patience (Sehwag)aside. Both Lara and Tendulkur, and certainly Malik have shown that if you are prepared to leave your crease and take Warne on you can be successful. Yes I know you'll hit back with how hard that is. The fact is very few have been prepared to do that, and not only against Warne. The fact that MacGill also has so much success is testament to how badly some of these blokes play leg spin, even allowing for the fact that Stewie's a reasonable bowler. Interesting how his figures are usually better than Shane's. You'll probably suggest that it's Shane's influence, not the fact that many of the current players are shyte against wrist spin. If you do indeed suggest it is, perhaps you conveniently forget how much effect the softening of the batsmen by the quicks is. How the small scores the opposition make relative to Australia's (we've been on top for a while now), allow him to constantly bowl with fielders around the bat, with some of the clueless batsmen poking at him. Of course they'll go out.

Lara had the right idea when he won them a few tests in the Windies back in 98. He defied Warne for two days by not allowing him to get on top. Funny how he piqued the man severely too. He lost his cool and his place in the team.

Don't know how relevant Grimmett is anyway. Totally different era. Different interpretation of some rules, uncovered pitches, timeless tests. Many of the pitches which weren't rain affected were said to be absolute roads. AND ANOTHER VERY RELEVANT FACTOR. According to the best cricket historians, the fielding was generally shyte in those days with scores of dropped catches. Bet there weren't too many first slip catches taken a la Waugh's and Hayden's by the fielders of yore. And captaincy was very unscientific with field placings not as thoughtful and favourable to the bowlers as it is today. FOOD FOR THOUGHT???

[Cooldude]

Great, so you've now backpedalled 3 times, first you said Warnie's record is ******** in the sub-continent, now you said Pakistan were ******** players of spin, Sri Lankans were ******** players of spin, and now you've changed your tune to the extent that you were only talking about India, how many more twists and turns are you gonna make?

And no, doctors at the time said steroids would not have aided Warne's recovery from the shoulder surgery nor his bowling, so nothing was performance enhancing, besides, he didn't take them, because he can't prove it.

You haven't listened to what I said, have ya? Many ain't prepared to use their feet against Warne because many are not good enough to do it, only 3-5 in Warne's time have had that ability to consistently do it. Get it in your thick head

And Macgill is one of the greatest wrist spinners of all time, your bull******** is getting tiresome. Arthur Mailey used to average one long hop per over, yet he was regarded extremely highly back then. Your point is mute

Yeah, Warnie just took 40 wickets in the Ashes when the quicks were ********ing hopeless, I'm sure he can only do it when the quicks do it for him... How many more rubbish are you goona spout out? I don't wanna use silly abuses, but quite frankly some of the bull******** you've come up with, you are qualified to be an idiot.

You are clutching at straws, just because catches weren't recorded at the time means it hasn't happened? I've heard plenty of ripping catches taken back then, but again you can use anything you possibly can to discredit Warne, even with rubbish arguments like benefiting from good fielding. Fielders can't take catches if bowlers didn't make the chance, end of story. I don't even know why I bother with ********ing idiots like you

And Murali's average against India is 32, hardly groundbreaking, and he took 7/100 off like 40 overs the other day to lower that, I'm sure it's okay for Murali to bowl so many overs in your eyes, yet it's a problem for you when Warnie does it. I'm sure it's okay for Murali to go for big runs with his hauls but it's not okay when Warnie does it.

I will repeat, you are a bull******** artist

[Ice goddess]

Great, so you've now backpedalled 3 times, first you said Warnie's record is ******** in the sub-continent, now you said Pakistan were ******** players of spin, Sri Lankans were ******** players of spin, and now you've changed your tune to the extent that you were only talking about India, how many more twists and turns are you gonna make?

And no, doctors at the time said steroids would not have aided Warne's recovery from the shoulder surgery nor his bowling, so nothing was performance enhancing, besides, he didn't take them, because he can't prove it.

You haven't listened to what I said, have ya? Many ain't prepared to use their feet against Warne because many are not good enough to do it, only 3-5 in Warne's time have had that ability to consistently do it. Get it in your thick head

And Macgill is one of the greatest wrist spinners of all time, your bull******** is getting tiresome. Arthur Mailey used to average one long hop per over, yet he was regarded extremely highly back then. Your point is mute

Yeah, Warnie just took 40 wickets in the Ashes when the quicks were ********ing hopeless, I'm sure he can only do it when the quicks do it for him... How many more rubbish are you goona spout out? I don't wanna use silly abuses, but quite frankly some of the bull******** you've come up with, you are qualified to be an idiot.

You are clutching at straws, just because catches weren't recorded at the time means it hasn't happened? I've heard plenty of ripping catches taken back then, but again you can use anything you possibly can to discredit Warne, even with rubbish arguments like benefiting from good fielding. Fielders can't take catches if bowlers didn't make the chance, end of story. I don't even know why I bother with ********ing idiots like you

And Murali's average against India is 32, hardly groundbreaking, and he took 7/100 off like 40 overs the other day to lower that, I'm sure it's okay for Murali to bowl so many overs in your eyes, yet it's a problem for you when Warnie does it. I'm sure it's okay for Murali to go for big runs with his hauls but it's not okay when Warnie does it.

I will repeat, you are a bull******** artist

Funny how I focus on the argument but you focus on explaining to all how suddenly you ALWAYS have to be right.

Okay Murali's 32 is hardly riveting stuff but Warne's 47 (until the last series 55), is hardly the stuff of legends. Anyway my argument re. the sub-continent was focussed on India. Have maintained all along that the Indians are the best contemporary players of spin and Warne simply has not cut the mustard against them. Not only are his figures unflattering, but the batsmen treated him with disdain, as did both Lara and Adams during their epic two day partnership which turned Warne's Caribbean sojourn sour.

As for the catching in the 30's, there was the odd ripper, but if you read enough books from that era you see how many were dropped. Interesting when I was reading a book about Bradman once and it had every recorded innings, it was amazing just how many times he was actually dropped. Sometimes more than once and they were the only ones referred to by the historian. Players from that era have categorically said that the cricket was a lot less scientific, and they were semi-professionals at best who didn't invest the time in fielding they do today. Players of the 50's etc. will also tell you that the players didn't dive like they do today ; didn't take the screamers or cut off the boundaries.

I don't think Mr Cooldude, this is one argument you can wriggle yourself out of it. Indisputably the fielding today is light years ahead of the 30's as are the tactics, as are the conditions of the ground and the fitness of the players.

[Ice goddess]

Oh and one other VERY relevant aspect of contemporary fielding, the wearing of helmets has ensured that the fieldsmen can get closer to the bat with confidence. Remember that hat trick of Warne's at the MCG. Was probably just as much Boonie's who took a ripper to finish off the tail. Do you really think that the fieldsmen of the 30's could to that to Grimmett? Quite often that also means fewer runs are conceded as the ball is hit into the body. Hodge stopped a few yesterday in this fashion. Indubitably the crowd cries as they agree with me on this point. The fielding of today is so superior to that of the 30's it doesn't bear talking about!

[ablettjnr]

Indubitably the crowd cries as they agree with me on this point.
That ain't cool.

[Cooldude]

I don't focus on rubbish arguments like all the rubbish you serve up, I focus on facts, which I've been putting out and you conveniently ignoring because it doesn't suit your argument

I'm sure Richie, one of the greatest ever captains, would appreciate you saying the tactics nowadays is better than back then, or the Don himself if he's still alive, or Ian Chappell, or Lindsay Hassett, or the bloke who invented Bodyline.

and Michael Vaughan, Ricky Ponting, Graeme Smith and all that, they're all ********ehouse tacticans anyway. Stephen Fleming's the only worthy captain.

And the fielding back then ain't as professional as nowadays, but it certainly wasn't complete rubbish. And to use fielding as an excuse for someone benefiting is the biggest load of spin doctoring bull******** you can ever come up with. I already said: Fielders can't take catches unless bowlers made them, Warne constantly makes those chances, so it's not exactly his fault that his fielders are particularly more adapt at grabbing them, eh?

I'm sure Murali's record in Australia's rivating as well, eh? Don't worry, it's just in three figures, his average here, that is. He was so not keen to bowl here, he didn't even bother coming last time around.

Not long ago, Murali's average against the Indians was 40 odd as well. Your point is rubbish. Some of the Indians this era is some of the best players of spin, especially leg spin, I have ever seen. Everyone has a nation they don't do well against, Tendulkar has an average of 37 against South Africa, so your point?

You changed your argument anyway, good to see you conveniently ignoring how I said you kept changing tunes and backpedalling, you referred to the Sri Lankans and Pakistanis as well, only when I shot you down and point out how well Warnie's done against them have ya changed to "Only India". You are pathetic.

I like the way you make it sound like someone of the calibre of Lara and Tendulkar comes along so often, and how because they do well against Warne, it means other batsmen can do it as well. Lara took apart Murali many times as well. You are clutching at straws big time with some of your utter rubbish

[Cooldude]

Oh and one other VERY relevant aspect of contemporary fielding, the wearing of helmets has ensured that the fieldsmen can get closer to the bat with confidence. Remember that hat trick of Warne's at the MCG. Was probably just as much Boonie's who took a ripper to finish off the tail. Do you really think that the fieldsmen of the 30's could to that to Grimmett? Quite often that also means fewer runs are conceded as the ball is hit into the body. Hodge stopped a few yesterday in this fashion. Indubitably the crowd cries as they agree with me on this point. The fielding of today is so superior to that of the 30's it doesn't bear talking about!

As I already said, O'Reilly got an incredible amount of bat-pads, especially at short leg where the fielder is even closer than Boonie used to be for Warnie's hat trick. So you're already wrong in the first place.

How's that relevant to how good Warnie actually is? If you wanna compare fielding then and now, start another thread. It bears little relevance to how good Warnie actually is, spinner back then and now all have bat pads, they might take more now, but it really bears very little influence, but of course, with your spindoctoring bull********, you will harp on about how important it is.

I don't think you remember what this thread's about all along, you just drift and drift as every moronic spin you try to make to prove that Warnie is not really that good has been defeated, and now you're just harping on about the fielding, which really has nothing to do with the original topic.

Are you still gonna harp on how Warnie bowls so many overs and gets so many tailenders again?

[Ice goddess]

Actually Benaud would agree me with on the tactics bit because he said it. I have it on video tape. He says "Captaincy is a lot more scientific today." He credits the tied test series in 60-61 with expediting the development of captaincy tactics.

And it's not only India that Warne struggles against, the good Windians have given him a run for his money. And for the record Murali averages 17 against them. Warne's average is not too bad, but not stellar considering how poor a cricketing nation they have been for the past 8 years or so.

As for this thread changing tack, it seems there were a lot of red herrings served up. I simply said that despite what stats say I don't think he's as good a bowler as he was in the mid-90's. But I've had nothing but volleys of stats thrown my way. And while I pointed out that he did take 40 wickets against the poms, the fact remains that he wasn't as penetrative as he was in his prime. You criticised Murali for taking 7/100 against the Indians the other day, yet forget that many times during the Ashes series Warne got the wickets but at great cost, and at times flattered by wiping out the tail, as he did a couple of times against the Windies this summer. 7/100 against the Indians in India is nothing to knock back. And he claimed Sachin again yesterday with another good bowling performance, 3/76 off 21 overs on the first day of a test is not bad going. And his seven wickets were in the first innings when the pitch wasn't taking much turn.

As for Murali bowling in Australia, surely you have to take into account the Hair 'incident' and how uncharitable the Aussie crowds are to him. But certainly against the World XI this time around he tied the Aussies in knots during the second innings even though he wasn't rewarded with a bag. At one stage he was virtually unplayable.

And if you want to look at other players who handle Warne with ease, look no further than the domestic scene. Or even grade cricket. Some when I was in the district ranks used to rather unkindly say "Bring him on at both ends"

Aussie batsmen don't fear him, they handle him with aplomb, much to the chagrin of the Victorians. Just look at his record, nothing to write home about. And if you say he doesn't give a toss that's wrong ; he's passionate about his state and highly competitive by nature. The Aussies though are much more adept (not adapt btw), at using their feet and combating him. Obviously too much more familiar with playing him in Aussie conditions and unlikely to get one of his routing 'gift' umpiring decisions. And I'm not using the latter against him but he's had his fair share of lucky lbw's in Australia over the years. And much better judges than anyone on this forum will quite happily agree on that point.

[Ten Ton Hammer]

It's quite clear that ice godess is just being a tool because he or she has something against warne for no particular reason at all!

[Ice goddess]

It's quite clear that ice godess is just being a tool because he or she has something against warne for no particular reason at all!


Or could it be that nobody is able to dare criticise Warne lest they be called "unAustralian". Everyone has to fall over backwards at his altar and agree with him that he's bowling the best he ever has just because he says so. I dare to be different so I have to be wrong or a troublemaker. I still maintain that Warne is not the bowler he was in the mid-90's and won't resile from that statement. And regardless of what the figures say, he doesn't tear through line-ups like he used to. He was even quite expensive at times this summer against the ordinary Windians ; and that was with Lara being 'cheated' out four times to help matters.

And the fact is he is a relatively ordinary bowler in domestic cricket.

[usalion]

Or could it be that nobody is able to dare criticise Warne lest they be called "unAustralian". Everyone has to fall over backwards at his altar and agree with him that he's bowling the best he ever has just because he says so. I dare to be different so I have to be wrong or a troublemaker. I still maintain that Warne is not the bowler he was in the mid-90's and won't resile from that statement. And regardless of what the figures say, he doesn't tear through line-ups like he used to. He was even quite expensive at times this summer against the ordinary Windians ; and that was with Lara being 'cheated' out four times to help matters.

And the fact is he is a relatively ordinary bowler in domestic cricket.

Actually, I agreed with you way back on the first page, but we have two different Warnes- in the mid 90s, he could bowl long spells and take wickets seemingly endlessly....now he is feeling the effects with a crook back and other complaints- well, he is no longer in his 20s.

No, he doesn't have the variety of deliveries he had 10 years ago, but he did not have the cricket knowledge then that he does now...in many ways, he is a far more cunning bowler, working harder to get batsmen, giving up some more runs, as spinners often do- but still a threat.

You can isolate individual matches for any bowler and say a side handled him, but Warne's Ashes series was simply astounding. He was asked to bowl much earlier than he has usually had to do, and did a marvelous job, completely bamboozling the English bats on pitches designed more for pace and seam than spin bowlers. No, he didn't win the series for Australia, but our batting was, at best, dismal, and he had little support from the other bowlers. Lee took wickets, but giving up runs all over the place...McGrath was never really himself after that stupid injury at Edgbaston, and the third bowlers simply did not do the job and were consequently shuffled around...one could argue against that, but it is irrelevant to the Warne point- his brilliance in that series will be talked about like old timers talk about the players of the last half century. People (not just the english bats) were mesmerised by warne's brilliance. I don't think any single bowler would have won that series for Australia, no matter how good.

So- two different Warnes...you have your view and have stated it- otthers have stated theirs- there is no way to "prove" either one is correct. Heck, Warne MIGHT be wrong- but he is also entitled to his opinion....

[Ten Ton Hammer]

Or could it be that nobody is able to dare criticise Warne lest they be called "unAustralian". Everyone has to fall over backwards at his altar and agree with him that he's bowling the best he ever has just because he says so. I dare to be different so I have to be wrong or a troublemaker. I still maintain that Warne is not the bowler he was in the mid-90's and won't resile from that statement. And regardless of what the figures say, he doesn't tear through line-ups like he used to. He was even quite expensive at times this summer against the ordinary Windians ; and that was with Lara being 'cheated' out four times to help matters.

And the fact is he is a relatively ordinary bowler in domestic cricket.

lol mate i really don't believe you mean this i just think your trying to be different just for the sake of being different!

But don't worry your not the only person on this board that needs to do this to get attention.

[Ice goddess]

lol mate i really don't believe you mean this i just think your trying to be different just for the sake of being different!

But don't worry your not the only person on this board that needs to do this to get attention.

So saying something remotely controversial about Warne means you're trying to be different. I agree with Usalion to an extent, he's a different bowler, but I doubt he's as dangerous. He's benefited from the wisdom of 'old age' as seasoned sportsmen do. But I bet even Cullinan wouldn't find him as difficult these days. Fact is his flipper was a huge weapon and took wickets, not to mention the variety it afforded him. These days if he tries to bowl it it's often half-baked and suitably dispatched.

Lillee became a different bowler towards the end with his leg-cutters etc., but he was more dangerous when he had the pace and venom. He used to set up so many wickets for the other bowlers a la Massie at Lord's in 1972.

[Cooldude]

Or could it be that nobody is able to dare criticise Warne lest they be called "unAustralian".

No, because anyone who says Warne is not that good because he takes tailender wickets, he has new ball quicks to soften them up for them, he benefits from an era where apparently people don't use their feet, he doesn't do well at the sub-continent, he bowls too many overs, he benefits from great fielding

And all that rubbish, quite frankly, anyone who says that is a ********ing fool who knows nothing about cricket and wrist spin.

[Cooldude]

So saying something remotely controversial about Warne means you're trying to be different. I agree with Usalion to an extent, he's a different bowler, but I doubt he's as dangerous. He's benefited from the wisdom of 'old age' as seasoned sportsmen do. But I bet even Cullinan wouldn't find him as difficult these days. Fact is his flipper was a huge weapon and took wickets, not to mention the variety it afforded him. These days if he tries to bowl it it's often half-baked and suitably dispatched.


Controversial or idiotic, the latter thank you

One thing being dangerous, the other being effective. Girmmett was never dangerous, he worked batsmen over with relentless accuracy and effective get them. Mcgrath never knocks your head off with his pace, but he just keeps it so tight and nicks you out in the end

The same with Warne, mightn't have the flipper, but has a far more subtle variation in the slider, which has gotten him countless wickets in the past 5 years, as many as he got with his flipper.

I know more about Warne's bowling than you'll ever wish to know, that is not bragging, that is just a fact. He has never been more efficent and effective in his career, he mightn't look as dangerous, but substance over style. He's taken wickets at a far higher rate than he's ever taken them at any stage, and no amount of your spindoctoring bull******** can dispute that

I'm afriad you're a ********ing fool to make predictions such as "Oh Darryl wouldn't have found him difficult" or "He would've won us the Ashes on his own 10 years ago", I could've said that if the meteor didn't hit the earth, then Dinosaurs will still be around nowadays. Don Bradman wouldn't average 30 nowadays, or Gary Sobers will fail in the modern era. You just talk these load of rubbish that quite frankly don't deserve any responses, you're like starz, just twisting stats and spinning bull******** to try to sound reasonable

[LongBomb]

Ice Goddess, your name wouldn't be 'Simone' by chance?

[Ice goddess]

Ice Goddess, your name wouldn't be 'Simone' by chance?

Good try, no, doubt Simone has much knowledge of cricket.

[Ice goddess]

It's words like these which show Warne's lack of class ; he should let others do the talking for him.

Warne mocks Murali's 'cheap' wickets
Andrew Ramsey
December 19, 2005
OF all the fizzing, biting deliveries Shane Warne has unleashed this year, perhaps the most incendiary landed shortly after the lauded leg-spinner added another world first to his glittering career resume on Saturday.

With up to three innings in which to add to his 2005 tally of 87 wickets, Warne appears likely to substantially exceed the old record of 85 scalps in a calendar year, set by Australian fast bowler Dennis Lillee 24 years ago.

But in a less-than-subtle dig at his arch-rival -- Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan -- Warne declared he expected his new benchmark would be overtaken in the very near future because of the number of "cheap" wickets on offer in the Test arena.

While not naming Muralitharan (who boasts 578 Test wickets, second only to Warne's total of 648), Warne left little doubt as to who he felt would usurp him as the leading wicket-taker in a calendar year.

"It would be nice if it (the new record) lasted another 25 years, but I don't think it will," Warne said.









"There's a lot more cricket being played these days and you have teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in there, with some teams playing them a lot more (than others). I've never played a Test against Bangladesh and only one against Zimbabwe, but there are some teams out there that play them a lot.

"And some blokes bowl at one end all day against those sort of countries and take lots of wickets. I'm sure that whoever those people are, they might get it (the record) next year."

It doesn't take a sudoku expert or a Da Vinci Code sleuth to work out who "those people" are.

[spell_check]

But it's true though. Remember 121 wickets to 6 against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

[Theseventhhamster]

It's words like these which show Warne's lack of class ; he should let others do the talking for him.

Warne mocks Murali's 'cheap' wickets
Andrew Ramsey
December 19, 2005
OF all the fizzing, biting deliveries Shane Warne has unleashed this year, perhaps the most incendiary landed shortly after the lauded leg-spinner added another world first to his glittering career resume on Saturday.

With up to three innings in which to add to his 2005 tally of 87 wickets, Warne appears likely to substantially exceed the old record of 85 scalps in a calendar year, set by Australian fast bowler Dennis Lillee 24 years ago.

But in a less-than-subtle dig at his arch-rival -- Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan -- Warne declared he expected his new benchmark would be overtaken in the very near future because of the number of "cheap" wickets on offer in the Test arena.

While not naming Muralitharan (who boasts 578 Test wickets, second only to Warne's total of 648), Warne left little doubt as to who he felt would usurp him as the leading wicket-taker in a calendar year.

"It would be nice if it (the new record) lasted another 25 years, but I don't think it will," Warne said.









"There's a lot more cricket being played these days and you have teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in there, with some teams playing them a lot more (than others). I've never played a Test against Bangladesh and only one against Zimbabwe, but there are some teams out there that play them a lot.

"And some blokes bowl at one end all day against those sort of countries and take lots of wickets. I'm sure that whoever those people are, they might get it (the record) next year."

It doesn't take a sudoku expert or a Da Vinci Code sleuth to work out who "those people" are.
So??? True isn't it?

[spell_check]

88 wickets this year and counting...

[Ice goddess]

So??? True isn't it?


Sounds like a child though, and he never points out advantages he has over Murali, i.e. playing in a great team with so many runs to play with and attacking fields etc. Plus he bowls a ********load of overs himself which is all right by him but is at pains to point out how many Murali bowls.

BTW, since Tiger O'Reilly seems to have come into the argument, in his day the SCG was a seamer's paradise, was up until the early 80's when it became a spinner's wet dream.

[nicho_magic]

yeah for sure. he is a top bowler and i haven't seen himm trouble batsmen more in the time i have been around.

[Joe Mama]

Sounds like a child though, and he never points out advantages he has over Murali, i.e. playing in a great team with so many runs to play with and attacking fields etc. Plus he bowls a ********load of overs himself which is all right by him but is at pains to point out how many Murali bowls.

BTW, since Tiger O'Reilly seems to have come into the argument, in his day the SCG was a seamer's paradise, was up until the early 80's when it became a spinner's wet dream.

Oh, and I suppose that Murali doesn't have the problem of having the other bowlers in the Sri Lankan attack taking wickets from him, eh, Ice Goddess ?.

Since it's quite obvious that you are a hopeless cretin, who knows nothing about this subject and who seems to be hopelessly deluded with pathological hatred of your target that's bordering on psycotic, I'll hit you with a bit of knowledge, that's if you have the intellect to see the wood from the trees.

Out of the Sri Lankan attack, only Chaminda Vaas has taken more than 200 wickets in Test Cricket (that is throughout the history of Sri Lankan Test Cricket since 1981), so the chances of Murali taking big bags of wickets is greatly increased due to fact that they have few other wicket takers in the Sri Lankan side, because he virtually bowles half of his sides overs.

With a Sri Lankan attack that only has two bowlers that can be deemed world class, a side that plays most of thier games on spinners paradises (Murali's record outside of Asia is average to say the least), and the fact that Sri Lanka tours Zimabawe & Bangladesh more frequently than Australia, it's quite obvious that Shane Warne is a superior bowler than Murali, and they still will be saying that when both you and I are nothing more than worm food.

But, then again, you've never let a small thing like the truth ruin a good rant, eh, Ice Goddess ?.

[Cooldude]

Good try, no, doubt Simone has much knowledge of cricket.

Then you're Simone alright :D

I won't waste typing time on you, since you obviously have an agenda to pursue and won't let facts get in your way. Keep living under that hole of yours

[Joe Mama]

Then you're Simone alright :D

I won't waste typing time on you, since you obviously have an agenda to pursue and won't let facts get in your way. Keep living under that hole of yours

Well said, Cooldude, you're a man after my own heart !.

[Ice goddess]

Then you're Simone alright :D

I won't waste typing time on you, since you obviously have an agenda to pursue and won't let facts get in your way. Keep living under that hole of yours

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you won't concede a thing where Warne is concerned. All of your arguments are always spot on.

And Wayde P., look at the current test and you'll find that Murali shared the overs rather evenly with his compatriots. But we won't let the facts get in the way of a rather biased argument. It's not as if Warne doesn't bowl a ********load of overs btw. When he has to share them with Macgill he also shares the wickets. But that doesn't happen that often. Murali does bowl with other spinners though.

And I can't see how you can argue that it's not easier to play in a vastly superior team. The fact is Murali's average is excellent. If he was just getting wickets merely because someone has to take them but he was an ordinary bowler, he'd have an ordinary average. Warne lovers just hate the fact that another great bowler is around to challenge his records. Murali actually has to take the wickets ; quality batsmen don't surrender them to him on a platter. BTW I never said Murali was a better bowler than Warne in any case. It's you poster who have extrapolated.

[Cooldude]

All of your arguments are always spot on.


It's not a matter of my arguments being right, it's your arguments being total bull********

You're a better spinner than Warne the way you try to spin every little point to make it look like Warne's had an unfair advantage which means he's not really as good as he is.

I'm sure you haven't used the point about how 70 years ago, Earth is a little further away from the sun, therefore nowadays the sun shines harder on the pitches, making it drier than 70 years ago, which is why Warnie isn't really that good because he benefits from dry pitches, or some ******** like that anyway?

[Bennycoff]

Warne is a way better bowler than Murali and a more complete cricketer. Geeez Sri Lanka are always playing those weak sides and thats why Murali is close to Warne otherwise he'd be nowhere near.
Warne plays in a good side with class players and often has times where McGrath and co. take all the wkts.
Handy lower order bat compared to Murali who is like a McGrath.
Warne very good slip fielder and leader, Murali cant field.

Warne was very correct in what he says and its good he spoke his mind, too many are being goodie goodies these days, thats not what its about.

[spell_check]

Warne is a way better bowler than Murali and a more complete cricketer. Geeez Sri Lanka are always playing those weak sides and thats why Murali is close to Warne otherwise he'd be nowhere near.
Warne plays in a good side with class players and often has times where McGrath and co. take all the wkts.
Handy lower order bat compared to Murali who is like a McGrath.
Warne very good slip fielder and leader, Murali cant field.

Warne was very correct in what he says and its good he spoke his mind, too many are being goodie goodies these days, thats not what its about.

That's what I was thinking as well. There are few poeple who speak what they are thinking - I can only think of the late great Hookesy and Jeff Thomson.

[Ice goddess]

Warne is a way better bowler than Murali and a more complete cricketer. Geeez Sri Lanka are always playing those weak sides and thats why Murali is close to Warne otherwise he'd be nowhere near.
Warne plays in a good side with class players and often has times where McGrath and co. take all the wkts.
Handy lower order bat compared to Murali who is like a McGrath.
Warne very good slip fielder and leader, Murali cant field.

Warne was very correct in what he says and its good he spoke his mind, too many are being goodie goodies these days, thats not what its about.


Since when was the argument about who was the better cricketer? I have no issue whatsoever with Warne been a superior cricketer to Murali and in fact I never said he was a superior bowler. Somehow that came into the argument. And as I've pointed out the whole being in a good team or weak team works both ways anyway. Murali in theory might take more wickets because of it, but he doesn't have the support of other bowlers, the attacking fields or runs to play with that being in a great team affords one. But no one will at least concede him that point. And yet he does still keep his average right down.

As for speaking one's mind, I'm all for it, but it sounds better if you leave the self-promotion to someone else.

[Cooldude]

Somehow that came into the argument.

Like how you bring total rubbish like how fielding back in the 30s was crap compare to now? Don't think you're one to talk on bringing absolute trash to an argument

[crazy_big_al]

Bowling well but not as good as mid 90's

[Ice goddess]

Bowling well but not as good as mid 90's

Thanks Big al because that's all I was ever arguing. And I was surprised that Warnie bowled 47 overs because I thought it was only Murali who bowled a ********load of overs. And Cooldude ask people who actually know a lot about cricket and they will tell you that the fielding IS a lot better today than in the forties. Cricketers who actually played in that era (and our oldest living cricketer said this recently), marvel at how much fielding has evolved. That's no rubbish argument.

And I repeat despite what this year's figures say, Warnie does not crash through teams, or quite have the impact he did in the mid-90's which I nominated a few days ago as his peak. And he had an inexperiened South African line-up minus Kallis to do it today. The Kiwis, Poms and Saffies used to be his absolute bunnies.

[Cooldude]

And Cooldude ask people who actually know a lot about cricket and they will tell you that the fielding IS a lot better today than in the forties. Cricketers who actually played in that era (and our oldest living cricketer said this recently), marvel at how much fielding has evolved. That's no rubbish argument.

Yes it is, because it has nothing to do with the original topic, that is why it's absolute rubbish. Everyone knows since cricket's gone professional the fielding improved along with it, common knowledge. But how's that gotta do with Warnie? Sweet FA, and for you to bring ********ing pointless arguments into this makes it rubbish.


And I repeat despite what this year's figures say, Warnie does not crash through teams, or quite have the impact he did in the mid-90's which I nominated a few days ago as his peak. And he had an inexperiened South African line-up minus Kallis to do it today. The Kiwis, Poms and Saffies used to be his absolute bunnies.

Since you were so adamant in your other irrelevant argument where you said tactics are better today because Richie said so (Who btw today also said he's never seen Warne bowl better, which coincides with my opinion), would you use Richie's opinion as backup again?

I don't need Richie to tell me that Warne is bowling better than he's ever done, because he is. The wickets he's been getting in the past 3 years show that, and my eyes from watching him bowl for 13 years show that

And so much for tactics being better in modern days, Ponting was woeful today with his field placings

And today he was by far the best bowler without luck on an absolutely lifeless deck that is still a batting paradise on day 5 with absolutely no kick in it for him.

Since you love your spindoctoring so much, I'll tell you that the pitches today are far better prepared than 10 years ago where lots of pitches would still be absolute roads come day 5, and Warnie hasn't gotten as much assistance off 5th day pitches as a result. Back then 12 years ago, Warnie on a devilish 5th day pitch is devastating, and he still is. Only crashed through the Windies a couple of times last series, not that you count that btw, since it doesn't suit ya

[Ice goddess]

I agree that Ponting was woeful today especially with his fielders in place for the non-existent hooks, backward of square, too defensive etc. But Ponting is not the exemplar captain ; good example actually of a team who makes a captain better. But one example doesn't disprove the general trend. As for Ritchie, I've never actually heard him criticise Warne so his comments are hardly disinterested. The fact remains, whether he bowled well or not, he couldn't penetrate despite having 47 overs to do so. And while on luck, his dismissal of Prince was highly dubious and there have been times when he's had the rub of the green. He got one 5/48 or thereabouts when he cleaned up the tail, but as a rule he didn't really destroy the inexperienced Windies line-up. He got wickeds but often at a reasonable cost. In what I maintain was his peak, he regularly got bags at very low cost. He was quite often nearly unplayable on the last day. And remember this wicket is the most favourable to spinners that's been prepared at the WACA in living memory according to the locals. He had time, overs, attacking fields (though tactics to the quicks especially could have been better), and some young, inexperienced batsmen to prise out. He just didn't have the impact he's had in the past and looked very frustrated at times. He persisted with the around the wicket line of attack for too long.

[Cooldude]

Of course, when Richie says something you don't like to hear, suddenly you find some reason to say "Oh he's biased and never said a bad thing about Warne"

No, Ponting's performance today is just like the performance of all Test captains nowadays bar Stephen Fleming. The tactics ain't any better, humans are still playing the game and the human brain hasn't evolved that much for 50 years. In fact, much more common sense were used back in Richie's days and the Chappell years

Since you said Richie never bagged Warne, I'd just as easily say Richie always positively reflects on the modern game, constantly says this is the best cricket he's ever seen even though the standard nowadays has clearly dropped compare to yesteryear

Everyone found it hard to penetrate, what do you expect, him ripping through them on an unbelievably slow WACA pitch? His action is definitely not at his best, and he didn't bowl at his best, I know you'll have a field day with Warnie not ripping through them, but the fact remains: The pitch was so flat, it was playing like a 3rd day pitch, it's not saying much to say it's the most favourable to spinners on WACA standards, because it still didn't give him much.

And you're talking bull******** about Warne back then, back then he regularly bowled an unbelieavble amount of overs, especially in the 2nd innings, under Taylor or Border. So to use it against him now is just nitpicking rubbish. I remember his best figures of 8/71 was taken bowling 40-50 overs on the last day, so you're just talking ******** to suit your argument again

And with your selective memory I'm sure you'll forget how Warne ripped through the top of the Windies order back in Adelaide and got 6, but mind you, that again doesn't suit your argument so you'll continually ignore it.

[Ice goddess]

Of course, when Richie says something you don't like to hear, suddenly you find some reason to say "Oh he's biased and never said a bad thing about Warne"

No, Ponting's performance today is just like the performance of all Test captains nowadays bar Stephen Fleming. The tactics ain't any better, humans are still playing the game and the human brain hasn't evolved that much for 50 years. In fact, much more common sense were used back in Richie's days and the Chappell years

Since you said Richie never bagged Warne, I'd just as easily say Richie always positively reflects on the modern game, constantly says this is the best cricket he's ever seen even though the standard nowadays has clearly dropped compare to yesteryear

Everyone found it hard to penetrate, what do you expect, him ripping through them on an unbelievably slow WACA pitch? His action is definitely not at his best, and he didn't bowl at his best, I know you'll have a field day with Warnie not ripping through them, but the fact remains: The pitch was so flat, it was playing like a 3rd day pitch, it's not saying much to say it's the most favourable to spinners on WACA standards, because it still didn't give him much.

And you're talking bull******** about Warne back then, back then he regularly bowled an unbelieavble amount of overs, especially in the 2nd innings, under Taylor or Border. So to use it against him now is just nitpicking rubbish. I remember his best figures of 8/71 was taken bowling 40-50 overs on the last day, so you're just talking ******** to suit your argument again

And with your selective memory I'm sure you'll forget how Warne ripped through the top of the Windies order back in Adelaide and got 6, but mind you, that again doesn't suit your argument so you'll continually ignore it.

So you've finally admitted that he does indeed bowl a ********load of overs. Here's me thinking that it was only Murali who did, or so I was led to believe that's how he got a lot of his wickets. In any case great bowlers do thrive when the conditions are not as propitious as they expected. I'm sure he would have been at least mildly disappointed that he could not make deeper inroads into the Saffies. Ian Chappell was a great tactician and one of the most attacking captains I've seen, but he'd be considered in the modern era, not the ones of yore we were comparing him to.

[Cooldude]

When have I ever said he doesn't bowl a ********load of overs?

All ********ing spinners bowl a ********eload of overs, frankly only idiots use it against them, like you

And even back in the mid 90s there have been batsman who have survived a 5th day Warne onslaught, quite a few times actually. These things happen, extraordinary performances happen, only idiots hold it against them as well

And also, luck is not always on your side, like Warnie's yesterday, bowled very very well without luck, but of course, he didn't win the match on his own, like he didn't win the Ashes on his own, and ********ing idiots like you would use it against him

I can just as easily hold it against Sir Richard Hadlee for not being able to knock over Mike Whitney, but which idiot would do that?

And sorry, but Bill Brown, the Don, Lindsay Hasset and Richie himself were pretty ********ing good tacticians of their time, and you're an idiot to consider Chappelli a part of the modern era

[utility]

I'm on a roll here:

Bowling averages by year:
Year O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
1992 153.3 32 503 12 1 0 7/52 41.92 76.75 3.28
1993 842.2 316 1697 72 2 0 6/31 23.57 70.20 2.01
1994 629 217 1274 70 6 2 8/71 18.20 53.92 2.03
1995 508.3 156 1254 52 1 1 7/23 24.12 58.67 2.47
1996 215.1 55 571 15 0 0 4/95 38.07 86.07 2.65
1997 681.5 194 1661 68 2 0 6/48 24.43 60.16 2.44
1998 268.1 62 796 24 2 1 6/34 33.17 67.04 2.97
1999 464.1 125 1253 38 2 0 5/52 32.97 73.29 2.70
2000 154.2 38 496 15 0 0 4/68 33.07 61.73 3.21
2001 583.3 113 1809 58 4 1 7/165 31.19 60.36 3.10
2002 479 109 1310 67 3 1 7/94 19.55 42.90 2.73
2004 578.4 124 1685 70 5 2 6/125 24.07 49.60 2.91
2005 626.4 106 1896 87 6 2 6/46 21.79 43.22 3.03
Overall (13) 6184.5 1647 16205 648 34 10 8/71 25.01 57.27 2.62

Have a look at the strike rate for 2002 to 2005 - all less than 50 balls a wicket, nothing before that was under 50 balls a wicket...THREAD OVER! :p :)
Warne is g00t. 2002-5 are some pretty amazing stats.

To say so-and-so hit a ton against is a stupid argument... all the best bowlers have been hit around by the best batsmen of their day. I think he's bowling as well as ever. He may not be ripping his leggy like in '93-4 or using the flipper to take a bag of wickets but he is smarter, more cunning and more experienced. His series against England was nothing short of brilliant in a shockingly-underperforming Australian team.