Get off, Warne! [Archive]

barry

21 Jan 2002, 09:46

Originally posted by wagstaff
I think Warne's efforts at Test level have been ordinary for several years now. In fact, he hasn't averged below 30 for a Test calendar year since 1997.

His dominance in England probably saved his bacon, but I'm certain that MacGill would have done as well.... if given the opportunity.

MacGill gets most of his wickets from bad balls. He'd be too expensive in One dayers, and his reputation is exagerated by the NSW media.

Leg spin is just not suited to One day cricket. The fact that Warney is still a key player is a testiment to the man. Both teams are scared of him, and have adapted a tactic of trying to hit him out of the attack. Some days it works, one day it wont and he'll end up with a five-for.
We'll see how he goes at the spin-friendly SCG tomorrow.

I've been supprised at how often teams have been bowled out in this tournament. It shows that strike bowlers (Carins, Warne, Pollock, McGrath) are still really important, as opposed to purely containment bowlers.
This bouncer rule needs looking at though. Seems a bit contentious.

Groucho

21 Jan 2002, 10:19

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg

I know. Its disgusting. How can a man get a game based on the correct reputation he's the greatest spin bowler to ever live. What in the world is going on??

I agree T F E! How can someone who conceded 19 off 10 a couple of games ago even be considered! It's an outrage!!!

dogboy23

21 Jan 2002, 10:43

Originally posted by Groucho

I agree T F E! How can someone who conceded 19 off 10 a couple of games ago even be considered! It's an outrage!!! The people will not stand for this.He should have atleast got 4 wickets.Merely single handedly keeping us in that game is not enough to keep his spot.:rolleyes:

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 11:52

Originally posted by barry

Both teams are scared of him, and have adapted a tactic of trying to hit him out of the attack. Some days it works, one day it wont and he'll end up with a five-for.

Actually, he has only ever had one 5-for in ODI cricket in 180-odd matches, so generally he is just getting slogged....

Originally posted by barry

We'll see how he goes at the spin-friendly SCG tomorrow.

Didn't help him last week...

barry

21 Jan 2002, 11:59

Originally posted by Briedis

Actually, he has only ever had one 5-for in ODI cricket in 180-odd matches, so generally he is just getting slogged....

You must have someone in mind to replace him who wont get "slogged".
McGill will get slogged, and not take any wickets (except maybe caught on the boundary), and we are actually a little short of compitent alrounders at the moment. Is Funky Miller your prefered spinner?

Anyway, Warne rarely gets slogged.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 12:35

Originally posted by Gordon Nöel
How much longer can a bloke get a game on reputation alone? I dunno. :mad:

Yeah, he was pretty damn ordinary in last sundays match in Melbourne eh.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 12:36

Originally posted by Briedis
Didn't help him last week...

No, but then he bowled far better in the 2nd ODI in Melbourne on a pitch that did not do much for the spinners.

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 12:49

Originally posted by Dave

No, but then he bowled far better in the 2nd ODI in Melbourne on a pitch that did not do much for the spinners.

No...he SEEMED to bowl better against a team of players too scared to hit him. They then saw what the Kiwis did to him at the SCG and almost repeated the dose yesterday....

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 13:20

Originally posted by Briedis
No...he SEEMED to bowl better against a team of players too scared to hit him.

Yeah, that must have been it. It couldn't possibly be that he's actually got any talent.

They then saw what the Kiwis did to him at the SCG and almost repeated the dose yesterday....

Two batsman slogged him for two overs, the rest of the spell was ok. It's not like he's been getting flogged match in match out ala Brett Lee.

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 14:05

Originally posted by Dave

Yeah, that must have been it. It couldn't possibly be that he's actually got any talent.

My point is not that he has not got talent. He's Australia's greatest ever test bowler, but he is a liability in 90% of the one-day games he plays...occasionally he comes through, but not often enough.

Plus the fact that he is a fairly ordinary bat means our side does not have the batting depth of others.

His time is over in the one-day arena....he is not a strike bowler anymore....

wagstaff

21 Jan 2002, 14:20

MacGill gets most of his wickets from bad balls. He'd be too expensive in One dayers,

Are you talking about the same bowler who has taken 79 domestic one-day wickets at a strike rate of 25 and an average under 20? And the same bowler who was Man of the Match in his international One-Day debut and has only played two matches since?

You can argue till the cows come home that he gets his wickets off bad balls but the fact is that he has a far superior domestic one-day record to Warne and has been very unlucky not to get more international matches.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 14:25

Originally posted by wagstaff
Are you talking about the same bowler who has taken 79 domestic one-day wickets at a strike rate of 25 and an average under 20?

And the relevance of domestic stats to international competition is?

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 14:32

Originally posted by Briedis
My point is not that he has not got talent. He's Australia's greatest ever test bowler, but he is a liability in 90% of the one-day games he plays...occasionally he comes through, but not often enough.

1.5 wickets per match at a strike rate of 35.7 and an ER of 4.25 is hardly indicative of a liabilty who only occasionally comes through. Even McGrath doesn't take as many wickets per match and is only marginally better in terms of ER (3.97).

Plus the fact that he is a fairly ordinary bat means our side does not have the batting depth of others.

Guess we'd better drop McGrath and Gillespie as well then on that logic.

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 14:34

Originally posted by Dave

And the relevance of domestic stats to international competition is?

It's hard to compare intl. stats as MacGill has never been given a fair go. He and Lehmann are the unluckiest cricketers in the country.

Here they are anyway....

____Mat O R W BB1 BB2 Ave Econ SR 4w 5w

WARNE 171 1578.3 6710 265 5/33 4/19 25.32 4.25 35.7 12 1
MacGILL 3 30 105 6 4/19 1/38 17.50 3.50 30.0 1 0

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 14:39

Originally posted by Briedis
It's hard to compare intl. stats as MacGill has never been given a fair go.

"Fair"? Oh that's right, he's from NSW so that means he should replace any incumbent at the first hint that he might be any good regardless of the incumbents form. He's never done anything to indicate he'd do better than the bloke who was already in the side hence his "limited opportunities".

He and Lehmann are the unluckiest cricketers in the country.

Lehmann yes, though looking at who kept him out of the side I'm sure we'd have heard no end of screming from north of the murray had he been included at any stage in the past 4 years.

Here they are anyway....

____Mat O R W BB1 BB2 Ave Econ SR 4w 5w

WARNE 171 1578.3 6710 265 5/33 4/19 25.32 4.25 35.7 12 1
MacGILL 3 30 105 6 4/19 1/38 17.50 3.50 30.0 1 0 [/B]

And that's just such a meaningful comparison isn't it.

wagstaff

21 Jan 2002, 14:40

Originally posted by Dave

And the relevance of domestic stats to international competition is?

Obviously nothing, considering that Warne seems to have a permanent spot in the one-day side no matter what MacGill does.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 14:41

Originally posted by wagstaff
Obviously nothing, considering that Warne seems to have a permanent spot in the one-day side no matter what MacGill does.

And Warne's done exactly what to deserve being omitted?

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 14:49

Originally posted by Dave

"Fair"? Oh that's right, he's from NSW so that means he should replace any incumbent at the first hint that he might be any good regardless of the incumbents form. He's never done anything to indicate he'd do better than the bloke who was already in the side hence his "limited opportunities".

Apart from the fact that almost everytime MacGill gets to play for Australia he takes a bagfull of wickets?

Much better than a bloke who is struggling to keep his average below 30 after bowling to such quality opposition as Zimbabwe, West Indies, India and England.....Oh he definately deserves his spot! Good teams like SA and NZ will (and are) taking him apart. He is the weak link in the Aussie bowling....face facts. He has had one good series in 2-3 years, it's just not good enough....

MacGill is a match-winner, Warne used to be a match-winner....

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 14:51

Originally posted by Dave

And Warne's done exactly what to deserve being omitted?

He's bowling rubbish, he's struggling to spin it, he's lost his consistent line and length. It's fairly obvious that he has lost confidence in that he is not going for any flight and is just trying to push them through. He's sick of being belted, that's why he's bowling 10kph faster than he did when he was bowling well....

Briedis

21 Jan 2002, 14:54

Originally posted by Dave
And that's just such a meaningful comparison isn't it.

It is if you look at how well MacGill has bowled with his limited chances. I mean, his best bowling is equal to Warnes second best and Warney's had 168 more goes at it!

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 14:58

Originally posted by Briedis
MacGill is a match-winner, Warne used to be a match-winner....

Which would explain the enormous disparity in their figures the last time they played in the same match. Or Warnes MOM award in the first test against the proteas. Or his 31 wickets in last years ashes series.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 14:59

Originally posted by Briedis
He's bowling rubbish, he's struggling to spin it, he's lost his consistent line and length.

Rubbish. He bowled well in Melbourbne last week and apart from two overs last night was damn tight.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 15:00

Originally posted by Briedis
It is if you look at how well MacGill has bowled with his limited chances. I mean, his best bowling is equal to Warnes second best and Warney's had 168 more goes at it!

What a magnificent grasp of statistics you have.

Dave

21 Jan 2002, 15:07

Originally posted by Briedis
He is the weak link in the Aussie bowling....face facts. He has had one good series in 2-3 years, it's just not good enough....

He bowled well against Pakistan last time they toured here, did damn well against the Kiwis in 2000, took 31 wickets in the Ashes series in England (2nd only to McGrath aby ONE wicket) and was the leading bowler in the whitewash of RSA (you know, that good side that kicked our arses).

That's more than one.

wagstaff

21 Jan 2002, 15:24

Originally posted by Dave

He bowled well against Pakistan last time they toured here, did damn well against the Kiwis in 2000, took 31 wickets in the Ashes series in England (2nd only to McGrath aby ONE wicket) and was the leading bowler in the whitewash of RSA (you know, that good side that kicked our arses).

That's more than one.

He was only average against Pakistan, taking 12 wickets at over 30. And if you're going to mentiion his good series, you might as well mention his bad series since his shoulder operation.

2 wickets at 134 in the Caribbean 1999
8 wickets at 41 against India here in Australia 1999/00
10 wickets at 50 in India last year
6 wickets at over 70 against New Zealand this summer

Even the series he has performed relatively well (in New Zealand 2000, South Africa this summer) his average for the series has been 27, hardly complete dominance of the opposition.

Groucho

21 Jan 2002, 20:52

It should be mentioned that MacGill's most recent One Day International was for Australia A a coupla weeks ago. Went for 72 off 10!

Dave

22 Jan 2002, 07:32

Originally posted by wagstaff
He was only average against Pakistan, taking 12 wickets at over 30.

Given the performances of the other bowlers in that series it was a good effort.

And if you're going to mentiion his good series, you might as well mention his bad series since his shoulder operation.

As I was responding to a claim that he'd only had one good series in three years they aren't relevant. I wasn't saying he hadn't had bad series, I was highlighting that he'd had well and truly more than one good one.

Even the series he has performed relatively well (in New Zealand 2000, South Africa this summer) his average for the series has been 27, hardly complete dominance of the opposition.

And the point is? Was I suggesting "complete dominance of the opposition."? He's not the bowler he was prior to the shoulder opp, but to suggest that he is not worth having in the side is as fanciful as Breidis claim of his form over the past 3 years.

barry

22 Jan 2002, 11:41

I wonder what the comparisons would be between Warne and McGill if SCG games werent counted.
SCG being a very spin friendly pitch which MacGill as a domestic player, plays half his games at, and pretty much all his international games at.

As someone said, Warne got 2/65 and people call for his head. MacGill gets 0/72 against NZ a few weeks ago, and some misguided fools call for his selection.

CoastBhoy

22 Jan 2002, 12:00

http://www.afl.com.au/photos/fullscreen_9198.htm

CoastBhoy

22 Jan 2002, 12:24

http://www.afl.com.au/lib/images/photos/20010513/9198/9198f.gif

wagstaff

22 Jan 2002, 15:34

Given the performances of the other bowlers in that series it was a good effort.

Statistically speaking, the only Aussie bowler to have a worse average then him in that series was Scott Muller. As for the others:

Damien Fleming took 18 wickets at around 22
McGrath took 14 wickets at around 28
Even Kasprowicz took 7 wickets in one test at 18

Frodo

22 Jan 2002, 16:26

As a world class fantasy cricket leggy myself :D I can sympathise with Warney. In reality it takes a very special leggy to get picked in a one day side. The control needed in line and length is far more difficult than off spin meaning there is a greater likeleyhood of getting whacked. Also, the leggy usually depends on a turning wicket on the fourth or fifth day of a game, which doesn't happen in the one dayers. Where Warney makes good is when the opposition is a few early wickets down and the incumbent players cannot afford to lose their wickets. The problem is when he is bowled when the opposition has batsmen in hand, they can then take risks and whack him.

Couple of things I have noticed though with Warney 1) His lethal flipper that got so many LBW's is gone. 2) When he pushes the ball through faster he tends to give away runs a lot more than when he tosses it up.

iceman

22 Jan 2002, 21:52

Even if Warne is still performing well, MacGill should be given the opportunity to play at the international level. Its obvious that if Warne were to get injured etc then MacGill would be the only logical replacement we have

Its time to give him a chance

Dave

23 Jan 2002, 06:36

Originally posted by wagstaff
Statistically speaking, the only Aussie bowler to have a worse average then him in that series was Scott Muller.

That does not mean his series was not good, it simply means theirs was better.

Briedis

23 Jan 2002, 07:21

Originally posted by Frodo
As a world class fantasy cricket leggy myself :D I can sympathise with Warney. In reality it takes a very special leggy to get picked in a one day side. The control needed in line and length is far more difficult than off spin meaning there is a greater likeleyhood of getting whacked. Also, the leggy usually depends on a turning wicket on the fourth or fifth day of a game, which doesn't happen in the one dayers. Where Warney makes good is when the opposition is a few early wickets down and the incumbent players cannot afford to lose their wickets. The problem is when he is bowled when the opposition has batsmen in hand, they can then take risks and whack him.

Couple of things I have noticed though with Warney 1) His lethal flipper that got so many LBW's is gone. 2) When he pushes the ball through faster he tends to give away runs a lot more than when he tosses it up.

I agree with you 100% Frodo.

wagstaff

23 Jan 2002, 12:54

That does not mean his series was not good, it simply means theirs was better.

That wasn't what you implied in your earlier post where you said about that particular series:

Given the performances of the other bowlers in that series it was a good effort.

which suggested that his figures stacked up well against the other Australian bowlers; when as a matter of fact they didn't.

In that Pakistan series, Warne struggled in Brisbane (Fleming was easily the stand-out bowler), bowled very well in Hobart and was hardly used in Perth and when he was, was hit out of the attack by Ijaz and Wasim Akram.

All in all, an adequate series effort but nothing more.

Dave

23 Jan 2002, 13:16

Originally posted by wagstaff
which suggested that his figures stacked up well against the other Australian bowlers; when as a matter of fact they didn't.

Actually I was talking about all the bowlers in the series, both sides. And looking at his figures they weren't much worse than Flemmings with McGrath the only standout.

In that Pakistan series, Warne struggled in Brisbane (Fleming was easily the stand-out bowler), bowled very well in Hobart and was hardly used in Perth and when he was, was hit out of the attack by Ijaz and Wasim Akram.

All in all, an adequate series effort but nothing more.

Ok, so it's 3 not 4. That's still more than 1 ;)

wagstaff

23 Jan 2002, 17:59

Originally posted by Dave

Actually I was talking about all the bowlers in the series, both sides.

Comparing Warne's figures with bowlers in the opposition is irrelevant as the argument is over MacGill, someone who is on the same side and directly competing for his position.

My final comment on this is that in each of the six Tests that Warne and MacGill have bowled together, Warne has failed to take more wickets in a match then MacGill.

The reason I've been rather relentless on this issue is that I'm tired of those in the cricketing media assuming that Warne is the better bowler than MacGill when the statistics suggest that MacGill is the superior bowler to Warne.

Of course, no prizes for guessing who you and I think are the better bowlers. ;)

Denno

23 Jan 2002, 20:07

Originally posted by wagstaff

Comparing Warne's figures with bowlers in the opposition is irrelevant as the argument is over MacGill, someone who is on the same side and directly competing for his position.
The statistics suggest that MacGill is the superior bowler to Warne.

But didn't Jimmy Adams average more than Brian Lara at one stage a few years ago???

Dave

24 Jan 2002, 06:54

Originally posted by wagstaff
Comparing Warne's figures with bowlers in the opposition is irrelevant as the argument is over MacGill, someone who is on the same side and directly competing for his position.

Funny, my statement was in reply to somone saying Warne had one good series in 3 years. Period. Nothing to do with MacGill at all. So excuse me if I feel that comparing his performances against all bowlers IS relevant.

My final comment on this is that in each of the six Tests that Warne and MacGill have bowled together, Warne has failed to take more wickets in a match then MacGill.

And from what I recall most of those tests took place shortly after Warnes return from injury. In the most recent test Warne took one less wicket and only then becuase Waugh gave MacGill the ball before him.

The reason I've been rather relentless on this issue is that I'm tired of those in the cricketing media assuming that Warne is the better bowler than MacGill when the statistics suggest that MacGill is the superior bowler to Warne.

There's more to cricket than statistics. Statistics would suggest that Mark Taylor should have been dropped long before he was, but the same NSWelshman (not meaning you) calling for Warnes exclusion in favour of MacGill did not call for his head.

Of course, no prizes for guessing who you and I think are the better bowlers. ;)

None at all. I'm comfortable backing the fat bloke with over 400 test wickets to his name though ;)

The_Flying_Egg

24 Jan 2002, 09:49

McGill may have a better average than Warne, but Warne has done it over tonnes more tests. If McGill had played as many tests as Warne he would have nowhere near as much wickets. And when they play together, half the wickets McGill gets can be put down to Warne anyway

Fat Red

24 Jan 2002, 13:09

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg
McGill may have a better average than Warne, but Warne has done it over tonnes more tests. If McGill had played as many tests as Warne he would have nowhere near as much wickets. And when they play together, half the wickets McGill gets can be put down to Warne anyway

I'm a Warne fan, as you will see around the boards, but that's bull****. How do you know Macgill wouldn't have done just as well? Every time he gets a game he goes well. In any other country he would have played 70 tests and have 250-300 wickets I reckon.

iceman

24 Jan 2002, 14:06

Originally posted by Fat Red

I'm a Warne fan, as you will see around the boards, but that's bull****. How do you know Macgill wouldn't have done just as well? Every time he gets a game he goes well. In any other country he would have played 70 tests and have 250-300 wickets I reckon.

True - theres no way to determine who wouldve taken more wickets...

MacGill has to bide his time and should be brought into the team sooner than later

Joe Mama

25 Jan 2002, 21:33

Warney, although you have helped bring life into what once was a dying form of bowling (in the 80's the only regular leggie was Pakistan's Abdul Qadir), but ever since you've had your shoulder fixed, the magic seems to have faded, and I think that Stuart MacGill, should be given a go just to give your joints a rest, so you can come back for the world cup next year.

Also, I think that Brett Lee shouldn't be playing one-day cricket, because you need to be accurate to be a bowler in this version of the game (e.g Chris Harris, Andy Bichel), and he just isn't when it matters.

Briedis

29 Jan 2002, 13:42

Warnes stats so far in this series....less than impressive for a "strike" bowler.

Name Mat O M R W Best Ave Econ SR 4w 5w

GD McGrath 6 56.4 7 188 12 4-30 15.66 3.31 28.3 1 0
SK Warne 7 56 4 234 5 2-65 46.80 4.17 67.2 0 0

An average of almost 47 with a strike rate of not even one wicket a match.
:rolleyes:

Hopeless.

TheMase

29 Jan 2002, 14:05

Originally posted by Briedis
Warnes stats so far in this series....less than impressive for a "strike" bowler.

Name Mat O M R W Best Ave Econ SR 4w 5w

GD McGrath 6 56.4 7 188 12 4-30 15.66 3.31 28.3 1 0
SK Warne 7 56 4 234 5 2-65 46.80 4.17 67.2 0 0

An average of almost 47 with a strike rate of not even one wicket a match.
:rolleyes:

Hopeless.

I have been saying this for quite a while now.
I have thought that MacGill was a better bowler for some time.

He outdoes Warne, not just at one-day level, but also at Test Level.

I think if given an actual reasonable chance (which he really hasn't, then he could be very dominant.)

His stats speak for themselves, I saw something in the paper once, where it had MacGills test record. And it was better after 15 matches, than any other spinner in the History of Australian Cricket. Not bad for a cricketer that is no good to be in the aussie team.

Briedis

29 Jan 2002, 14:12

G'day Mase. Nice to see your still around. How were the holidays?

TheMase

29 Jan 2002, 14:14

Originally posted by Briedis
G'day Mase. Nice to see your still around. How were the holidays?

Hey Mate!

Not too bad mate! Did you get holidays?

Hows things been?

Are you going to go down to the Swans - Essendon match at NSO. Going to be a bit of a bigfooty meet from what I hear!

Fat Red

29 Jan 2002, 14:37

Originally posted by TheMase

I have been saying this for quite a while now.
I have thought that MacGill was a better bowler for some time.

He outdoes Warne, not just at one-day level, but also at Test Level.

I think if given an actual reasonable chance (which he really hasn't, then he could be very dominant.)

His stats speak for themselves, I saw something in the paper once, where it had MacGills test record. And it was better after 15 matches, than any other spinner in the History of Australian Cricket. Not bad for a cricketer that is no good to be in the aussie team.

Mase, the stats you're looking at are McGrath's, not Macgill's.

Anyway, look at the most important stat there: 4.17. Compared to McGrath's 3.31 it doesn't look that good, but have a look in my Harvey thread...it's better than Warne's own career average, as well as all the bowlers in that thread.

Briedis

29 Jan 2002, 14:42

Originally posted by TheMase

Hey Mate!

Not too bad mate! Did you get holidays?

Hows things been?

Are you going to go down to the Swans - Essendon match at NSO. Going to be a bit of a bigfooty meet from what I hear!

Swans vs Essendon? God, I'd have to barrack for the umps....:D

When's it on?

TheMase

29 Jan 2002, 14:54

Originally posted by Briedis

Swans vs Essendon? God, I'd have to barrack for the umps....:D

When's it on?

lol .. Not nice!
10th of Feb I think mate
tickets are like 12.50 or sumthing
gotta get em soon though (so do i!)

Briedis

29 Jan 2002, 15:08

What.....they pay me $12.50 do they...Oh, I guess that eases the pain a little.:D

By the way Warnes average is almost 53 for the series now....he's going so bad that Steve Waugh has had to bring himself on!:eek:

Briedis

29 Jan 2002, 15:18

Hey, he just got Cairns. He was out smashing it down to long on...a well thought out wicket from Warne:rolleyes: 1-50 from 8 overs.

Dave

29 Jan 2002, 18:51

Good to see you can post here after he's gone for a few but not after he's bowled well. It's always nice to see someone capable of even handedness.

Visro

29 Jan 2002, 18:58

Originally posted by Dave
Good to see you can post here after he's gone for a few but not after he's bowled well. It's always nice to see someone capable of even handedness.

1/56 is good?

NICK THE PIE MAN

29 Jan 2002, 19:07

Originally posted by Visro

1/56 is good?

Yeah what he said.

19 off his first over wasn't very encouraging.

Groucho

29 Jan 2002, 20:08

Originally posted by Visro

1/56 is good?

Not exactly "good" but in the context of his first over they're effin incredible!! In any case about 9 of those first over runs should be transferred to S.Waugh's rather ordinary bowling figures. I mean fancy bowling a spinner for the 15th over when you're only allowed 2 in the outfield and then putting 3 out there anyway causing a no-ball and a 7th ball 4!!

Dave

30 Jan 2002, 07:11

Originally posted by Visro
1/56 is good?

Not particularly (though after 30 off 3 it was better than it looked like being!), and that's my point. People have been quick to post on this thread to slag Warne when he's performed poorly but are nowhere to be seen after he's bowled well (the match prior to last night).

London Dave

30 Jan 2002, 07:18

I recall the 99 WC Warney was getting whacked around a bit, but really bowled with zip in the semi and final. I agree with ya Dave, its easy to jump on a bloke after a couple of poor performances...and I thought he batted pretty well too. It is a team game after all, and a few of the players need to lift if we are gonna get any further me thinks.

Briedis

30 Jan 2002, 07:19

For a strike bowler 1/56 is terrible. He has never been a containment bowler, his job is to take wickets, and he hasn't been doing that....

When he DOES bowl well I will be the first to say so, but the fact is that he is not bowling well, especially against the Kiwis....

Dave

30 Jan 2002, 07:58

Originally posted by Briedis
For a strike bowler 1/56 is terrible. He has never been a containment bowler, his job is to take wickets, and he hasn't been doing that....

Leg spinners are not strike weapons in one day cricket. To compare his stats to those of McGrath is ridiculous.

When he DOES bowl well I will be the first to say so,

I must have missed your post after the game on Australia Day (1/31 which included 4 overthrows, when the KIWIS, YES THE KIWIS made 241). And after the first game against the Proteas (1/19 off 10).
but the fact is that he is not bowling well, especially against the Kiwis....

Fact my arse. He's bowled well in two games and badly in two games against them. You are simply too blinkered to acknowledge his good performces.

Briedis

30 Jan 2002, 08:47

Dave, he is not the bowler he was. Face it. He is not feared as he once was, he does not take wickets like he once did. Too many times in one day cricket is the pressure created by the early bowlers let off when Warne comes on. He gives away runs too easily.

I agree with you though that 1/19 are OUTSTANDING stats for Warne. No doubt they will be his best this summer..

Dave

30 Jan 2002, 08:52

Originally posted by Briedis
[B]Dave, he is not the bowler he was. Face it.

Show me once where I have suggested that he is. That he is not what he was prior to the shoulder op does not mean he is no longer of any value to the Australain team.

He is not feared as he once was, he does not take wickets like he once did. Too many times in one day cricket is the pressure created by the early bowlers let off when Warne comes on. He gives away runs too easily.

Too many times my arse. Once this summer has the situation you've described occured.

I agree with you though that 1/19 are OUTSTANDING stats for Warne.

Outstanding for anyone as a matter of fact.

No doubt they will be his best this summer..

It aint over yet. We've still got a tour to RSA to go yet.

Briedis

30 Jan 2002, 09:13

I can think of two occasions against the kiwis now that he has allowed them to easily to up the scoring rate.

What's happened to his flipper? He can't bowl it anymore. He seems to have no plan when he is bowling.

1/19 is unusal for Warne these days. For McGrath that is normal. Warne is normally around the 1/50 range these days.

His usefullness in the test team is unquestioned. He is a quality bowler in the test arena, but in ODIs he is much less effective. He doesn't strike often enough and gives away easy runs. He has the odd good game, OK, but generally he is easy pickings. It's not his fault, not many one-day pitches turn a hell of a lot and with the loss of his other balls (flipper etc.) he has less variety and is too predictable to good batsmen.

Dave

30 Jan 2002, 10:00

In the first game in Brisbane when he came on Harvey had already gone for nine the previous over easing the pressure. His first over went for nine, the next over from Mcgrath went for seven. Warne's next over went for three. I would dispute that he was responsible for taking the pressure off given Harvey and Mcgrath's overs also got tonked.

In the game last night Steve Waugh ****ed up and that cost him at least half of the runs that came from the first over. Flemming knew that we did not have enough men inside the circle and as such he had a free hit, result four. The ABC commenrty commented that it was an unusual shot for him, now we know why. The last ball also went for four and should not have been bolwed at all. If you want to cast blame for easing the pressure (though at 2/50 odd after 14 it wasn't as though they had been nailed to the floor) have a look at the captain.

Only once in this series has McGrath gone close to conceding only 19 runs. His "normal" performace is closer to 2/34.

2/47
0/22
4/30
3/29 (9.4)
2/36
2/41

Average, 2.1 for 34 odd. IIRC it was much the same in last years one day series as well. Hardly 1/19.

Warne's stats.

0/37
1/19
2/65 (9)
0/48
1/13 (6)
1/33
1/56

Roughly 1/41, not quite 50.

Most bowlers effectiveness is reduced in ODI's given the rules in ODIous cricket are slanted firmly in favour of the batsmen.
Warne is not in the team as a strike bowler and he does not always give away easy runs. Usually when he plays well we win, ala WC 99. Unfortunately in this series our batting has been nothing short of abysmal, which has put more pressure on the bowlers than is normal. He's been tonked twice in seven games, in the other matches he's been ok. That's hardly easy pickings.

That you've shown yourself incapable of acknowledging his good performances at the time that they occur says to me that you've got a closed mind when it comes to his inclusion in the team.

Briedis

30 Jan 2002, 10:14

Originally posted by Dave
That you've shown yourself incapable of acknowledging his good performances at the time that they occur says to me that you've got a closed mind when it comes to his inclusion in the team.

What your stats show is that McGrath has taken 13 wickets to 6, and is conceeding around 10 less runs per innings. That justifies my argument, as well as the fact that McGrath performs consistently well, and Warne has the occasional good game. McGrath is getting more than 2 wickets per match, and Warne is struggling to get 1.

Face the fact that, for a main strike bowler, the stats you have provided are poor. Warne is supposed to be a match-winner, but he hardly features in one-day cricket anymore. Test cricket, OK. One-day cricket, no way.

But he did bat well last night. If you agree to get rid of the Hack Harvey and turn Warney into an all-rounder then we might be getting somewhere!:D