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 ****

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