Opinion Non-Crows AFL 4: The Centre Cannot Hold

[1970crow]

No, no he wasn't.

He was, you just refuse to accept plain facts.

 

[1970crow]

500 test wickets difference suggests you're horribly wrong.

Part of "being without peer" is all of that other stuff you mentioned. Warne was on a whole different level to anyone, that's being without peer.

You need to be selected and we only chose 2 spinners on a handful of occasions. But when they played together, it’s clear who was the better wicket taker. It’s unarguable, but you’re a belief based person so I doubt facts will help. I’m not even arguing that not selecting the better wicket taker was wrong as there’s more to selecting an 11 than just that. But you simply can’t look at the comparative stats and make your argument on who was the better wicket taker.

 

[hey shorty]

You need to be selected and we only chose 2 spinners on a handful of occasions. But when they played together, it’s clear who was the better wicket taker. It’s unarguable, but you’re a belief based person so I doubt facts will help. I’m not even arguing that not selecting the better wicket taker was wrong as there’s more to selecting an 11 than just that. But you simply can’t look at the comparative stats and make your argument on who was the better wicket taker.

Facts

708 test wickets is more than 208.
Warne was a better bowler, you even said it.
Warne was a better cricketer, you said that too. His economy rate was better, his average was better..... What more do you want ??

All those things meant he was without peer, but you a cherry picking a very poor argument.

You're arguing for arguments sake which is what you do sometimes. If you had both and you needed a wicket, who would you throw the ball to ??

I'd question your sanity if you said MacGill.

 

[hey shorty]

He was, you just refuse to accept plain facts.

View attachment 1338683

In 16 tests ?? Is that the best fact you've got.

One is considered the best spin bowler the world has ever seen..... The other is Stuart MacGill

 

[1970crow]

Warnie is more than stats.

He controlled games with his bowling and gamesmanship.


MacGill was pretty good too though. Wish he was 15 years younger.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I see Warnie as having numerous tools to get a nail into wood and he was brilliant with all of them. MacGill only had a hammer. But that’s all he needed.

 

[FAITH]

Sad news about Warnie, no doubt. But a State funeral? FFS!

they're throwing state funerals out there like there's no tomorrow.
I think Deaneus! is a little hard done by not being offered one tbh

 

[1970crow]

Facts

708 test wickets is more than 208.
Warne was a better bowler, you even said it.
Warne was a better cricketer, you said that too. His economy rate was better, his average was better..... What more do you want ??

All those things meant he was without peer, but you a cherry picking a very poor argument.

You're arguing for arguments sake which is what you do sometimes. If you had both and you needed a wicket, who would you throw the ball to ??

I'd question your sanity if you said MacGill.

If I said he he was a better bowler, i mis-spoje. I certainly said he was a better cricketer and that arguing he’s a better bowler is fine. But saying he was peerless is ridiculous. MacGill a better wicket taker. And then there’s players like Sachin and Murali who were just as peerless.

 

[AFC979810]

Sad news about Warnie, no doubt. But a State funeral? FFS!

Why not?

 

[hey shorty]

If I said he he was a better bowler, i mis-spoje. I certainly said he was a better cricketer and that arguing he’s a better bowler is fine. But saying he was peerless is ridiculous. MacGill a better wicket taker. And then there’s players like Sachin and Murali who were just as peerless.

Even with Tendulkar, he never played an innings like Laxman did against us in 2001

 

[pjcrows]

Sad news about Warnie, no doubt. But a State funeral? FFS!

Why wouldn't he get one?

 

[FAITH]

Why wouldn't he get one?

For playing cricket, or for dating Liz Hurley?

 

[FR0GGY]

500 test wickets difference suggests you're horribly wrong.

Part of "being without peer" is all of that other stuff you mentioned. Warne was on a whole different level to anyone, that's being without peer.

It’s not wickets alone either, it was his whole package.
There won’t be this much emotion when Murali or McGrath go.

 

[FR0GGY]

You need to be selected and we only chose 2 spinners on a handful of occasions. But when they played together, it’s clear who was the better wicket taker. It’s unarguable, but you’re a belief based person so I doubt facts will help. I’m not even arguing that not selecting the better wicket taker was wrong as there’s more to selecting an 11 than just that. But you simply can’t look at the comparative stats and make your argument on who was the better wicket taker.

Doesn’t that just show McGill needed Warne to be able to perform himself?
Warne could do it without McGill

 

[Geoffa32]

I see Warnie as having numerous tools to get a nail into wood and he was brilliant with all of them. MacGill only had a hammer. But that’s all he needed.

I think that is a fair call.



On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jenny61_99]

Why not?

Because state funerals should be for important people. You know, like scientists or people who save lives, or dignitaries…. Actually, they shouldn’t do em at all. Let the family grieve privately.

 

[jenny61_99]

Why wouldn't he get one?

Why should he? This adoration and pedestal placement of sportsmen is ridiculous. Great cricketer. One of the best. But state funeral worthy? Not for mine.

 

[Golumless]

Because state funerals should be for important people. You know, like scientists or people who save lives, or dignitaries…. Actually, they shouldn’t do em at all. Let the family grieve privately.

On a cultural aspect, I think it's a hard sell to say anyone of them has been important as Shane Warne to the identity of Australia.

Families get a choice whether they want it or not.

 

[jenny61_99]

On a cultural aspect, I think it's a hard sell to say anyone of them has been important as Shane Warne to the identity of Australia.

Families get a choice whether they want it or not.

Cultural? He played cricket! He didn’t cure cancer. He didn’t save lives. He played bloody cricket.

 

[pjcrows]

Why should he? This adoration and pedestal placement of sportsmen is ridiculous. Great cricketer. One of the best. But state funeral worthy? Not for mine.

Cricket is Australia's game, and he transformed it.

 

[hey shorty]

Cultural? He played cricket! He didn’t cure cancer. He didn’t save lives. He played bloody cricket.

Settle down Jen.

 

[jenny61_99]

Cricket is Australia's game, and he transformed it.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Golumless]

Cultural? He played cricket! He didn’t cure cancer. He didn’t save lives. He played bloody cricket.

Sport is at its essence a cultural activity, and we're also in a society that long held the captain of the Australian cricket team as next to the prime minister in terms of importance.

I'd wager a random person could tell you more about Shane Warne then they could about Australias scientific achievements in the last 30-40 years.

 

[hey shorty]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Because you're being ridiculous

 

[pjcrows]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

That's fine.

I've spoken to about ten people today about it - some who love cricket and some who don't, and don't particularly like Warne - but none have disagreed with him getting a state funeral.

 

[FAITH]

Because state funerals should be for important people. You know, like scientists or people who save lives, or dignitaries…. Actually, they shouldn’t do em at all. Let the family grieve privately.

Underated comment.
What you didn't take into consideration was that Shane warne use to shag Liz Hurley, and for that deserves a state funeral.