Shane Warne's top 50 cricketers

[gettingbetter]

Interesting list overall.

Its good to see a list like this after a while and people have to remember that it is not a list about who Warne thought were the best players overall - he wouldn't have the sole State players in the list if so. But it is obviously more of a list who he finds the greatest competitors and those who has the most respect for.

It is legend his battles with Lara and Tendulkar, his partnerships with Taylor, McGrath and Healy and then you have guys like Donald, Waqar and others who are without a doubt great players, but just didn;t have that spark when playing against Australia.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Pacers

1. Ambrose
2. MacGrath
3. Walsh
4. Hughes
5. Lee
6. Pollock (may havebeen considered as all rounder)
7. Akhtar
8. McDermott
9. Donald
10. Reid
11. Harmison
12. Waqar
13. MacMillan (?)

Where's Wasim Akram?

 

[Craig]

Does SJS have too much spare time?

 

[Richard]

Does SJS have too much spare time?

Not to mention KaZo.

SJS at least has the excuse of being retired.

 

[Richard]

Probably that explains why they were his last few series

You never judge a player on his performance when he is clearly on decline. The selectors do him injustics , in a way, by playing him, OR they aresaying that even in that form he is better than the alternative.

There is a massive difference in the keeping skills of Gilchrist and Healy at their peak. BTW thats just my opinion

And I agree wholeheartedly. I hate people judging anything - anything, whatsoever, it's completely meaningless IMO - on a short period of decline for a player who has done the job brilliantly for an interminable period.

IMO Healy > Gilchrist as a wicketkeeper, beyond doubt. Never seen how anyone can seriously argue otherwise.

 

[Richard]

So its a stupid list and he's a biased idiot when you disagree with him, but when you like the next ten names, its good?

Sounds good to me.

 

[howardj]

Once again, where is the linkage?

If there was a rift between Warne and Gilchrist I would be surprised, but I suppose it could be because of their different characters. Warne is a bit of a loose cannon while Gilchrist appears to be very proper and respectful, in a non snooty kind of way.

It's been very well documented down the years. Here's today's paper for instance. It's been no big secret.

 

[Sanz]

Shane was was one of the most entertaining cricketers of his time and I thoroughky enjoyed his list and his take on his top 50 crickets. You can disagree with picks but you cant disagree that it was great fun going through his list.

 

[silentstriker]

Agreed this issue has been done to death so many times. I think it is fair to say mention, Warne & Muralitharan and Ponting, Dravid & Hayden and generally all hell breaks loss.

Dravid and Hayden? I never knew they didn't get along.

 

[Richard]

Dravid and Hayden? I never knew they didn't get along.

Is this in jest?

 

[silentstriker]

Is this in jest?

No. I never heard of any animosity between them.

 

[Richard]

No. I never heard of any animosity between them.

No, no - was meaning were you only pretending to infer that from Craig's post.

He made no mention of it and I presumed you were just pretending he had.

He meant that bring-up said subjects (be it "Warne or Murali?" "Dravid or Ponting?" or any number of other things) on CW and you get hell breaking loose on here.

 

[haroon510]

i really thought that if saeed and yousuf made the top fifty cricketers of his list... inzi is going to make it also... but he is no where to found.. i mean is there a reason why he was skiped...maybe he totally forgot about him...

steve waugh is ranked number 26th... my god that is pretty low for a batsman like steve waugh... i still rank steve a better captain then mark and pointing.

 

[Richard]

Well being a better captain than his brother isn't hard.

And I have to say I now think Australia's achievements during Ponting's time at the helm really outstrip those with Waugh Snr there. Not neccessarily making Ponting a better captain, but equally - it might do.

 

[haroon510]

Well being a better captain than his brother isn't hard.

And I have to say I now think Australia's achievements during Ponting's time at the helm really outstrip those with Waugh Snr there. Not neccessarily making Ponting a better captain, but equally - it might do.

i meant mark taylar

lol

 

[Richard]

Well Taylor's almost undoubtedly a better captain than Stephen Waugh really. Virtually everyone who played against them (and watched the both of them) tends to say that.

 

[nightprowler10]

i really thought that if saeed and yousuf made the top fifty cricketers of his list... inzi is going to make it also... but he is no where to found.. i mean is there a reason why he was skiped...maybe he totally forgot about him...

Well Saeed had a pretty good record against Australia (averaged almost 60 against them overall and 47 in Australia) so I would've actually been a bit surprised if he wasn't in the top 50. Yousuf man-handled Warne in 2005 (albeit just one inning) so I'm guessing he left a lasting impression on him on top of the amazing year he had in 2006.

Compared to that, Inzamam hasn't really done anything against Australia except that win in Karachi where he batted with the tail and squeezed out a 1-wicket win, hence the reason why most Australians don't really rate him.

 

[howardj]

Well Taylor's almost undoubtedly a better captain than Stephen Waugh really. Virtually everyone who played against them (and watched the both of them) tends to say that.

On the tactical front Taylor is better. That doesn't automatically mean he was a better captain though. For mine, captaincy is about getting the most from those in your team. Waugh could not be faulted in this regard. He took basically what Taylor had at his disposal (the Waugh brothers; Warne, McGrath, Gillespie) and turned Australia into a ruthless killing machine. He squeezed every last drop out of that team.

Furthermore, he helped 'make' players like Langer and Hayden. For mine, too many people just look at tactical brilliance when considering how good a captain is, rather than whether they got the most out of the individuals and the team as a whole that they presided over. In that regard, Tugga measures up to any skipper in history.

A ruthless, cold-blooded animal. lol.

 

[Perm]

It's been very well documented down the years. Here's today's paper for instance. It's been no big secret.

Sounds about right, Warne's jealousy getting in the way of his common sense.

 

[Perm]

Well Taylor's almost undoubtedly a better captain than Stephen Waugh really. Virtually everyone who played against them (and watched the both of them) tends to say that.

On the tactical front, certainly. As a batsman, which helps contribute to how you are rated as a captain IMO, no comparison. Waugh may not have been the brilliant, thinking leader that Taylor was but he would certainly score the runs and lead from the front when he needed to, much more of an inspirational captain.