Shane Warne's top 50 cricketers

[funnygirl]

No surprise or shock .As expected . I really loved his comment abt Ambrose over Mcgrath .

 

[Matt79]

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?

 

[funnygirl]

Well ,i am happy that he put Amby above Mcgrath .However no justification for placing Waqar and Donald way behind the likes of Harmisson ,lee .And S Waugh should be in the top 10 instead of Mark Taylor.

So he is stupid in that way

Any way he didn't make top 10, complicated by putting guys like VVS Laxman ...sigh...

Even if it was Warne list ,i was extremely curious to see the top 10.

 

[nightprowler10]

Decent list to be honest. I half expected McGrath to be on the top of the list, but delighted to see Sachin there instead. His comment about Sachin cutting out his cover drive during his 248 just goes to show what a great batsman he was during those days.

 

[SJS]

OK the final count down is out. Pretty much what i have said exactly.Tendulkar leads the list and the last man is healy as mentioned. So thorpe,laxman and inzamam is out.Pretty good of warne to come up with this list.Great stuff warney!!K eep it up.Here is the link and top 10
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/shane_warne/article2364258.ece
10 Ian Healy
9 Mark Taylor
8 Ricky Ponting
7 Muttiah Muralitharan
6 Wasim Akram
5 Glenn McGrath
4 Allan Border
3 Curtly Ambrose
2 Brian Lara
1 Sachin Tendulkar

It settles one thing for me.

I have always questioned Gilchrist being named as the top keeper (even one of the top keepers) of all times since I think his keeping is not amongst the greatest when standing up. This has been countered by Gilchrist supporters by talking of how he has kept to Warne's bowling for almost his entire test career.

Here is support for Healy (against Gilchrist) from probably the most relevant observer. Considering that he was not rating just keeping abilities but over all merits as a cricketer (which means Gilchrist has a head start in batting over Healy), Healy's superiority as a keeper is as a keeper greatly highlighted.

 

[SJS]

The following would be the top 10 in warnes list with no particular order
1.Lara
2.Tendulkar
3.McGrath
4.Ricky Ponting
5.Muralitharan
6.Ambrose
7.Allan Border
8. Mark Taylor
9. Wasim Akram
10.Graham Thorpe (likely)/Healy/Laxman/Inzamam
As i see it the last slot might see some surprise. Inzamam will not probably make it, as he has not scored well against aussies most of the time.Laxman iam not sure as he has done well only against aussies and mediocre against most of the other countries.Healy could go either way.Thorpe looks like he will make it as he has done very well against aussies and good with the rest of other teams.
We will all know it tommorow,hopefully.

Thatwas a brilliant guess except for Thorpe. With healy as a suggested alternative you score 9.25 out of ten.

 

[SJS]

Great list, like others have said, it's far more interesting than a list of the regular suspects would be. IMO his final 10 will be:

10.Akram
9.Healy
8.Border
7.Ambrose
6.Ponting
5.Tendulkar
4.Lara
3.Taylor
2.Murali
1.McGrath

I missed that. This was PERFECT !! (except the order)

 

[SJS]

Using Warne's top 12 one can make very impressive sides for tests as well as ODI's. But to make a perfect ODI's side I need a better all round option than Border or Akram offered and go back to Flintoff at #16 AND OF COURSE to Gilchrist at # 20

Tests

1. Mark Taylor
2. Mark Waugh
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Alan Border
7. Ian Healy
8. Wasim Akram
9. Muralitharan
10. Macgrath
11. Walsh
    
12. Ambrose

Its a tough one chosing between walsh and Ambrose for the last spot.

ODI's

1. Tendulkar
2. Waugh M
3. Ponting
4. Lara
5. Border
6. Akram
7. Healy
8. Murali
9. MacGrath
10. Ambrose
11. Walsh
    
12. Mark Taylor

As I said allrounder and a batsman keeper (a generally prefered choice for ODI's) would make the ODI team better balanced than it looks as it is. But not a bad assembly otherwise.

Well Done Shane.

 

[Anil]

It settles one thing for me.

I have always questioned Gilchrist being named as the top keeper (even one of the top keepers) of all times since I think his keeping is not amongst the greatest when standing up. This has been countered by Gilchrist supporters by talking of how he has kept to Warne's bowling for almost his entire test career.

Here is support for Healy (against Gilchrist) from probably the most relevant observer. Considering that he was not rating just keeping abilities but over all merits as a cricketer (which means Gilchrist has a head start in batting over Healy), Healy's superiority as a keeper is as a keeper greatly highlighted.

yeah great pick by warne...

 

[Perm]

Must say I'm very, very surprised to see that VVS Laxman didn't make Warne's top 50.

 

[Dissector]

The top ten were exactly what I expected though I think it's pretty ridiculous to leave Inzy out of the top 50.

A bit surprised to see Ambrose above McGrath but one thing you can't accuse Warne of is any partiality to his fellow Aussie superstars. He is overly generous to minor players like May but pretty harsh IMO on Steve Waugh and Gilchrist.

I wouldn't put too much stress on Warne's opinion on Healy vs Gilcrhist. Obviously as a bowler he is much more concerned about glovework than batting.

The comments about the pressure that Tendulkar has faced since 16 are spot on which does make his achievements between 93 and 2002 truly amazing. Sadly it appears that the pressure, along with his aging body, have finally caught up with him and I doubt he will ever be the player he once was.

 

[SJS]

Here is some more time pass !!

From his first 48 (actually it is 51 due to joint numbers 27, 28 and 29) I managed four teams of 12 players each.. Here they are in batting order.

Team I (from Ranking # 1 - # 12)

1. Taylor (Captain)
2. Waugh
3. Ponting
4. Tendulkar
5. Lara
6. Border
7. Healy
8. Akram
9. Murali
10. Macgrath
11. Walsh
12. Ambrose

Team II (from Rankings 13 - 27)

1. Gooch
2. Hayden
3. Dravid
4. Crowe
5. Aravinda
6. Waugh Steve (Captain)
7. Gilchrist
8. Flintoff
9. Pollock
10. Kumble
11. Lee
12. Hughes

Team III (from rankings 27 to 36)

1. Anwar
2. Vaughan (Captain)
3. Kallis
4. Mohd Yousuf
5. Pietersen
6. Andy Flower
7. Robin Smith
8. May
9. Akhtar
10. Donald
11. Bruce Reid

Team IV (from rankings 37 to 48)

1. Jayasuriya
2. Atherton
3. Langer
4. Vengsarkar
5. Alec Stewart (Captain)
6. Shastri
7. Kapil
8. Cairns
9. MacGill
10. Harmison
11. Waqar
12. Macmillan

Interesting to see that there is a wicket keeper in each quartet and at least one proper all rounder except in the first 12. And at least one spinner and one captain, three of whom were superb captains.

Here are his rankings of
Keepers

1. Healy
2. Gilchrist
3. Flower
4. Stewart

All Rounders

1. Flintoff
2. Kallis
3. Kapil
4. Shastri
5. Cairns

Spinners

1. Murali
2. Kumble
3. May
4. MacGill

Test Openers

1. Taylor
2. Gooch
3. Hayden
4. Boon (partly)
5. Anwar
6. Jayasuriya
7. Langer (partly)
8. Atherton

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 (?)

Middle order Batsmen

1. Tendulkar
2. Lara
3. Border
4. Ponting
5. Mark Waugh
6. Dravid
7. D'Silva
8. Crowe
9. Fleming
10. Lehmann
11. Steve waugh (a strong smell here)
12. Mohd Yousuf
13. Pietersen
14. Smith Robin
15. Vaughan
16. Vengsarkar

What no Inzy ??

 

[social]

It settles one thing for me.

I have always questioned Gilchrist being named as the top keeper (even one of the top keepers) of all times since I think his keeping is not amongst the greatest when standing up. This has been countered by Gilchrist supporters by talking of how he has kept to Warne's bowling for almost his entire test career.

Here is support for Healy (against Gilchrist) from probably the most relevant observer. Considering that he was not rating just keeping abilities but over all merits as a cricketer (which means Gilchrist has a head start in batting over Healy), Healy's superiority as a keeper is as a keeper greatly highlighted.

Very strange decision by Warne - he's obviously forgotten that Healy's form with the gloves in his last few series was worse than Gilchrist EVER showed in test cricket.

Whilst Warnie has achieved what he's paid to do (create discussion), I cant help but think he's based a no. of decisions on personality rather than quality.

Waugh's rating is plainly ludicrous and smacks of nothing more than sour grapes - he praises Sachin for mental toughness but I know who I'd rather have bat for my life

Gillespie is rated behind Lee despite the latter not being fit to tie the other's bootlaces for 99% of their career

VVS Laxman's omission is totally mystifying - the guy has played 2 of the greatest innings in the history of test cricket against Oz yet is rated behind such luminaries as Siddons and Smith

Harbijhan achieved more in one series than Tim May in an entire career

MacgIll paid the price for over-shadowing Warne whenever they played together AND had the temerity to be selected in place of him and is therefore rated behind May

He substantially underrates every South African except MacMillan

 

[Xuhaib]

It seems Kolkatta 01 and Karachi 94 still hurts Mr. Warney.

 

[SJS]

Very strange decision by Warne - he's obviously forgotten that Healy's form with the gloves in his last few series was worse than Gilchrist EVER showed in test cricket.

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

 

[andyc]

Tbh I'm pretty surprised Jason Gillespie didn't get a mention in the 50. And lol at this

Glenn McGrath (Australia) Test matches 124 Wickets 563 at 21.64

He kept everything simple but effective. Although batsmen knew exactly what McGrath was about, he still beat them almost every time. He had that ability to take the big wicket and his longevity was incredible. By keeping things so tight he helped me to get a lot of wickets at the other end. Don’t let him fool you over his batting: it really was terrible.

 

[Chubby Rain]

This piece should probably have been posted before the countdown began, but I only stumbled upon it now:

If I happen to be speaking at a dinner or a function somewhere, I know there will be one question that is sure to crop up: who are the best cricketers I have played with or against? Our sport is full of great names and it is sometimes close to impossible to separate one from another. But, over the next five days, I will be doing just that.

Starting tomorrow, I will be counting down my top 50 over five days, climaxing with numbers ten to one on Saturday.

The field is vast. Everybody I have played with or against since my debut for Victoria way back in 1991 is in contention. I hope that it starts a few debates; I would be surprised if it settles any.

During the past couple of weeks I’ve spent hours listing names and shuffling them into a rough order . . . then shuffling them again. Three or four days ago, I finally felt happy with the result. Unfortunately, my rib injury gave me more spare time I hadn’t bargained for and there have been a few more tweaks during the weekend.

If anything, it has been even more difficult than I imagined. The first thing was to come up with some ground rules. I decided to trust my instincts rather than allow the facts and figures to influence selection. You may be surprised that guys with lower averages are some way above those with more impressive figures.

I was looking for players who have done the business in all conditions, home and away, over a long period of time. No doubt, if I come to do this again in five years then the names of Michael Clarke and Kevin Pietersen will rank some way higher.

They have so much talent to fulfil and time is on their side.

One problem was to separate batsmen from bowlers. And there’s also wicketkeepers, a group of players who tend to get overlooked when the “greats” of the game are considered. As a spin bowler, I know only too well the value of a quietly reliable guy operating behind the stumps or a bloke who can pouch catches at slip.

Another tricky issue was to compare players from different eras. We are said to be in a golden age of batting at the moment. Runs are being scored quicker than ever before and more batsmen can boast averages in the fifties. But does that mean they are better than the likes of Allan Border or Graham Gooch?

Those two guys, and others I came across early in my career, had to battle against the most hostile battery of West Indies fast bowlers probably ever known. So courage and resilience enter the equation. Hard runs in tight situations are worth more to me than nice hundreds against inferior bowling.

An extra difficulty was in comparing those I played with, for Australia, against some of my opponents. Being in the same dressing-room, and spending day after day together on tours, gave me a privileged insight into characters. Although I like to socialise with opponents, the circumstances are different.

Fortunately, I have played against the likes of Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh in our domestic game, so there is some experience of being in opposition there, as well. In fact, I had some really fierce battles with Mark Waugh when Victoria played New South Wales and we were usually very good mates off the field.

Without giving anything away, I can say that a couple of the 50 did not actually play Test cricket. There is something to puzzle any of you who might want to start throwing guesses. Another clue: my top ten is split exactly between Australians and the rest. Then again, I’ve still got five days to change them around.

 

[pasag]

Ahh, was looking for the intro for abit and couldn't find any, thanks for that. Anyways enjoyed the list quite abit and unashamed to say I was really looking forward to the top 10 yesterday and it didn't disappoint.

 

[SJS]

Ahh, was looking for the intro for abit and couldn't find any, thanks for that. Anyways enjoyed the list quite abit and unashamed to say I was really looking forward to the top 10 yesterday and it didn't disappoint.

You are right. The top ten doesnt disappoint. He couldnt have made a top ten that agreed with everyone's top ten and their ranking so lets accept that.

The few odd ones that may find universal disagreement are the low ranking of Steve Waugh and the ommissions of Laxman and Inzy while he includes Robin Smith. Inzy even more importantly than Laxman although its the latter who may have given Warne more headaches on the field.

There would be others (inevitable in any such list) but they would find voices of support as well as disagreement.

The inclusion of two cricketers who havent played any international cricket doesnt need a comment.

 

[Matt79]

It settles one thing for me.

I have always questioned Gilchrist being named as the top keeper (even one of the top keepers) of all times since I think his keeping is not amongst the greatest when standing up. This has been countered by Gilchrist supporters by talking of how he has kept to Warne's bowling for almost his entire test career.

Here is support for Healy (against Gilchrist) from probably the most relevant observer. Considering that he was not rating just keeping abilities but over all merits as a cricketer (which means Gilchrist has a head start in batting over Healy), Healy's superiority as a keeper is as a keeper greatly highlighted.

Although his opinion, as a spinner who wants a keeper who'll hold onto any and all sharp chances, even when he tries to take an overall view, is going to be somewhat more biased towards a KEEPER/batsman rather than a keeper/BATSMAN, if you take my meaning, than a selector, fan or other batsman, for instance.

Doesn't mean he's wrong, its just that its an understandable prejudice on his part.