• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Shane Warne's top 50 cricketers

SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Matt79 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure.

But you are confirming what I meant that Healy is a far better keeper/batsman while Gilchrist is a far better batsman/keeper.

Who one prefers overall is their perception of what works for the team (or their own bowling as you have suggested). The prejudice, if any, is only in prefering a keeper batsman above a batsman keeper not is deciding who is a better pure-keeper.
 
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Why do we have to go through this torture of Murali Vs. Warne in every thread where one tries to discuss anything about either one of the two ? God I have read those same arguments 5000+ times and I am sick of it.

I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.

I hit this thread to read about Warne's top 50 cricketers member's take on it, I dont come to this thread to hear that age old crap of Murali Vs. Warne. If any one of you want to discuss Murali Vs. Warne, For gods sake please dont do it in every thread.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
Sanz said:
Why do we have to go through this torture of Murali Vs. Warne in every thread where one tries to discuss anything about either one of the two ? God I have read those same arguments 5000+ times and I am sick of it.

I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.
I am Sick of Murali Vs. Warne.

I hit this thread to read about Warne's top 50 cricketers member's take on it, I dont come to this thread to hear that age old crap of Murali Vs. Warne. If any one of you want to discuss Murali Vs. Warne, For gods sake please dont do it in every thread.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have to agree with this fully and was thinking of posting the same thing before. The offical Warne vs Murali thread was reopened, if you must please take it there guys. The Warne top 50 is a very good topic on its own and it doesn't need to be ruined by this.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
pasag said:
Yeah, I have to agree with this fully and was thinking of posting the same thing before. The offical Warne vs Murali thread was reopened, if you must please take it there guys. The Warne top 50 is a very good topic on its own and it doesn't need to be ruined by this.
Click to expand...
sorry, I was just responding to some posts with my thoughts. will cut it out now.
 
J

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
I respect the above 2 posters (Sanz and Pasag)and their comments. Will not make any more posts on that topic any more.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
I can move all the Warne vs Murali posts to the offical topic if people want to continue it there? Thoughts?
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
pasag said:
I can move all the Warne vs Murali posts to the offical topic if people want to continue it there? Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I suppose it won't be a bad idea for while Kazo and Jason had lost their cools a little, they are both making very interesting points about a series that it seems a number of people here at CW haven't watched or at least watched fully and it is fascinating to follow all this. And I think the posts by JBH on this have been quite excellent. It would be a shame to stall this here because it seems to be heading in the right direction in that there is more substance than insults in the respective arguments. :)


I mean, I thought even at that time that Warney did have the better series by a small bit and I just think the way the Sri Lankans played him could have played a part in that but I would be interested to see what Kazo and Sean who both seem to have watched that series fully have to say in reply. I believe in learning through debates... :)
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
Yeah fair enough, all Warne Vs Murali posts have been moved to the offical thread found here, starts from post 1932.
 
Craig

Craig

World Traveller
Perm said:
Sounds about right, Warne's jealousy getting in the way of his common sense.
Click to expand...
Why I can't stand him IMO. Great great bowler obviously though.

Yeah Warne would of made a great captain, but he has nobody but himself to blame for not getting the captaincy with regard to his off-field performances.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
howardj said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perm said:
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.
Click to expand...
TBH, while Waugh was unquestionably a better batsman than Taylor for most of their respective careers, during his captaincy he was rarely required to do the one-man-rescue-act he'd so specialised in during the earlier part of his career.

And while he was undoubtedly a mentor to the Langers of this World, he'd already begun to flourish as a Test batsman under Taylor's captaincy. You know my views on Hayden too. :p Waugh cannot be credited for flat pitches.

I also think Waugh was very fortunate to have Gilchrist come into the side just after he took the captaincy, and he was probably the chief weapon that turned Australia in that ruthless killing machine you talk of.

I've always said Waugh is perhaps thought to have dragged players to a new level rather more than he actually did TBH.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Richard, your acronym usage has spiralled completely out of control. I no longer have AFI what you're talking about half the time these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top