Top 25 cricketers of Shane Warne's Career - as decided by CW

[sideshowtim]

I don't know about 'allowing'. A lot of people don't think he is as good yet. You might, and there is certainly an argument that he is as good (he made my list BTW). But in my opinion, he is getting closer but he is not there yet. I would still probably rate Waugh as a better cricketer than Ponting.

In one-two years, if he either improves his record in India or continues his clobbering form, I think he'll be right up there. If he does both of those things, he might even be considered the best of the three.

His Test records in other subcontinental nations are very good (55 SL, 119 PAK, 95 BAN, 97 UAE (vs Pak), his ODI record in India is solid too (Avg 38). I think there is enough evidence to suggest his terrible Test record in India is a mere abberation and not due to him not being able to handle subcontinental conditions. Facing Murali away from home is probably one of the biggest tests a batsman can face, and Ponting's average of 55 in SL shows he handles it very well.

 

[The Sean]

I am not sure if 'joke' is the rightword to use. It seems to indicate a ridiculous selection whereas what you are saying, as I understand, is that it is never going to be something that can be done without some subjective criteria creeping in. Then the selection is not a joke it is an opinion expressed in a thankless job to start with

The interseting thing is that when you go through such lists by one or more respected students/writers/players of the game(particularly those who have watched the game over a very long span) you find that the common players far out number the ones that are not.

When Wisden asked 100 former players and eminent writers to nominate for the cricketer of the year, a total of 49 players got nominated. Of these 17 were nominated by just one of the hundred.

The Woodcock list includes all but seven of these 49 Wisden nominees.

Everyone of these seven nominees who do not find a place in the Woodcock list do are from the 17 that were nominated by a single voter.

The point is that the Woodcock list is very similar to a list that is compiled from the nomination of a hundred former players and writers. Its uncanny.

So how do people tend to come up with the same names again and again for the games greatest. Its from those who have seen a 2-3 generations of the players, are acknowledged as keen students of the game and through word of mouth and the written word. Surely we do not have a better way to assess.

The propensity of statistics in our beloved game and the importance given to them in a day and age when fewer and fewer people are willing to understand the nuances of the game has made the stat almost like gospel and the scoreboard is no more considered "an ass".

If we are willing to look beyond the scoreboard we might find the curiosity and the desire to find out for ourselves why Larwood is considered one of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen we will discover a knowledge of the game and its history that is slowly going to be cosigned to museums. Its not because of what he did to Bradman, in fact the difference in Bradman's average in that series and the rest of his career is the only statistical evidence people are able to find for Larwood's legendry reputation.

Try and discover for yourself why Larwood was considered such a great bowler and you will be amply rewarded. Treat him purely on his stats and with the cynicism that comes so easily to us and the loss will be ours. Larwood is dead and gone, he does not need our certifictes as is WG Grace but if we continue to treat them as much lesser than they are made out to be from our superficial study of statistics, we will have lost a fabulous opportunity to gain from this beautiful game much more than just endl;ess hours spent in frony of the telly. We would have lost a chance to aqcuaint ourselves with the fabulous history of this lovely game and an introduction, as it were, with the legends who played it in those times.

Meh, I guess that's a reasonable way of putting it...

 

[silentstriker]

His Test records in other subcontinental nations are very good (55 SL, 119 PAK, 95 BAN, 97 UAE (vs Pak), his ODI record in India is solid too (Avg 38). I think there is enough evidence to suggest his terrible Test record in India is a mere abberation and not due to him not being able to handle subcontinental conditions. Facing Murali away from home is probably one of the biggest tests a batsman can face, and Ponting's average of 55 in SL shows he handles it very well.

Yup, but he has to show that it is an aberration. If it was just 1-2 Tests, it's one thing but its eight tests in four separate tours over almost a decade. That's a decent amount of innings.

But, as you say, his record is so dominant everywhere else that if he keeps it up, it won't matter how badly he did in one country. But not yet.

 

[The Sean]

Well he gets his chance in 12 months - he could argue that 7 of those Tests were played between 1996-2001 (the first "series" was a one-off Test) before he'd hit his peak, and the last in 2004 was on a pitch where Michael Clarke took 6/9. But the fact is it's a blight on his record and he'll be desperate to right it.

I just hope Punter can stay in form until then so we can see him at his peak in India for a full series to see what he's capable of.

 

[SJS]

Calling the following to submit their nominations for #11 to 15

- funnygirl
- howardj
- Iamdavid
- Julian87
- Langeveldt
- PhoenixFire
- pup11

Hurry up guys/gals

 

[silentstriker]

Well he gets his chance in 12 months - he could argue that 7 of those Tests were played between 1996-2001 (the first "series" was a one-off Test) before he'd hit his peak, and the last in 2004 was on a pitch where Michael Clarke took 6/9. But the fact is it's a blight on his record and he'll be desperate to right it.

I just hope Punter can stay in form until then so we can see him at his peak in India for a full series to see what he's capable of.

Well like I said, because he is so dominant against everyone else and merely keeps his form going for a bit longer without improving against one country, you'd still have to put him up there.

There is also the fact that he hasn't really faced a top quality pace attack and done well, but there is little he can do about that as there really aren't any around. Like the batsmen of the nineties had to face with Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Akram, Waqar, McGrath, etc.

 

[Ikki]

11 to 15 ????

11) Waugh
12) Donald
13) Dravid
14) Flower
15) Younis

 

[Jamee999]

1 -- Muralitharan
2 -- Lara
3 -- Warne
4 -- Tendulkar
5 -- McGrath
6 -- Ponting
7 -- Dravid
8 -- Donald
9 -- Ambrose
10 -- Walsh
11 -- Akram
12 -- Younis
13 -- Waugh
14 -- Flower
15 -- Kumble

 

[adharcric]

I am not sure if 'joke' is the rightword to use. It seems to indicate a ridiculous selection whereas what you are saying, as I understand, is that it is never going to be something that can be done without some subjective criteria creeping in. Then the selection is not a joke it is an opinion expressed in a thankless job to start with

The interseting thing is that when you go through such lists by one or more respected students/writers/players of the game(particularly those who have watched the game over a very long span) you find that the common players far out number the ones that are not.

When Wisden asked 100 former players and eminent writers to nominate for the cricketer of the year, a total of 49 players got nominated. Of these 17 were nominated by just one of the hundred.

The Woodcock list includes all but seven of these 49 Wisden nominees.

Everyone of these seven nominees who do not find a place in the Woodcock list do are from the 17 that were nominated by a single voter.

The point is that the Woodcock list is very similar to a list that is compiled from the nomination of a hundred former players and writers. Its uncanny.

So how do people tend to come up with the same names again and again for the games greatest. Its from those who have seen a 2-3 generations of the players, are acknowledged as keen students of the game and through word of mouth and the written word. Surely we do not have a better way to assess.

The propensity of statistics in our beloved game and the importance given to them in a day and age when fewer and fewer people are willing to understand the nuances of the game has made the stat almost like gospel and the scoreboard is no more considered "an ass".

If we are willing to look beyond the scoreboard we might find the curiosity and the desire to find out for ourselves why Larwood is considered one of the greatest bowlers the game has ever seen we will discover a knowledge of the game and its history that is slowly going to be cosigned to museums. Its not because of what he did to Bradman, in fact the difference in Bradman's average in that series and the rest of his career is the only statistical evidence people are able to find for Larwood's legendry reputation.

Try and discover for yourself why Larwood was considered such a great bowler and you will be amply rewarded. Treat him purely on his stats and with the cynicism that comes so easily to us and the loss will be ours. Larwood is dead and gone, he does not need our certifictes as is WG Grace but if we continue to treat them as much lesser than they are made out to be from our superficial study of statistics, we will have lost a fabulous opportunity to gain from this beautiful game much more than just endl;ess hours spent in frony of the telly. We would have lost a chance to aqcuaint ourselves with the fabulous history of this lovely game and an introduction, as it were, with the legends who played it in those times.

Top post but I would contend with one point. You claim that a statistical analysis is 'superficial' but for me, much of cricket's historical recollections (the literature that is hyped up like no other) are equally tainted. There is little doubt in my mind that the writers of the past glorified cricketers, had plenty of bias (just look at some of these lists by legendary, "respected" writers) and are not the most reliable sources, regardless of how "legendary" and "respected" they may be today.

 

[adharcric]

There is also the fact that he hasn't really faced a top quality pace attack and done well, but there is little he can do about that as there really aren't any around. Like the batsmen of the nineties had to face with Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Akram, Waqar, McGrath, etc.

Don't worry, the Indians are coming. One good series against the likes of Zaheer and Sreesanth and he can erase all those doubts.

 

[adharcric]

As for Woodcock's list being a joke, here's why. Creating such lists is always a difficult task and it will take a lot for me to label any attempt as a joke. Woodcock has not only displayed ridiculous home bias but also extreme bias for the early days of cricket. Doesn't it sound a bit counterintuitive when the 25 greatest cricketers in your sport almost entirely come from the first few decades of competitive play? You can have a "golden age" every now and then but the quality of cricket and the quality of cricketers should not be decreasing so rapidly as the years go by. Take a closer look and you have Malcolm Marshall at 69. That list is a joke.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't worry, the Indians are coming. One good series against the likes of Zaheer and Sreesanth and he can erase all those doubts.

The problem has been in India, and I agree that when he tours next, he will likely erase such doubts.

 

[Sanz]

As for Woodcock's list being a joke, here's why. Creating such lists is always a difficult task and it will take a lot for me to label any attempt as a joke. Woodcock has not only displayed ridiculous home bias but also extreme bias for the early days of cricket. Doesn't it sound a bit counterintuitive when the 25 greatest cricketers in your sport almost entirely come from the first few decades of competitive play? You can have a "golden age" every now and then but the quality of cricket and the quality of cricketers should not be decreasing so rapidly as the years go by. Take a closer look and you have Malcolm Marshall at 69. That list is a joke.

I dont understand this, why can't Malcolm marshall come at 69 ? It is not like he was the number one player in his era. Even in his era I could easily pick 10 players ahead of him e.g. Richards, Gavaskar, Imran, Botham, Lillee, Hadlee, Chappel to name a few. Besides it isn't the list of 100 best cricketers, it is the list of 100 greatest cricketers and I dont think Marshall @ 69 is unfair in any sense.

Everyone has his/her criteria of picking players and Woodcock must have his and one has to read the book to understand his explanation for such a list. TBH such lists are to be enjoyed for their sheer existence and their take on the history of the game of cricket , because if not for such writtings cricket history will be very poor and a hostage of Statsguru/howstat.

TBF, I am going through the list right now and and It is ridiculous to suggest that this is a biased list, infact I am not even qualified enough to suggest such a thing and just be thankful to him for creating such a list. If not for this list I would never have known who Alfred Mynn was.

 

[Sanz]

Doesn't it sound a bit counterintuitive when the 25 greatest cricketers in your sport almost entirely come from the first few decades of competitive play?

Are you reading the same list as I am ? Because I see Richards, Botham, Warne, Imran, Lillee, Gavaskar, Tendulkar in that list and ll <=25.

 

[adharcric]

Are you reading the same list as I am ? Because I see Richards, Botham, Warne, Imran, Lillee, Gavaskar, Tendulkar in that list and ll <=25.

I meant 15, not 25. Either way, that's an large majority from the earlier decades. Home bias as well IMO.

 

[Slifer]

I dont understand this, why can't Malcolm marshall come at 69 ? It is not like he was the number one player in his era. Even in his era I could easily pick 10 players ahead of him e.g. Richards, Gavaskar, Imran, Botham, Lillee, Hadlee, Chappel to name a few. Besides it isn't the list of 100 best cricketers, it is the list of 100 greatest cricketers and I dont think Marshall @ 69 is unfair in any sense.

Everyone has his/her criteria of picking players and Woodcock must have his and one has to read the book to understand his explanation for such a list. TBH such lists are to be enjoyed for their sheer existence and their take on the history of the game of cricket , because if not for such writtings cricket history will be very poor and a hostage of Statsguru/howstat.

TBF, I am going through the list right now and and It is ridiculous to suggest that this is a biased list, infact I am not even qualified enough to suggest such a thing and just be thankful to him for creating such a list. If not for this list I would never have known who Alfred Mynn was.

Im sorry but i cant wait for ur explantion as to how/y the crickters highlighted were easily greater cricketers than Malcolm Marshall.

 

[The_Bunny]

1 Muralitharan
2 Warne
3 Gilchrist
4 Mcgrath
5 Lara
6 Ponting
7 Tendulkar
8 Ambrose
9 Donald
10 Waugh
11 Akram
12 Walsh
13 Flower
14 Dravid
15 Hayden

 

[SJS]

Top post but I would contend with one point. You claim that a statistical analysis is 'superficial'

I NEVER said that.

Read again with reference to context.

 

[adharcric]

I NEVER said that.

Read again with reference to context.

Yes, I know what you meant. My point still stands - our analysis of stats in the cases of some of these legendary cricketers may be superficial but that's not the only thing that may be superficial.

 

[SJS]

There is little doubt in my mind that the writers of the past glorified cricketers, had plenty of bias

Take away the video recordings and come back after a hundred years and read what youngsters on the net are saying about how great Lara and Sachin, Warne and Murali were in our times. The accusations of bias and glorifications of the past have always been there and will always be not and not just in cricket.

There is no way one can prove or disprove what is said of the past. We are at liberty to deny everything but remember we are as much likely to be biased in our times as people from any other era. There is neither any scientific basis nor any logical reasoning to say that people of one era are more biased than the other.

Biased people have always existed still do and always will.

Woodcock's list is not the only one that is challenged. Bradman's was too as was Benaud's and as is Warme's most recently.

I am not here to say one or two or all three of them were biased. How do I know? They say it is their opinion and I should learn to respect it as their opinion. They are not offering it as 'my' (sjs's) opinion let alone that of everyone in the world so what can I say.

We are trying to make a list of the greatest cricketers of OUR times on this forum. Our times mind you which we have all seen (or most of us) and how much do we agree?

Only one, JUST ONE, cricketer has so far been named by everyone in the 15 listed by 35 odd people who have voted so far ! Really.

We scream from roof tops about Lara, Sachin, and McGrath being amongst the greatest of all time and almost unanimous that Warne is the greatest leg spinner and yet we dont all rate them even in the top 15 of the last 15 years !!

Bias? Maybe - if you say so. Afterall it is your opinion not mine.

For me what I can take is that of the 55 cricketers named by 35 members of this forum, 8 have over 30 votes and another 8 have between 10 and 30. That should show me what the larger public opinion here is. There are 29 names of people with just one nomination. I can discard them or accept them. Many of them could be good enough to be someone's number 15 or so. I personally dont think it is 'necessarily' bias and definitely not a joke. But when someone gets just one nomination and that too of rank number one -the greatest cricketer of our times- I may ask myself if the person nominating was objective and/or serious.

The fact is that most people take these jobs seriously. However. that alone does not guarantee satisfaction and agreement by all concerned. How can we talk of objectivity in an excercise which has no truly objective criteria? That is why almost ALL list's are first explained by the writers as being their opinions and that it was very difficult for them to leave out so and so etc since finally only so many can be included.

Of course there is an element of bias/conditioning and what have you. Why else would it be called "So-and-So's List" ? It is there in every thing we do. That is why one doesnt take the word of just one or two people.

When Fingleton writes about Bradman in less than the glowing terms we are so used to we dont condemn Bradman's batting (though their ARE a small minority who will). Some feel may be he was biased. Maybe, I dont know..if you do you are far far brighter than I can ever dream to be.

Do I treat what he says as a joke? Of course I dont. Infact, I read everything he says about Bradman. I love reading it. It teaches a lot about Bradman, about his times, about the game and about the people and the personalities involved.

BUT, if I call Fingleton's opinion of Bradman a joke or Bradman's about Grimmett not deserving the place he was denied or Bradman's refusal to talk in anything but mild terms about how great a bowler Larwood was. Because if I do, it is I who appears ridiculous not Bradman's opinion or that of Fingleton. If they dont know what they are talking about (maybe they dont) surely I cant claim to know better let alone use disparaging language about their opinions. Of course I can say I have a different opinion but to call their lista joke? I am too small for that.

As far as statistics go.

Well we have a left handed batsman from Australia who till recently was the holder of one of the most 'valued' test records. He still holds it as an Australian record. He was also one of the best captains/leaders of our times and an exceptionally brilliant fielder. People have fought over his place in the list of the greatest left handed batsmen of all times and here , on this forum, and yet only three have rated him amongst their top 15 of modern day cricket ! Of these three two rated him number 15 in their list !!

Statistics. Can you argue with 11500 odd test runs and an average over 50 and 156 test catches not to mention his test captaincy? Maybe you can.

Are 32 people biased ? I dont know.

Is the non selection of Border a joke . of course not.