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

[silentstriker]

No way in hell McGrath is a worse player than Tendulkar or Lara IMO. No chance, considering how uniformly well he does everywhere and how uniformly well he does it on the biggest occassions against the biggest wickets of the opposition. Ah well.

And he isn't a worse player than Warne either, considering Warne sucks without McGrath, yet the opposite is not true. And ignoring that, Warne just gets so much help from McGrath keeping things tight and taking wickets one end, people are forced to try to get runs off Warne, which gives him wickets.

McGrath on the other hand gets wickets even when people are trying to see him off. And he isn't a worse player than Muralitharan considering he doesn't have one country where he completely sucks, and another where he mostly sucks (Aus. and India). And the fact that he doesn't make the biggest wickets his personal bunnies like McGrath. In fact, Lara for example has played him quite well while he has been McGrath's little bunny for a while.

 

[The_Bunny]

This list has been very interesting so far, as in that most Alltime XI's I have seen posted on this forum include Adam Gilchrist, and quite alot include Glenn Mcgrath, and almost all include one or both of Warne or Murali.
Lara and Tendulkar on the other hand dont seem to make many appearances at all.
So by this logic we should have Gilchrist at then top followed by Warne/Murali in 2/3 and Mcgrath in 4th
But Gilchrist looks to be about 10th and the top five is shaping up something like Murali Tendy/Lara Mcgrath then Warne.
Just some thoughts


Also a little annoyed about how little people rate Gilchrist on this list
But a very interesting list so far, cant wait to see the rest

 

[pasag]

Warne

1. pasag Warne

1. 
   
   I had Murali and Warne as equal firsts iirc, don't know if you've misread that or if it makes any difference though.

 

[Perm]

No way in hell McGrath is a worse player than Tendulkar or Lara IMO. No chance, considering how uniformly well he does everywhere and how uniformly well he does it on the biggest occassions against the biggest wickets of the opposition. Ah well.

And he isn't a worse player than Warne either, considering Warne sucks without McGrath, yet the opposite is not true. And ignoring that, Warne just gets so much help from McGrath keeping things tight and taking wickets one end, people are forced to try to get runs off Warne, which gives him wickets.

McGrath on the other hand gets wickets even when people are trying to see him off. And he isn't a worse player than Muralitharan considering he doesn't have one country where he completely sucks, and another where he mostly sucks (Aus. and India). And the fact that he doesn't make the biggest wickets his personal bunnies like McGrath. In fact, Lara for example has played him quite well while he has been McGrath's little bunny for a while.

Haha, fire up son!

 

[Mahindinho]

Also a little annoyed about how little people rate Gilchrist on this list
But a very interesting list so far, cant wait to see the rest

The thing is, when you're picking an all-time XI, one of the first things to decide is which 'keeper you're going to have. For Warne's career, that's a choice between Gilly, Healy, Boucher and Flower, with Stewart (highly competent, but not as classy as the above) and Sanga (is only reaching his peak now) just behind them.

Here, no WK is required...and it looks as though we think the best players around have been pretty much straight bowlers or batsmen -- no all-rounders make it into the top 10, either.

Also, if I had to pick ONE person to put in my pub team, it wouldn't be Tendulkar or Lara (my #1 and #3 picks) -- it'd be a bowler.

Some criteria are going to favour WKs, some will favour pacemen, some spinners. Some will rate opening bats highly, others middle order sloggers. That's why there's always so much discussion of these things -- I'm sure that, if we were to each pick our top 10 bowlers, then our top 10 batsmen, then top 3 'keepers, there'd be much more agreement.

 

[The_Bunny]

The thing is, when you're picking an all-time XI, one of the first things to decide is which 'keeper you're going to have. For Warne's career, that's a choice between Gilly, Healy, Boucher and Flower, with Stewart (highly competent, but not as classy as the above) and Sanga (is only reaching his peak now) just behind them.

Here, no WK is required...and it looks as though we think the best players around have been pretty much straight bowlers or batsmen -- no all-rounders make it into the top 10, either.

Also, if I had to pick ONE person to put in my pub team, it wouldn't be Tendulkar or Lara (my #1 and #3 picks) -- it'd be a bowler.

Some criteria are going to favour WKs, some will favour pacemen, some spinners. Some will rate opening bats highly, others middle order sloggers. That's why there's always so much discussion of these things -- I'm sure that, if we were to each pick our top 10 bowlers, then our top 10 batsmen, then top 3 'keepers, there'd be much more agreement.

I do see your point, but given the amount of people who rate him as the best W/K batsmen of all time I think he is just a little under represented on this list

 

[honestbharani]

No way in hell McGrath is a worse player than Tendulkar or Lara IMO. No chance, considering how uniformly well he does everywhere and how uniformly well he does it on the biggest occassions against the biggest wickets of the opposition. Ah well.

And he isn't a worse player than Warne either, considering Warne sucks without McGrath, yet the opposite is not true. And ignoring that, Warne just gets so much help from McGrath keeping things tight and taking wickets one end, people are forced to try to get runs off Warne, which gives him wickets.

McGrath on the other hand gets wickets even when people are trying to see him off. And he isn't a worse player than Muralitharan considering he doesn't have one country where he completely sucks, and another where he mostly sucks (Aus. and India). And the fact that he doesn't make the biggest wickets his personal bunnies like McGrath. In fact, Lara for example has played him quite well while he has been McGrath's little bunny for a while.

can't really argue with most of what you have said but Lara was McGrath's bunny only as much as McGrath has been Lara's bunny.

 

[SJS]

I had Murali and Warne as equal firsts iirc, don't know if you've misread that or if it makes any difference though.

I am sorry I missed that and took Murali as second. It wont make much of a difference though. It will reduce Warne's points by .5 and increase Murali's by .5 !

The margin between them is already in favour of Murali, it will increase by a li'l bit.

But I will correct it.

 

[Matteh]

Nick Knight >>> Taibu.

 

[Ikki]

No way in hell McGrath is a worse player than Tendulkar or Lara IMO. No chance, considering how uniformly well he does everywhere and how uniformly well he does it on the biggest occassions against the biggest wickets of the opposition. Ah well.

Agree, but it's people's opinions.

And he isn't a worse player than Warne either, considering Warne sucks without McGrath, yet the opposite is not true. And ignoring that, Warne just gets so much help from McGrath keeping things tight and taking wickets one end, people are forced to try to get runs off Warne, which gives him wickets.

But also gives Warne a higher average, also, pitches have been rarely in Warne's favour and more with McGrath - especially at home. And Warne has gone both ways without McGrath. I mean, you did watch Ashes 05 didn't you? And between the two, Warne has been more of a match-winner than McGrath. McGrath is under-appreciated, but it's largely due to the large area Warne's influence shadows.
Anyway, after some Googling:

	     Warne	McGrath

Tests		41	20

Wickets		195	75

Average		26.8	23.3

Win%		51%	65%

If anything, McGrath average rises by 2 runs, Warne's only by 1, whilst Warne's wicket-taking ability also rises.

McGrath on the other hand gets wickets even when people are trying to see him off. And he isn't a worse player than Muralitharan considering he doesn't have one country where he completely sucks, and another where he mostly sucks (Aus. and India). And the fact that he doesn't make the biggest wickets his personal bunnies like McGrath. In fact, Lara for example has played him quite well while he has been McGrath's little bunny for a while.

I agree with you in that, but to each their own. Some people consider different qualities. Did you know that McGrath bowled, on average, only 2 less overs than Hadlee per match?

Anyway, to me the voting reflects mostly how a group of stout fans from one player will admire another player. I'm sure more Aussies would vote for Murali than Sri Lankans for Warne for example. Or as you will see, many Aussies consider Tendulkar or Lara above their own.

 

[SJS]

Nick Knight >>> Taibu.

Well its a moot point but I see where you are coming from. I would have discounted the nominations of that poster also. He too had on his list 6 players who only he nominated and who are misfits on this list. But for the request of everyone thatwe should haveFIFTY to go with Warne's fifty, I would have done that.

In any event by putting all these in a common pool at 31 to 48 I was making a statement. I still stand by that sentiment.

I did provide a list as asked for by a member for 31 to 40. Given a choice, my list would end at 30. Everyone else is 31.

 

[SJS]

At number three on our list is a batsman who has brought immeasurable pleasure to lovers of the game. Adept at both of the games he has scored runs by the thousands and broken many records in the process. Aggressive by instinct this batsman has been rated amongst the best of all times and compared seriously only with one of his contemporaries in a never ending debate.

Anyone wants to make a guess which one it is ?

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar?

 

[Matteh]

Based on the positions stated on my discarded list. It's Lara.

 

[silentstriker]

Tendulkar, Lara has an unsurmountable lead for the #1 spot.

 

[SJS]

NUMBER THREE

- With 33 nominations
- Five #1 spots
- 24 top five placings and
- with a massive 393 rating points,​

we give to you, Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar

 

[silentstriker]

But also gives Warne a higher average, also, pitches have been rarely in Warne's favour and more with McGrath - especially at home.

But when pitches suck for McGrath he still does outstanding, like India.

 

[Ikki]

But when pitches suck for McGrath he still does outstanding, like India.

Is he injured at those times too? Warne from 98-2001 - consequently when he has played India the most, apart from his atrocious start - was largely injured, out of the game and in terrible form. In 2004, Warne did well, averaging 30 when he missed the most spin conducive pitch in the series. The same pitch Michael Clarke got 6 for 9, imagine what Warne would have done and it would have immensely helped his figures. He would have ended up with an average most probably in the low 20s with a SR in the low 50s.

But I don't want to take anything away from Pidge. As you've seen, I rated him 2nd only to Warne. When it comes to consistency, he has no peer except for Bradman. Still, as I say, from watching the two in tandem all these years, if you question why a lot of people rate Warne above Pidge, it is because of the countless times that Warne has stood up when no one else did/could and the consistency in this regard stays with Warne. That, in itself, is an extremely desirable quality.

 

[Ikki]

 

[sideshowtim]

Ah, Both have bags of wickets. Clever.