Greatest Australian player since 1989

[funnygirl]

Murali and Kumble lead their attacks, so no its not always the premier seam bowler at all. And no there isn't 'another rule' for India and Lanka. Its a universal rule that the leader of the attack is your go to bowler.

Between Warne and McGrath is almost impossible to pick, but going McGrath.

For anyone to think there's a large gap between the two, in either direction, is silly.

well said .

 

[sledger]

Dissapointed that I can't vote for Mark Waugh tbh.

 

[Richard]

Murali and Kumble lead their attacks, so no its not always the premier seam bowler at all. And no there isn't 'another rule' for India and Lanka. Its a universal rule that the leader of the attack is your go to bowler.

As I say - for mine, Vaas has always been the leader of the SL attack all the time I've been watching them.

Likewise, Srinath was the leader of the Indian attack in my book for years. Recently it's been Zaheer Khan.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Couldn't decide between Warne or McGrath but felt like voting for Pidge at the time purely because seamers stick together.

 

[Indipper]

Enjoyed watching Warne far too much to vote for someone else.

 

[Perm]

Everybody knows where my heart lies.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

We all know the real answer to this.

 

[DaRick]

Of the ones listed, Allan Border, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist and Ricky Ponting each have legitimate cases for taking this title:

Allan Border - He was, in the sense of leadership, basically the one responsible for Australia's resurrection in 1989 - his captaincy ensured that the gains in confidence gained as a result of that rubber were not squandered

Shane Warne - Possibly the finest spinner Australia has ever produced, Shane Warne did not so much resurrect the art of leg-spin (it was never really dead) as he did rejuvenate it and even re-invent it, in a social sense (i.e - making it look ***y, etc)

Glenn McGrath - The best Australian paceman of the period and one of the best that Australia has ever produced

Adam Gilchrist - Revolutionised the role of the wicketkeeper-batsman - was also easily the best of them

Ricky Ponting - There is reasonable evidence that he is the best Australian batsman of the period, just ahead of Border and Waugh (certainly, he was seen as a junior prodigy) - also a pretty good, although not great, captain (he still makes the odd bizarre move, even if most of his moves are contextually correct)

Overall, this is probably a toss-up between Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. One has a better average, but the other has done a great deal more for the game.

Let's consult a Dictionary.com definition:

"distinguished; famous (or the most)"

Shane Warne is probably more distinguished than Glenn McGrath. Glenn McGrath, while being one of Australia's best at the art, is ultimately just another paceman. He has not distinguished himself from his peers to the same extent that Shane Warne has, for the reasons listed above. Based on this, I'd be inclined to pick Shane Warne.

 

[Francis]

I have to say it worries me a bit that Shane Warne hasn't won this thing hands down. I fear as time goes on Warne's legacy will be diminished by the facts that he has deceptive stats. I've posted hundreds of times here condeming people for using stats, and I don't care do do it again. So I'll just say it...

It's Warne by a bloody mile.

 

[subshakerz]

I have to say it worries me a bit that Shane Warne hasn't won this thing hands down. I fear as time goes on Warne's legacy will be diminished by the facts that he has deceptive stats. I've posted hundreds of times here condeming people for using stats, and I don't care do do it again. So I'll just say it...

It's Warne by a bloody mile.

Perhaps the fact that he got pasted time and again by so many good players of spin has something to do with it. Legacy is important and all, but your skill on the field is the biggest criteria for greatness. One struggles to think of an occasion when McGrath was comprehensively owned...

 

[Richard]

I have to say it worries me a bit that Shane Warne hasn't won this thing hands down. I fear as time goes on Warne's legacy will be diminished by the facts that he has deceptive stats. I've posted hundreds of times here condeming people for using stats, and I don't care do do it again. So I'll just say it...

It's Warne by a bloody mile.

I hope as time goes on the absurd overestimation of Warne's skill (greatest bowler of all-time? Not a cat in hell's chance) will diminish.

 

[Johnners]

We all know the real answer to this.

Watt0

 

[DaRick]

I hope as time goes on the absurd overestimation of Warne's skill (greatest bowler of all-time? Not a cat in hell's chance) will diminish.

I doubt that'll occur, personally. If that was the case, the term 'rose-tinted glasses' will cease to have any meaning. Just ask Neil Harvey.

 

[silentstriker]

I have to say it worries me a bit that Shane Warne hasn't won this thing hands down. I fear as time goes on Warne's legacy will be diminished by the facts that he has deceptive stats. I've posted hundreds of times here condeming people for using stats, and I don't care do do it again. So I'll just say it...

It's Warne by a bloody mile.

Warne was belted way too much for him to be comprehensively better than McGrath. Still the second best player of the era by a long distance, mind you.

 

[Ikki]

I have to say it worries me a bit that Shane Warne hasn't won this thing hands down. I fear as time goes on Warne's legacy will be diminished by the facts that he has deceptive stats. I've posted hundreds of times here condeming people for using stats, and I don't care do do it again. So I'll just say it...

It's Warne by a bloody mile.

I agree that Warne is distinctly better. Allan Donald may be better than Shaun Pollock for example and will get many more votes in a poll but I wouldn't say he was better by a mile.

I actually don't think his legacy will diminish as time goes by. I think it will enhance. I think we've gotten too used to Cricket with Warne to realise what it is without him. Few players made dreams and miracles occur on the field and, dare I say, none did it the way he did it.

I am actually more worried for a player like McGrath, who is his own right one of the best fast bowlers of all time (the very top echelon) but played in Warne's shadow for a large portion of his career. Warne has been much more lauded by his contemporaries than McGrath has and because Warne is such a character off the field his name will be on the tip of tongues for a long time to come.

 

[Francis]

The point I want to make is this. Take Brian Lara, who Glen McGrath probably did better against than anybody. You would think, perhaps, that Lara wouldn't rate Murali that highly since he played a few tremendous innings' against him. Does that mean that Brian Lara rates Glen McGrath harder to play than Murali? I don't know the exact answer to that, but in my estimation, the answer isn't clear. Lara has said, after making those innings, that it was the struggle of his life and the hardest he's ever had to fight. I think using the logic people at CW use, they would say Laras finds McGrath harder, but that's not always the case.

Take another Murali example involving Australia. Australia has done quite well against him. Do you think the Aussies don't rate him? Not only do they rate him, but they rate him as Sri Lanka's number one danger man. Ricky Ponting has said they make it a point to try and get on top of Murali because they hold him in such high regard and know he's a fantastic bowler. Does anybody here not honestly think the Aussies don't spend hours analyzing and preparing for Murali alone? The Aussies can't help but score less than 3 runs an over against Murali because he's just too hard. They show him tremendous respect in the way they play him, and go out there with their first, second and third intention to be putting him out of the game. Michael Clarke even said his best innings against Murali were the hardest fought he's ever made. Yet all that regard for Murali paid by the Aussies means absolutely nothing according to CW logic because Murali failed in Australia.

It's the exact same thing with Sachin Tendulkar and Warne. Tendulkar specifically asked for leg-spin bowlers to practice against for months in advance to India's 1997 tour. He didn't ask for pacemen like McGrath, he asked for bowlers who could bowl flippers etc. Tendulkar recognised Warne as the danger man and becma obsessive about putting him out of the game. People here will ondoubtedly say he was being generous, but Tendulkar has said time and time again he had to be on his toes all the time against Warne.

You guys can analyse every single stat, and talk about how this player got slogged etc. But the cricket players who play the game, they know who the greats are. I don't rate greats based on stats, I rate them on skill and ability. Subshakerz seems to think that Warne perhaps wasn't as skilled as others because he got slogged. I highly doubt those who succeeded against him would doubt he was one of the most skilled. The Australian cricket team will always think of Murali as one of the greats, despite having success against him. And its the same with India, they will always regard Warne as one of the greats, as someone they focused most of their attention on, knowing if they mastered him they'd take away Australia's best chance of winning.

All great players get slogged from time to time. O'Rielly got slogged by Headley, Marshall got slogged by Chappell, Botham got slogged by West Indies... it goes on. But teams know who the best players are...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

.
Marshall got slogged by Chappell...

..........and when did this slogging take place, I'd be surprised if Chappell faced Marshall much at all, certainly not at international level.

 

[Francis]

Sorry that was a typo. It was Andy Roberts.

 

[Burgey]

I hope as time goes on the absurd overestimation of Warne's skill (greatest bowler of all-time? Not a cat in hell's chance) will diminish.

In your view maybe, Richard.

I mean, I know he's no Nasser Hussain as a cricketer but to say Warne's skill is "absurdly overrated" is very harsh. The fellow was a great, great bowler. In fact he was a great cricketer. Frankly, your post seems to suggest he doesn't even belong in the discussion re. this thread.

The bloke was one of, if not the best exponent of a very difficult art in the history of the game. I've got no problem with people not voting for him in this poll, but to say there's an absurd overestimation of his skill seems a bit harsh.

Likewise, SS saying "he got belted too much more than McGrath" to win this poll, is a bit rich. Of course Warne will get belted more than a fast bowler, because it's almost too obvious to say that there's far less margin for error for a spinner than a quick.

Francis @ #56 makes some pretty reasonable points as well. I recall Lara saying Warne was the only bowler who, even if you batted all day against him, seemed to get more and more confident he'd get you out. In other words, he was never out of the game. Tendulkar took him to pieces in India, but as Francis points out, to say the Indian players didn't respect him does not follow, just as it doesn't follow that because Murali hasn't taken many test wickets v Australia, the Aussies don't rate him. Of course they rate him. It's why they bust their arses not to get out to him and bring him into the game.

I voted for Warne in this poll, because I think as a whole he's the greatest Aussie player for the period referred to. Like Botham, who was no where near the best all rounder of all time but was probably England's greatest player of the 80s, he had that X factor about him - things happened when they were in the game.

In Warne's case he often had the ability to conjure something from nothing. In Botham's he took more wickets with tripe balls than just about any other bowler I've watched. They were lucky cricketers - not JUST lucky, but lucky nonetheless. That was part of the package - and a valuable part too.

I don't think Warne's the greatest bowler of all time, but he is one of, if not the best leggie ever. And because of that, I think he (and Murali) at least belong in the argument.

Great, and I mean really great, spinners don't come along all that often. There are probably between 5-8 great fast bowlers for every one spinner who is considered great. It's a very difficult task to master, and Warne did it.

Frankly, I hope the absurd putting down of his achievements (and Murali's FWIW) diminishes over time.

And I suspect they will, because anyone who's 6 feet six with fast twitch abs can propel the ball at speed, but to make it talk with your wrist or fingers while bowling slow; and knowing any error in length or line is more likely to be punished than the same error by said tall quick, is a rare gift.

To do that for more than a decade and to take 700 plus wickets at a low average is freakish. Not outstanding, not just great, but freakish.

You won't see their like again. By comparison with the number of great spinners, there's a great quick born every minute.

 

[Perm]

Awesome posts by Francis and Burgey, absolutely fantastic. Will perhaps need to re-evaluate my stance on judging players etc.