Greatest Australian player since 1989

[Jono]

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.

*Orgasm*

Terrific post Burgey.

 

[Burgey]

Cheers fellas .

My annual epiphany. Now I'll get back to my usual dross.....

 

[subshakerz]

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...

Some very solid points definitely. I myself consider stats (or rather I would say a player's record) as one criteria is judging a player, along with skill and the judgement of his peers. I never said that Warne's bowling was simply disrespected whenever he was taken apart and he was viewed as a club bowler. There is no doubt that Warne was one of the greats, the only question is whether he is a better bowler than his fellow great, McGrath, and I think in this case McGrath's achievements don't get the lacquer that Warne's does while the legspinner's blemishes are overlooked. We need to apply the same standards to all bowlers when judging them. In the end all bowlers are wicket-takers and we should view them on this merit.

Sure, Murali will be viewed as Sri Lanka's danger man, who else will? But I do recall that after he had that unproductive series against Australia last year, there was a series of articles from the Aussie press trumpeting Warne as the greatest spinner ever based on Murali's failure there. Why? Based on what you say, Murali's lack of success should be inconsequential as his class is beyond doubt.

Warne status as the game's greatest leg spinner is rock solid. Yet if he was the superhuman spinner that he is sometimes made out to be, he would have made a far bigger impact on the best players of spin, his ultimate challenge. Warne at his best against an Indian batting lineup out of form on spinning tracks in 2004 couldnt even average less than 30. That's not an accident IMO. And for all Warne's undoubted skill, even an objective spectator could see that Indian batsmen, Dravid aside, never seemed to be in that great discomfort when playing him. More often than not, you had other excellent players of spin like Salim Malik, Lara and Peitersen getting the better of him as well. It was trend that ran throughout his career.

McGrath, on the other hand, has all of Warne's successes and more and none of his weaknesses. He has succeeded consistently in countries that Warne has not, against opposition Warne has not and against great players Warne has not. Yes, he was not able to create such a buzz on the field, or such an impact on the game, but there is nothing to prove that he was lesser as a wicket-taking force. Why then should he be rated lower?

 

[Matt79]

There's been at least a dozen fast bowlers who can sensibly be claimed to have been better than or equal to McGrath. There's been 2 maybe 3 spinners who can sensibly be claimed to as good or better than Warne. Its a harder discipline, and other things being equal, a more valuable one to the team IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

There's been at least a dozen fast bowlers who can sensibly be claimed to have been better than or equal to McGrath. There's been 2 maybe 3 spinners who can sensibly be claimed to as good or better than Warne. Its a harder discipline, and other things being equal, a more valuable one to the team IMO.

Just because there are more high quality fast bowlers doesn't diminish their quality compared to spinners, and just because leg spinning is a harder discipline doesn't make it more valuable to the team nor does it necessarily make it a more wicket-taking one. India in the 70s had three-four world class spinners yet never came close to dominating the way West Indies did later on when they had three-four world class fast bowlers.

 

[Richard]

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...

Basically, what you're saying there is "because they put the effort in and managed to counter him, therefore he's better than someone they didn't put the effort in and hence didn't manage to counter".

To me, it doesn't matter that Warne worried Tendulkar more than McGrath worried Tendulkar. Fact is, McGrath had some amount of success against Tendulkar, Warne pretty much didn't. Thus in this respect, McGrath outdid Warne considerably.

 

[Richard]

In your view maybe, Richard.

I mean, I know he's no Nasser Hussain as a cricketer

Poor form, that.

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.

No, not at all. I've little qualm with the idea he was the best Australian cricketer of the period. Not the best bowler, but the one who made the most contribution to Australia's team's high calibre? Very possibly.

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.
...
I don't think Warne's the greatest bowler of all time

By "the absurd overestimation of his skill" I'm referring to the (IMO beyond absurd) notion that he's the greatest bowler ever. He's not, he's not even close, nor is Murali, as far as I'm concerned. Hence, I hope that this view will diminish over time, else I think lots of people will get false ideas about cricket.

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.

It is indeed, and both Warne and Murali were magnificent bowlers. Great spinners don't come around very often since wickets were covered, indeed. That means they both did something special. They should indeed be relished, and we won't be seeing a great deal many more of them, indeed we probably won't be seeing any any time soon.

But it doesn't mean that their bowling was more effective than a great many of the best seamers.

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

Aye, there is. This is why I believe seam > spin.

 

[Matt79]

Just because there are more high quality fast bowlers doesn't diminish their quality compared to spinners, and just because leg spinning is a harder discipline doesn't make it more valuable to the team nor does it necessarily make it a more wicket-taking one. India in the 70s had three-four world class spinners yet never came close to dominating the way West Indies did later on when they had three-four world class fast bowlers.

Other things being equal, succeeding at a more difficult task is a 'greater' feat than doing so at an easier one. That's a pretty straightforward in my view

And the Indian spinners weren't in the class of Warne or Murali precisely because they weren't able to be threatening in a variety of conditions like those two were. That's kinda my point about how special Warne is. Now saying that a top notch spinner is more valuable than an equally good quick doesn't mean that you don't need good quicks to be a good team or some balance in your team, but as a commodity in your team, a top-notch spinner is rarer and IMO more beneficial than a top-notch quick. Consider how Australia has been more easily able to largely replace McGrath than Warne, or how Murali plus one decent quick (Vaas) and two other average-to-poor quicks made Sri Lanka's attack ok - moreso than would have been the case if SL had had one brillant fast bowler, Vaas, another average-to-poor quick and an average-to-poor spinner.

 

[pasag]

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

Never thought I'd see the day

And yes agreed, two excellent posts.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, they were really good. Francis doesn't post much, but it's always worth reading, and Burgey's always good value as well.

 

[subshakerz]

Other things being equal, succeeding at a more difficult task is a 'greater' feat than doing so at an easier one. That's a pretty straightforward in my view

I suppose it depends on which criteria you use to define greatness. For me, bowlers are by definition wicket-takers, and the better bowler is the one who is more effective at taking wickets. Though it takes great skill to excel at spin, that doesn't make one a better bowler to me.

And the Indian spinners weren't in the class of Warne or Murali precisely because they weren't able to be threatening in a variety of conditions like those two were. That's kinda my point about how special Warne is. Now saying that a top notch spinner is more valuable than an equally good quick doesn't mean that you don't need good quicks to be a good team or some balance in your team, but as a commodity in your team, a top-notch spinner is rarer and IMO more beneficial than a top-notch quick. Consider how Australia has been more easily able to largely replace McGrath than Warne, or how Murali plus one decent quick (Vaas) and two other average-to-poor quicks made Sri Lanka's attack ok - moreso than would have been the case if SL had had one brillant fast bowler, Vaas, another average-to-poor quick and an average-to-poor spinner.

Yup, Warne was certainly a special gem who will be missed. But you should remember that less youngsters enter cricket to become spinners in the first place, which may explain why we've had fewer spinning greats compared to fast men.

 

[Richard]

Other things being equal, succeeding at a more difficult task is a 'greater' feat than doing so at an easier one. That's a pretty straightforward in my view

And the Indian spinners weren't in the class of Warne or Murali precisely because they weren't able to be threatening in a variety of conditions like those two were. That's kinda my point about how special Warne is. Now saying that a top notch spinner is more valuable than an equally good quick doesn't mean that you don't need good quicks to be a good team or some balance in your team, but as a commodity in your team, a top-notch spinner is rarer and IMO more beneficial than a top-notch quick. Consider how Australia has been more easily able to largely replace McGrath than Warne, or how Murali plus one decent quick (Vaas) and two other average-to-poor quicks made Sri Lanka's attack ok - moreso than would have been the case if SL had had one brillant fast bowler, Vaas, another average-to-poor quick and an average-to-poor spinner.

Unquestionably, to be a top-class spinner since wickets were covered is far more difficult than to be a top-class seamer. This, though, doesn't change the fact that the top-class seamer is invariably more effective.

Someone who has managed to be a top-class spinner (in this day-and-age) has managed something more remarkable and rare than someone who has managed to be a top-class seamer. But the seamer remains the more effective bowler and nothing will change this.

 

[Burgey]

Poor form, that.

No, not at all. I've little qualm with the idea he was the best Australian cricketer of the period. Not the best bowler, but the one who made the most contribution to Australia's team's high calibre? Very possibly.

By "the absurd overestimation of his skill" I'm referring to the (IMO beyond absurd) notion that he's the greatest bowler ever. He's not, he's not even close, nor is Murali, as far as I'm concerned. Hence, I hope that this view will diminish over time, else I think lots of people will get false ideas about cricket.

It is indeed, and both Warne and Murali were magnificent bowlers. Great spinners don't come around very often since wickets were covered, indeed. That means they both did something special. They should indeed be relished, and we won't be seeing a great deal many more of them, indeed we probably won't be seeing any any time soon.

But it doesn't mean that their bowling was more effective than a great many of the best seamers.

Aye, there is. This is why I believe seam > spin.

Re the 1st part of your quote - Aye, poor form on my part. Thought that when I went home last night after I'd posted it. Apologies.

 

[Richard]