Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Richard]

As a bowler, I believe your record can be damaged by having great bowlers around you. Warne had less wickets up for grabs with so many awesome bowlers around him taking them too.

Your record can be both damaged and improved by having other great bowlers around you. I don't place any real emphasis on this when assessing a bowler, because things cancel each other out. If you're good enough, you're good enough.

 

[James90]

1. never conquered India
2. dodgy shoulder and finger injuries limited his repetoir later in his career

9.5 for mine.

 

[DaRick]

9.5/10, rounded down to a 9. He can be compared to Sachin Tendulkar (who I gave the same score) in a list of cricket's greats. Indeed, while his overall record is not quite as good (and he generally could not overcome Tendulkar or India), his role in rejuvenating and re-inventing leg-spin in a social sense (something neither Abdul Qadir nor Anil Kumble could really do before) is not to be underestimated. While Tendulkar sits alongside some other all-time great batsmen, Warne may well sit alone at the top of the greatest leg-spinners pile (depending on how good Bill O'Reilly was).

 

[Laurrz]

Your record can be both damaged and improved by having other great bowlers around you. I don't place any real emphasis on this when assessing a bowler, because things cancel each other out. If you're good enough, you're good enough.

awta definitely

yin and yang

 

[ret]

10

 

[Ikki]

Your record can be both damaged and improved by having other great bowlers around you. I don't place any real emphasis on this when assessing a bowler, because things cancel each other out. If you're good enough, you're good enough.

I actually disagree with that somewhat.

If you are a great bowler surrounded by other great bowlers IMO it does more damage to your career records than if they were poorer. They say if a great bowler is surrounded by a poor attack, if he is poor he has to bowl the rest of the overs out and his record will suffer greatly. However, if that bowler bowls well he will reap most of the benefits. Now, these two scenarios do not occur in equal frequency. A great bowler is much more likely to bowl well than he is to bowl badly, because by definition he is "great". So he will reap much more benefit than he will be punished for his poor days.

Conversely, a great bowler surrounded by great bowlers will have to share his spoils much more often. If he is bowling great, so what? There are other great bowlers who will get an equal chance to get into a match and take wickets. There is the benefit, however, that if said bowler is bowling poorer his record will be affected less as he will be bowled less and the others will take charge. But again, we are talking about a great bowler here. He is more likely to bowl well than poorly. He is going to share more of his spoils than he will benefit from his record not being affected as much by his poor days.

 

[Richard]

If you're bowling more overs, you're going to be losing more runs for your wickets - inevitably so, as even the very best can't keep bowling in the right areas as they get more and more tired.

And given that taking wickets isn't a bowler's sole job, he also has the aim of not giving away runs, he will both gain and lose by being the only outstanding bowler in his attack, same way he will both lose and gain by being one of two or three or even four.

 

[silentstriker]

I actually disagree with that somewhat.

If you are a great bowler surrounded by other great bowlers IMO it does more damage to your career records than if they were poorer. They say if a great bowler is surrounded by a poor attack, if he is poor he has to bowl the rest of the overs out and his record will suffer greatly. However, if that bowler bowls well he will reap most of the benefits. Now, these two scenarios do not occur in equal frequency. A great bowler is much more likely to bowl well than he is to bowl badly, because by definition he is "great". So he will reap much more benefit than he will be punished for his poor days.

Conversely, a great bowler surrounded by great bowlers will have to share his spoils much more often. If he is bowling great, so what? There are other great bowlers who will get an equal chance to get into a match and take wickets. There is the benefit, however, that if said bowler is bowling poorer his record will be affected less as he will be bowled less and the others will take charge. But again, we are talking about a great bowler here. He is more likely to bowl well than poorly. He is going to share more of his spoils than he will benefit from his record not being affected as much by his poor days.

There is a lot to be said about great bowlers having it easier if they have other great bowlers at the other end keeping up the pressure.

And if you're the only great bowler, you'll be asked to bowl long tiring spells which can affect your performance.

To me, doing it as the only great bowler is much more impressive. Bowlers hunt in packs, and if you don't have a pack and still stand out, it means a lot more to me. Continuing to take wickets while the other end keeps releasing all the pressure is very much impressive.

 

[silentstriker]

In any case, this is a real tough one. On the one hand, if I rate him against all bowlers, he wouldn't be extremely high, since I rate the great fast bowlers much better. On the other hand, if I rate him against purely spinners, he'd definitely be right up there in the top tier.

If I rate him as a cricketer overall (batsman, bowlers, etc), it's a different situation altogether as well. I rated Sachin on a scale of 1-10 based on all batsmen, so it makes sense to only do Shane against bowlers. But all bowlers or just spinners? I'm not sure - what are other people voting based on?

 

[Anil]

Great bowler. But:

1. Banned for taking prohibited diuretics.

2. Incredibly big gob.

3. Wildly overrated in terms of his impact on cricket. Wrist spin bowling wasn't a "dying art" when he emerged as is often lazily claimed (Mushy and Kumble had already begun their Test careers, Murali was waiting in the wings, and Qadir's international career had yet to end) and he has left no discernible legacy such as a stream of Australian wrist spinners to follow him. As for making cricket "cool", which is sometimes claimed, well he didn't - cricket simply isn't cool and never will be.

4. As Dissector points out, everything around him was loaded in his favour.

couldn't agree more....7/10 for me....

 

[Ikki]

If you're bowling more overs, you're going to be losing more runs for your wickets - inevitably so, as even the very best can't keep bowling in the right areas as they get more and more tired.

Why are you more likely to lose more runs for your wickets? That all depends on your own skill, doesn't it? If anything, bowling more and bowling well lends you to a certain momentum.

And disregarding that argument altogether, what if the bowlers bowl the same amount? Let's say they both bowl 45 overs. Then the argument for fatigue becomes moot. It's simply your help that will keep you from taking wickets.

And given that taking wickets isn't a bowler's sole job, he also has the aim of not giving away runs, he will both gain and lose by being the only outstanding bowler in his attack, same way he will both lose and gain by being one of two or three or even four.

Of course, that's a given and it's reflected in largely a bowler's average. The more wickets you are able to take will affect your average. The better the surrounding bowlers are the more difficult it will be to take wickets - there is a finite number of wickets you can take.

 

[Ikki]

There is a lot to be said about great bowlers having it easier if they have other great bowlers at the other end keeping up the pressure.

Bowlers usually bowl in tandem rather than in fours. Yes, they are an attack but it's not like one bowler bowls every other over whilst the other overs are routinely changed. The Hadlee's and Murali's had accurate bowlers at the other end to keep it tight and not bleed runs. They were just not good wicket takers. Whereas with a McGrath not only concedes little he takes more runs.

Furthermore, it is not a measurable thing unless you try to look at performances where said bowlers were not playing. Would you say McGrath is really the bowler he is when Warne is not playing and compare him to Pollock for example?

And if you're the only great bowler, you'll be asked to bowl long tiring spells which can affect your performance.

That's a negligble difference. The difference between a Hadlee or a McGrath is only 3 overs per inning or match.

To me, doing it as the only great bowler is much more impressive. Bowlers hunt in packs, and if you don't have a pack and still stand out, it means a lot more to me. Continuing to take wickets while the other end keeps releasing all the pressure is very much impressive.

Wow, what?! It would be more impressive to stand out in a team full of stars than a team with no stars. Big fish in big pond > big fish in little pond.

 

[Richard]

Why are you more likely to lose more runs for your wickets? That all depends on your own skill, doesn't it? If anything, bowling more and bowling well lends you to a certain momentum.

No amount of momentum can stop fatigue. And however skilled you are, it will kick in. And when it kicks in, you will bowl more poor deliveries so will be more likely to concede runs. With a stronger attack you'd have bowled less so if you took 3-40 in your opening spell you might have not bowled again rather than bowling again and ending-up with 6-150.

And disregarding that argument altogether, what if the bowlers bowl the same amount? Let's say they both bowl 45 overs. Then the argument for fatigue becomes moot. It's simply your help that will keep you from taking wickets.

Eh? What's that to do with anything? If you both bowl the same number of overs the strength of your attack hasn't impacted upon your over count, has it?

Of course, that's a given and it's reflected in largely a bowler's average. The more wickets you are able to take will affect your average. The better the surrounding bowlers are the more difficult it will be to take wickets - there is a finite number of wickets you can take.

And there's no finite number of runs you can concede, so even if you bowl more overs and get a few more wickets, you're going to concede more runs, and the more overs you bowl the chances of you conceding more per over goes up.

 

[silentstriker]

So if I rate him against spinners, he'd be a 9. If I rate him against all bowlers he'd be about a 7. Not sure which to pick.

 

[Sanz]

So if I rate him against spinners, he'd be a 9. If I rate him against all bowlers he'd be about a 7. Not sure which to pick.

Please rate him against batsmen.

 

[Richard]

0.7

 

[Ikki]

No amount of momentum can stop fatigue. And however skilled you are, it will kick in. And when it kicks in, you will bowl more poor deliveries so will be more likely to concede runs. With a stronger attack you'd have bowled less so if you took 3-40 in your opening spell you might have not bowled again rather than bowling again and ending-up with 6-150.

First of all, the differences are not much so fatigue is really not much of an argument. Again, momentum plays a big role. You speak as if you have never played cricket. Do you think someone who is picking up wickets and hurting the opposition tires in the manner to completely degenerate? Not at all.

Eh? What's that to do with anything? If you both bowl the same number of overs the strength of your attack hasn't impacted upon your over count, has it?

Yes, it has everything to do with it. Because you have to bowl much better to outdo your teammates than you would if your teammates were much weaker. Both bowlers can take 4/100 but one bowler had to be much better because of the wicket-taking competition his teammates force on him.

Assuming you can numerical measure performance, I'll give you an example.

Let's say team A is the stronger wicket-taking team and team B the weaker one.

If you play in team A you need to bowl at 80% to take 4 wickets because the rest of the attack are also bowling at a high standard and will take those wickets if you don't. Whilst in team B you can take the same amount of wickets bowling at 60% because the wicket-taking threat is simply not like team A's.

And there's no finite number of runs you can concede, so even if you bowl more overs and get a few more wickets, you're going to concede more runs, and the more overs you bowl the chances of you conceding more per over goes up.

No, but if you bowl roughly the same overs you will concede roughly the same amount of runs but you are more likely to take wickets because of your support.

And if you are not taking wickets and you keep conceding runs then that is what you term "a bad performance" which as I said in the beginning, is not common like good performances are with "great" players.

 

[Richard]

First of all, the differences are not much so fatigue is really not much of an argument. Again, momentum plays a big role. You speak as if you have never played cricket. Do you think someone who is picking up wickets and hurting the opposition tires in the manner to completely degenerate? Not at all.

Err, yes, I've played cricket - not that it really matters. However much you're going well, however much adrenaline is running through you, you get tired by bowling. There is nothing whatsoever that's going to change that.

Yes, it has everything to do with it. Because you have to bowl much better to outdo your teammates than you would if your teammates were much weaker. Both bowlers can take 4/100 but one bowler had to be much better because of the wicket-taking competition his teammates force on him.

Assuming you can numerical measure performance, I'll give you an example.

Let's say team A is the stronger wicket-taking team and team B the weaker one.

If you play in team A you need to bowl at 80% to take 4 wickets because the rest of the attack are also bowling at a high standard and will take those wickets if you don't. Whilst in team B you can take the same amount of wickets bowling at 60% because the wicket-taking threat is simply not like team A's.

However your fellows bowl you've got to bowl the same to take wickets. The only difference with a weaker attack is you get more overs, for two sets of reasons.

I'm not going to take any note of utter silliness like "you have to bowl better in the same number of overs to get wickets if the rest of your attack is stronger". A 45-100-4 is the same performance regardless of the rest of your attack.

No, but if you bowl roughly the same overs you will concede roughly the same amount of runs but you are more likely to take wickets because of your support.

Again, this is utter nonsense. How you bowl affects how likely you are to take wickets. Your support makes zero impact on this. The only thing your support affects is how many overs you get.

 

[Ikki]

Err, yes, I've played cricket - not that it really matters. However much you're going well, however much adrenaline is running through you, you get tired by bowling. There is nothing whatsoever that's going to change that.

So bowling 5 or so overs more per inning is going to induce fatigue enough to perform badly... sure.

And if we are talking spin bowlers...it's nothing.

However your fellows bowl you've got to bowl the same to take wickets. The only difference with a weaker attack is you get more overs, for two sets of reasons.

No, and that you will take more wickets. Otherwise there would be NO difference bowling in team A or B.

I'm not going to take any note of utter silliness like "you have to bowl better in the same number of overs to get wickets if the rest of your attack is stronger". A 45-100-4 is the same performance regardless of the rest of your attack.

Um, yeah, you do have to bowl better to achieve the same figures. You ever watch Australia? There were times Gillespie was bowling awesomely but everytime he looked like he was going to strike Warne or McGrath would take the wicket instead. Again, that is one less wicket he can take in that match to improve his figures, regardless how much he bowls. Every wicket is not the same. What if Gillespie was zeroing on one batsmen and he didn't get his wicket because of competition whereas the next batsmen performs much better and makes his record look worse. If his teammate hadn't taken that wicket he would have taken it and gotten a better return also.

Look at Gillespie's record for example and compare it with Pollock's. The difference between their bowling per match is something like 4 overs? Gillespie has a better SR but is so behind in 4/5w hauls. You think it is easier or harder to take a bunch when you are bowling right and less people can threaten your haul or when you are bowling right yet cannot put more than 3-4 together in most instances because your attack keeps chipping away at the opposition.

You think it didn't affect his average? This is where momentum plays a big part. Their overall career records won't reflect that Gillespie had to do it all over again the next day building up that momentum and getting the batsmen on the backfoot. You think if he played in Sri Lanka instead of Australia he wouldn't have gotten more wickets - even bowling the same amount? I'm sorry, but you're in denial if you think it wouldn't have been better for him.

Again, this is utter nonsense. How you bowl affects how likely you are to take wickets. Your support makes zero impact on this. The only thing your support affects is how many overs you get.

unbelievable. You have absolutely no appreciation for his aspect of the game. "Your support makes zero impact on [your wicket taking ability]." It makes me cringe to read it even.

 

[Uppercut]

I think he was incredible. His record in the 2005 ashes series shows he didnt rely on the greatness of those around him, and his big gob was often an asset rather than a hindrance. But rather than rebuke the arguments against him and manipulating statistics, i'm just going to say: i watched him a lot, and came to the conclusion that he's an unbelievably good bowler. For me, 10.