Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Anil]

You are vastly underselling Warne's aura Anil.

He didn't just dominate SA and Eng. He had a good strangehold over SL as well. His come back tour to SL in 2004 was inspiring. That 2nd and 3rd test, how he bowled them to victory was a top effort. SL shouldn't have lost those two tests (should have won the 2nd and drawn the 3rd), but Warne somehow ripped wins from nowhere.

no i am not underselling anything...he did very well against other countries including sri lanka and pakistan and pretty much everyone except india(and he had some good bowling spells against the indians as well)...and all teams have acknowledged that he was a great bowler...but when you talk about aura, about fear, about intimidation, the effect was really limited to the leaden-footed batsmen of two countries, england and south africa...i don't think warne gave nightmares to any other team...

 

[Ikki]

no i am not underselling anything...he did very well against other countries including sri lanka and pakistan and pretty much everyone except india(and he had some good bowling spells against the indians as well)...and all teams have acknowledged that he was a great bowler...but when you talk about aura, about fear, about intimidation, the effect was really limited to the leaden-footed batsmen of two countries, england and south africa...i don't think warne gave nightmares to any other team...

Pardon? Which team apart from India played him well? He had the wood on pretty much every team but them.

 

[Sanz]

That's hilariously ironic. You DO know that it was the Sydney Morning Herald who blew the lid on Warne and the whole John the Bookie story in the first place, right?

And ? If they didn't do it, someone else would have done it.

Whereas in the other case, their accusations are more like questioning the credibility of the source which has already been recognized as a reputed one by ACU.

 

[Sanz]

Pardon? Which team apart from India played him well? He had the wood on pretty much every team but them.

West Indies.

 

[Sanz]

That doesn't make his testimony reliable(true) at all. All that it is trying to say is that his character is reliable. It still doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything to you who wants to trust those who fixed matches but not the person who has been a reliable witness in the Match fixing inquiry.

 

[Anil]

Pardon? Which team apart from India played him well? He had the wood on pretty much every team but them.

no he performed very well in a lot of situations against most teams but he didn't have "the wood" on anyone else other than the two teams i mentioned....but i know better than to argue that with the chief priest of the "warne almighty" cult...

 

[pasag]

They also pass that information to the other teams, and the moment that information reaches the opposition team, it can be deemed fixing matches.




And that is the difference in your and my definition then..It is your assumption that the confidential information that came out of Warne is used solely for betting. What is the guarantee that the information was not passed by the bookie to the opposing captain ?

Why would bookies pass on info to other teams? It makes no sense and would defeat the purpose of the venture. However in the odd event that did happen and the person who had dealing with the bookie knew this was going to happen or at least a strong possibility, then yes that would fall into the realms of matchfixing. However that is really reaching and as unlikely as a scenario as it comes.

So until you can show me where Warne, Waugh, Samuels etc played below their abilities for money, they are not matchfixers. They are merely idiots who had dealings with bookies and brought their team and sport into disrepute. But they are not matchfixers.

 

[Ikki]

no he performed very well in a lot of situations against most teams but he didn't have "the wood" on anyone else other than the two teams i mentioned....but i know better than to argue that with the chief priest of the "warne almighty" cult...

Yes, I am going for Pope but they say being a non-smoker and being monogamous is hurting my chances.

 

[Sanz]

It still wouldn't be match-fixing. Whether a team knows that x player's knee is hurting does not mean the match is fixed. If anything, it can enhance the competition in a way.

Excuse me ? If Mcgrath had faked injury in tests after tests, that would have enhanced the competition too. I mean how lowly disgusting it is to condone something like this instead of condemning it ?

If I knew a player was injured, I would attack him from the first ball. If I knew Ricky Ponting wasn't going to play, I would drop Bhajji, If I knew 2 spinners were going to play, I will drop Yuvraj and include someone who can handle spin.

 

[Anil]

Yes, I am going for Pope but they say being a non-smoker and being monogamous is hurting my chances.

that is just tough, sorry to hear that but rest assured you have a lot of other sterling qualities that would make you ideal for the post, hopefully the other cult members will see it...keeping my fingers crossed for you pal...

 

[Ikki]

And ? If they didn't do it, someone else would have done it.

How would someone else have done it? The only other party that knew of it was the ACB that tried covering it up. That's why it was such a scoop, because the Sydney Morning Herald blew the whole thing wide open.

Whereas in the other case, their accusations are more like questioning the credibility of the source which has already been recognized as a reputed one by ACU.

Which was further investigated by SMH to be someone being sued for extortion. And for me, someone who isn't even putting his identity out there has nothing to lose. Why believe them anyway.

Furthermore, even if he is an okay guy, how do you still know he is telling the truth? It's not conclusive by any means.

It doesn't mean anything to you who wants to trust those who fixed matches but not the person who has been a reliable witness in the Match fixing inquiry.

It has nothing to do with a player I like or don't like or who has a bad history. It has everything to do with having 0 proof.

West Indies.

Only in the West Indies.

 

[Ikki]

Excuse me ? If Mcgrath had faked injury in tests after tests, that would have enhanced the competition too. I mean how lowly disgusting it is to condone something like this instead of condemning it ?

You've misplaced the meaning of match-fixing. If McGrath did something on his own to affect the match, then he is match-fixing. It isn't a case of whether it is enhancing the competition.

I am saying, whether a player's niggling injury is communicated isn't going to decide the match by any stretch. In fact, I'd find it hard to believe that the opposition would be able to exploit it. Keep hitting shots to him on the floor so he can't run as fast?

If I knew a player was injured, I would attack him from the first ball. If I knew Ricky Ponting wasn't going to play, I would drop Bhajji, If I knew 2 spinners were going to play, I will drop Yuvraj and include someone who can handle spin.

Players playing or not is free information given before matches anyway. This isn't the kind of info that is likely to be communicated. It's good info for a bookie who can fix the odds before it's announced but it's always announced before the match and the opposition can reshift anyway.

 

[Sanz]

Why would bookies pass on info to other teams?

For the same reason - Betting money. If they are going to bet their money on Pakistan/India win, they will make sure that they give whatever information they have to the team they were betting to win. Dont understand why it is so difficult to understand.

So until you can show me where Warne, Waugh, Samuels etc played below their abilities for money, they are not matchfixers. They are merely idiots who had dealings with bookies and brought their team and sport into disrepute. But they are not matchfixers.

So If Azhar comes out and says that show me the match where I underperformed - Which match it will be ? Its really stretching too far. Its like saying until you tell me the name of the banned drug that warne took, he is not a drug cheat, he was just being an idiot by taking a masking agent.


If he is not a drug cheat then why was he banned for a year ? If he is not a match fixer why does his name come in every match fixing report ?

 

[Ikki]

For the same reason - Betting money. If they are going to bet their money on Pakistan/India win, they will make sure that they give whatever information they have to the team they were betting to win. Dont understand why it is so difficult to understand.

Once they share that info it can get to other bookies who will fix their odds as well, thus negating their advantage.

So If Azhar comes out and says that show me the match where I underperformed - Which match it will be ? Its really stretching too far. Its like saying until you tell me the name of the banned drug that warne took, he is not a drug cheat, he was just being an idiot by taking a masking agent.

If he is not a drug cheat then why was he banned for a year ? If he is not a match fixer why does his name come in every match fixing report ?

Warne is a drug cheat for taking a banned diuretic. The diuretic itself would not enhance his performance. People took this to call him a cheat in terms of possibly taking it to mask steroids. However, he is not a drug cheat for taking steroids as there is also 0 proof. Again, Warne is a drug cheat for taking a banned diuretic.

 

[silentstriker]

Warne is a drug cheat for taking a banned diuretic. The diuretic itself would not enhance his performance. People took this to call him a cheat in terms of possibly taking it to mask steroids. However, he is not a drug cheat for taking steroids as there is also 0 proof. Again, Warne is a drug cheat for taking a banned diuretic.

The reason the diuretic is banned is because it is used as a masking agent. I think he used steroids to recover from injury, but you are absolutely right, the masking agent worked and you can't prove steroids, or he took it as a diet pill and you can't prove steroids.

 

[Sanz]

How would someone else have done it? The only other party that knew of it was the ACB that tried covering it up. That's why it was such a scoop, because the Sydney Morning Herald blew the whole thing wide open.

The person who sold the information to SMH, would have leaked it to someone else.

Which was further investigated by SMH to be someone being sued for extortion. And for me, someone who isn't even putting his identity out there has nothing to lose. Why believe them anyway.

Sued for extortion ? Did you read the next sentence or stopped after that :-

"The case was not yet completed, but the businessman has had his passport returned after it was originally seized."

Furthermore, even if he is an okay guy, how do you still know he is telling the truth? It's not conclusive by any means.

Because his credibility is backed by ACU and they stated that his statements to the media matched his testimony to ACU.

It has nothing to do with a player I like or don't like or who has a bad history. It has everything to do with having 0 proof.

Having fined by his board isn't proof enough for you. Having his name in almost all fixing reports isn't proof enough for you.



Only in the West Indies.[/QUOTE]

 

[silentstriker]

The real question is, even if he had a permanant supply of Nandrolone connected directly to his ass, does it really affect his rating? IMO, it doesn't.

 

[pasag]

For the same reason - Betting money. If they are going to bet their money on Pakistan/India win, they will make sure that they give whatever information they have to the team they were betting to win. Dont understand why it is so difficult to understand.

Has there ever been any indication of this happening? Or have you made it up on the spot? The point is that it is just you reaching for straws to try and get Warne into a definition of matchfixer when it clearly doesn't fit. Maybe this, maybe that. At the end of the day he gave info to bookies, he didn't underperform, he's not a matchfixer. I don't think it's that complicated.

So If Azhar comes out and says that show me the match where I underperformed - Which match it will be ? Its really stretching too far. Its like saying until you tell me the name of the banned drug that warne took, he is not a drug cheat, he was just being an idiot by taking a masking agent.


If he is not a drug cheat then why was he banned for a year ? If he is not a match fixer why does his name come in every match fixing report ?

That wasn't my point, the point was until you show evidence that said player accepted money to under-perform he's not a matchfixer. You trying to include him into the definition of one by saying 'maybe this could happened or maybe that could happen' does not make it so. Accepting money from bookies does not make one a matchfixer until the players agree to underperfom. You can keep repeating it till you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact Warne is not a matchfixer.

 

[Ikki]

The person who sold the information to SMH, would have leaked it to someone else.

Maybe, I don't know if it was sold or they found it out some other way. I really don't. But that's irrelevant. You said SMH is not a good source and is unlikely to know. I beg to differ.

Sued for extortion ? Did you read the next sentence or stopped after that :-

"The case was not yet completed, but the businessman has had his passport returned after it was originally seized."

Someone who is being sued for extortion and is wrapped in a situation that could be another extortion scenario is not coincidental to you but everything else is?

Again, moving on, because it's actually irrelevant. As I said, even if the guy was my own friend it doesn't mean his repute makes his claim any more true.

Because his credibility is backed by ACU and they stated that his statements to the media matched his testimony to ACU.

Whether he is a credible in terms of giving the same story has no bearing on whether that story is actually true. You do understand this difference, right? It could be the same identical lie as much as it could be the truth.

I already gave you my own two cents: I am unwilling to believe someone who won't even put his name on the line.

Having fined by his board isn't proof enough for you. Having his name in almost all fixing reports isn't proof enough for you.

He was fined by the board for giving weather/pitch information. Not match-fixing. Warne can be in a lot of tabloids or in a lot of scandals whether they are actually provable is what concerns me.

If hearsay is your standard then we just have different standards...mine more stringent than yours.

 

[Sanz]

You've misplaced the meaning of match-fixing. If McGrath did something on his own to affect the match, then he is match-fixing. It isn't a case of whether it is enhancing the competition.

My definition of match fixing has been pretty solid. I think you should fix your own.

I am saying, whether a player's niggling injury is communicated isn't going to decide the match by any stretch. In fact, I'd find it hard to believe that the opposition would be able to exploit it. Keep hitting shots to him on the floor so he can't run as fast?

Why not.? e.g. Trying to take quick singles, if I knew that Player 'A' has been suffering from some injury, I would plan to attack his end and it may work to my advantage.

Players playing or not is free information given before matches anyway. This isn't the kind of info that is likely to be communicated. It's good info for a bookie who can fix the odds before it's announced but it's always announced before the match and the opposition can reshift anyway.

NO, your information is incorrect. You get to know the other team composition only after you have decided your final XI.