-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Warne would consider Test return
- Thread starter PhoenixFire
- Start date
) & retired/was retired.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Because for some people, the risk of ruining it in order to have a shot at the possibility of making it more glorious still is a risk worth taking.
Wouldn't be for me, not for a second. But it's been noted before now that Warne's script contains as much of the unexpected and the lies ("I'd consider coming back if..."; "I'm retired and that's it") and the changing-by-the-day situations as anyone's in cricket history has surely ever done. I'd never expect a comeback for almost anyone under these circumstances. I still don't particularly expect it from Warne. But I'd feel far less comfortable ruling it out than I would for a normal player.
tooextracool
International Coach
Did you even watch his last series? Surely even you would realize that he wasnt anywhere near the same bowler.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
What would you say if he was offered the captaincy, hypothetically? Should he still refuse?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Is that directed at me? Of course he wasn't, he was only a threat sporadically - and the same applied to the 6 Tests against SA. I'm not for a second suggesting I want to see Warne come back - I said it in my previous post, I'm not a big risk-taker and if I'd had Warne's finish I'd never remotely risk giving it up to try and make it better still.
I simply don't think Warne thinks like I do. Well, TBH I don't think Warne thinks anywhere near as much as I do - without blowing my own trumpet, I'd say it's fairly obvious I'm smarter than he is, that's not terribly difficult. I'd not be astonished to see him give-up the finish to his career he's got in a shot at getting something better still.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I agree although I think warne would accept. If there is one thing that will make him come back it is the chance to lead the side.
Precambrian
Banned
I don't think Warne can do anything in India. He's toured India in the past also with no great success.
Australia need to move on from Warne.
What if Shane Warne did make a triumphant return in 2009 and won Australia the Ashes? He'd still have to retire one day and Australia would be in the situation they're in now, so why not try and fix the problem now, not later?
Warne's retirement has says a couple of things to me:
1. Warne was Australia's most important player
The older I get and the more cricket I watch the more I think the spinner is the most important player in the side. That's Warne's legacy to cricket in my opinion. Every side needs a spinner these days, where as in the years before Warne teams like Australia and England pondered about the usefullness of the spinner. Of course there was always players like Quadir for Pakistan and a few spinners for India, but Warne's elevated the importance of the spinner to the point where I regard a spinner as important as a five-eighth in rugby union or a quarter-back in American Football.
I honestly believe Australia would have won the first Test in India had they had Warne. People will no doubt contest that and bring up Warne's record in India, but a player like Tendulkar (who is still excellent) isn't the unstoppable force he was in 1998. Even the Indian players singled out the fact that Australia didn't have Warne before the series (they didn't mention McGrath), stating they now think it's a weakness of theirs. That shows the high regard the Indians have for Warne despite getting the better on him.
2. Warne legacy will improve as time goes by
I was afriad when Warne retired that decades from now people would look at Warne's stats and say that his average isn't in the low 20s or some rubbish like that. Warne's stats have never been a reflection of the impact he's had on his country.
This Australian side that lost to India was the weakest Australian side I've seen since I was a young boy. I'm talking about before 1989 because as far as I'm concerned, even when Australia were the second best side in the world from 1989-1994 they were better than the mob I saw in the last Tets. At no time did Australia look like taking 20 wickets and they had no spark or somebody to inspire them!
Of course the retirements of McGrath and Gilchrist are contributing factors (although I thought Gilchrist retired at the right time) to Australia's diminsished capabilities, but I'd single out Warne as the biggest loss.
3. People want another tale in the Warne script
Warne had the type of career where everytime he was written off he'd come back and write new and even more brilliant chapters. At one moment he could be booed by the English crowds, the next they could be chanting, "We wish you were English." People want that hollywood script that's so extraordinary you wouldn't believe it, only you can believe it with Shane Warne because it's Warney!
But believe me, there's a real risk he'd fall on his face if he returned. Does he even play domestic cricket? All he's done is bowl 4 overs for his Indian side in the IPL.
4. Cricket Australia have failed in producing new spinners
This is my most important point.
It's an indictment on Australian cricket that they've had no succession plan. I guess their succession plan was, "McGill will take over from Warne when Warne retires". But the truth is McGill was washed up two-three years before Warne's retirement. Where's the next generation? I recall hearing one of their new hopes was in the mid 30s (forget his name). Should Cricket Australia have a rule that if a player is above 33 and hasn't come close to national selection he should be dropped from playing for his state? That's just a random idea, but it begs the question whether their state teams feed into the national side in the required manner.
What if Shane Warne did make a triumphant return in 2009 and won Australia the Ashes? He'd still have to retire one day and Australia would be in the situation they're in now, so why not try and fix the problem now, not later?
Warne's retirement has says a couple of things to me:
1. Warne was Australia's most important player
The older I get and the more cricket I watch the more I think the spinner is the most important player in the side. That's Warne's legacy to cricket in my opinion. Every side needs a spinner these days, where as in the years before Warne teams like Australia and England pondered about the usefullness of the spinner. Of course there was always players like Quadir for Pakistan and a few spinners for India, but Warne's elevated the importance of the spinner to the point where I regard a spinner as important as a five-eighth in rugby union or a quarter-back in American Football.
I honestly believe Australia would have won the first Test in India had they had Warne. People will no doubt contest that and bring up Warne's record in India, but a player like Tendulkar (who is still excellent) isn't the unstoppable force he was in 1998. Even the Indian players singled out the fact that Australia didn't have Warne before the series (they didn't mention McGrath), stating they now think it's a weakness of theirs. That shows the high regard the Indians have for Warne despite getting the better on him.
2. Warne legacy will improve as time goes by
I was afriad when Warne retired that decades from now people would look at Warne's stats and say that his average isn't in the low 20s or some rubbish like that. Warne's stats have never been a reflection of the impact he's had on his country.
This Australian side that lost to India was the weakest Australian side I've seen since I was a young boy. I'm talking about before 1989 because as far as I'm concerned, even when Australia were the second best side in the world from 1989-1994 they were better than the mob I saw in the last Tets. At no time did Australia look like taking 20 wickets and they had no spark or somebody to inspire them!
Of course the retirements of McGrath and Gilchrist are contributing factors (although I thought Gilchrist retired at the right time) to Australia's diminsished capabilities, but I'd single out Warne as the biggest loss.
3. People want another tale in the Warne script
Warne had the type of career where everytime he was written off he'd come back and write new and even more brilliant chapters. At one moment he could be booed by the English crowds, the next they could be chanting, "We wish you were English." People want that hollywood script that's so extraordinary you wouldn't believe it, only you can believe it with Shane Warne because it's Warney!
But believe me, there's a real risk he'd fall on his face if he returned. Does he even play domestic cricket? All he's done is bowl 4 overs for his Indian side in the IPL.
4. Cricket Australia have failed in producing new spinners
This is my most important point.
It's an indictment on Australian cricket that they've had no succession plan. I guess their succession plan was, "McGill will take over from Warne when Warne retires". But the truth is McGill was washed up two-three years before Warne's retirement. Where's the next generation? I recall hearing one of their new hopes was in the mid 30s (forget his name). Should Cricket Australia have a rule that if a player is above 33 and hasn't come close to national selection he should be dropped from playing for his state? That's just a random idea, but it begs the question whether their state teams feed into the national side in the required manner.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Disagree. South Africa haven't had a spinner who's had any real success bar the odd Test here and there since Hugh Tayfield on uncovered wickets in the 1950s and still they've been up with the best (when playing) for pretty well all that time. Fingerspin has been of little use in England since wickets became covered (England's last notable spinner at home over an extended period was Derek Underwood in 1972). West Indies haven't had any spinners of note since Lance Gibbs' Indian-summer in the early-1970s - IIRR they started covering wickets around the same time England did. India and Sri Lanka have had a few who've been damn effective at home but none who've travelled very well (if well at all), with the exception of Murali and to a lesser extent Chandrasekhar who were wristspinners. Pakistan had Iqbal Qasim and Abdul Qadir for a time, neither of whom travelled very well, and otherwise there's been no-one there of any note. New Zealand's best spinner in history has been Daniel Vettori who like all fingerspinners has only been a real match-influencer when he's got a turning pitch which being a Kiwi has been pretty rare. And Australia themselves had 1 spinner of any real note at all between Benaud and Warne, that being Ashley Mallett who was effective for just a short time in the early-1970s.
Wristspinners of Test-class have always been exceptionally rare because wristspin is exceptionally difficult to bowl, and fingerspinners have always relied on turning pitches. And in the last 4 decades, turning pitches outside the subcontinent have been extremely rare. You can try to have a spinner if you want, but mostly all you'll do is weaken your side by doing that. Tours of the subcontinent (or home series' for subcontinental teams) are the only occasion any team is particularly likely to have a fingerspinner be a real big influence of the positive variety, and even then only if the spinner is good enough, which many fingerspinners aren't.
I don't think any amount of planning can make the incredibly unlikely particularly likely. No amount of planning is ever going to produce someone whose skill even comes close to Warne's. You cannot produce bowlers - you can only hope that someone, somewhere has the skill to bowl. And wristspin is just too difficult an art to expect this to happen with any great regularity.
And as I say above, Australia haven't ever had any fingerspinners of much note - at least, not in the last 50 years. There were seamers who also sometimes spun like Ironmonger, Johnston, Noble and Saunders; there were Johnson and Trumble who played almost all their Tests in the days when Australia's wickets were still uncovered; and there was Mallett briefly, plus the even more remakable and brief case of Colin Miller. Otherwise Australia have had spinners of note only when the odd great wristspinner has come along: Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud and Warne. And occasional lesser merchants like Mailey and MacGill.
Australia would be best served to realise that it is very possible that they will not have another spinner of note for a long while, and in the meantime stop wrecking their prospects by picking utterly useless types. Australia has never been a spin-friendly country, and one great wristspinner will not turn it into such a thing.
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
The only thing that annoys me more than the 'spinners-uber-alles' philosophy are selectors picking opening batsmen with no footwork.
Precambrian
Banned
I don't understand you describing Tendulkar as "no more the force he was in 1998". If you are referring to the fact that he does not score so freely now, you can't be further from the truth. Since last year's home series against Pakistan, he's made over 800 test runs at over 65 SR, and this includes the Australian tour, where he made two hundreds, one of which IIRC he scored at almost 75 SR.
And Tendulkar (for that matter the other members of Fab 4) showed what they can do to the spinner, even at this age, in Australia, where Brad Hogg was virtually tonked around. You don't need a barrage of sixers to get on top of spinners.
And thirdly, your suggestion that Warne would have won the test for Australia had he been in the team is ludicrous. First of all, the pitch was a road, and even given Warne's prodigy, he wouldnt have got much support from it in the first innings anyway. And at no point in his career has Shane Warne had the upper hand over Tendulkar & Co, so to expect a complete turnaround, given Warne's obviously age, would be laughable.
And Indians have been good hosts, and they respect Warne for his career. It doesnt mean that they fear him. Respect and fear are two things.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
His average of the last ten months is fully ten points lower than his career. I am not sure if you watched Sachin in 1998, but if you did, I don't see how you can even compare.
In my estimation these teams would have been world number one if they had a world class spinner. Admittedly the West Indies were world number one without a spinner... so much so that people began to question how necessary a spinner was. But as for South Africa and England... golly if they had a spinner they would have won so many games of the 5th day.
I'm not saying Australia should find another Shane Wanr because it wont happen. I was expecting that they'd have someone decent. Like Brett Lee isn't remotely close to being as great as Glen McGrath, but he can take wickets. Cameron White is lucky if he takes two wickets in an innings.Some days he's lucky if he gets one. In fact I hear he hardly bowled in the recent Australian domestic series.
Precambrian
Banned
His average is lower by a full 10 points because of a bad series in SL. He averaged over 70 with a SR of 60 in Australia too in the last year only. Only thing is that he is not consistent in making 100s as he was in 98. And the number of 6s have reduced. Visibly, the player has changed, and he had to change. The element of risk in his strokeplay in 98 was higher than it is now.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
And lost many on the first and second....
A great spinner is a good thing to have. A great pace bowler is much more valuable overall. Now obviously if you are saying that someone like Warne replacing a fourth bowler who was no good, then obviously you are right. But saying that the spinner is the most important member is ridiculous, otherwise India would actually have a decent record in world cricket.