Warne would consider Test return

[Francis]

Kumble averages 24.73 in India.

I don't think there's a great difference between five runs per wicket. Warne's also a type of bowler more inclined to get wickets faster than Kumble (although I'm not going to bother and see what Warne's strike rate was in 2004 and what Kumble's generally is).

[edit - I don't want to get pedantic and turn this into something akin to a Warne v Murali debate *shudder*]

The reason Warne didn't do as well against India is because his method of bowling plays right into Indian hands. He didn't do much of note in Australia either, against India.

Nah that's a complete myth. If you can't tell Warne's form was poor in India in 2001 then something's wrong. His accuracy was way off. I remember in the 3rd Test of 2001 Steve Waugh went to Warne for a miracle and Warne bowled two of the worst flippers you'd ever seen and got punished each time. Warne was such a liability that his very brief spell in that second innings was the reason that match didn't go down tot he wire. Australia got 7 wickets, if I recall, in that final innings. Had Warne not have bowled things could have been different.

There's no logical reason to suggest Warne's method of bowling was wrong because Indian's don't have some magical batting technique that's any differnt to any other professional player. Indians typically are good confident players of spin and that's part of the reason why Warne wasn't successful in India. But this myth that you can't bowl a leg-stump line to Indians is ridiculous. I've seen Warne dismiss Indian batsmen when he puts the ball in the right spot and does what he does well. Hell he bamboozled the life out of Rahul Dravid in the World XI game in 2005.

Warne simply didn't bowl to his best. If you couldn't see that he lacked accuracy, fitness and confidence then there's something wrong.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah that's a complete myth. If you can't tell Warne's form was poor in India in 2001 then something's wrong. His accuracy was way off. I remember in the 3rd Test of 2001 Steve Waugh went to Warne for a miracle and Warne bowled two of the worst flippers you'd ever seen and got punished each time. Warne was such a liability that his very brief spell in that second innings was the reason that match didn't go down tot he wire. Australia got 7 wickets, if I recall, in that final innings. Had Warne not have bowled things could have been different.

What about all the games he played against them in Australia? Out of form there too?

There's no logical reason to suggest Warne's method of bowling was wrong because Indian's don't have some magical batting technique that's any differnt to any other professional player. Indians typically are good confident players of spin and that's part of the reason why Warne wasn't successful in India. But this myth that you can't bowl a leg-stump line to Indians is ridiculous.

There is no magical technique. The issue is that it is very hard to get out of domestic cricket in India and into the Test team if you can't play that type of bowling consistently (Yuvraj and few others are the exception). In most other teams, you can be OK player of spin and be on the world stage. In India, it's almost impossible for you to score a lot of runs without doing so against the spinners, and there are very few weak spots against spin in the Indian order as a general rule of thumb. So just as it'd be hard to get out of Australia if you don't know how to play the pull shot or something, it's hard to get out of Indian domestic system without being very confident and good at that type of bowling.

If seen Warne dismiss Indian batsmen when he puts the ball in the right spot and does what he does well. Hell he bamboozled the life out of Rahul Dravid in the World XI game in 2005.

Yes -- he has taken the wicket of an Indian player in his career. Not sure what this shows? It's about doing it consistently.

 

[Francis]

What about all the games he played against them in Australia? Out of form there too?

Yes he was. In fact he was out of form for parts of 2000 as well. From 1998-2001 Warne wasn't at his best... but we'd occasionally have glimpses of his very best. The last two games of the 1999 World Cup are an example of him being back to his best. The 2001 Ashes revivied his career when there was talk he should retire. I'd venture to say since then he was back to his best. In 2002 he did very well against Pakistan IIRC. After his suspension his form in Sri Lanka was as good as I've seen from any bowler. His 2005 Ashes is legendary.

I thought his form dipped for a period in 2006, especially in South Africa and Bangladesh. I think after going 9months straight with England-West Indies- (forget who came after West Indies) then then South Africa and Bangladesh, by the end he looked old, tired and worn out.

His form in the 2006/7 Ashes was far better than his stats indicated and while it wasn't a fiver, his second innings effort in Adelaide is probably one of his 10 finest moments.

There is no magical technique. The issue is that it is very hard to get out of domestic cricket in India and into the Test team if you can't play that type of bowling consistently (Yuvraj and few others are the exception). In most other teams, you can be OK player of spin and be on the world stage. In India, it's almost impossible for you to score a lot of runs without doing so against the spinners, and there are very few weak spots against spin in the Indian order as a general rule of thumb. So just as it'd be hard to get out of Australia if you don't know how to play the pull shot or something, it's hard to get out of Indian domestic system without being very confident and good at that type of bowling.

I found this to be a very interest part of your post which I enjoyed reading. As I alluded to in my post, part of the reason Warne didn't do well in India was because the Indians batted well. However, all throughout the 2001 series his form was poor.

Yes -- he has taken the wicket of an Indian player in his career. Not sure what this shows? It's about doing it consistently.

What you said goes straight to the root of my point. It shows that when Warne bowled his best he was capable of dismissing great batsmen. It proves this myth about his tactics being wrong is false. It proves that he could bowl the way he bowled and dismiss an Indian who's a fantastic player of spin. Unfortunately for him he didn't do it in India.

I agree fully it's about doing it with consistency and that's why Warne wasn't a success in India, he was inconsistent with a lot of his deliveries. In 2004 he found some consistency and did pretty well in India. Like I said, not great, but nothing to hide from.

I should make the following note that 'poor form' and 'injuries' aren't excuses for playing poorly. I can't recall the number of times I've mentioned sportsmen and said, "They would have been great if not for injuries." There's no exception for Warne either. He played poorly and got punished.

However, the reason I brought up the 2004 series and mentioned what I did about Murali was that I think people put too much stock into the fact that some cricketers haven't done well in some places.

Tendulkar hasn't done well in South Africa but I don't count that against him when I assess how great he was. I've seen him perform on pitches similar to those in South Africa, and I've seen him succeed against the likes of McGrath (when McGrath bowled at his best).

I suppose I've been going on these rants for the past hour and a half just to say that I don't think people should put much stock into how a cricketer players in each country etc. The players themselves know who the greats are...

 

[silentstriker]

The players themselves know who the greats are...

This is not the issue. No one claimed he wasn't.

 

[silentstriker]

What you said goes straight to the root of my point. It shows that when Warne bowled his best he was capable of dismissing great batsmen. It proves this myth about his tactics being wrong is false. It proves that he could bowl the way he bowled and dismiss an Indian who's a fantastic player of spin. Unfortunately for him he didn't do it in India.

Dravid is pretty good, there are better players of spin though in the Indian team - Tendulkar and Sehwag are better. And again, yes he took wickets. So did Mohammad Sami. It's not about taking the wicket of a great batsman, its doing it consistently that makes you a good or great bowler.

I agree fully it's about doing it with consistency and that's why Warne wasn't a success in India, he was inconsistent with a lot of his deliveries. In 2004 he found some consistency and did pretty well in India. Like I said, not great, but nothing to hide from.

Tendulkar hasn't done well in South Africa but I don't count that against him when I assess how great he was. I've seen him perform on pitches similar to those in South Africa, and I've seen him succeed against the likes of McGrath (when McGrath bowled at his best).

I do. I think it matters. He averages slightly below 40 I think, and that certainly works against him. He played one innings that might have been the best of his life, in South Africa, but overall when judging players against other great players, all blemishes are amplified. We aren't judging Tendulkar against Mohammad Kaif where we can gloss over things.

 

[Francis]

I'll re-phrase:

The players know who the greats are and don't care about where players have been successful and where players haven't been successful, they know who's dangerous when they play at their best.

I always liked something Adam Gilchrist said about Brian Lara when he was out of form. He said that it's an ominous sign when Lara is out of form because that means a big score is on the way.

Honestly, I'd be suprised if Indian players didn't rate Warne equally as highly as other countries do simply because they know how dangerous he was when things went well. No Indian's going to say, "We'll worry mroe about McGrath because Warne hasn't had success here.

 

[Richard]

Honestly, I'd be suprised if Indian players didn't rate Warne equally as highly as other countries do simply because they know how dangerous he was when things went well. No Indian's going to say, "We'll worry mroe about McGrath because Warne hasn't had success here".

It truly amazes me that anyone thinks this way. I don't disagree at all, incidentally, that Warne was below-par for most of the time, against all opposition, between March 1998 and March 2001. And the couple of games in 1991/92 were completely meaningless. Nor do I agree with those who say Warne's method can't work against Indian batsmen.

But I honestly don't care whether the Indians are more worried about Warne than McGrath. Fact is, McGrath had success, Warne didn't. This is all that matters. It's not about who caused the most unrest. It's about who did the job. I don't care that Warne has the Indian batsmen @%$£ing themselves if he doesn't take wickets; nor do I care that McGrath (or anyone else) doesn't worry them so much if he takes the figures.

 

[Francis]

But I honestly don't care whether the Indians are more worried about Warne than McGrath. Fact is, McGrath had success, Warne didn't.

My Murali example above is a more apt example to use to argue this.

Murali didn't get as many wickets as the other Sri Lankan bowlers when he last played in Australia. He bowled the longest spells and got the least amount of wickets.

For all that, Murali was by a long margin the best bowler Sri Lanka had that series for the following reasons:

1) Australia played him more cautiously. They clearly saw him as the number one threat and were consent conceding maiden overs and scoring at less than 3 an over against him.

2) Australia were more aggressive against the other bowlers and it opened oppotunities for them to get wickets. Australia played a few loose shots and they paid for it. I swear that had different attitudes to the rest of the attack.

So you see, Richard, the best bowler doesn't always get the most wickets. As a general rule of course by and large the better bowler will end up with the more wickets, but it's not always the case.

Warne was, I thought, by far the best bowler in the Adelaide Ashes Test of 2007 yet in the first innings he got one wicket and went for over 100 runs. This was despite:

1) Beating the edge at least 20 times. There is such a thing called bowling without luck and Warne bowled without luck that day. (Although his tactic later on in the first innings to bowl around the stumps was stupid)

Warne came on in the second innings and this time things didn't go against him.

Things like bad umpiring, near edges, the pressure of the situation for batsmen, the batsman's attitute to you etc. All these things can mean a bowler who bowls the best can still end up with less wickets than the rest of his team

Wickets doesn't always = the best bowler.

By and large it will. But not always. The more talented, challenging, difficult bowler to face doesn't always get the most wickets. That's my first argument.

---------------------

I agree with you on McGrath/Warne in India. I couldn't use that as an example in my argument because that's an example of McGrath bowling better than Warne and getting rmeo wickets than Warne, which counts in McGrath's favour and his legacy.

I'm just making the point that there's no good reason to suggest Warne couldn't have had success in India had he played well. I'll use this illustration: Say there's a cricketer who plays at the SCG, but the SCG is dried up and acting like a sub-continent wicket. Warne comes on against India and gets a few wickets. My question is: why would it matter if Warne hasn't proved himself in India? India's only a place and Warne's proved himself on other wickets similar to that.

That's a hypothetical of course. But as I said above, the reason I'm going on these rants is because I think people put too much stock in how player A did against Country B etc.

This is my second argument and it's completely separate from my first. My point is just because a bowler didn't have success someone doesn't mean he could, or even did have success in similar circumstances that were elsewhere in the world etc. So why analyse stats like they're an exact science.

Obviously my final point was that Warne didn't play well from 1998-2001 which you agree with. My point is that Warne at his best would have been fine in India. I don't think he would have been uber-successful, but he'd be fine.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes he was.

But even that series in 2004, and that solitary five-fer (which in 14 tests is a very bad record, regardless of form) came against a lineup that didn't include Tendulkar or Dravid. In fact, he got Sehwag (when he was on 155), Irfan Pathan, Parthiv Patel, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh.

A six wicket haul is fantastic and I don't want to take anything away, but I don't know any time he has taken wickets through the meat of the Indian lineup, something he has done against pretty much every other team.

It's more than mere form.

 

[Francis]

I'm not going to go into this ad nauseum because this is starting to feel like a Murali v Warne debate where we people start going to stats and finding 1000s of different ways in interpret them etc.

All I'll say to that is six wickets is terrific... Warne didn't get all his wickets against the tail... no there wasn't any Tendulkar and Dravid but I've seen Warne beat Dravid before... it really was obvious in 1998 and 2001 that Warne was out of form... and last but least of my points is...

If it's obvious Warne was out of form in 2001 and 1998, and it was obvious he had form in 2004... then we can't simply assume he couldn't have gotten Tendulkar or Dravid.

Now you're entitled to argue that, but I wont go further into it because our discussion is starting to turn on a few pedantic points (I made a few in this post already) and I have no desire that talk about what 'might have' been in Tendulkar and Dravid played in that game.

I'll only add that while six wickets is impressive, it doesn't always mean the bowler has bowled as well as a bowler who's got three. Yet another example, Richard, of when a bowler can bowl the better and wind up with less wickets. Silentstriker, I've seen many bowling performances where Warne has gotten three of four that were better than his six against India that day, so I agree it doesn't mean he had any kind of massive success in India.

But as I said, I think the great majority of cricket fans acknowledged Warne wasn't at his best from 1998-2001 despite a few legendary performances. Could he have gotten Tendulkar and Dravid in 2004? We'll never know. I don't think we can use any previous attempts against India as good authority for how he'd do in 2004, and we can't use Warne's great form at the start of 2004 as good authority for how well he possibly could have done.

It's just impossible and I don't want to debate the pedantic points.

 

[Richard]

My Murali example above is a more apt example to use to argue this.

Murali didn't get as many wickets as the other Sri Lankan bowlers when he last played in Australia. He bowled the longest spells and got the least amount of wickets.

For all that, Murali was by a long margin the best bowler Sri Lanka had that series for the following reasons:

1) Australia played him more cautiously. They clearly saw him as the number one threat and were consent conceding maiden overs and scoring at less than 3 an over against him.

2) Australia were more aggressive against the other bowlers and it opened oppotunities for them to get wickets. Australia played a few loose shots and they paid for it. I swear that had different attitudes to the rest of the attack.

So you see, Richard, the best bowler doesn't always get the most wickets. As a general rule of course by and large the better bowler will end up with the more wickets, but it's not always the case.

Warne was, I thought, by far the best bowler in the Adelaide Ashes Test of 2007 yet in the first innings he got one wicket and went for over 100 runs. This was despite:

1) Beating the edge at least 20 times. There is such a thing called bowling without luck and Warne bowled without luck that day. (Although his tactic later on in the first innings to bowl around the stumps was stupid)

Warne came on in the second innings and this time things didn't go against him.

Things like bad umpiring, near edges, the pressure of the situation for batsmen, the batsman's attitute to you etc. All these things can mean a bowler who bowls the best can still end up with less wickets than the rest of his team

Wickets doesn't always = the best bowler.

By and large it will. But not always. The more talented, challenging, difficult bowler to face doesn't always get the most wickets. That's my first argument.

I don't disagree for a second that the best bowlers don't always get the best figures. Bowlers are flatted by their figures very often, and every now and then someone will bowl superbly and not get the figures.

However, without good figures, good bowling is useless. Mostly, good bowling does indeed get good figures - the number of occasions where good bowling results in poor or middling figures are tiny.

What I disagree with is because a certain preparatory attitude was shown by batsmen to a bowler, this makes him better. If batsmen took ages preparing to face Bowler X and only normal time preparing to face bowler Y, that it therefore doesn't matter who actually did best when they had the ball in hand - Bowler X is the best before any bowling has even been done. Well it doesn't IMO. I feel that if Bowler Y ends-up doing better than Bowler X, regardless of what the batsmen thought might be the case, then Bowler Y has performed better. And even if this keeps happening - if batsmen keep perceiving Bowler X to be the bigger threat but Bowler Y keeps doing better, that this means Bowler Y's career has been a better one than Bowler X's.

The same applies to what batsmen thought afterwards. If, over a long period, batsmen keep saying "I felt like Bowler X was going to get me out more often than I thought Bowler Y was" but Bowler Y keeps getting more batsmen out for less runs, then Bowler Y has performed better.

Figures not accurately reflecting good bowling is only ever a short-term thing. I recall one Test particularly well where there's never been a better demonstration of this - Lord's 2000. Curtley Ambrose bowled magnificently all game, yet got just 1 wicket in 20-odd overs in the second-innings (while Courtney Walsh took 10 in the match without bowling much if any better). Yet in the series Ambrose still took his wickets at 18.something. In the end, good bowling will get rewarded.

Also, just to touch briefly on the playing-and-missing thing - if batsmen are doing this constantly, you need to aim at the stumps more, because then if they miss you hit. And if you're constantly eliciting play-and-misses over a long time (ie, more than 5 or 6 overs) then failing to aim at the stumps is poor bowling.

If a bowler is denied a wicket which he'd earned by bad Umpiring or a dropped catch, meanwhile, well... you know my advocacy of first-chance averages for batsmen, and obviously it works the opposite way for bowlers as well. If a bowler gets 3 slip catches put down off beautiful outswingers and a caught-behind turned-down from a similar ball, ending with 14-36-0 then I'll quite happily credit him with 14-36-4. Not the same if he gets a couple of Long-Hops smashed to point and dropped then a glove down the leg-side given n\o from another Long-Hop. Obviously this is the same as getting 14-36-3 without bowling well, which as I say happens often enough.

 

[Francis]

However, without good figures, good bowling is useless.

Wrong. Good bowling adds to the pressure being put on batsmen. Good bowling dries up runs. Wickets are the best result and you want wicket, but good bowling has other important effects.

What I disagree with is because a certain preparatory attitude was shown by batsmen to a bowler, this makes him better.

But it does and my Murali example proved that. The Aussies took more chances against the other bowlers.

Figures not accurately reflecting good bowling is only ever a short-term thing. I recall one Test particularly well where there's never been a better demonstration than this - Lord's 2000. Curtley Ambrose bowled magnificently all game, yet got just 1 wicket in 20-odd overs in the second-innings (while Courtney Walsh took 10 in the match without bowling much if any better). Yet in the series Ambrose still took his wickets at 18.something. In the end, good bowling will get rewarded.

Figures and stats will have you a general idea of how good a bowler is... but nothing more than a general idea. Obviously is a bowler has an average of 30 and the other an average of 20 then it's obvious who is better. When the gap is narrower then I start to call people out for not realising there are 100s of things that influence stats and because Malcolm Marshall has an average better than two compared to Glen McGrath is irrelevant.

Also, just to touch briefly on the playing-and-missing thing - if batsmen are doing this constantly, you need to aim at the stumps more, because then if they miss you hit.

That's not true. Many batsmen play and miss because they know the ball wont be on the stumps and they think they have a chance of hitting a good shot. I can't recall the times Glen McGrath would bowl a few unplayable deliveries and then pitch one up outside the off stump and ask the batsmen to have an unnecessary slash.

Being bowled is the least occurring dismissal in cricket. I'd venture to say most specialist batsmen in world cricket know how to defend their stumps very well.

Anywho I have to leave this discussion for today.

 

[Richard]

Wrong. Good bowling adds to the pressure being put on batsmen. Good bowling dries up runs. Wickets are the best result and you want wicket, but good bowling has other important effects.

Runs being dried-up are as important as taking wickets to good bowling. It's no good taking wickets if you're conceding loads of runs in doing so.

However, at the end of the day you have to get wickets. A bowler who constantly takes 1-50 off 25 overs has no use to a Test side. Bowlers who take 4-60 off 25 are far more useful.

As for "putting pressure on batsmen", you can't put pressure on batsmen. They have to feel it. Some do, some don't. Pressure (on the batsman) depends on the batsman, not the bowler.

But it does and my Murali example proved that. The Aussies took more chances against the other bowlers.

Not what I was getting at. I very specifically used the term "preparatory", not how they treated them in the match. Just because Tendulkar took hours and hours preparing for Warne and only normal for other bowlers doesn't neccessarily make Warne's bowling better - Warne has to bowl before this is the case.

Figures and stats will have you a general idea of how good a bowler is... but nothing more than a general idea. Obviously is a bowler has an average of 30 and the other an average of 20 then it's obvious who is better. When the gap is narrower then I start to call people out for not realising there are 100s of things that influence stats and because Malcolm Marshall has an average better than two compared to Glen McGrath is irrelevant.

That's overall career averages, which I've said many times are pretty meaningless beyond those with massive differences. I'm talking about game-by-game figures. Mostly if you've got 1-90 in a Test, you won't have bowled very well. The occasions where you will have bowled well having taken 1-90 with your figures having not done you justice are in a tiny minority.

That's not true. Many batsmen play and miss because they know the ball wont be on the stumps and they think they have a chance of hitting a good shot.

Not totally sure what you're getting at here. Are you on about a play-and-missed drive? Or the bat being pulled inside the line of the ball? The latter isn't a play-and-miss IMO. It's a leave. And a play-and-missed drive is really no different to a play-and-missed defensive shot - the bowler has done well enough to beat the bat but hasn't hit it and nor has he hit the stumps. In the end, useless.

I can't recall the times Glen McGrath would bowl a few unplayable deliveries and then pitch one up outside the off stump and ask the batsmen to have an unnecessary slash.

Coaxing a batsman into an edge with a seemingly driveable ball is good bowling.

Being bowled is the least occurring dismissal in cricket. I'd venture to say most specialist batsmen in world cricket know how to defend their stumps very well.

Not if the ball swings (or seams, or turns) so much they're incapable of doing it. A really good swinging ball is almost impossible to keep out and the best bowlers can deliver these deliveries. Dale Steyn's been bowling rather a lot of them recently.

One of the reasons bowled is so infrequent is the infrequency of bowlers aiming at the stumps. Also, lbw is for all intents and purposes the same as bowled - whether the batsman fails to defend his wicket or only defends it with his pad, the result is (or at least should be) the same. Presuming of course that the ball hasn't pitched outside leg-stump which it almost invariably won't have.

 

[Precambrian]

Ok, So when Warne was tonked here, there and everywhere whenever he played against India (Tendulkar to be exact), that was because he was coming out of injuries/ban/debut.

When Murali suffered in Australia, it is not because he didnt bowl well, but because Australian batsmen handled him too well.

In short, Australians are invincible, except when they underperform themselves. Right, Francis?

 

[Richard]

TBH, I think there's a fair case for Murali having not bowled as well as normal on his 2 tours of Australia, on which he's taken 4-400. In fact, to my mind, it's beyond question.

In 2007/08, well... I've said it before, the subsequent series against England revealed, for the most part, a Murali well below his previous levels of performance, particularly with regards to how much he was spinning it, and though I've not seen him again since then some amounts of stuff I've read tend to suggest something similar in the games he's played since then.

In 1995/96, too, he was a damn good bowler but not yet the superman he would later become. And, obviously, there was the whole Emerson\Hair issue, which couldn't possibly have helped.

It's a real shame he didn't tour in 2004. A real shame. IMO, Murali has never played a Test in Australia (a proper Test, that is - that World XI rubbish doesn't count as a Test to me) at a time when he's been bowling at his best, same way Warne only played 3 against India (home or away) when bowling at his best.

 

[Precambrian]

Why Warne was not out of form in 1998

He'd just finished a home series against South Africa, in which he finished with 20 wickets from 3 tests @ 20. And he took 4 wickets in the first innings of the first test against India, before Tendulkar cut into him.

Why Warne was not out of form in 1999-00

He had 12 wickets from 3 matches against Pakistan at 30, which is agreeable against a team like Pakistan, who had good players of spin, and in conditions which didnt aid spin much.

 

[silentstriker]

There was a story about the 1998 series, when Warne bowled one out of the rough and Sachin just smacked it for a six against the spin. Taylor came up to mate and asked:

"So what do we do now?"
Warne said, "We're going to lose now, mate"

It was hilarious hearing Warne tell that story.

In any case, I think we are going in circles here. No one was disputing how good Warne was as a bowler.

 

[Precambrian]

There was a story about the 1998 series, when Warne bowled one out of the rough and Sachin just smacked it for a six against the spin. Taylor came up to mate and asked:

"So what do we do now?"
Warne said, "We're going to lose now, mate"

It was hilarious hearing Warne tell that story.

In any case, I think we are going in circles here. No one was disputing how good Warne was as a bowler.

Lol, Tendulkar was simply unstoppable those days.

 

[Richard]

Why Warne was not out of form in 1998

He'd just finished a home series against South Africa, in which he finished with 20 wickets from 3 tests @ 20. And he took 4 wickets in the first innings of the first test against India, before Tendulkar cut into him.

Why Warne was not out of form in 1999-00

He had 12 wickets from 3 matches against Pakistan at 30, which is agreeable against a team like Pakistan, who had good players of spin, and in conditions which didnt aid spin much.

That series was a total ill reflection of how well Warne bowled. He had 1 good game out of 3, taking 8 wickets, which included Azhar Mahmood x2, Saqlain Mushtaq x2 and Wasim Akram x2. Warne's series against Pakistan in 1999/2000 was a poor one - and so was his next series against New Zealand, where on a rank dustbowl in the First Test he was completely outbowled by not just Daniel Vettori but Colin Miller and even at times Paul Wiseman.

In any case, Pakistan didn't really have many good players of spin that series TBH. Inzamam was pretty damn good against anything, and Ijaz Ahmed was a good player of both seam and spin. Other than that, not a lot. Mohammad Yousuf has always been suspect against quality bowling of any type and Saeed Anwar was always much stronger against seam than spin. The likes of Mohammad Wasim and Wajutallah Wasti were obviously poor against anything. Pakistan have been, throughout the time I've been watching them, a team rarely choc-full of particularly good players of spin. By-and-large, Pakistani batsmen of my time have been much stronger against seam.

And yeah, I'm aware he'd just taken a good haul against SA in 1997/98 (though not in the final Test, incidentally). However, in the same time period (ie, March 1998 to March 2001), Warne averaged 31.42 (at 2.87-an-over - well up on his economy-rate of the previous 5 years of 2.22-an-over) against teams other than India. This says, to me, that clearly there was something wrong. It's not simply India punishing what other teams floundered against. Warne was poor, much poorer than usual, in these 3 years, and other teams punished him while India punished him severely.

 

[vic_orthdox]

However, at the end of the day you have to get wickets. A bowler who constantly takes 1-50 off 25 overs has no use to a Test side. Bowlers who take 4-60 off 25 are far more useful.

They'll also be the best Test bowler of all time.