-
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
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Warne said himself during that 98-01 period that he really had to learn to bowl all over again. That what felt "good" out of his hand was in actual fact poor and when he did bowl well he didn't get that automatic brain response he'd normally get when he knew he released one well. His finger and shoulder were to never be the same again.
I'm with Francis with this one that I don't think Warne really faced India in a period of his career where he was at his most capable to face the best players of spin. And I think they took him to the cleaners because of it. I wouldn't suggest he would have been great against them but definitely not that bad. As Richard said, in that period he was poor against a lot of teams really, not just India.
I also agree with Francis regarding Murali. His stats make his performance look WAY worse than he actually did end up performing. He didn't take wickets but his ER was good and he was always keeping the pressure on our batsmen - who made it a mission to destroy his confidence and not give him anything.
I'm with Francis with this one that I don't think Warne really faced India in a period of his career where he was at his most capable to face the best players of spin. And I think they took him to the cleaners because of it. I wouldn't suggest he would have been great against them but definitely not that bad. As Richard said, in that period he was poor against a lot of teams really, not just India.
I also agree with Francis regarding Murali. His stats make his performance look WAY worse than he actually did end up performing. He didn't take wickets but his ER was good and he was always keeping the pressure on our batsmen - who made it a mission to destroy his confidence and not give him anything.
Precambrian
Banned
I think his bad performances between 98-01 has to do with playing India often.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I think Richard already showed how he did against teams other than India, he was no good.
Right after the Indian series in 98 he averaged 55 in the English series, and 134 against the Windies. He also averaged 72 in NZ. In between he had a few series but nothing to constitute real consistency. As well as playing India many times and doing pretty badly each time in that period.
If you watched Warne in those days, he'd have a few great overs and then maybe have a few where he could not simply land a ball properly. This, knowing Warne pretty much plants them anywhere he wants at will, usually.
Precambrian
Banned
If you are going to tell that every time Warne played against India, he was not in form etc, then it's rubbish. And also note he fell into bad form after the series.
FYI, Warne averages almost 50 against India, and that can't be simply attributed to bad form. For a bowler of his class, bad form is not an excuse for such poor figures.
FYI, Warne averages almost 50 against India, and that can't be simply attributed to bad form. For a bowler of his class, bad form is not an excuse for such poor figures.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
He had actually injured himself during that series. When he finally had surgery I remember his doctor saying it will probably take him 12-18 months before he returns to normal. I also remember Benaud saying, Warne's shoulder was held together by a string and it was amazing he had lasted that long. His doctor at the time was wondering how Warne was going to go back and bowl, it was a career threatening injury.
When he played them in 04, he had injured himself missing out the most ridiculously spin friendly pitch on the tour. Had he played that he would have most likely finished the series under 30. That was really the only time he played India near his best.
He averaged about 49 against India, 40 against NZ, 134 against the WIndies and about 31 against Pakistan. I think that suggests enough.
If you watched Warne during that time, you'd know what I am talking about. Warne was not simply in bad form. Warne wasn't Warne. He couldn't land most of his balls properly. His action was slightly different also. There is a visible difference when watching a player out of form and watching one who is just not physically the same.
In fact, it's probably because of this I, personally, regard Warne so highly. The fact that he learned to bowl all over again, changed his approach and unbelievably came out better than he was - something akin to Lillee and his stress fractures. Maybe he couldn't bowl all those deliveries anymore but his change in spin, flight, accuracy and speed was amazing. It was almost all controlled by sheer will. During the Ashes 05, he was spinning them on a dime.
As Benaud says, what makes Warne special are his comebacks. You expect a talent like his to take wickets and lots of them. But his comebacks, whether they be in single innings/tests or comebacks in the bigger spectrum of his career are what last in the memory and make him special.
People say he would not do well if he were to come out of retirement to help Australia. I beg to differ, I think this is the kind of stage where Warne actually thrives.
Last edited:
Precambrian
Banned
I am not particularly into stat-wars, I think they are an incredible waste of time.
However, fact is that Warne played 5 series against India, 92 home, 98 away, 99-00home, 01away and 04away, yet his overall avg against India has been pisspoor. One or two series could be attributed to injuries, but a career avg of near 45 over all these series (13 tests?) simply suggest Indians were on top of him nearly everytime.
Also in matches Tendulkar was involved, Warne's bowling average is well above 50. Shows how much of an impact Tendulkar had on Warne.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
What is a stat war? We are talking about facts. Warne played 9 tests against India and averaged 49 in that time. He played 6 tests against NZ and averaged 40 in that time. He played 3 tests against WIndies and averaged 134 in that time. These are facts, it means India wasn't the only team taking him to the cleaners. Even teams he normally did well against did too.
The guy had a shoulder and 2 finger injuries in a span of 2-3 years. For a spinner, these are crucial injuries. These are things you may never come back from, or you may never again be the same bowler because of.
Furthermore, what does it matter which matches Tendulkar played against him? Warne was hit around by other batsmen too. That is like saying Vettori's presence in those matches hindered Warne and THAT'S why he failed. The reason is much bigger than that.
Granted, Tendulkar is a great player of spin and at the time was in imperious form, but one batsmen playing him well was not the issue.
Anyway, you can take it for what you like. As I said, if you had seen the matches you wouldn't say Warne was himself, and it wouldn't have been really a form issue - which I guess in some ways it would have been, considering you won't be in good form when you are injured or always coming back from an injury.
Precambrian
Banned
Let's analyze Warne's performances against India, when Tendulkar was involved
Season 1991-92 ----- 2 matches, 1 wicket @ 228
Season 1997-98 ----- 3 matches, 10 wickets @ 54
Season 1999-00 ----- 3 matches, 8 wickets @ 42
Season 2000-01 ----- 3 matches, 10 wickets @ 51
Season 2004 ---------- 1 match, 4 wickets @ 26
The only player to have featured in all these matches in India - Tendulkar.
Now, it is ridiculous if you argue every one of these tours, Warne was suffering from injury/bad form.
FYI, Tendulkar has scored 1209 runs in these 12 matches @ 60.45 @ SR 64.
Coincidence? I think NOT.
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Three of those series are within the period where others have said he was in poor form, one was his first series (and India weren't the only side he did poorly against at the start of his career), and in the other series he went OK, albeit apparently only for one game.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Well, you're right, it is. In 91 when Warne debuted he was horrid. It had nothing to do with injury. He was just poor at the beginning of his career. He also had a shocker against Sri Lanka and the following year he buckled down and got much better.
From 98-01 he had his 3 injuries and I've already spoken about that. In 2004, he wasn't actually that bad and his figures would have been even better if he played the last test (but again he had a broken thumb and couldn't).
So where does it become ridiculous to say that he was never at his best when playing them? These things are facts. Fair enough if you just don't agree or don't want to agree. But to say it's ridiculous for me to say so is non-sense.
And I keep saying..."if you had watched the matches" which it kinda shows that you haven't, you would know what I am talking about.
I am all for statistical analysis, but some things have certain facts connected to them and put those stats in the correct light. You should always strive to have both.
So as I said, to say that because Tendulkar played in them Warne failed is just not even close. At most, he is one batsman. Bradman beat opposition bowlers into the dust, it didn't mean they were averaging 100 just because of him.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As said though, the fact is that around the time he did poorly against India, he was doing poorly against everyone else as well (though not as poorly as against India).
Warne was useless at the start of his career (against all 3 teams he faced) and had about 2 or 3 good games between March 1998 and March 2001 (against India, England, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and New Zealand).
It may seem like "too much to be coincidence" but really, it isn't.
Precambrian
Banned
Form or no form, the fact is Warne was crap whenever he came up against Indians.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think anyone is disputing that (except in 2004/05 when he was merely not-that-good rather than out-and-out woeful). It's the reasons that I seek to establish, and for mine it's far too simplistic to simply say the Indians were too good for Warne, and that Warne bowled exactly the same against the Indians for woeful failure as he bowled against everyone else for excellent success. Because that just isn't how it happened.
Warne was very poor for 3 whole years, against all teams, between March 1998 and March 2001. He was also poor for the first 8 (IIRR) Tests of his career, against all teams.
However, for another 5 years between March 1993 and January 1998, and another 4-and-a-half years between July 2001 and November 2005, he was excellent against all opposition. It's my view that the former period saw him bowl better than the latter, but there's no disputing he was excellent in both.
Warne was very poor for 3 whole years, against all teams, between March 1998 and March 2001. He was also poor for the first 8 (IIRR) Tests of his career, against all teams.
However, for another 5 years between March 1993 and January 1998, and another 4-and-a-half years between July 2001 and November 2005, he was excellent against all opposition. It's my view that the former period saw him bowl better than the latter, but there's no disputing he was excellent in both.
Last edited:
Precambrian
Banned
Those periods of success he enjoyed was against England. God knows how crap the English batting was then.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
OK, 2 things:
1, it's not like England was the only team he had success against - he did well against everyone he faced in both 1992/93-1997/98 and 2001-2005/06.
2, England were not as hopeless against wristspin as they are often portrayed. Twice (in 1993 and 1994/95) they struggled against Warne early in the series but things improved markedly later on. In 1993, he took 16-296 in the first two Tests and 18-581 in the last four; in 1994/95 he took 20-190 in the first two and 7-359 in the last three. And in 1997 he was up-and-down (excellent in the Third and Fifth Tests; poor in the First and Fourth; and OK in the Second and Sixth). Likewise, in 2002/03 they played him pretty decently (1 good game out of 3). Warne's best Ashes series' were actually probably 2001 and 2005 - he had just 1 bad game in each of them.
1, it's not like England was the only team he had success against - he did well against everyone he faced in both 1992/93-1997/98 and 2001-2005/06.
2, England were not as hopeless against wristspin as they are often portrayed. Twice (in 1993 and 1994/95) they struggled against Warne early in the series but things improved markedly later on. In 1993, he took 16-296 in the first two Tests and 18-581 in the last four; in 1994/95 he took 20-190 in the first two and 7-359 in the last three. And in 1997 he was up-and-down (excellent in the Third and Fifth Tests; poor in the First and Fourth; and OK in the Second and Sixth). Likewise, in 2002/03 they played him pretty decently (1 good game out of 3). Warne's best Ashes series' were actually probably 2001 and 2005 - he had just 1 bad game in each of them.
Precambrian
Banned
You yourselves know you're quoting stats virtually unhelpful in your argument right?
Look at the whole picture, when you're saying X player dominated Y team, that means on an overall basis, not in every test and every innings they played against that team.
Fact remains Warne was a mystery to England. And that is reflected in his record.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I used to hate Warne - for me he embodied all the bad things about being Australian but as he has got older and overcome adversity so often I have, for no good reason I can discern, found my respect for the bloke getting in the way of the animosity I ought to feel for any top Aussie bowler. If he played next summer I am really concerned I might end up wanting to see him do well and that would be ................ well it's just too bizarre to contemplate