Warne would consider Test return

[Precambrian]

Warne didn't always dominate England. I've just shown that. There were times when they played him well. There were also times when he was too good for them, as there were times he was too good for pretty well anyone.

AWTA, except Indians.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally don't understand why it's such a big deal that Warnie was pumelled by the Indians. They've consistentently belted just about every leg-spinner to ever go there (Benords might have had one good series?). It's not the blight on his record some would suggest. It's a hard place to bowl on pitches which don't suit legies who bowl with sidespin against batsmen who play the style well.

Warne was coming back from injury for all bar one of his Indian tours, this is true, but only the one where he was coming back from shoulder surgery does he really have genuine recourse for his lack of performance. That injury, at the time, apparently only a couple of athletes had the surgery to correct it and they never played their respective sports again.

 

[Francis]

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?

Not being Australian I can't say I hold the view that Australia are invincible.

The reason I think Warne was out of form in India in 1998 and Australia played Murali well in 2007 is... wait for it... because I saw those games with my own eyes and know what the players are capable of.

 

[Francis]

Sorry to double-post. I generally prefer to structure my argument by arguing one post at a time so things don't get muddled.

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.

But we're not saying Warne was in bad form every time he played India in India. I said he was in very good form in 2004 and obtained respectable 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.

Which is why I reiterated that Warne, if he played his best in India, wouldn't have the figures he usually gets (against other sides) because Indians play spin well. But I do think his average would be inbetween 30-35. So Indians would still have dominance over him, but he'd have done better IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Personally don't understand why it's such a big deal that Warnie was pumelled by the Indians. They've consistentently belted just about every leg-spinner to ever go there (Benords might have had one good series?). It's not the blight on his record some would suggest. It's a hard place to bowl on pitches which don't suit legies who bowl with sidespin against batsmen who play the style well.

Warne was coming back from injury for all bar one of his Indian tours, this is true, but only the one where he was coming back from shoulder surgery does he really have genuine recourse for his lack of performance. That injury, at the time, apparently only a couple of athletes had the surgery to correct it and they never played their respective sports again.

Yea, considering every leg spinner in history has bigger and worse things against him, I don't think it detracts from him as a spinner at all.

 

[Richard]

Personally don't understand why it's such a big deal that Warnie was pumelled by the Indians. They've consistentently belted just about every leg-spinner to ever go there (Benords might have had one good series?). It's not the blight on his record some would suggest. It's a hard place to bowl on pitches which don't suit legies who bowl with sidespin against batsmen who play the style well.

The reason it might be a blight on Warne (and as I say - I don't believe it's as simple as many people paint it as) is because Warne is supposed to be the greatest wristspinner there's ever been. You'd expect such a bowler to be able to deal with even the best players of spin.

As I say though - for me, India simply mostly got Warne at good times for them. Same way South Africa hit India at just the right time in 1999/2000, in order to inflict their first home defeat by a non-subcontinental team for 15 years. If India had been in better shape I think it's fanciful to suggest SA would've been likely to have won that series.

 

[Top_Cat]

The reason it might be a blight on Warne (and as I say - I don't believe it's as simple as many people paint it as) is because Warne is supposed to be the greatest wristspinner there's ever been. You'd expect such a bowler to be able to deal with even the best players of spin.

As I say though - for me, India simply mostly got Warne at good times for them. Same way South Africa hit India at just the right time in 1999/2000, in order to inflict their first home defeat by a non-subcontinental team for 15 years. If India had been in better shape I think it's fanciful to suggest SA would've been likely to have won that series.

I dispute that but only because so many Warne apologists blame his injuries. I personally reckon the Indian batsmen having no fear at playing across the ball against the spin into the leg-side was what got to him most. Then when he'd over-correct, they'd give themselves some room and spank it through the offside, making his biggest weapon (prodigious turn) a disadvantage. Don't think he ever really found a way around it. Just remember Sachin, Azhar, Laxman, etc. flicking him with regularity through the legside. Would have frustrated any spinner.

 

[Richard]

That the Indians played him better - much better - than anyone else is beyond question.

What I dispute is that the Indians collared Warne while Warne was bowling the same stuff as he was when he was tearing it up against other teams. Because Warne, in between the two India tours of 1997/98 and 2000/01 that bookend the 3-year period, also bowled poorly against almost everyone else that he came-up against. It wasn't like he was averaging 50 against India and 22 against the rest. He was averaging 50 against India and 32 against the rest - and that 32 flattered him, hugely.

I don't, neccessarily, blame his injuries, though rather obviously they won't have helped. I just don't think Warne was quite as good as some people do. His 9-and-a-half years of brilliance were punctuated by 3 years of actually very, very mediocre performance. Performance that, had it come before his first 5 years, would've seen him never stay in the team as long as he did. I just think Warne wasn't quite good enough to not have a small amount of downtime, brilliant as what sandwiched this downtime was.

 

[Precambrian]

That the Indians played him better - much better - than anyone else is beyond question.

What I dispute is that the Indians collared Warne while Warne was bowling the same stuff as he was when he was tearing it up against other teams. Because Warne, in between the two India tours of 1997/98 and 2000/01 that bookend the 3-year period, also bowled poorly against almost everyone else that he came-up against. It wasn't like he was averaging 50 against India and 22 against the rest. He was averaging 50 against India and 32 against the rest - and that 32 flattered him, hugely.

I don't, neccessarily, blame his injuries, though rather obviously they won't have helped. I just don't think Warne was quite as good as some people do. His 9-and-a-half years of brilliance were punctuated by 3 years of actually very, very mediocre performance. Performance that, had it come before his first 5 years, would've seen him never stay in the team as long as he did. I just think Warne wasn't quite good enough to not have a small amount of downtime, brilliant as what sandwiched this downtime was.

Disagree, while Warne might have been suffering from injury etc during that 3 yr period, he still was having good series like the one against SA (avg 22) and Ashes. And had Warne's record against India been say like the upper thirties, then also your argument had a breathing chance. But an avg of 50? No talk of bad form can justify that.

Oh here we go again.....

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Or most others. MacGill has only ever had the odd good Test against any Test-standard team (has ransacked Bangladesh though).

He was carted by other teams on plenty of occasions as well though.

 

[Richard]

Disagree, while Warne might have been suffering from injury etc during that 3 yr period, he still was having good series like the one against SA (avg 22) and Ashes. And had Warne's record against India been say like the upper thirties, then also your argument had a breathing chance. But an avg of 50? No talk of bad form can justify that.

Oh here we go again.....

As I say - Warne averaged 32 (and that flattered him) against other teams, and 50 against India. Warne bowled poorly; most teams dealt with that pretty well, India dealt with it exceptionally.

And Warne did not have a good series against SA between March 1998 and March 2001. Australia and SA did not face-off in that time. Warne played 1 Test against England in that time, taking 2 for 110.

Warne's only good series came in Sri Lanka in 1999/2000. Other than that, he was very, very poor against all-comers.

 

[Ikki]

The difference between averaging 49 against India and averaging 40 against NZ is little. Even if it were against the same team, and those were the averages, it still reads as shockingly poor. The fact that India took more advantage of it than NZ is not surprising.

I'd say the fact that his averages around that time were so ridiculously high, and really are an outlier in his career, gives more weight to the argument that his injuries disabled him to perform anywhere near his best.

It's rare, but I agree with Rich. The periods where Warne was debuting or was injured and the other periods in his career are totally different. The guy bowled totally different and had totally different success. I subcribe to Francis' prediction that had Warne been at his best and India still countered him well, I'd see him averaging 30-35, instead of what he does now.

 

[morgieb]

Think he referred to Mendis there..

Indeed.

 

[The Legend]

Sorry for bumping this topic but I am a bit confused. I watched a video at Youtube in which Warney was talking about his return is Ashes 2009.

Is it really so? Is it confirmed or still a rumour?

 

[Richard]

Spoof?