Warne v McGrath

[Francis]

Great to see my point about how I don't want to turn this into a Warne v India thread, and that my argument was focused towards Warne's finger injury being worse than McGrath's injury, didn't go over your head...

 

[Ikki]

You don't remember when (twice) McGrath has missed entire seasons with ripped intercostal muscles? When India were in Aus 2003/04, for example, and all Aus had were Brad Williams, Kasper, Dizzy and MacGill to choose from.

I remember him getting injured, not for entire seasons. I don't remember those injuries changing the way he bowled either. The ankle injury bit was more a joke .

 

[Ikki]

Sorry I just thought I'd add that I'm not interested in another Warne v India discussion. That's been done to death. My argument was that McGrath's injury doesn't compare to Warne's. Warne's two flippers to Sachin Tendulkar in 2001 was the best example of how I can substantiate my claim that he couldn't release the ball properly when bowling a flipper after his injury. He'd break the flipper out from time to time (like against the Windies in 2005), but he wasn't the same after the surgery. Hence I wasn't trying to start Warne v India, rather just trying to illustrate that Warne faced challenges McGrath didn't in trying to teach himself to bowl again.

Here's Warne's ring finger (only not that bent)

-------/

Warne goes through his injury in the Parkinson interview IIRC. His finger is basically deformed. LOL I think Warne's also said he wasn't flighting it right and couldn't control his spin as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

I remember him getting injured, not for entire seasons. I don't remember those injuries changing the way he bowled either.

Lost a bit of pace and zip. Aside from Lords, even taking into account the ankle injury, wasn't as 'zippy' as he was beforehand.

Doesn't compare to Warne's shoulder injury, sure, but was still significant.

 

[Ikki]

Lost a bit of pace and zip. Aside from Lords, even taking into account the ankle injury, wasn't as 'zippy' as he was beforehand.

Doesn't compare to Warne's shoulder injury, sure, but was still significant.

Fair enough. Credit to him for it. Personally, never noticed he lost pace because I never felt he had much . Thought it was more due to age at the time.

 

[Migara]

Great to see my point about how I don't want to turn this into a Warne v India thread, and that my argument was focused towards Warne's finger injury being worse than McGrath's injury, didn't go over your head...

That's fair enough

 

[grant28]

I don't like comparing spinners and quickies.

 

[Ikki]

Here is a Howstat article at the time of Warne's shoulder injury questioning whether he was the right choice or whether MacGill was. Excerpts:

As the table below shows, Warne's form declined dramatically in 1998 when he suffered a shoulder injury, and despite much hype to the contrary that form has not yet recovered. For the period 1st January, 1998 to the present, Warne's bowling average is 33.05 which for an Australian test bowler is very ordinary.

One of Warne's greatest attributes has been his great accuracy, loose balls being a rarity, giving him the ability to tie a batsman down. In the last 12-18 months, there have been many more loose balls, reducing the pressure on the batsman. Warne also seems to have lost one of his most dangerous deliveries, the "flipper". In recent times on the occasions when he has attempted it, it has mostly been dispatched to or over the boundary.
This decline is reflected in his economy rate which has blown out from an outstanding 2.43 per over in 1997 to a quite ordinary 3.22 so far in 2000.
The 2000-2001 test season may well be a watershed in Shane Warne's career. It will be interesting to see if the selectors want Warne to come back through the Pura Milk Cup competition, or if they are prepared to bring him straight back into the Test team. If MacGill performs up to the form he has shown in his past appearances for Australia, the selectors may be presented with a very difficult decision. Over the years, the Australian selectors have persisted with many players for a long time after their form justified selection. If Warne is unable to turn his form around it will be interesting to see how long the Australian selectors will continue to back him.

 

[stephen]

As a huge Warne fan, I have always maintained that his Greatness was based on two periods - his "raw talent" period of 93-98 and his "master thinker" period of 2004-2007. He had some good spells between these periods, but he was never Great.

Between 93 and 98 I'm really not sure who could have stopped him. He was just that good. After his shoulder injury it took him some years to get right, and was actually dropped at one stage. His second peak happened when he really learned how to work over batsmen with his stock delivery far more than he had in the past.

 

[The Sean]

As a huge Warne fan, I have always maintained that his Greatness was based on two periods - his "raw talent" period of 93-98 and his "master thinker" period of 2004-2007. He had some good spells between these periods, but he was never Great.

Between 93 and 98 I'm really not sure who could have stopped him. He was just that good. After his shoulder injury it took him some years to get right, and was actually dropped at one stage. His second peak happened when he really learned how to work over batsmen with his stock delivery far more than he had in the past.

Generally agree with this, but I always thought his second peak began in the 2001 Ashes series - his 20 Tests from 2001-2003 leading up to the injury/drug ban yielded 115 wickets, including a run of 64 wickets in 9 Tests over three series against SA and Pakistan 2001 and 2002.

1998-2001 were definitely the lost years though - while he bowled well at times during this period he was clearly a diminished bowler due to the injury and to be honest I didn't think he'd ever regain his past glories. It's to his immense credit that he did.

 

[stephen]

Generally agree with this, but I always thought his second peak began in the 2001 Ashes series - his 20 Tests from 2001-2003 leading up to the injury/drug ban yielded 115 wickets, including a run of 64 wickets in 9 Tests over three series against SA and Pakistan 2001 and 2002.

1998-2001 were definitely the lost years though - while he bowled well at times during this period he was clearly a diminished bowler due to the injury and to be honest I didn't think he'd ever regain his past glories. It's to his immense credit that he did.

Yeah you are probably right about the exact timing.

I remember despairing thinking at one stage that his career was over. Then he came back, though he was a shadow of the bowler he was in the 93-98 glory period. He had no flipper, couldn't land a googly on the pitch and generally didn't get as much drift as he used to.

His recovery from injury came from his ability to outthink the batsmen rather than outbowl them.

 

[Sanz]

Between 93 and 98 I'm really not sure who could have stopped him. He was just that good.

Just how well did he perform against India, SL and WI during that period.

 

[Ikki]

Don't think he played India then, had a forgettable debut series against Sri Lanka and did very well against West Indies. What's funny is that in that period where Warne was injured, etc, his series (plural) against India weren't the worst...he was way worse vs. West Indies and New Zealand - teams he never had problems with; just to give you an idea how "out of it" he was. The only two bad series he has against them comes in this period:

 

[subshakerz]

So Warne should be criticized for that, but I've seen him at his best and really I think 2004 is the best indication of how he would have done in India with good form and good health.
.

And this is the exact reason I do not rate Warne that highly, certainly not as highly as Mcgrath. Even at his absolute best and in good health, on spinning wickets, he failed to really impose himself on the best batting lineup he faced, was the most expensive spinner on both sides and was reduced to a support bowler.

The bottomline is that for all his achievements, he never came close to a matchwinning performance against the best lineup available. Could you see how that might lower him in the eyes of an objective viewer, that he never conquered his greatest challenge like so many bowlers before him? India was far more than a bogey team or an abherration for Warne, they truly had his number.

 

[stephen]

And this is the exact reason I do not rate Warne that highly, certainly not as highly as Mcgrath. Even at his absolute best and in good health, on spinning wickets, he failed to really impose himself on the best batting lineup he faced, was the most expensive spinner on both sides and was reduced to a support bowler.

The bottomline is that for all his achievements, he never came close to a matchwinning performance against the best lineup available. Could you see how that might lower him in the eyes of an objective viewer, that he never conquered his greatest challenge like so many bowlers before him? India was far more than a bogey team or an abherration for Warne, they truly had his number.

Honestly there is truth in what you say, but likewise the biggest form slumps that Warne faced coincided with the times he bowled to India. His career started against them when he was (probably) too green for international cricket. The next two times he faced them was in his almost-career-ending form slump and then the final time he faced them he did merely ok.

By the forth series the psychological damage had well and truly been done. We can only speculate what would have happened if Warne had bowled to them in his 93-98 golden age. He was so much more talented in this period than any other in his career. His later peak (2002-2007) was more to do with his working over of batsmen rather than his raw talent.

 

[Ikki]

Warne in 2004 averaged 30 with an SR of 60 in India. Which is pretty good, especially considering he missed the last test through injury (again) and missed the pitch where Michael Clarke took 6 for 9 and Nathan Hauritz took 5 for 103. Had he played, it's easily assumable he would have done quite as good and finished the series averaging in the 20s and striking in the 50s.

There's just noway his career record against them as it stands now would exist had he played them at his best. He probably would have done pretty good too and also would have been had a few times too. India were really not that much better than Sri Lanka at playing spinners and Warne's record against them is superlative.

 

[Sanz]

Honestly there is truth in what you say, but likewise the biggest form slumps that Warne faced coincided with the times he bowled to India. His career started against them when he was (probably) too green for international cricket. The next two times he faced them was in his almost-career-ending form slump and then the final time he faced them he did merely ok.

By the forth series the psychological damage had well and truly been done. We can only speculate what would have happened if Warne had bowled to them in his 93-98 golden age. He was so much more talented in this period than any other in his career. His later peak (2002-2007) was more to do with his working over of batsmen rather than his raw talent.

Warne did bowl to India in early 1998, without much success.

Cricinfo Statsguru - SK Warne - Test matches - Bowling analysis

 

[Ikki]

By the forth series the psychological damage had well and truly been done. We can only speculate what would have happened if Warne had bowled to them in his 93-98 golden age. He was so much more talented in this period than any other in his career. His later peak (2002-2007) was more to do with his working over of batsmen rather than his raw talent.

Whilst Warne did awesomely in that period, he really was a handicapped bowler. It's to his credit that he was getting out batsman with no more than his stock ball and slight variations. He would have been infinitely better with his flipper and wrong'n working correctly.

 

[Ikki]

Warne did bowl to India in early 1998, without much success.

Cricinfo Statsguru - SK Warne - Test matches - Bowling analysis

His finger injury occurred before then and he was carrying a shoulder injury on that tour too I believe. It's right after this that, to quote Benaud, "they opened him up and saw his arm was being held together by a string".

 

[Top_Cat]

And this is the exact reason I do not rate Warne that highly, certainly not as highly as Mcgrath. Even at his absolute best and in good health, on spinning wickets, he failed to really impose himself on the best batting lineup he faced, was the most expensive spinner on both sides and was reduced to a support bowler.

The bottomline is that for all his achievements, he never came close to a matchwinning performance against the best lineup available. Could you see how that might lower him in the eyes of an objective viewer, that he never conquered his greatest challenge like so many bowlers before him? India was far more than a bogey team or an abherration for Warne, they truly had his number.

As they have done every visiting spinner for years, whether off or leg-spin. It's a valid criticism against Warne, sure, but in that context, it shouldn't impact as much on peoples' perceptions on how good he was as it does. Averaging just over 30 on his last tour, Warne equalled Murali's best series who I think averaged about the same on his last tour. Both had to bowl phenomenally well just to achieve that.

It's also been a bit of a myth for ages that Indian pitches have turned square from ball one. There's been spin but not a lot, more slow/low and then getting more uneven as the match wears on. It's telling that the most successful bowler in India is Anil Kumble, not exactly a bastion of big spin but who takes advantage of uneven bounce like no other.