The CW50 - No.4

[G.I.Joe]

You should have seen the look on Warne's face when #6 was spanking him all over the park I'm not going to rate Sachin over Bradman because of that though, Uppercut.

 

[The Sean]

Hey The Sean, is it possible that you provide the full list, even people outside the top 50? I don't mind if you do it after you've announced the final 3.

Yeah, will do.

 

[Uppercut]

Uppercut, this is exactly the same reason why your Benaud's etc. had Sachin as the greatest batsmen since Bradman... particularly in the 90s.

It breaks simple stat analysis and record.

Yeah, absolutely.

Personally, I don't see it with Sachin. As I said at the time, I find his majestic strokeplaying ability quite frustrating. Why doesn't he score more than he does! He looks like he should be averaging over 100 at the very least.

I like my bowlers though. It's just me.

You should have seen the look on Warne's face when #6 was spanking him all over the park I'm not going to rate Sachin over Bradman because of that though, Uppercut.

I'd have no objections whatsoever if you did ftr. But for me personally, Bradman did exactly what Sachin did, only better, whereas no one in the history of the game has ever been anything like Warne.

 

[Jono]

I'd have no objections whatsoever if you did ftr. But for me personally, Bradman did exactly what Sachin did, only better, whereas no one in the history of the game has ever been anything like Warne.

Sachin has had billions supporting him from a 16 year old onwards, even Bradman didn't have that

When we talk about things that transcend the simple things in the game, I think Sachin, Lara, Viv, Lillee, Gilly and Warne are the players of recent times that are greater than simple statistical analysis can ever explain.

 

[Fusion]

In my case, simply the greatest I'd seen.

That's a good enough explanation.

It's hard to define. You get to a stage when discussing greatness where you can't really quantify what makes you hold a particular cricketer in such high regard. Some people see it with regards to Warne, others don't, but I'm not exactly alone. It's a bit like if you were to ask me why I think so highly of Charles Dickens.

I can show you where to look, Symcox's face after being bowled round his legs in the previously posted video being one of many examples. But if you don't see it, I can't show it to you. If that makes sense .

Fair enough. It seems to me to be more of a “personal impact” thing rather than a measure of them as cricketers, but there’s nothing wrong in judging the greatness of someone in that regard. I certainly think Warne is a legend and one of the greatest to play the game, I just can’t ever rank him #1. To each his own though, right?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd have no objections whatsoever if you did ftr. But for me personally, Bradman did exactly what Sachin did, only better, whereas no one in the history of the game has ever been anything like Warne.

Murali. The guy who does as well in his own non glamorous manner for a non glamorous team.

Bradman averaged twice what a very good batsman is supposed to. Does Warne average half what a very good bowler is supposed to?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Murali. The guy who does as well in his own non glamorous manner

Exactly, it mightn't be fair, but personal charisma & chutzpah do matter in sport. The best one can say for Murali is he's an extremely effective player. I personally can't enjoy his performances in the same way as I can with Warne's.

 

[Uppercut]

Murali. The guy who does as well in his own non glamorous manner for a non glamorous team.

Bradman averaged twice what a very good batsman is supposed to. Does Warne average half what a very good bowler is supposed to?

Murali's nothing like Warne. Not in the sense that I mean anyway.

 

[Pothas]

No and this why I would always have Warne ahead of Murali (plus he played for us), although to be fair the one time I saw Murali bowl live it was pretty mesmorising.

 

[Uppercut]

Sachin has had billions supporting him from a 16 year old onwards, even Bradman didn't have that

When we talk about things that transcend the simple things in the game, I think Sachin, Lara, Viv, Lillee, Gilly and Warne are the players of recent times that are greater than simple statistical analysis can ever explain.

I'd throw Murali in there too personally. The sense of impending doom while the pacers do nothing more than take the shine off the ball, the strange run-up, the eyes bulging out of his head, having no idea whatsoever what the ball is going to do when it lands... personally, I think he's incredible to watch. Fascinating. Completely disagree with Brumby's thoughts on him as nothing more than effective.

Still prefer Warne though

 

[Jono]

Exactly, it mightn't be fair, but personal charisma & chutzpah do matter in sport. The best one can say for Murali is he's an extremely effective player. I personally can't enjoy his performances in the same way as I can with Warne's.

Understand what you're saying, but I dare say Kevin Pietersen has much more character and charisma than Sachin Tendulkar.

Pretty sure Sachin will be remembered more fondly though.

It ranges.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd throw Murali in there too personally. The sense of impending doom while the pacers do nothing more than take the shine off the ball, the strange run-up, the eyes bulging out of his head, having no idea whatsoever what the ball is going to do when it lands... personally, I think he's incredible to watch. Fascinating. Completely disagree with Brumby's thoughts on him as nothing more than effective.

Still prefer Warne though

I can't honestly draw any aesthetic enjoyment from watching Murali turn his arm over. Even if one accepts that an optical illusion makes his action appear worse than it really is, the fact remains that it looks horrible.

 

[Jono]

Murali. The guy who does as well in his own non glamorous manner for a non glamorous team.

Bradman averaged twice what a very good batsman is supposed to. Does Warne average half what a very good bowler is supposed to?

It's all subjective though anyway so no need to really take it seriously.

But your point is right, forget average, Warne wasn't two times better than any other great bowler or even spinner, but Bradman was two times better than Sobers, Viv, Sachin, Chappell, Hobbs etc. as batsmen.

Hence why he is simply the greatest.

 

[Jono]

I can't honestly draw any aesthetic enjoyment from watching Murali turn his arm over. Even if one accepts that an optical illusion makes his action appear worse than it really is, the fact remains that it looks horrible.

That's irrelevant to the point though.

If you inserted Warne's charisma and blonde hair and ability to cheat on his wife into Murali you'd still find that the case.

So either way it wouldn't matter how charismatic Murali is.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's irrelevant to the point though.

If you inserted Warne's charisma and blonde hair and ability to cheat on his wife into Murali you'd still find that the case.

So either way it wouldn't matter how charismatic Murali is.

I don't mean charisma in the Graeme Swann "cheeky grin and witty tweet" sense (which Warne undoubtedly has too, IMHO), more in the sense of those players who by virtue of bravura technique or ability can turn the sporting arena into a theatre.

Take Waqar, for example. Judging by his commentary he's not necessarily the most personally engaging individual, but as a cricketer he had bags of charisma. Seeing him charging in, uncoiling himself in his delivery stride like a taut spring and then unleashing a toe-crushing inswinging yorker was the kind of thing I watch cricket for. It turns a crowd into an audience.

That is exactly what we got with SKW; he'd run through his box of tricks and live each delivery with us. All the time imploring and cajoling the umpire for that positive decision.

 

[GIMH]

Understand what you're saying, but I dare say Kevin Pietersen has much more character and charisma than Sachin Tendulkar.

Pretty sure Sachin will be remembered more fondly though.

It ranges.

Not in my house

 

[bagapath]

It's hard to define. You get to a stage when discussing greatness where you can't really quantify what makes you hold a particular cricketer in such high regard. Some people see it with regards to Warne, others don't, but I'm not exactly alone. It's a bit like if you were to ask me why I think so highly of Charles Dickens.

I can show you where to look, Symcox's face after being bowled round his legs in the previously posted video being one of many examples. But if you don't see it, I can't show it to you. If that makes sense .

yeah sure warne had that effect. but i cant imagine what bradman did to his bowlers, to their best deliveries, to their well laid plans, to the best field settings, to the toughest situations for the batting team. i want to see the look on the faces of his opponents. compared to that, the look warne induces must be orgasmic. there is simply no competition for the bowral boy.

 

[Uppercut]

Mmm batting doesn't really have the same impact for me. It takes too long. It takes Bradman a few hours to change a match, it takes Warne a few seconds.

There's no doubt Bradman brought more to his side, of course. But great batting can never match the drama of great bowling for me personally. I like that one magical moment.

 

[Burgey]

You should have seen the look on Warne's face when #6 was spanking him all over the park I'm not going to rate Sachin over Bradman because of that though, Uppercut.

You should have seen the look on my face as I rolled on the floor laughing when #6 ducked at a ball from #13 and was LBW.

But it's not just for that reason that I thnk McGrath should be rated ahead of Sachin .

 

[Jono]

I'd have McGrath ahead of Sachin and Warne too, but hey.

McGrath used to have a decent head shake whenever Sachin and Lara were carving some runs, so if we' re ranking players based on the reaction opposition players gave we're really stretching the criteria lol.