The CW50 - No.4

[Jono]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Uppercut]

this would be true if their strike rates were significantly different. in reality, they both got their victims every ten overs (SR 57.9 vs 58.8 minus minnows). you can make this distinction between warne and oreilly or warne and grimmett coz tiger and clarrie would get their pound of flesh in their 12th over, respective SR 69.6 & 67.1. but murali was as aggressive as warne and struck at the same rate.

not true at all. murali has taken a higher percentage of top order wickets compared to warne. and he has also dismissed more of the top order batsmen under their career batting averages. which means he struck more frequently at the top and he struck them down faster than warne.

Tests - bowling cricket at Cricinfo's It Figures blog

see... it is absolutely fine to say warne had a fast bowler's attitude and he turned several matches around in short periods of play. but so did murali. to praise one you dont have to relegate the other to a different category when it is clear they both were in the same bracket

Interesting points these. It's quite remarkable how close together they are on a statistical level.

Ikki should have just admitted he'd been proven wrong in both cases really.

 

[Matt79]

Should have taken this **** to the Warne vs Murali thread tbh

 

[Fusion]

Well, since I am usually a stats man this is hard to quantify, but I'd say Warne was two times more effective than any other bowler I've ever seen when the match was at it's most critical stage. I've never seen a bowler change a match on it's head as much as I have with Warne.

Really? Even if we just look at Warne's era, I can point to McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, and Murali who had the same capability. You can say Warne was more effective than all of them, but certainly not "two times" better. However, with Bradman there is no peer. He certainly was two times better than any other batsman that played the game, in his era or any other era for that matter.

 

[Ikki]

Really? Even if we just look at Warne's era, I can point to McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, and Murali who had the same capability. You can say Warne was more effective than all of them, but certainly not "two times" better. However, with Bradman there is no peer. He certainly was two times better than any other batsman that played the game, in his era or any other era for that matter.

I watched all those bowlers' careers and I would not rate their capacity to do that like Warne. Particularly with comparison to McGrath who I would have watched the most. From my recollections of the past 15 years, when the match was in the balance the critical breakthroughs were made by Warne more often than not. Although, having said that, McGrath tended to make the breakthroughs before the match was tangibly in the balance. I say tangibly because in reality the match is in the balance from ball one, but I mean in certain periods in a game where an opposition batsman was running away with the game, and situations alike. Having said that, Wasim was pretty good at it too actually.

Anyway, I am not sure I can measure this to accurately say "two times better" but significantly better is what I meant.

Ikki should have just admitted he'd been proven wrong in both cases really.

Why? None of the points raised refute what I claimed. In short, the SRs show no real distinguishing factor towards approach. It's just a rate at which something happens; it does not account for the context. That's why as I mentioned there is no real statistical measure for these kinds of claims. Just as people say Viv scored when it mattered, etc, ...how do you really measure that? You can't. You can only go watch those matches and judge for yourself. Hence my point that I thank the stars that I was born to actually watch these periods happen because if I looked 20 years from now and only looked at his figures I wouldn't be impressed to near the same extent.

I already exemplified how one bowler may take wickets earlier in the innings in a certain situation and force the issue and how another one would eventually get batsmen to cave in and having bowled the same amounts they would garner a similar SR. Or look at it for batsmen: two batsmen may have similar SRs yet while one may consistently score at a rate of 80 runs every 100 balls without a change in pace, another may start slowly, build a score and start smashing boundaries. Yet the two approaches are clearly different and saying they are similar is to miss the mark completely.

It's like saying Hadlee and Lillee approached batsmen the same because their SRs are similar. In fact, Hadlee himself said he tried to bowl the ball in the right place consistently and he knew he would take wickets; whereas Lillee went after the batsmen in a more attacking manner. Similarly, Warne was always the more likelier to throw the ball up and risk getting hit for runs but in the pursuit to take wickets fast. Murali was more a pressure builder who gave little away until batsmen cracked. You may argue that had the two swapped teams Murali could afford to throw it up more or Warne would be compelled to be more tighter, but as it happened one bowled one way and the other another.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If there's been controversy regarding Marshall so low, or some saying Sachin and Warne were too high, I think the Sobers nay-sayers may be out big time when Sobers is named, whether its 2 or 3.

Aren't the Sobers nay-sayers usually just about his bowling? Even if Sobers had never bowled a ball in his life he'd still be an all-time great, that's what makes him such an incredible cricketer. I just had a quick look at the ICC player rankings page, and Sobers was never ranked outside the top three batsmen in the world between 1958, when he first hit #1, and 1974 when he finally dropped to 5th. It's just an afterthought that he was also ranked in the top 10 bowlers in the world for 12 of those 16 years.

Another ridiculous stat I recall is that in the complete decade of the 1960s, he was the highest run scorer and the second highest wicket taker in tests.

 

[JBH001]

That is some fascinating stuff about Sobers.

As to Warne, top 10 for mine, but I think 4 (indeed 5) too high for him.

Cant wait for 1 - 3 although there can be no surprises there.

 

[silentstriker]

Aren't the Sobers nay-sayers usually just about his bowling? Even if Sobers had never bowled a ball in his life he'd still be an all-time great, that's what makes him such an incredible cricketer. I just had a quick look at the ICC player rankings page, and Sobers was never ranked outside the top three batsmen in the world between 1958, when he first hit #1, and 1974 when he finally dropped to 5th. It's just an afterthought that he was also ranked in the top 10 bowlers in the world for 12 of those 16 years.

Another ridiculous stat I recall is that in the complete decade of the 1960s, he was the highest run scorer and the second highest wicket taker in tests.

Plus his fielding. Definitely belongs in the top three.

 

[Ikki]

I wish Francis would give a shout. He was always much more eloquent talking about Warne than I. I have compiled a couple of posts Francis made about Warne in his top 10 cricketers of all time (where he ranked Warne 3rd) and his reasonings.

3. Shane Warne
This selection will surely anger a few people here, while a few will agree with me. I picked Warne because like Pele and Maradonna, he left us such a potent memory of greatness. Someone once said to be, "it's unfair to say Warne is greater than others based on his team's success, because he was apart of a great team". But the memories I have of Warne are of him metamorphesising into an unstoppable force whenever Australia's dominance was challenged. In the 1999 world cup semi final, Australia were gone, completely dead and dejected. He changed that game. In the 2005 Ashes it was a miracle that he nearly salvaged the series for Australia when the rest of the bowlers were going for a run a ball. In Sri Lanka 2004 Australia wouldn't have come close without him. I have little doubt had Warne played for South Africa or Sri Lanka, they would have an extra world cup, or a famous historic test series win etc. Warne was like that, he became irresistable as a bowler when his team was down. You can argue there have been some better than him, but Warne, in my opinion, became some incredible force of will when the moment needed a genius, and he'd redeem Australia with his force of will. I like it how people say he had a script writer, because he etched himself into Australia's most vital wins when they had no right to win. When he became that irresistable force, he was a champion unlike any bowler I've seen.

I think a lot of people will agree with you, and I'm anticipating at least one poster to give me some sort of backlash for putting him so high. Placing Warne is very contentious. A few things I kept in mind:

1. At his best, which in my opinion was 1994, he played in a team where the bowling wasn't that great. People think it was great, but McGrath didn't flourish until 1995. You would never imagine, at the time, Glenn McGrath would turn out the way he did. Craig McDermott battled injuries and losses of form. And whomever else was in the team, it may have been Paul Riefel, was a pretty pedestrian bowler. Warne took 71 wickets in 8 tests that year. That's 71 out of a potential 160! However, a bowler taking a lot of wickets when there isn't much competition isn't anything new. But Warne had a strike-rate of around 42 balls per wicket, which is just freaky. I think a lot of people underestimate how single handedly Warne carried the bowling for Australia around 1993-1994. I have vivid memories of Warne being the only difference between victory and defeat for Australia in many ODI's in 1995 as well.

2. I can't shrug off the fact that 99% of the time, Warne delivered when other greats didn't. I don't want to make comparisons with other greats... but I just can't see the greats of the 90s and 00s taking a team as beaten as Australia were in the 1999 world cup semi final, and taking them to victory. It's as if history calls to Warne and tells him to do something memorable. I perhaps use that semi final as an example far too much, Warne has other times when he's saved Australia... forgotten times. I remember in 2004, McGrath was floundering in Sri Lanka and Australia, in all three Tests against Sri Lanka, were behind after both teams had batted in the first innings. This was Warne's comeback and each time in the second innnings he dig deep a little more. Australia won that series 3-0 despite being behind in all three games. Warne just had to perform on his comeback, history would ask no less of him.

OK I'll make one comparison. Glenn McGrath, great as he is, IMO, couldn't redeem Australia in that 1999 semi final. He couldn't redeem them in Sri Lanka. He couldn't redeem them in the 2005 Ashes (though that may be unfair since he struggled for fitness). Not to say he didn't win Australia an absolute hoard of matches... but a truly great comeback that defends the Aussie reputation is something I don't recall seeing in the McGrath legacy. At Australia's most vital moments, the moments history remembers, Warne did it for Australia. I used McGrath as an example for comparison. But I honestly have never seen any other cricketer, be it a batsman or bowler, in my entire life, who could rise to the occasion.

I mean I think of him the same way I think of Maradonna scoring that goal in 1986... in fact they're very similar in that they were both controversial (both were banned for taking illegal drugs), but both left memories of greatness on the highest stage. Thierry Henry was the best football player in the world for quite a while IMO. I have never seen a finisher like him! But he hasn't quite performed to his highest standard at say the world cup. On the greatest stage of them all, when a hero was needed, Warne was there to redeem Australia.

Like I said, I have little doubt if Warne played for any other team, they would have enjoyed some kind of monumental success. They wouldn't have enjoyed close to the success Australia did, but something of great significance would have happened to them because Warne's the only champion who could rise to the impossible occasion. I think Brian Lara's heroics in 1999 against Australia are the closest any modern cricketer has come to completely redeeming his country with a force of will. Yet another reason why Lara was hard done by not to make my list.

I'm not arguing your stance, just further explaining why Warne was there in my top 3. Certainly he was placed at a contentious spot where, say, Imran Khan wouldn't look out of place... but to me, he is the Maradonna is cricket - controversial, brilliant, and commanding like nobody else when needed the most. Of course he had his moments of mediocrity, but all cricketers do.

 

[Jono]

Aren't the Sobers nay-sayers usually just about his bowling? Even if Sobers had never bowled a ball in his life he'd still be an all-time great, that's what makes him such an incredible cricketer. I just had a quick look at the ICC player rankings page, and Sobers was never ranked outside the top three batsmen in the world between 1958, when he first hit #1, and 1974 when he finally dropped to 5th. It's just an afterthought that he was also ranked in the top 10 bowlers in the world for 12 of those 16 years.

Another ridiculous stat I recall is that in the complete decade of the 1960s, he was the highest run scorer and the second highest wicket taker in tests.

You'd hope so.

But if someone thinks Kallis' record is directly comparable to Sobers in both batting and bowling, and Sobers is 2 or 3 and Kallis isn't even close, surely people would disagree?

For what its worth, I agree with you. Sobers to me is the greatest batsman after Bradman, so just add bowling and fielding and he's easily top 3.

 

[Uppercut]

It's always been a matter of Kallis being wildly underappreciated rather than Sobers not being as good as everyone lets on for me.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I do agree that Kallis doesn't get the respect he deserves in the "all-time" stakes, and I think that will change, but Kallis was never the best batsman in the world in his own era, and I rate Lara, Sachin, Ponting and Dravid higher at least, maybe even Hayden. Sobers was the best batsman of his own time by far and has a fair claim to be the second best after Bradman, and then you can throw in his bowling and fielding which are also better than Kallis, by a similar margin. Whether or not you rate Sobers as the best "all-rounder" based on his bowling exploits, the same critera wouldn't really place Kallis any higher.

Kallis is basically Sobers-lite.

 

[Johnners]

Except he just plain forgot how to bowl after 2002

 

[Uppercut]

I think you're underappreciating him, as is customary with Kallis. There might be better batsmen than him, but none of them actually score more runs, so any measures you use to decide that will always be somewhat superficial. His bowling compares rather favourably to Sobers's too.

More to the point, it's not giving his record the respect it deserves. Over the course of his 14-year career, he's got 10401 test runs, 10409 ODI runs, 258 test wickets and 248 ODI wickets. That's ****ing crazy. If Kallis didn't exist people would say he wasn't possible.

EDIT: Don't think I'm trying to prove anything here, but I think this is quite interesting. The records of batsmen in South Africa over the past 15 years. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;host=3;spanmax1=24+Dec+2009;spanmin1=24+Dec+1994;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[Jono]

I agree Kallis is underrated. Very underrated. So is Pollock. Its a South African thing.

But denigrating Sobers doesn't make anyone appreciate Kallis anymore. Not saying you do it Uppercut, but others do.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't believe I am. But some see an implication that simply by speaking of Kallis in the same breath as Sobers, I'm denigrating Sobers.

I've been misquoted as saying Kallis is better before too.

 

[Jono]

EDIT: Don't think I'm trying to prove anything here, but I think this is quite interesting. The records of batsmen in South Africa over the past 15 years. Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Hussein's record in SA makes that pointless

 

[honestbharani]

To clarify further, the 3 you name were authoritarian leaders and their leadership had different qualities to the one I am praising in Warne.

With Gavaskar, you had a fighter trying to win respect and being unbendable in that regard, from teammate or opponent. With Imran, you had a man who took his country's best talents and solidified them as a team. With Border, you had him leading a side by building the character and spine of a team that would come to dominate later.

With Warne, I am talking about the fact that there were times when everyone around him would just perform better because they knew that either Warne would make something happen or encourage others in a way to play beyond themselves. That's why I use the RR example, because the players were just performing so well and their belief in themselves was tangible - it was Warne-esque confidence, the type you'd see from him in moments when he was playing either Tests or ODIs. I recall a Steve Waugh quote (can't remember the exact words) saying he couldn't believe what Warne did against the WIndies, S.Africa and Pakistan in 99WC tournament...that he felt he was playing with a true legend. It stuck with me considering how much longer Steve Waugh was playing and the fact that he was captain, to be in such awe of his own player.

Also because they never really got along that well too.. Quite amazed Steve said that.. Think that is his way of keeping it quiet.. With Warne, it is more like wear your heart on your sleeve and so end up rating him in the 20s of his top 50 all time cricketers..

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, lacked Watto.

I think even he has grown a big ego now..

 

[honestbharani]

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

If you are talking about being inspirational, a retired Imran Khan coming back and taking the WC is one.. A Kapil Dev inspiring India to a WC win against awesome sides.. Lara coazing out 70 odd runs partnership with Ambrose and Walsh and basically squaring a series almost off his own bat (Walsh and Ambrose helped a lot, ftr) comes close too.


Personally, I am a very VERY big fan of Warne and as my posts reg. him, esp. in the tribute thread would signify. But I rate quite a few others who have been just as good players themselves the same in the being inspirational category and I will never rate him #1.. Bradman just so, so SO much better than the next guy..