Sobers rates Subash Gupte over Shane Warne

[weldone]

I think you really need to read what Sobers has said. He didn't say that Warnie was crap. He said

"Someone who is called great from today's game is Shane Warne, but I have got my reservations about Shane, I think he is a great bowler, but I'm not sure how well he compares with spinners overall.I think people get carried away with this man's ability as he hardly ever bowled a good googly.To me, Shane Warne is a great turner of the ball. I like his aggressive attitude, I love the way he attacks batsmen and I give him 100 per cent for that as not enough spinners bowl with that approach, but in my estimation Subhash Gupte was a better leg-spinner."

That's the nice description about Warne, and one with which I agree completely, of course except the last part where he calls Gupte a better bowler. I think what Sobers wanted to say here is that because Warne didn't have a great googly, most of the times he used to pitch the legspinners around leg-stump and turn towards off-stump. Whenever a legspinner pitches the ball around legstump, there shouldn't be any doubt in the batsman's mind (unless they are the English or Kiwi batsmen of the 90's ) that it is going to be a leg-spin, and not a wrong-un. Of course, Warne was a great turner of the ball, that's why batsmen were often beaten in spite of knowing which way the ball is going to spin. Sobers, being a purist, probably likes those legspinners more whom the batsmen can't read from the hand, and who pitch the ball around off-stump so that batsmen have no idea which way the ball is going to spin from its trajectory too, till the last moment.

Of course, Sobers didn't mention anything about Warne's flippers, which was undoubtedly his greatest strength by far. Warney's use of flippers is the best I've seen (even better than Benaud), and probably unmatched by anyone except the father of flippers, Clarrie Grimmett himself.

 

[bagapath]

I heard Sachin rates Harbajan over Warney.

then sachin is a dickhead.... anyone mentioning bhajji and warne in the same sentence should rinse his mouth with nitric acid

 

[weldone]

Sachin never rated Bhajji over Warne.

In fact, Sachin rates Warne quite highly in spite of owning him. So much that I'm not quite sure about whom between Murali and Warne he rates higher.

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah fairly sure Akilna was trolling

 

[Xuhaib]

read once that Sachin rated Saqlain higher then Warne but most probably that opinion must have changed since then.

 

[weldone]

The best time to know which player rated which player where is after all of them have retired.

Of course in 1998, there were many who rated Mohinder Amarnath (and even Sanjay Manjrekar) over Rahul Dravid. That doesn't mean anything eventually.

 

[ankitj]

Agree with Sobers that Warne is overrated. Don't know about Gupte but Murali is certainly a better spinner. Warne's record against the best players of spine is outright pathetic. While Murali's is not great either, but he has played a winning role in more than a couple of tests and ODIs. Warne hasn't done anything substantial in ANY match against India to influence the result.

As an Indian supporter I never felt jitters when Warne came on to bowl. In fact it was a relief of the kind you feel when a part timer comes on to bowl. Many batsmen like Jayawardane and Yusuf are denied the tag of greatness for not having done well against the best bowling. Why is the same logic applied to Warne? Is it just because he got to play in Ashes?

Many lists of all time great cricketers put Warne in top 5, and that's ridiculous over-rating.

 

[thierry henry]

Ex-sportsmen are usually quite dumb.

[/forum]

 

[weldone]

Many batsmen like Jayawardane and Yusuf are denied the tag of greatness for not having done well against the best bowling. Why is the same logic applied to Warne?

Probably because many batsmen of the last 30/50 years did what Jayawardene and Yusuf couldn't. But there weren't many (if any) spinners in the last 30/50 years who did do what Warne couldn't.

Probably had Warne been a fast bowler having similar overall average and similar average against India, he would not be considered where he is, now. But you have to understand that among spinners of the last 50 years or so, Warne (and Murali) has achieved something spectacular, indeed.

Having said that, I won't keep him anywhere near my list of best 5 cricketers of all-time, as you said some people might do. Cheers

 

[GotSpin]

Agree with Sobers that Warne is overrated. Don't know about Gupte but Murali is certainly a better spinner. Warne's record against the best players of spine is outright pathetic. While Murali's is not great either, but he has played a winning role in more than a couple of tests and ODIs. Warne hasn't done anything substantial in ANY match against India to influence the result.

As an Indian supporter I never felt jitters when Warne came on to bowl. In fact it was a relief of the kind you feel when a part timer comes on to bowl. Many batsmen like Jayawardane and Yusuf are denied the tag of greatness for not having done well against the best bowling. Why is the same logic applied to Warne? Is it just because he got to play in Ashes?

Many lists of all time great cricketers put Warne in top 5, and that's ridiculous over-rating.

oh dear

 

[Matt79]

Nah, that's fair enough. People are entitled to their opinion, and obviously Indian fans probably did fear Warne less than most because relatively he struggled against them.

 

[weldone]

Didn't fear him at all, tbh. Feared all Aussie fast bowlers more than him. I remember especially in several ODIs I wished that Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly can see off the first 15-20 overs without losing too many wickets (and without making more than 3 rpo) because always knew that making runs wouldn't be a problem once the spinners come.

Whether that was the case, I don't know. But that surely was the feeling among most Indian fans. There was no fear-factor associated with Warne when we played against Australia. The feeling was just the opposite while playing ODIs against SL. I always wanted quick runs in the first few overs before the spinners came. Of course, this has got something to do with the relative strength of the pace attacks.

 

[ankitj]

oh dear

Reason to be so amazed? It's not an overstatement to say that Murali is better or that Warne does not belong in top 5 all time cricketers?

 

[G.I.Joe]

McGrath made me **** my pants so much, he should have been classified as a purgative.

Warne was more of a placebo initially. And when it became clear he wasn't effective at all, I would say he attained homoeopathic pill status

 

[ankitj]

Probably because many batsmen of the last 30/50 years did what Jayawardene and Yusuf couldn't. But there weren't many (if any) spinners in the last 30/50 years who did do what Warne couldn't.

Probably had Warne been a fast bowler having similar overall average and similar average against India, he would not be considered where he is, now. But you have to understand that among spinners of the last 50 years or so, Warne (and Murali) has achieved something spectacular, indeed.

Having said that, I won't keep him anywhere near my list of best 5 cricketers of all-time, as you said some people might do. Cheers

That's my point too. And no, I am not saying that as a bowler Warne is at same level as Jayawardene as Yusuf.

 

[weldone]

He might make my list of top 35-40 cricketers, though.

 

[Jono]

Lol, Warne is definitely in the top 40 cricketers of all time. Come on now.

 

[Matt79]

Reason to be so amazed? It's not an overstatement to say that Murali is better or that Warne does not belong in top 5 all time cricketers?

It's incorrect to say that IMO (the "not in top five" thing), but that's the nice thing about the game, it produces a diversity of opinion.

 

[weldone]

Lol, Warne is definitely in the top 40 cricketers of all time. Come on now.

Yeah, probably. Not in top 25 in my list, surely though.

 

[Ikki]

What problems did he have with Warne? I haven't heard of those sms being intended to be sent to Sobers before they were actually sent to Warne. Have you?

On a serious note, he doesn't have a problem with Warne. Even in that article, he says that all of the success of Waugh's team was because of McGrath and Warne.

Huh? I didn't say he had a problem with Warne. I am talking about Warne's obvious problems with Waugh and Gilchrist. I said even though I love Warne, I don't take his opinion on those players very seriously merely because he was an awesome cricketer. Just like how I don't take Sir Garry's opinion re Waugh's team not being able to win even one test against Lloyd's seriously. Just like how I don't take his opinion re Gupte being better than Warne seriously - especially for the Googly reason.