Sobers rates Subash Gupte over Shane Warne

[G.I.Joe]

He should defo be in the top 15 at the least. I can't think of 25 cricketers who have had perfect records against every opponent they faced.

 

[Spark]

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

That's pretty extreme. One has to wonder what you need to do to be a top 25 cricketer, because surely "good against India" is not that critical a quality.

 

[weldone]

He should defo be in the top 15 at the least. I can't think of 25 cricketers who have had perfect records against every opponent they faced.

That's not the only criterion by which you judge players, there are quite a few who were better than Warne overall...And I'm talking about cricketers, not bowlers alone. Among bowlers, he'll probably be in my top 15.

 

[Spark]

That's not the only criterion by which you judge players, there are quite a few who were better than Warne overall...And I'm talking about cricketers, not bowlers alone. Among bowlers, he'll probably be in my top 15.

Like whom? Twenty five is a lot of people considering Warne's record against other nations, he didn't exactly leave many holes in that respect.

 

[weldone]

because surely "good against India" is not that critical a quality.

And I don't judge Warne 'only' by that quality. Because if I did that then he wouldn't be in the discussion for top 100. Surely there has been 100 players (if not many many more) throughout the history of cricket who has done better against India than Warne. I'm talking about overall record, and that's my list. You don't have to agree with it.

 

[Ikki]

To be fair to Warne and all spinners, you can't directly compare their stats with fast bowlers. I think it does a huge disservice to both Warne and Murali in terms of just how much better they were than other spinners to simply compare them to run by run and wicket by wicket to the likes of McGrath and Marshall.

 

[Spark]

And I don't judge Warne 'only' by that quality. Because if I did that then he wouldn't be in the discussion for top 100. Surely there has been 100 players (if not many many more) throughout the history of cricket who has done better against India than Warne. I'm talking about overall record, and that's my list. You don't have to agree with it.

But what is this list?

 

[bagapath]

warne won numerous matches on his own running through famed batting lineups; turned countless battles around from hopeless positions with game altering performances and helped his team gain the upper hand again; produced scores and scores of magical moments with the ball that became the highlights of those respective games; and eventually became part of cricket folklore. he did all of this again and again for two decades; at home and away; in asia, in europe, in africa and in australia. he performed his craft with great flair and energy. he made the opponents worry about him. got the fans to cheer and whistle for him. he delighted the purists. he made his countrymen and teammates proud. if he is not among the top 10 cricketers of all time there is no point in making such lists.

 

[weldone]

Like whom? Twenty five is a lot of people considering Warne's record against other nations, he didn't exactly leave many holes in that respect.

You need names of 25? In test cricket alone (of the top of my mind, and in no particular order):

Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes, Muralitharan, Herbert Sutcliffe, Gavaskar, Headley, Vivian Richards, Lara, Miller, Imran, Ames, Ambrose, O'Reilly, McGrath, Lillee, Greg Chappell, Wasim.

And that's my list (and that's without considering giants of the nineteenth century like Grace, Lohmann, Spofforth), you don't have to agree with it (and neither does Bagapath).

 

[Spark]

You need names of 25? In test cricket alone (of the top of my mind, and in no particular order):

Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes, Muralitharan, Herbert Sutcliffe, Gavaskar, Headley, Vivian Richards, Lara, Miller, Imran, Ames, Ambrose, O'Reilly, McGrath, Lillee, Greg Chappell, Wasim.

And that's my list, you don't have to agree with it (and neither does Bagapath).

Fair enough, just wanted to be clear you knew what you were talking about because that's a big call to make.

 

[weldone]

if he is not among the top 10 cricketers of all time there is no point in making such lists.

I heard this thing being said about 30 cricketers, at the very least. Unfortunately, a list of top 10 cricketers consists only 10 cricketers (I wish otherwise!). And everyone has his/her own list. So, place Warne within top 10 in your list and stay happy. And be assured that I won't question the point of making your list (neither will Sobers ).

 

[bagapath]

Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes, Muralitharan, Herbert Sutcliffe, Gavaskar, Headley, Vivian Richards, Lara, Miller, Imran, Ames, Ambrose, O'Reilly, McGrath, Lillee, Greg Chappell, Wasim.

And that's my list (and that's without considering giants of the nineteenth century like Grace, Lohmann, Spofforth), you don't have to agree with it (and neither does Bagapath).

fair enough. they all are giants of the game, for sure. but warne in my books is superior to most but a handful of them.

 

[bagapath]

I heard this thing being said about 30 cricketers, at the very least. Unfortunately, a list of top 10 cricketers consists only 10 cricketers (I wish otherwise!). And everyone has his/her own list.

i think u r hanging out with indecisive cricket fans.

So, place Warne within top 10 in your list and stay happy. And be assured that I won't question the point of making such a list.

if we share our respective lists but don't argue about them then what is the point in coming to this forum? of course, i will question your list and you should tear mine apart if you don't agree with me. disagreeing on cricket won't kill anyone, dude.

 

[weldone]

To be fair to Warne and all spinners, you can't directly compare their stats with fast bowlers. I think it does a huge disservice to both Warne and Murali in terms of just how much better they were than other spinners to simply compare them to run by run and wicket by wicket to the likes of McGrath and Marshall.

True, spinners would generally have higher average than fast bowlers, and better longevity. Where did I compare Warne's average with the fast bowlers? If I did, he wouldn't come within anywhere near where I'm suggesting, and that would be unfair.

 

[GotSpin]

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.

I said oh dear because I can just see the path that this thread is going to head down now not that he isn't entitled to his own opinion Has occurred in about five thousand other threads

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?

IMO Warne > Murali for me, but I don't think Warne would be in my top 5 all time cricketers, top 10 probably though but I don't like making definitive lists because I'm always worried I'll leave out obvious candidates.

 

[weldone]

fair enough. they all are giants of the game, for sure. but warne in my books is superior to most but a handful of them.

And we read different books nowadays.

 

[Teja.]

To be fair to Warne and all spinners, you can't directly compare their stats with fast bowlers. I think it does a huge disservice to both Warne and Murali in terms of just how much better they were than other spinners to simply compare them to run by run and wicket by wicket to the likes of McGrath and Marshall.

Umm, 6 wpm @ 22.7 stands up and trumps any fast bowler who has bowled in the last 80 years or so pretty objectively as far as pure statistics is concerned tbh. People might consider Warne to be comparable to pacers because they feel he was much more than his statistics suggest but Murali is completely another matter.

 

[GotSpin]

That's not the only criterion by which you judge players, there are quite a few who were better than Warne overall...And I'm talking about cricketers, not bowlers alone. Among bowlers, he'll probably be in my top 15.

I think it's pretty clear you don't rate Warne because he didn't do well against India even though I'm not sure why that's the measuring pole, despite his otherwise superb record. You can just come out and blatantly say it

 

[weldone]

i think u r hanging out with indecisive cricket fans.

if we share our respective lists but don't argue about them then what is the point in coming to this forum? of course, i will question your list and you should tear mine apart if you don't agree with me. disagreeing on cricket won't kill anyone, dude.

No, I'm hanging out with many cricket fans. Some of them suggest Warne, Lillee and Richards are Gods. Some of them suggest Tendulkar is better than Bradman. Some of them suggest Larwood and Trumper were better than anyone today. Some of them suggest Grace is twice as good as Bradman. None of them is indecisive. They stick to what they say (like you), just that some have the courtesy not to ask the point of making my list when their favorite cricketers are not there.

I'll never tear your list apart (unless you have someone like Vettori or Ntini at the top, and omit Bradman). I may argue, but I won't suggest the list being pointless, and neither would Sobers.

 

[GotSpin]

No, I'm hanging out with many cricket fans. Some of them suggest Warne, Lillee and Richards are Gods. Some of them suggest Tendulkar is better than Bradman. Some of them suggest Larwood and Trumper were better than anyone today. Some of them suggest Grace is twice as good as Bradman. None of them is indecisive. They stick to what they say (like you), just that some have the courtesy not to ask the point of making my list when their favorite cricketers are not there.

I'll never tear your list apart (unless you have someone like Vettori or Ntini at the top, and omit Bradman). I may argue, but I won't suggest the list being pointless, and neither would Sobers.

It's a forum. Not a kids playground with milk and honey. If I disagree with a list you've publicly made I'm going to come right out and **** on it, especially If i think it's bad