Allan Donald vs Joel Garner

[subshakerz]

That's fine. I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously the Indian batting was the greatest challenge of Warne's career. However, 4 out of the 5 test series he played against them were at times when he was nowhere near his best. Perhaps his best against them was a 30 average. However, I don't think it's fair at all to think his overall record against them is indicative of anything except timing.

I remember discussing Warne with mates in 2002 and we were convinced his shoulder surgery had turned him from the GOAT to patchy bowler at best. It really wasn't until his sustained run of form after his drug ban that he was performing near his best (and he really was a better bowler in the early period while being smarter in the later period).

Yes, Tendulkar's slump wasn't indicative of his entire career. But then he didn't play the majority of his cricket against England (for example) in that window of time.

The funny thing is that Imran Khan often gets slightly downgraded by posters as a bowler despite having phases of his career (1971-74 and 89-92) when he wasn't really a frontline bowler at all which affected his overall figures. But I accept that in the overall assessment these periods have to be taken into account, as do periods when injuries may affect form ala Botham and Tendulkar. In Warne's case, it's not even clear given the evidence that injuries were the reason for poor figures. We have to concede that he basically was a failure against the strongest batting lineup for spin in his era.

 

[Burgey]

It's not really that funny though

 

[subshakerz]

Back on the topic of the thread, wouldn't crossing the 300 wicket threshold be a fair dividing line between separating an ATG like Donald from Garner?

 

[Burgey]

No. It's a stupid metric. Is Brett Lee averaging 30 a better bowler than Jason Gillespie averaging 27 because the former took 310 wickets vs 260 odd or whatever it is?

FFS watch the game as well as the spreadsheet. This is embarrassing.

 

[stephen]

Back on the topic of the thread, wouldn't crossing the 300 wicket threshold be a fair dividing line between separating an ATG like Donald from Garner?

Brett Lee requests your location.

 

[stephen]

Do we judge cricketers only by the best phases of their career though? Maybe it was bad luck that his series against India coincided with bad form in his career but that is just part of the game.

It is and it was obviously part of his career. The reason it needs explanations though is because there are (mostly Indian) posters who use Warne's record against them to suggest that he wasn't as good as he actually was for the majority of his career.

 

[stephen]

The funny thing is that Imran Khan often gets slightly downgraded by posters as a bowler despite having phases of his career (1971-74 and 89-92) when he wasn't really a frontline bowler at all which affected his overall figures. But I accept that in the overall assessment these periods have to be taken into account, as do periods when injuries may affect form ala Botham and Tendulkar. In Warne's case, it's not even clear given the evidence that injuries were the reason for poor figures. We have to concede that he basically was a failure against the strongest batting lineup for spin in his era.

Imran Khan is more often marked down for things other than that though - mostly his home/ away differential and the completely legitimate and unbiased home umpiring during his era.

 

[subshakerz]

No. It's a stupid metric. Is Brett Lee averaging 30 a better bowler than Jason Gillespie averaging 27 because the former took 310 wickets vs 260 odd or whatever it is?

FFS watch the game as well as the spreadsheet. This is embarrassing.

I mentioned if it's a mark of separation in the context of ATGs. I mean, if not 300, then what is the minimum, 100 wickets? 200?

 

[stephen]

I mentioned if it's a mark of separation in the context of ATGs. I mean, if not 300, then what is the minimum, 100 wickets? 200?

Enough to be within 50% of the most prolific wicket takers of your era is probably a good rule of thumb.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran Khan is more often marked down for things other than that though - mostly his home/ away differential and the completely legitimate and unbiased home umpiring during his era.

His home/away differential is impacted by those off periods of his bowling career though.

In Warne's case, honestly it sounds like special pleading. I think his defenders should just admit he failed against India though he was not as bad as the figures suggest.

 

[Burgey]

Why does there need to be a set minimum though? There's context to everything. Garner missed two years of his career due to WSC. Donald missed some due to apartheid. If he'd missed two more seasons for that reason and "only" took 280 test wickets, would you exclude him from discussion as an ATG for SA? This seems weird. They played less matches in previous eras than they do now. Sydney Barnes played 27 tests. Victor Trumper scored less than 4K runs. They're both still ATGs.

 

[honestbharani]

Noted surgeon Richie Benaud

*spin doctor

 

[stephen]

His home/away differential is impacted by those off periods of his bowling career though.

In Warne's case, honestly it sounds like special pleading. I think his defenders should just admit he failed against India though he was not as bad as the figures suggest.

He was genuinely inconsistent and underperformed during that middle stint in his career. Which should be held against him. The flipside of that is that his peak periods were genuinely ridiculously amazing.

Often his stats against India are used in Warne vs Murali arguments and it's pretty low hanging fruit for those discussions. Which is honestly about as ridiculous as Warne fans complaining about Murali taking so many wickets against minnows. Both were fantastic bowlers who genuinely struggled in India and the only way to suggest with a straight face that both bowlers weren't the best at their respective crafts is to focus on streaks of (mis)fortune that they endured.

 

[ankitj]

Back on the topic of the thread, wouldn't crossing the 300 wicket threshold be a fair dividing line between separating an ATG like Donald from Garner?

I mentally do that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You can explain it away all you want with injury reasons but Warne played several series against India and the best one by far he barely managed to average 30 in a series where he still didn't look as good as India's spinners. That one test where warne bowled well and took 6-150 odd? Kumble picked up 13 wickets. And literally every other series he played vs India, he wasn't just mediocre, he was arguably the worst bowler on show from either side.

He was often out-bowled by not just India's bowlers but by other mediocre spinners Australia had picked.

1992 is the one I'm willing to excuse because he clearly hadn't developed completely yet. But actually had a worse bowling series than Sachin lmao



1998 - Comprehensively out-bowled by Gavin ****ing Robertson:



1999- Was bashed around in a series where India had one of their worst performing batting lineups ever. India were getting demolished by McGrath and Lee and Warne still couldnt do a job. Ajit Agarkar had a better series :



2001- Basically lost them the series singlehandedly and out-bowled by Colin Miller:



2004- The only non embarrassing Warne series vs India. Decent effort but still not as good statistically in comparison to almost every other bowler in that series from either side.



To be clear, everyone does have a bogey side. But it is very rare to have a bogey side against whom you never had a single great series and were often the single worst performer on either side. The statistical output above is not just bad it would be genuinely embarrassing for a non-Srinath 90s Indian fast bowler. The real "injury" problem was that he shrank like a mouse every time he saw an Indian batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

You can explain it away all you want with injury reasons but Warne played several series against India and the best one by far he barely managed to average 30 in a series where he still didn't look as good as India's spinners. That one test where warne bowled well and took 6-150 odd? Kumble picked up 13 wickets. And literally every other series he played vs India, he wasn't just mediocre, he was arguably the worst bowler on show from either side.

He was often out-bowled by not just India's bowlers but by other mediocre spinners Australia had picked.

1992 is the one I'm willing to excuse because he clearly hadn't developed completely yet. But actually had a worse bowling series than Sachin lmao

View attachment 29866

1998 - Comprehensively out-bowled by Gavin ****ing Robertson:

View attachment 29867

1999- Was bashed around in a series where India had one of their worst performing batting lineups ever. India were getting demolished by McGrath and Lee and Warne still couldnt do a job. Ajit Agarkar had a better series :

View attachment 29869

2001- Basically lost them the series singlehandedly and out-bowled by Colin Miller:

View attachment 29868

2004- The only non embarrassing Warne series vs India. Decent effort but still not as good statistically in comparison to almost every other bowler in that series from either side.

View attachment 29870

To be clear, everyone does have a bogey side. But it is very rare to have a bogey side against whom you never had a single great series and were often the single worst performer on either side. The statistical output above is not just bad it would be genuinely embarrassing for a non-Srinath 90s Indian fast bowler. The real "injury" problem was that he shrank like a mouse every time he saw an Indian batsman.

Ok....

but how many fingernails were broken?

 

[anil1405]

I blame ACB for not scheduling a series against India when Warne was fit, not taking banned substance and wasn't a rookie.

 

[stephen]

Thing is OS, none of what you say in any way contradicts what I said. Doesn't it make sense that if he being out bowled by crap spinners then there's an indication of something wrong?

Indian wickets do favour faster, more into the turf types of spin bowling, it's true, but surely nobody is making the argument that Gavin Robertson was in any way near Warne's quality.

There probably was something of a psychological element to Warne's performances against India, but by far the larger factor was injury, as evidenced by the fact that his average in the era he played his Tests against India being 20% higher than the rest of his career without including the India series'. Any fear of India doesn't explain a series against the West Indies where he averaged 150, or against New Zealand where he averaged 70.

The main argument I'm making is that Warne's record against India was as much a product of circumstance as anything else. That's not to say it shouldn't count against him, only that context matters.

 

[Migara]

Thing is OS, none of what you say in any way contradicts what I said. Doesn't it make sense that if he being out bowled by crap spinners then there's an indication of something wrong?

Indian wickets do favour faster, more into the turf types of spin bowling, it's true, but surely nobody is making the argument that Gavin Robertson was in any way near Warne's quality.

There probably was something of a psychological element to Warne's performances against India, but by far the larger factor was injury, as evidenced by the fact that his average in the era he played his Tests against India being 20% higher than the rest of his career without including the India series'. Any fear of India doesn't explain a series against the West Indies where he averaged 150, or against New Zealand where he averaged 70.

The main argument I'm making is that Warne's record against India was as much a product of circumstance as anything else. That's not to say it shouldn't count against him, only that context matters.

That doesn't explain the flogging he received in ODIs from Indians.

 

[honestbharani]

The main argument I'm making is that Warne's record against India was as much a product of circumstance as anything else.

Every cricket performance ever is a product of circumstance.