Best cricketer for this decade ?

[Ikki]

dont say this again ikki. it is very insulting. i have written before clearly that indians were never bothered by any leg spinner for the past two decades and more. and that pace bowlers and off spinners have got the better of them both in india and abroad. warne failed against them because his craft means nothing to them. you never responded to those posts because you could not argue against that logic. now u r coming back to question my integrity????

also by writing about west indies of the 80s failing against leggies i have explained my position clearly that one blot doesnt mean i consider warne any less than i would if he had a perfect record against india. still u question my integrity! this has to stop now.

There hadn't been a leg-spinner like Warne for 70 years. He is light years ahead of every leggie since then; so the others have not been comparable. Whether a leg spinner didn't bother you guys for the last 20 was completely irrelevant. That is something I am quite certain you know, yet for some reason keep ignoring. Why?

u cant give excuses for 12 years. to anybody. definitely not for warne. he failed against india. period.

See, here's the thing, he didn't play India consistently for 12 years. He played the grand majority of his tests against them in 3 years; the same period he was injured. Why do you keep resorting to these fallacies?

 

[bagapath]

I guess saying "they slaughter spinners at will" and that they could play him "in their sleep" was you being modest about their talents. You call it a big IF to suggest Warne would have bettered his record in the test he missed at Mumbai; even though Clarke and Hauritz took you guys to the cleaners on the same pitch.

dont lie ikki. i have always been careful about highlighting indians' success only against leg spinners. why clarke and hauritz? indians folded against saqlain and murali as well. but they have slaughtered leg spinners. just prove me wrong! dont twist my words to your benefit. this is utter dishonesty.

 

[aussie]

Mann this all stats yo, i can chip through this easily.

Now, Aussie bowlers average 32.64 in India, which is very respectable.

Warne averages 43.1 on this basis. His average is 8.5 runs worse than the composite average.

So what is this comparison suppose to prove?. As i've said & i'm sure many have said in over the years in CW, Warne was out of form, injured & lacked bowling support between his tours to IND between 98-01.

If Warne had the bowling support he had in 2004 especially in 98 (since he was fit then) - he would have done better clearly. In 2001 if he wasn't injured things also would have gone better. The only relevant statiscal average when judging Warne at his best (with bowling support in IND) in 2004 where he was decent.

But on other hand SL bowlers average 43.96 in India which is dire. But Murali does well even when the support is crap. He averages 39.58 in India, 4 runs better than his support.

Again really dont see the logic for comparing the overall team bowling performance with the bowler. Plus how is averaging 39.58 doing well in any circumstances?

There is no way Murali would have done better than Warne in 98 (when Warne was fit) with that awful AUS pace attack - given that in the year before in 94 & 97 - Mural also was equally poor with no support. (Although based on cricinfo reports it seems like those 97 pitches where dead roads)

Both Warne & Murali hadd their best performances in IND 04 & 05 respectively because they had support. Warne with the great pacio trio & Murali with Vaas.

The real difference lies there. If Murali had the Aussie fast men bowling for him in india, he would have taken lesser wickets, but at much lesser cost, with a better average.

Not really. If the AUS pace attack bowled like how they bowled in 04, just like how Warne basically didn't have much work to do until he was needed. Murali would have been a passenger.

 

[Ikki]

dont lie ikki. i have always been careful about highlighting indians' success only against leg spinners. why clarke and hauritz? indians folded against saqlain and murali as well. but they have slaughtered leg spinners. just prove me wrong! dont twist my words to your benefit. this is utter dishonesty.

Cameron White is a leg-spinner, and so is Warne. But they are not comparable. In fact, neither are the good ones like Qadir, Kumble, Chandra, Benaud, and many many others. These guys are a distance off Warne. They may all be leg-spinners, but India's history of playing good leg-spinners stops with Warne - for the last leg spinner that was as good as Warne was around they had just started playing test cricket and Hitler was in power.

 

[aussie]

true. that is why i say indians play leg spin exceptionally well and you cant beat them with it. many pace bowlers have bowled out india. saqlain won the chennai test in 99 with a ten wicket haul. so off spin is also effective against them.

Good pace bowlers - not just any. I do agree off-spin is more effective againts IND. But at least saqlain in 99 had some support & was fit/in form. Warne didn't have either in 98 & 2001

but no leg spinner - warne included - could beat india. fit, injured, well-supported or not, warne would always have failed - and he did - against the indian teams of his time.

Excuse me what happened in 2004 then?

6 for 125 is not "taking charge". just bowling out the bulk of overs and getting wickets in the process. i saw this day's cricket live. he bowled beautifully. but no indian batsman was troubled by him. leg spin is like dal, roti for them. they can whack it in their sleep.

Haa i like the dal & roti comparison, one of my favourite foods TBH. Anyway back to the debate.

By "taking charge" i dont mean he spun webs around IND like Murali's 7/100 in 2005. I saw that whole bowling performace on TV while you where at the ground & the pitch was very flat & the fast bowlers for the only time in the series wasn't that penetrative. If Warne didn't take charge by controlling the rate of scoring, while chippin the odd wickets IND would have certainly could have made 450.

why resort to this excuse? just say you believe sobers had diarrhea every time he played new zealand, just like warne was always injured when he played india in his 15 year test career (or he was too raw, or he was not well supported or others took all the wickets). might as well insult all the greats if you are pulling down one!

Its not whether i believe it nor is it an excuse. Those are the FACTS of Warne's career while he was playing againts IND between 98 to 2001 - some like yourself for some reason refuse to accept this.

On Sobers that record vs NZ doesn't mean anything. NZ clearly had no bowling attack in 50s & 60s to trouble him, its just one of those things.

Ricky Ponting has a ODI record of 30 vs WI, the worst againts all major teams. WI have never had a serious ODI bowling attack in trouble him. Many players have this, just a statistical odity.

 

[Ikki]

Warne in 98 (when Warne was fit)

Warne wasn't fit in 98, that's when he had his shoulder injury. IIRC, Benaud said they opened him up and saw his shoulder was being held together by a string. He had surgery in April of that year.

 

[bagapath]

Cameron White is a leg-spinner, and so is Warne. But they are not comparable. In fact, neither are the good ones like Qadir, Kumble, Chandra, Benaud, and many many others. These guys are a distance off Warne. They may all be leg-spinners, but India's history of playing good leg-spinners stops with Warne - for the last leg spinner that was as good as Warne was around they had just started playing test cricket and Hitler was in power.

no. they folded against benaud big time. benaud in fact had his brush with greatness bowling in india. and this a good 15 years after hiter died.

if mumbai 2004 test is going to be brought into discussion i have too many problems with it. first of all warne didnt play in it. i am not interested in ifs and buts. second, i dont think it was a test match wicket. i am not even proud of india's win in that match. third, it would lead to someone claiming murali karthik as a wonderful spinner in test cricket who had the aussies by the neck. which is ofcourse, rubbish. lets talk about what happened. warne failed against india, thats what happened.

 

[Ikki]

no. they folded against benaud big time. benaud in fact had his brush with greatness bowling in india. and this a good 15 years after hiter died.

if mumbai 2004 test is going to be brought into discussion i have too many problems with it. first of all warne didnt play in it. i am not interested in ifs and buts. second, i dont think it was a test match wicket. i am not even proud of india's win in that match. third, it would lead to someone claiming murali karthik as a wonderful spinner in test cricket who had the aussies by the neck. which is ofcourse, rubbish. lets talk about what happened. warne failed against india, thats what happened.

You said 20 years, Benaud played cricket some 50 years ago. If anything, you are proving my point. The reason I didn't bring up Benaud was for the obvious fact that India had completely different batsmen/team. Benaud isn't near as good as Warne, yet had success.

I mean, again, look at the bolded part. I am not sure why you get insulted, when I see that as being intellectually dishonest. I think you know Warne would have likely had success on that pitch but you just don't want to admit it summing it up as an "if", rather than a likely event.

You yourself say Kartik did much better than a bowler of his skill would do, also knowing that Clarke and Hauritz spun India off the pitch...yet you have a hard time imagining Warne doing so - who is infinitely better than them - because it is an "if". Well then, why are we arguing this? It's clear if we cannot agree on this very simply thing, then we aren't going to convince each other of anything. And since when is averaging 30, striking at 60 for a series in India a failure? That's the best Murali's ever done there.

 

[subshakerz]

Irrelevant really since Warne at his best never played IND in AUS.

But overall i do agree Murali did give IND more difficulty that Warne.

Its too bad Warne got injured before he played on the most spinner friendly deck in that 04/05 series in Mumbai. Since he would have certainly spun webs around IND & his critics would quiet now.

I don't think Murali's matchwinning performances against India at home in 2001 and 2008 should be dismissed as irrelevant. At least he could win matches against India. Warne never showed that ability even when he was fit in 1998 or 2004. If there is a single distinction between Warne and Murali, it is that only one of them could really trouble the best players of spin, and that's a fact.

 

[aussie]

sure. but warne being a leggie would not have been able to. he would have been taken to cleaners by the indian batters anyway.

Ha Get the phuk outta here man. IND play leg-spin good yea, but dont exaggerate & get biased. Their is no way given the way the AUS pacers in that series had blown away INDs batting - that one such a bowler friendly - where the only time ANY batsman looked comfortable was when that Tendy/Laxman partnership was going - Warne given his ability would not have taken alot of wickets on that pitch.

if you talk about "if" s and "but"s my guess is as good as yours. if warne played on a totally spin friendly wicket.... if he were fully fit... if he had supporting bowlers who were superb, but did not take all the wickets.... if the indian batters were suffering from food poisoning......

Crap...

just talk about what actually happened. what really happened was hollywood was a colossal flop against bollywood.

I am talking about what happened. There is no sensible logic to dispute that Warne would not have taken alot of wickets in 2004 Mumbai test regardless of how good IND play spin. That was one pitch that was abnormally in favour of the bowlers.

Continously saying things like Warne was a colossal flop againts IND while ignorning the facts is just getting ridiculous. Unfortunately over the years i think you have developed a stark ideological position on Warne's bowling in IND, just like that of Ponting's batting in IND - that i fear regardless of how much facts i brought to you wont budge..

 

[Ikki]

I don't think Murali's matchwinning performances against India at home in 2001 and 2008 should be dismissed as irrelevant. At least he could win matches against India. Warne never showed that ability even when he was fit in 1998 or 2004. If there is a single distinction between Warne and Murali, it is that only one of them could really trouble the best players of spin, and that's a fact.

Had Warne bowled on Sri Lankan pitches against India you might have had a point.

 

[bagapath]

I saw that whole bowling performace on TV while you where at the ground & the pitch was very flat & the fast bowlers for the only time in the series wasn't that penetrative.

while i disagree with what you claim as warne's impact on the game, i have to share what i saw that day.

the day was to start with irffan and sehwag at the crease with dravid, laxman and ganguly to follow. australia had warne and mcgrath in the attack. gilly, of course, was keeping wickets. most of the chennai cricket fans i know were not going to pass up this opportunity of witnessing so many great/very good players on the ground at the same time. the stands were full an hour before play. i had pulled some strings and was seated right in the middle of the members stand.

irrfan hit warne for a six and then became his world record victim. chennai crowds, traditionally as cricket crazy as barbados, lords, sydney or the oval, stood up to applaud the great man's moment of glory. in walked dravid. and sehwag opened up. what followed was a wonderful display of dazzling stroke play, strategic bowling and intelligent field placements - all in bright sunshine and totally supported and enjoyed by the full house. mark waugh was sitting with the aussie supporters not too far off from me. and i knew he enjoyed every minute of the day as much as anyone. it was heaven on earth.

but one memory i would always carry with me from that day, the point of this whole post, and that is of shane keith warne bowling his heart out. the champ knew he had not done well against india and that he had to do something special to not have that regret once his career finished. he varied his length, changed the angle, controlled the flight, played around with his pace, shifted the fielders around, kept varying his line. all with the precision of a supreme architect but never, not even once, without a touch of magic. his style, energy and aura filled the entire stadium throughout his long spell. had the pitch been less flatter and had the batsmen been less comfortable with his type of bowling, he would have had even more success on that day. this must be as good as his match winning spells elsewhere in the world. it didnt get that kind of result for his team but still, it was good to see him look pleased with a five wicket haul against his greatest nemesis and walk away cheered by his teammates. i dont expect to see a greater exhibition of test match bowling in my life.

 

[aussie]

Warne wasn't fit in 98, that's when he had his shoulder injury. IIRC, Benaud said they opened him up and saw his shoulder was being held together by a string. He had surgery in April of that year.

Nah man i'm very sure Warne went into the 98 series fit, i remember it like yesterday. That shoulder injury came after that series.

My argument about Warne's failures in 98 was because he didn't have no support he basically had to perform the impossible task of being the attacking & defensive bowler all series. Which vs IND @ Home is always a recipe for disaster thus he was smashed.

 

[Ikki]

Nah man i'm very sure Warne went into the 98 series fit, i remember it like yesterday. That shoulder injury came after that series.

My argument about Warne's failures in 98 was because he didn't have no support he basically had to perform the impossible task of being the attacking & defensive bowler all series. Which vs IND @ Home is always a recipe for disaster thus he was smashed.

Indian series was in March, the operation was in April. He was complaining about it on tour and that is when they opened him up and saw he needed surgery. So I am pretty sure his shoulder was buggered in March too.

 

[bagapath]

You yourself say Kartik did much better than a bowler of his skill would do, also knowing that Clarke and Hauritz spun India off the pitch...yet you have a hard time imagining Warne doing so - who is infinitely better than them - because it is an "if". Well then, why are we arguing this? It's clear if we cannot agree on this very simply thing, then we aren't going to convince each other of anything. And since when is averaging 30, striking at 60 for a series in India a failure? That's the best Murali's ever done there.

dont say get the **** out of here to me, ikki. it is not in good taste.

clarke and murali are finger spinners. warne is not. if you remember, even kumble was brought on to bowl on that pitch much much later in the innings because that dust bowl was responding to the grip and bounce of finger spinners. wrist spin would not have mattered much, and not to indians anyway. even if he had done well in that game it would have meant as much as murali karthik's spell! still, warne didnt play in the game. why bring it into the discussion?

 

[Ikki]

dont say get the **** out of here to me, ikki. it is not in good taste.

I didn't mate.

clarke and murali are finger spinners. warne is not. if you remember, even kumble was brought on to bowl on that pitch much much later in the innings because that dust bowl was responding to the grip and bounce of finger spinners. wrist spin would not have mattered much, and not to indians anyway. even if he had done well in that game it would have meant as much as murali karthik's spell! still, warne didnt play in the game. why bring it into the discussion?

And you say I am coming with the excuses. Murali is as much a finger spinner as I am a world-class footballer. And Clarke...geezus. Let's let this one go.

 

[bagapath]

Continously saying things like Warne was a colossal flop againts IND while ignorning the facts is just getting ridiculous. Unfortunately over the years i think you have developed a stark ideological position on Warne's bowling in IND, just like that of Ponting's batting in IND - that i fear regardless of how much facts i brought to you wont budge..

ponting and warne are not the same. ponting has been extremely successful against india in australia. he has failed in india. warne has failed against india everywhere. the difference being ponting has not come to terms with indian pitches and so he has failed repeatedly. whereas indians cant be bothered by leg spin. so warne could not succeed against them. these are totally different issues.

 

[Ikki]

ponting and warne are not the same. ponting has been extremely successful against india in australia. he has failed in india. warne has failed against india everywhere. the difference being ponting has not come to terms with indian pitches and so he has failed repeatedly. whereas indians cant be bothered by leg spin. so warne could not succeed against them. these are totally different issues.

You're right, they're not the same, but that's not the reason. Warne played India home and away during those 3 years - in fact, he did better in India than at home. Whereas Ponting was never really out of it like Warne and simply didn't play well there, for whatever reason. Anyway, we've totally hijacked the thread, so for once I'll be the first to let it get back to what it was really about.

 

[bagapath]

I didn't mate.



And you say I am coming with the excuses. Murali is as much a finger spinner as I am a world-class footballer. And Clarke...geezus. Let's let this one go.

that pitch was dung heap. anyone who tweaked the ball with fingers was getting a bite off it. kumble wasnt brought on for a long time because wrist spin was not going to work on it. murali and clarke are crap and they got wickets. we are not bunching them with verity or bedi because that performace meant nothing.

my point is simple. warne would not have made a big impact. because it was not a leg spinner's wicket and because leg spinners dont win matches against india. even if you want to ignore these points and assume that warne would have succeeded on that pitch, i say it would not have mattered. even if he had succeeded and been remembered for it we cant use it in this argument because it did not happen.

 

[aussie]

I don't think Murali's matchwinning performances against India at home in 2001 and 2008 should be dismissed as irrelevant.

It should because Warne at his best never played againts in in AUS. He missed that chance in 2003/04 given he was banned.

At least he could win matches against India. Warne never showed that ability even when he was fit in 1998 or 2004.

As i just told Migara in reference to 98: "There is no way Murali would have done better than Warne in 98 (when Warne was fit) with that awful AUS pace attack - given that in the year before in 94 & 97 - Mural also was equally poor with no support. (Although based on cricinfo reports it seems like those 97 pitches where dead roads)

In 2004 he missed that chance because the fast bowlers did all the work in the first 3 tests he played & he got injured before he played on the Mumbai pitch which was bowler
friendly.

If there is a single distinction between Warne and Murali, it is that only one of them could really trouble the best players of spin, and that's a fact.

I have always agreed Murali has troubled IND more. I am just correcting the age old exaggerations that have been made againts Warne's record vs IND.