CMJ's top 100

[Richard]

AWTA 100%. This is one of several reasons why I find Richard's "Murali is unquestionably a greater bowler than Warne, but Warne is unquestionably a greater cricketer" argument, er, questionable.

Where did you find me saying that? From long before my first post on CW I've been of the opinion that there's no point whatsoever in trying to split Warne and Murali.

 

[Burgey]

Corrections, Shane Warne is arguably the greatest spinner of all time but who cares, he wasnt a better bowler than Imran or matchwinner. Plus Imran actually showed up (unlike Warne) against the best team of his time (WI) whereas Shane Warne went missing against his greatest nemisis (India).

Two different criteria though. WI were the best team of Imran's time, but India were no where near the best in Warne's. Personally, Warne struggled v India but they weren't, until say between 02-04, realistically pressing for top spot. Warne won plenty of tests for Australia, just as Imran did for Pakistan.

It's no surprise players have their sides they do better against. WI were still number one in 93 (they'd just beaten Aus in Aus) yet players like, say, Robin Smith or Alec Stewart scored more hundreds v WI than Australia.

But I would agree Imran as a total package was a better cricketer than Warne. I just don't accept that particular reason you've given there as the basis for saying so .

 

[Burgey]

If you've not heard of them, and you get a spare minute, look 'em up - they make for good reading. Particularly CB Fry, who was a pretty extraordinary player and generally regarded as one of the greatest all-round sportsmen in history.

I thought Archie Mac was CB Fry...

 

[Richard]

Fix ya quote FFS. Expect the likes of you to set an example. Borderline national disgrace TBH.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed. My Blackberry erases all sorts of crap, the font on them is so small, even when using them sober.

 

[zaremba]

Where did you find me saying that? From long before my first post on CW I've been of the opinion that there's no point whatsoever in trying to split Warne and Murali.

Sorry mate - misquoted you. Apologies for thinking you'd sunk into the W**** v M**** abyss. This is what I was thinking about:

Warne is IMO indisputably a better cricketer than McGrath even though there's no question McGrath was the better bowler.

Have fixed my previous post accordingly.

 

[Slifer]

Two different criteria though. WI were the best team of Imran's time, but India were no where near the best in Warne's. Personally, Warne struggled v India but they weren't, until say between 02-04, realistically pressing for top spot. Warne won plenty of tests for Australia, just as Imran did for Pakistan.

It's no surprise players have their sides they do better against. WI were still number one in 93 (they'd just beaten Aus in Aus) yet players like, say, Robin Smith or Alec Stewart scored more hundreds v WI than Australia.

But I would agree Imran as a total package was a better cricketer than Warne. I just don't accept that particular reason you've given there as the basis for saying so .

India were not overall the best team of his time (92 to 07) but they were and are the ultimate test for ne reasonable spinner thats what i meant.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Corrections, Shane Warne is arguably the greatest spinner of all time but who cares, he wasnt a better bowler than Imran or matchwinner. Plus Imran actually showed up (unlike Warne) against the best team of his time (WI) whereas Shane Warne went missing against his greatest nemisis (India).

Keith Miller is more arguably better then Imran then what any other spinner is arguably better then Warney. Warne could do things with the ball that Imran could only dream about doing and you're forgetting that Warne spent his entire career on Australian tracks that are favourable to pace rather then spin.

 

[Smith]

Keith Miller is more arguably better then Imran then what any other spinner is arguably better then Warney. Warne could do things with the ball that Imran could only dream about doing and you're forgetting that Warne spent his entire career on Australian tracks that are favourable to pace rather then spin.

Against such players of spin like England and SA?

Warne was a failure in the most spin friendly conditions of India and against them, probably the best players of spin.

 

[Slifer]

Keith Miller is more arguably better then Imran then what any other spinner is arguably better then Warney. Warne could do things with the ball that Imran could only dream about doing and you're forgetting that Warne spent his entire career on Australian tracks that are favourable to pace rather then spin.

Of course Warne could, he is a spinner. Imran could do things with the ball that Warne couldnt as well whats ur point. Also ur Keith Miller point makes no sense whatsoever, of the all rounders only maybe Sobers, Miller, and Kallis have ne thing on Imran. Of the spinners Warne faces stiff competition from : Murali, Grimmett, Oreilley, Laker etc. And last but not least bowling wise the subcontinent is ne thing but pace friendly and Imran thrived on them. Any way overall as cricketers Imran>> Warne rather easily

 

[zaremba]

whats ur point

Aussie is best, I think

 

[Smudge]

Haha, it's often a feature of someone's bias towards a particular team that they perceive bias in everyone else against them. It's quite comical actually. The sign that you're doing a good job as a football pundit is when you get a similar amount of accusations of bias from all sides.

Agreed.


By the way, I can't believe there's no Michael Owens or Blair Hartland in CMJ's top 100. A ****ing disgrace.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Against such players of spin like England and SA?

Warne was a failure in the most spin friendly conditions of India and against them, probably the best players of spin.

Sri Lanka? Pakistan?

Of course Warne could, he is a spinner. Imran could do things with the ball that Warne couldnt as well whats ur point. Also ur Keith Miller point makes no sense whatsoever, of the all rounders only maybe Sobers, Miller, and Kallis have ne thing on Imran. Of the spinners Warne faces stiff competition from : Murali, Grimmett, Oreilley, Laker etc. And last but not least bowling wise the subcontinent is ne thing but pace friendly and Imran thrived on them. Any way overall as cricketers Imran>> Warne rather easily

My point is, that Imran was only a bowling allrounder until the latter end of his career, where he excelled with the bat, but bowled allot less. Whilst Miller was a genuine allrounder from start to finish. Miller batted higher up the order then what Imran did aswell.

 

[Athlai]

Warne's not even Australia's greatest wrist spinner.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Warne's not even Australia's greatest wrist spinner.

That's because he was a finger spinner.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

That's because he was a finger spinner.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's because he was a finger spinner.

...

 

[bagapath]

That's because he was a finger spinner.

???!!!!!!!!

 

[jondavluc]

That's because he was a finger spinner.

O...k

 

[GIMH]

Agreed.


By the way, I can't believe there's no Michael Owens or Blair Hartland in CMJ's top 100. A ****ing disgrace.

Some of the posters in here don't seem to graps that it is somebody else's top 100, not their own. if it was in the order they called, it would be titled, (for example) "Precambrian's top 100"