If Warne was captain after Waugh...

[vic_orthdox]

Scott Muller.

 

[Top_Cat]

Reckon he would've alienated a number of players, tbh. Players always seem to be saying that Ponting is someone they can get behind and a good leader of men; I reckon that with his more confrontational style, Shane would've been a bit more divisive in the dressng room.

Don't think that counts as a criticism, tbh (if it was intended as one). Like Taylor and Waugh before him, Warne would have made sure he had players in the dressing room favourable to him and tried to turf anyone who wasn't unless they were utterly essential to the side. And, within reason, a leader of the side should have a strong say as to its make-up, I reckon.

 

[Goughy]

Ill point out the reason I made this thread is that there was a comment on a Cricinfo article that said Warne should have been catain after Waugh and I was thinking how that would have played out.

Personally I rhink he would have had a far shorter leash than Ponting and enemies in the boardroom and would have been sacked if he had captained the team to a loss in the 2005 Ashes.

 

[robelinda]

One point no-one has made is that Warne hadnt even served his ban in full when Steve Waugh retired. Would have been highly unlikely for Warne to waltz back into the test team and as captain having not even played for over a year. Most of the press were questioning whether he still even had enough left in the tank as a player let alone as captain.

 

[NZTailender]

Scott Muller.

 

[Top_Cat]

Surprised no-one's mentioned that Warne was a strong contender when Steve Waugh was given the captaincy, let alone when Waugh gave it away. Was backed publicly ahead of Waugh by many former players. Do wonder how he'd gone had he been made captain then with off-field dramas, etc.

 

[Spark]

batting doesnt win matches, bowling does.

Which is why Pakistan have been so ****ing dominant in the last few years.

 

[Bun]

Did he deserve to captain Australia after caught for doping? No.

 

[Cevno]

Which is why Pakistan have been so ****ing dominant in the last few years.

Specially compared to India.

 

[Blaze 18]

Which is why Pakistan have been so ****ing dominant in the last few years.

I dare say Pakistan would have won their fair share of matches, if some of their players hadn't been deliberately trying to lose.

 

[Spark]

We can never know. The point remains though that Shane Warne could have made us a better side by his own force of will alone, at 40 years old, with an exceptionally brittle batting line up, is ****ing ********

 

[mudrunner]

We can never know. The point remains though that Shane Warne could have made us a better side by his own force of will alone, at 40 years old, with an exceptionally brittle batting line up, is ****ing ********

obviously you dont know history, or winners.

 

[G.I.Joe]

obviously you dont know history, or winners.

Guess which side of the argument relies on unsubstantiated hypotheticals.

 

[Uppercut]

We can never know. The point remains though that Shane Warne could have made us a better side by his own force of will alone, at 40 years old, with an exceptionally brittle batting line up, is ****ing ********

Hmm. But on the other hand, he's Shane ****ing Warne.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, and Australia lost the 2005 Ashes with him virtually leading the side, a side significantly better than the current lot.

 

[Spark]

obviously you dont know history, or winners.

And I'd say you don't know cricket.

Hmm. But on the other hand, he's Shane ****ing Warne.

I mean, he might have won a few more matches, but given his age and that given his body was actually starting to go by 2006-7, and given that he would've been bowling to <200 totals on a very regular basis which he hadn't had to do before, we'll still be losing about as much as we do now.

I didn't think this ever needed to be pointed out because it was so ****ing obvious, but it's pretty ****ing hard to win games of cricket, which at the end of the day is about scoring more runs than your opposition, if you don't score any ****ing runs.

EDIT: I'll turn down the language if you like, mods, but this is part of a string of truly shocking posts that I've seen recently and part of a general trend I've seen too much of in the public.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, and Australia lost the 2005 Ashes with him virtually leading the side, a side significantly better than the current lot.

Aye. He's Shane Warne though.

 

[robelinda]

Surprised no-one's mentioned that Warne was a strong contender when Steve Waugh was given the captaincy, let alone when Waugh gave it away. Was backed publicly ahead of Waugh by many former players. Do wonder how he'd gone had he been made captain then with off-field dramas, etc.

His form wasnt known though, he didnt play much that summer, only one test where MacGill outbowled him by miles and miles, and in the one dayers he bowled flat but with some success. Turned out to be a good move to give it to Waugh because Wane bowled garbage in the 3 tests in the WI, and was rightly dropped for Miller then we won that final test. Warne was even talking retirement during the 99 WC!

I really think there was no time where Warne was an absolute frontrunner for the captaincy of both test and ODI teams. 99 was close though, but Waugh was always going to get it. If Shane had of played all the tests that summer it couldve been different.

 

[pasag]

We can never know. The point remains though that Shane Warne could have made us a better side by his own force of will alone, at 40 years old, with an exceptionally brittle batting line up, is ****ing ********

People forget that Warne was playing through a lot of pain in his final years and that's why he retired. I can't see how having the captaincy would have any effect on that and there's no way he'd still be playing today.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Aye. He's Shane Warne though.