Rate Him: Shane Warne

[biased indian]

8

would have been 9 or 10..if not for his record aganist india

 

[Migara]

Rate him at 9.0. The bowler I always looked to make my game better. If not for his drug cheating, matchfixing womanising saga, he would have got near 9.9. I would rate him as three of the best ever spinners, with Murali and O'Riely.

 

[pasag]

How is giving info to bookies match-fixing?

 

[Richard]

There are no such differences between like bowlers, where one bowls 15-20 overs more. The difference between a Murali and a Warne is 7 per inning, for example.

No it isn't. Bowlers don't bowl the same number of overs per innings.

You're saying, had Gillespie bowled the same amount of overs, he'd have done the same with Sri Lanka as he did with Australia? Wow.

LOL, so the fact that your support keeps picking away at batsmen that you are setting up for yourself (because they are better than you) has ZERO impact on your record? That if Gillespie was in a side where he was going to be the main bowler, the main threat, you don't think he would have taken more wickets? Only so if he bowled more?

Understand, that it's much more than that and bowlers have plans for batsmen, whether that means letting the batsmen get over them for a while and then putting a short one in, or blitzing balls full and then giving a slower ball...it is very much a stop/start thing. To have someone picking off batsmen you are trying hard to get kills your momentum and likewise if you are taking wickets it will increase your momentum.

You are essentially saying whether Gillespie plays for Bangladesh, Australia, India, x, y, and z he is ALWAYS going to take the same amount of wickets if he bowls the same amount of balls.

Even mathematically: when Gillespie bowls, and no wickets are taken, he can take 10 wickets. As soon as McGrath takes one, he can only take 9 wickets. As soon as Warne takes one, he can take only 8 wickets, and so on. Whereas in a team like Sri Lanka, the amount of wickets you can take is always larger because you have less teammates threatening the wickets.

Do you not realise that this works the other way too? Gillespie (or whoever) is going to benefit from McGrath setting-up batsmen as much as vice-versa. Or, conversely, he's going to neither lose-out to others nor gain from their "setting-up".

Keep looking - you're never going to find a drawback of being a lone warrior that doesn't also have a benefit.

You seem to think wicket-taking is an ongoing exercise where players try to divide how many runs they give up to each batsmen and how many balls they are going to concede to each batsmen.

No, you'd just like to think that I think that.

You seem to think that Gillespie only took wickets every 54 balls (or whatever his career strike rate is). To think this is what happens in a match situation, and will always happen given x overs, is incorrect.

No, you're the one doing that with your above "The difference between a Murali and a Warne is 7 per inning, for example".

 

[Sanz]

How is giving info to bookies match-fixing?

I think we have gone over this million times.

 

[Richard]

How is giving info to bookies match-fixing?

Although it obviously isn't, it's too close to being such a thing for comfort, and it's right that any form of contact with bookies, even just passing information, is strictly punishable.

 

[pasag]

I think we have gone over this million times.

Have we?

They are two seperate things, one clearly a lot worse than the other. Matchfixing is when a player has accepted money to perform at below his best. That didn't happen here.

 

[pasag]

Although it obviously isn't, it's too close to being such a thing for comfort, and it's right that any form of contact with bookies, even just passing information, is strictly punishable.

Obv, my point was that it's not matchfixing though.

 

[Fusion]

Don't forget Pakistan. His figures against them border on mind-blowing.

He dominated Pakistan for sure. I can see why someone from India might not rate him that high, but I certainly give him an “8”.

 

[Sanz]

Have we?

They are two seperate things, one clearly a lot worse than the other. Matchfixing is when a player has accepted money to perform at below his best. That didn't happen here.

That and also events where a player accepts money to pass information to the bookies, which is what Warne and Waugh did. Warne fixed matches by passing information to the bookies.

Warne has always been in match-fixing related news. He was secretly fined by ACB in 1994 for accepting money. In 1999-2000 he was again accused by David Hookes of match fixing. In 2004 he was seen hanging out with famous bookie Ratan Mehta.

 

[Ikki]

No it isn't. Bowlers don't bowl the same number of overs per innings.

What are you talking about? I am comparing bowlers who bowl differing amounts. To say that one bowler bowling more is going to be fatigued more is one thing. To say it is that much of a difference is another. The differences between like bowlers and the number of overs they bowl per inning/match does not go into "15-20 overs more" as you stipulated.

Do you not realise that this works the other way too? Gillespie (or whoever) is going to benefit from McGrath setting-up batsmen as much as vice-versa. Or, conversely, he's going to neither lose-out to others nor gain from their "setting-up".

But that's the point, Gillespie is not going to benefit as much as a Hadlee for example. Hadlee's support would keep the runs dry but wouldn't take wickets. McGrath would also keep the runs dry but would take wickets. If I wanted to be the leading bowler I'd rather a Chatfield next to me.

Keep looking - you're never going to find a drawback of being a lone warrior that doesn't also have a benefit.

I understand that, but the drawbacks are less likely to occur for the great bowler than the advantage.

No, you'd just like to think that I think that.

From what you have been arguing it is the assumption I've come to.

No, you're the one doing that with your above "The difference between a Murali and a Warne is 7 per inning, for example".

The amounts they bowl are much different to the amounts of wickets they take. It also has little to do with who they are. I am in essence talking about a lone-ranger and someone who bowls in a pack. Not really Warne or Murali. It can be x or y. The point is to show that like bowlers do not bowl so much more/less that the ability to bowl this much itself is a major skill. It really isn't, the differences are negligible.

 

[Sanz]

You are vastly underselling Warne's aura Anil..

What is the Aura ? Kapil Dev had a much bigger impact in Indian Cricket (as a fast bowler) than Shane Warne did in Australia.

Warne is a great cricketer and greater entertainer but his aura, his impact on the game is vastly overstated.

 

[Ikki]

Have we?

They are two seperate things, one clearly a lot worse than the other. Matchfixing is when a player has accepted money to perform at below his best. That didn't happen here.

Sanz was already proven wrong on the match-fixing claim. He mentioned Ratan Mehta as him match-fixing.

Read the rest of the thread if you want more info.

 

[Ikki]

What is the Aura ? Kapil Dev had a much bigger impact in Indian Cricket (as a fast bowler) than Shane Warne did in Australia.

Warne is a great cricketer and greater entertainer but his aura, his impact on the game is vastly overstated.

I'm sure the same goes for Kapil Dev and Viv Richards in the same comparison too. It still doesn't mean much. Aura = your main rival(s) calling you the greatest bowler ever.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

8/10.

 

[pasag]

That and also events where a player accepts money to pass information to the bookies, which is what Warne and Waugh did. Warne fixed matches by passing information to the bookies.

How is passing info to bookies matchfixing though? Again, unless you alter the state of the match in any way how is it match fixing? Just like Samuels recently, he had dealings with bookies but he's no matchfixer.

 

[Fusion]

Pasag: I’m curious, why do you rate Warne a 5? On an arbitrary 1-10 scale, it’s hard to know what significance each number has to individual people, but to me a 5 rating is “average”. Surely, even people who think Warne is overrated must think he’s better than “average”?

 

[pasag]

Pasag: I’m curious, why do you rate Warne a 5? On an arbitrary 1-10 scale, it’s hard to know what significance each number has to individual people, but to me a 5 rating is “average”. Surely, even people who think Warne is overrated must think he’s better than “average”?

I was taking the poll as seriously as the poll starter took the Sachin poll.

 

[Fusion]

I was taking the poll as seriously as the poll starter took the Sachin poll.

Ah, gotcha. I thought perhaps SS’s hate of the spinners had put the fear of God into the Mod community.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz was already proven wrong on the match-fixing claim. He mentioned Ratan Mehta as him match-fixing.

Read the rest of the thread if you want more info.

From The Same Link :-

Warne :- "As far as Ratan Mehta is concerned, I have never even heard of him before."

That's a lie. Ratan Mehta in the past has ,during investigation, accepted that he knew Warne and met him.

Really, Kazo - You want me to trust the thief's word. Sorry, I can't.