Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Sanz]

BTW - I gave Warne a 7 on his cricketing skills and achievements, Gave Sachin 8. If Sachin had not owned him, would have given 8.

So giving 1 less than SRT for the owning Warnie got from him.

 

[Sanz]

Key word "seems". Of those that have posted thus far, you are on your own, and your definition of match-fixing differs from what (in my experience) is the unanimously accepted one.

Start the poll Damn it, what are you afraid of ? Separate the milk from the water, let the forum members decide how close your 'seems' is.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm afraid of cluttering up the forums with pointless threads when if anyone agrees with you, they will surely say so in this thread.

 

[Sanz]

I'm afraid of cluttering up the forums with pointless threads when if anyone agrees with you, they will surely say so in this thread.

But you are not afraid of making pointless point that 'no-one else' agrees with my definition.

You sure are free to agree/disagree with me but please do not speak for the forum that too to deride my opinion. You are the one who spoke for the entire forum and claimed how almost entire forum was one side on the argument and I was on the other.

 

[Tom Halsey]

FFS, stop twisting my words. I didn't say "no-one agrees with you", I said "no-one seems to agree with you", ie no-one who has thus far posted in the thread agrees with you.

Calling it a "pointless point" is also slightly odd given it relates to Warne potentially or otherwise being a match-fixer, which you've been going on about virtually all thread.

Last post on this.

 

[Richard]

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.

If you are a lone-ranger, you're regularly going to have to bowl 15-20 overs more per innings than a member of a pack. Even though there will obviously be cases where something happens to even-out the averages.

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.

You do realise that keeping the runs dry and not taking wickets puts huge pressure back on the "wicket-taker" don't you? He then has to bowl far more overs before the oppo are bowled-out, and will probably see an increase in economy-rate as he bowls more. So instead of taking 4-50 he might take 7-150, which is a poorer set of figures.

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

No, they're always equally likely.

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

No, it's the assumption you want to come to, because you don't like what I'm saying.

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.

That makes precisely zero sense to me.

 

[GIMH]

Might have known when opening this thread that I'd find Kazo and Sanz at odds

Voted 10, my favourite Aussie, barring maybe Stonefish off neighbours, and Prince EWS

 

[Richard]

Might have known when opening this thread that I'd find Kazo and Sanz at odds

Well Sanz is rarely anything other than at odds, who it may be with doesn't matter. And obviously whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest an Australian player is less than excellent, KaZoH0lic must disagree.

 

[GIMH]

Oh Richard...

 

[Jamee999]

11.

 

[Sanz]

**** Mozilla settings, I get to read Richards comments. He rarely lets a chance slip to take a cheap shot at me.

It is solely his and his right only to be flag bearer of posting crap, derailing threads. 50000+ posts of idiocy and counting. No one can get even close.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well Sanz is rarely anything other than at odds, who it may be with doesn't matter. And obviously whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest an Australian player is less than excellent, KaZoH0lic must disagree.

Frankly, I've been getting along pretty well with Sanz for a while now and I don't think I'm alone.

 

[Burgey]

**** Mozilla settings, I get to read Richards comments. He rarely lets a chance slip to take a cheap shot at me.

It is solely his and his right only to be flag bearer of posting crap, derailing threads. 50000+ posts of idiocy and counting. No one can get even close.

 

[Spinksy]

I'd rate Shane Warne 9/10 because he was an excellent leg spin bowler but he was definitely not the perfect bowler. If you think that someone that take drugs is perect than you have some issue I'm afraid. 9/10 for me. The Mike Gatting ball that he produced earlier in his career basically sums up his greatness to me quite nicely. That was a perfect delivery but he was never able to produce it ever again, so I still say 9/10 because nobody, not even the great Shane Warne was perfect when it came to leg spin bowling. There are areas of leg spin bowling in my opinion that are yet to be acheived. I believe that when someone finally concurs those areas, then they will be the perfect leg spin bowler. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Burgey]

Fair points there, but I think this one was as good as the Gatting ball, even if it was out of the rough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQqck3zDTWA

I think he said it was the biggest turning leg break he ever bowled to dismiss a batsman.

 

[Anil]

laxman sivaramakrishnan produced a similar ball to dismiss miandad(stumped i think) in the '85 world championship of cricket...it was a very good ball by warne but the "ball of the century" is just incredibly overhyped.....

 

[JBH001]

Agreed. But other spinners have achieved similar or better.

Great ball and all but at times it seems like we are never going to hear the end of it.

As for a rating. That is difficult. Certainly an 8 or a 9...

 

[Burgey]

Yeah the Gatting ball gets plenty or air time. Changed his life though, in terms of marketability.

Thing that gets me about it was that it was his first ball in the match.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah the Gatting ball gets plenty or air time. Changed his life though, in terms of marketability.

Thing that gets me about it was that it was his first ball in the match.

That's the part that gave it such hype. Previously, wrist-spinners were hoping to land the ball on the cut portion and were just looking to get the wrists limber. That Warnie landed that ball first ball in England on what was a really more of a pace-friendly deck is why people went nuts over it. He certainly was the first Aussie spinner in such a long time who could do it. It was just such a shock to the system. That he then removed Robin Smith caught at slip with a ball at least as good soon after confirmed, at least, it wasn't a fluke.

 

[JBH001]

He confirmed that quite a few times after that too, didnt he?

Edit/ Oh, and 8/10.