Top Five Cricketers from each country

[vcs]

2001 is probably Warne's biggest flop against India. 98 he just got owned by the best batsman of the generation at a time when he was smashing a run a ball hundred basically every week. But in 01 with the series almost in their grasp, he concedes 150 at 5 per over. Then at Chennai, defending 155 in the 4th innings with the rest of the attack bowling brilliantly, all it needed was Warne to not be complete crap and they probably win. Instead he goes for 7 runs per over and gets outbowled by Colin ****ing Miller lmfao.

LOL when you put it like that.. What a series though.

 

[aussie tragic]

Top 5 from Australia is pretty easy

1. Bradman
2. Miller
3. G. Chappell
4. Lillee
5. Gilchrist

 

[Slifer]

This notion that Warne was somehow always injured or unfit vs India is bs. Just accept that he got owned by the best players of spin and move on. Good grief . Warne also played something like 20 odd odis vs India and if I recall he averaged around 50+ there too.

 

[Red]

Waqar's inswinging yorker was much more potent and got many more wickets at a much better strike rate than Warne's flipper.

Man, I hate this argument when people are comparing a quick with a spinner. Do you even understand the ebb and flow of 5 days of test cricket, the fact that the ball deteriorates, and why spinners are so important, and why they won't have the same strike rate as quicks?

 

[Red]

Warne and Murali are (rightly) lauded as the greatest spinners in history. The only others that even deserve consideration are OReilly, Grimmett and Laker.

Warne and Murali basically had concurrent careers, and basically had the same statistical record against India, in India.

It's not really an issue for their legacies that they struggled vs India in India. Essentially they came up against Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman in their own conditions. All excellent players of spin who knew how to be patient.

 

[stephen]

He wasn't ready in 91/92.
1998 he played injured.
1999 he was in the worst form of his life because he was coming back from the injury.
2001 he was still battling injuries. He only truly recovered from his injuries some time in 2002 (he averaged 71 vs New Zealand at home in 2001)
2004 he averaged 30 in India and missed a Bunsen ironically due to picking up another minor injury. The test he missed, Clarke took 5/9. He did get one five wicket haul on this tour and this was the truest reflection of his talent.

It really was as much a case of a combination of injury and India's batting skill against spin, particularly Tendulkar. But it's telling that Warne didn't even pick up much in the way of cheap tail end wickets against India.

Basically this run of series:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

4 years. 1998-2001.

2004 was as close to peak Warne as you'll get. Look at his series averages from the cricinfo link to see what I mean.

Unless New Zealand were secretly the best players of spin in the world.

 

[Burgey]

Top 5 from Australia is pretty easy

1. Bradman
2. Miller
3. G. Chappell
4. Lillee
5. Gilchrist

Wrong. TOTAB is in the top two. Ask anyone who's played cricket at a high level in this country about what he did for Australian cricket as a leader and batsman. You'll get he same answer.

 

[h_hurricane]

2001 is probably Warne's biggest flop against India. 98 he just got owned by the best batsman of the generation at a time when he was smashing a run a ball hundred basically every week. But in 01 with the series almost in their grasp, he concedes 150 at 5 per over. Then at Chennai, defending 155 in the 4th innings with the rest of the attack bowling brilliantly, all it needed was Warne to not be complete crap and they probably win. Instead he goes at 7 runs per over and gets outbowled by Colin ****ing Miller lmfao.

He escaped mauling in the first test in 2001 because Mcgrath,Gillespie and Fleming ran through the top order leaving Warne to get cheap tail end wickets and an out of form Ganguly. His figures would have been even worse if not for this.

 

[h_hurricane]

Warne and Murali are (rightly) lauded as the greatest spinners in history. The only others that even deserve consideration are OReilly, Grimmett and Laker.

Warne and Murali basically had concurrent careers, and basically had the same statistical record against India, in India.

It's not really an issue for their legacies that they struggled vs India in India. Essentially they came up against Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman in their own conditions. All excellent players of spin who knew how to be patient.

Warne has a poorer record against India in Australia than in India.

Warne in India : 34 wickets in 9 matches @ 43

Warne in Aus against India : 9 wickets in 5 matches @ 62

Murali on the other hand owned India in his backyard on a few occasions and also ran through the lineup in one of the test matches in 2005 in India. So there is no comparison there on their relative performances against India.

 

[Borges]

He escaped mauling in the first test in 2001 because Mcgrath,Gillespie and Fleming ran through the top order leaving Warne to get cheap tail end wickets and an out of form Ganguly. His figures would have been even worse if not for this.

He was injured, unfit etc. at the start of that innings. Once the top order was back in the hut, he recovered and became fit again.
This is the absolute truth; anything else is a canard spread by Indian fans.

 

[h_hurricane]

4 years. 1998-2001.

2004 was as close to peak Warne as you'll get. Look at his series averages from the cricinfo link to see what I mean.

Unless New Zealand were secretly the best players of spin in the world.

You keep mentioning that Warne was injured or not ready every time he played India, but conveniently ignore the fact that Tendulkar was injured in 2004 series(the only series Warne did decently), missed the first 2 test matches and once he returned for the 3rd, Mcgrath and Gillespie dismissed him quickly. Warne did not bowl a single delivery to Sachin that series.
He never dismissed Dravid that series. Out of the 14 wickets he took, 5 of them were VVS and Sehwag, others were Parthiv Patel,Irfan Pathan,Yuvraj Singh as an opener(!!) and some cheap tail end wickets.

 

[Burgey]

Interesting Warne didn't dismiss Dravid in 04. I thought he actually had a pretty decent record against Dravid compared with other Indian batsman of his era.

 

[h_hurricane]

He had the wood on Dravid a few times. Then the Kolkata innings came along and never dismissed Dravid since then.


Edit: He dismissed him once in the ICC vs Australia Super test in 2005.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He dismissed him several times by bowling full drifting leg breaks on leg stump which Dravid played around a few times. Then in Kolkata 2nd innings dravid adjusted to that plan and it stopped working.

 

[ankitj]

So if we're playing this Warne game, Murali averaged 45 in India, 75 in Australia, and 19 at home.

Was Murali just a minnow/home/poor-against-spin bully who couldn't step up when he visited the big batting line-ups of his generation?

Meanwhile Dale Steyn doesn't average under 33 anywhere in the world, and averages 21.38 in India (possibly the best batting line-up of his generation, and in conditions unsuitable to pace/swing bowling).

If we're going by this metric, is Steyn clearly better than Muralitharan was?

Muralitharan picked 7 fivers and 2 tenfers against India though (compared to Warne's 1 and 0). Also got 2 MoMs against India to Warne's none.

In ODIs, Murali's career best figure, a 7-fer, came against India and won 2 additional MoMs in short form. Warne got no MoMs against India.

Who was more effective against India is indisputable.

Steyn – comparison between fast bowler and a spinner is always hard.

 

[vcs]

800 wickets and what Murali did for Sri Lanka is amazing. If you offered them peak Steyn for 8-10 years vs. Murali's career, they'd take the latter without a second thought.

 

[MrPrez]

800 wickets and what Murali did for Sri Lanka is amazing. If you offered them peak Steyn for 8-10 years vs. Murali's career, they'd take the latter without a second thought.

I thought Murali would win out over Steyn when I made my original comment.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure I agree with your comment - if only because of the dearth of pace options Sri Lanka has had over the years.

 

[stephen]

Muralitharan picked 7 fivers and 2 tenfers against India though (compared to Warne's 1 and 0). Also got 2 MoMs against India to Warne's none.

In ODIs, Murali's career best figure, a 7-fer, came against India and won 2 additional MoMs in short form. Warne got no MoMs against India.

Who was more effective against India is indisputable.

Steyn – comparison between fast bowler and a spinner is always hard.

It's often remarked that an off spinner is very condition dependent - moreso that a leg spinner. But India is a very good place for faster spin bowlers and terrible for slow spinners. Neither Murali or Warne were very fast - both relief on ridiculous side spin.

Murali's record is helped dramatically by playing half his tests in friendly conditions. Even counting minnows his away record is worse than Warne's. After 2000 (when he lost some of his zip and hiss flipper), Warne averaged almost 30 at home and 24 away (this is even counting some of his worst years of playing).

So saying that Warne was bad against India home and away while Murali was only bad against India away does a disservice to Warne even before you look at the clear injury issues Warne had for most of his tests against India. Some friendlier bowling conditions for Warne may have improved his record there. Or it might not. We will never know because Warne played half his tests on the least spin friendly tracks in the world.

Either way, anyone using Warne's record against India to discredit his genius or suggest he is overrated is a fool.

 

[ankitj]

Warne sucked against India. Murali had his great moments against India. Period.

This seriously doesn't need to be explained again and again.

 

[h_hurricane]

It's often remarked that an off spinner is very condition dependent - moreso that a leg spinner. But India is a very good place for faster spin bowlers and terrible for slow spinners. Neither Murali or Warne were very fast - both relief on ridiculous side spin.

Murali's record is helped dramatically by playing half his tests in friendly conditions. Even counting minnows his away record is worse than Warne's. After 2000 (when he lost some of his zip and hiss flipper), Warne averaged almost 30 at home and 24 away (this is even counting some of his worst years of playing).

So saying that Warne was bad against India home and away while Murali was only bad against India away does a disservice to Warne even before you look at the clear injury issues Warne had for most of his tests against India. Some friendlier bowling conditions for Warne may have improved his record there. Or it might not. We will never know because Warne played half his tests on the least spin friendly tracks in the world.

Either way, anyone using Warne's record against India to discredit his genius or suggest he is overrated is a fool.

Nobody is trying to discredit Warne's overall career here. However, giving excuses for his poor performance in India citing reasons like injury, unfriendly tracks etc are all absurd. There are other spin bowlers who outbowled him by miles in the same conditions. All professionals get injured at some point. But you can't cite that as the reason for non performance for 2-3 tours to a country spread over many years.
It is generous to call Warne a top 5 all time cricketer at the end of his career. It is a joke to lavish that praise on him at half way point of his career in 2000.