Jump to content

Warne rates Waugh at 26th


Feed

Recommended Posts

Shane Warne has ranked Steve Waugh at No. 26 on his list of 50 greatest cricketers because he was a "match-saver rather than a match-winner". More... spacer.gif Former captain snubbed in greatest player list Warne rates Waugh at 26th Cricinfo staff August 30, 2007 spacer.gif Shane Warne has ranked Steve Waugh at No. 26 on his list of 50 greatest cricketers because he was a "match-saver rather than a match-winner". Darren Lehmann, David Boon, Brett Lee and Stephen Fleming were higher than Waugh as Warne revealed players 21 to 30 in his column in the Times. Waugh was named Australia's captain ahead of Warne in 1999 and one of the legspinner's major disappointments in a record-breaking career was not leading his country in Tests. However, Waugh's 168 matches and 10,927 runs - the fourth highest of all-time - didn't convince Warne to place him higher. "This may raise a few eyebrows," Warne wrote. "Yes, he [Waugh] scored a lot of runs, but to me he was a match-saver rather than a match-winner. That is why he is not higher. "There were also times when he struggled against the short ball. But he had good all-round capabilities and was always reliable in the gully." Waugh won a record 41 Tests as captain but Warne downplayed the achievement. "Mark Taylor handed him a wonderful team," he wrote. Lehmann averaged 44.95 in 27 Tests and his work against the slow bowlers impressed Warne. "'Boof' was one of the hardest batsmen for spinners because he was unorthodox and had a wonderfully light touch," Warne wrote. "He had the same qualities as Brian Lara in his pomp, hitting brilliantly square of the wicket ... It was a shame that he did not play more Tests."

Link to comment

Yep very low. I can see the reason why Waughs rates him low. I mean clearly Waugh belonged to the old-school of grinding opposition to dust and played more match saving innings than match winning ones. Plus his stint in ODI cricket was hardly great, even though he was the captain. So yeah a case can be made that Steve Waugh, while his worth in gold, should hardly be put in the same category as say Sachin or Lara or Ponting who have put their teams in winning position, in both forms of the game. That all said Waugh should still have made under 15 list. More the reason why we should watch the 20-11 and 10-1 countdown. xxx

Link to comment

Well it's his personal opinion and if you respect him as a player you take his opinion otherwise move on I would say. I don't quite agree with Warne on this one particularly rating Fleming over Waugh :confused_smile: Sure Fleming has played Warne really well over the years but to say Fleming is a match winner and not Steve sounds a bit dodgy to me.

Link to comment
inzi bhai nowhere in 50
Inzi is a good bat but he's not rated alongside Tendulkar, Lara, Rahul and S.Waugh by most. I guess it could be because of the inconsistency Inzi has had to go through? Perhaps it may also be his inability of not being able to produce big runs consistenty against the likes of Aussies and South Africa.
Link to comment
Yep very low. I can see the reason why Waughs rates him low. I mean clearly Waugh belonged to the old-school of grinding opposition to dust and played more match saving innings than match winning ones. Plus his stint in ODI cricket was hardly great, even though he was the captain. So yeah a case can be made that Steve Waugh, while his worth in gold, should hardly be put in the same category as say Sachin or Lara or Ponting who have put their teams in winning position, in both forms of the game. That all said Waugh should still have made under 15 list. More the reason why we should watch the 20-11 and 10-1 countdown. xxx
Well Warney once again showed his inconsistency by putting Border at #4. I really feel for Warne if he genuinely believes the following 1- Brett Lee is a better bowler than Donald and Waqar. 2- Merv Hughes was miles ahead of Donald and Waqar. 3- Tim May was a better cricketer than Kapil Dev(the inclusion of Border in the top 5 wipes away the excuse that he didn't play much against Kapil). 4- Darren Berry( a man who has never been tested at the highest level) deserves to be higher than Kumar Sangakarra.
Link to comment
Well Warney once again showed his inconsistency by putting Border at #4. I really feel for Warne if he genuinely believes the following 1- Brett Lee is a better bowler than Donald and Waqar. 2- Merv Hughes was miles ahead of Donald and Waqar. 3- Tim May was a better cricketer than Kapil Dev(the inclusion of Border in the top 5 wipes away the excuse that he didn't play much against Kapil). 4- Darren Berry( a man who has never been tested at the highest level) deserves to be higher than Kumar Sangakarra.
Faisal, It is his view. 1. he has given reasons for that. He might have come to know that Lee doesn't buckle down even when things are not going his way like he thought Donald did. 2. Again he might have seen qualities in the players which we have not, because we have neither played with nor against any of these fellows. 3. Warne played just 2 tests vs Kapil and then never faced him again. He must have played domestic cricket vs Border, must have admired him as a captain and as a batsman being in the opposition and then would have come to know more closely about those qualities when he played with him for Australia. Most young players have good impact of a particular senior player. In Warne's case, it seems to be that of Border. So I do not blame him at all for keeping Border at top. Will you blame Wasim if he rated Crowe as number one batsman of his time?? 4. According to him, Sangakkara might not have done enough as yet, in his eyes, to merit a place in top 50. Would you blame Gavaskar if he put an unknown spinner from TN (the name has just escaped me), at the top of the list of spinners he faced? And he was so petrified that he batted left handed in that inning to negotiate his LAS bowling. That bowler never got to play a test.
Link to comment
Faisal, It is his view. 1. he has given reasons for that. He might have come to know that Lee doesn't buckle down even when things are not going his way like he thought Donald did. 2. Again he might have seen qualities in the players which we have not, because we have neither played with nor against any of these fellows. 3. Warne played just 2 tests vs Kapil and then never faced him again. He must have played domestic cricket vs Border, must have admired him as a captain and as a batsman being in the opposition and then would have come to know more closely about those qualities when he played with him for Australia. Most young players have good impact of a particular senior player. In Warne's case, it seems to be that of Border. So I do not blame him at all for keeping Border at top. Will you blame Wasim if he rated Crowe as number one batsman of his time?? 4. According to him, Sangakkara might not have done enough as yet, in his eyes, to merit a place in top 50. Would you blame Gavaskar if he put an unknown spinner from TN (the name has just escaped me), at the top of the list of spinners he faced? And he was so petrified that he batted left handed in that inning to negotiate his LAS bowling. That bowler never got to play a test.
Chandan, Listen to Tony Greig "at best it sold a page in the sunday paper" http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/feature.html?genre=3 and that's how i feel about this list too..i don't think the list(other than the best batsman comparison) merits a debate.
Link to comment
Obviously it is not to be debated. It is Warne's list and he has stated the name of top 50 player as' date=' how and [b']why he rates them.
As i said in the other thread that his reasonings are more laughable than the list itself e.g he says "Iwas looking for players who have done the business in all conditions, home and away, over a long period of time." Well then how many times did Jamie Siddons perform away from home? That's just one of the many contradictions that i found in the list but oh well i guess we have to respect his opinion.
Link to comment
As i said in the other thread that his reasonings are more laughable than the list itself e.g he says "Iwas looking for players who have done the business in all conditions, home and away, over a long period of time." Well then how many times did Jamie Siddons perform away from home? That's just one of the many contradictions that i found in the list but oh well i guess we have to respect his opinion.
Siddon's away from home would be NSW, Queensland, WA, SA and Tasmania. So what is the problem here?? I haven't checked his record, nor do I intend to, but many test players rate many of their domestic peers very highly. I've given you examples. You can't fault at them fot that.
Link to comment
Siddon's away from home would be NSW, Queensland, WA, SA and Tasmania. So what is the problem here?? I haven't checked his record, nor do I intend to, but many test players rate many of their domestic peers very highly. I've given you examples. You can't fault at them fot that.
Strange that you say that Chandan. Going by that would a batsman from Mumbai who has never played outside Indian claim to be a good "away" player if he scores runs at Kolkata or Delhi? if that was the case then even Sidhu can claim to be a good away batsman.
Link to comment
SRW dropped SKW for the 4th test of the Frank Worrell series in 1999. I think he holds a grudge against SRW since that day.
That was a fascinating series and Waugh rightly dropped warne in the final test. Warne was taken to cleaners by WI batsmen, especially lara, in the first three tests and he had total of 2 wkts @ 130+. Macgill outperformed Warne clearly in that series.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...