Warne's 50 list

[Chandan]

That is his choice, Cricketics. None of us would put Steve Waugh at 26 and Warne did so, even after being an Australian.

[Cricketics]

hmm agree on that chandan.. i m just having an opinion here that he picked such gr8 names there in his list but forgot about the gr8 VVS

[Chandan]

This is the criteria Warne laid out for himself: The 50 best of my career? It's a tall order to sort them out Shane Warne If I happen to be speaking at a dinner or a function somewhere, I know there will be one question that is sure to crop up: who are the best cricketers I have played with or against? Our sport is full of great names and it is sometimes close to impossible to separate one from another. But, over the next five days, I will be doing just that. Starting tomorrow, I will be counting down my top 50 over five days, climaxing with numbers ten to one on Saturday. The field is vast. Everybody I have played with or against since my debut for Victoria way back in 1991 is in contention. I hope that it starts a few debates; I would be surprised if it settles any. During the past couple of weeks I’ve spent hours listing names and shuffling them into a rough order . . . then shuffling them again. Three or four days ago, I finally felt happy with the result. Unfortunately, my rib injury gave me more spare time I hadn’t bargained for and there have been a few more tweaks during the weekend. If anything, it has been even more difficult than I imagined. The first thing was to come up with some ground rules. I decided to trust my instincts rather than allow the facts and figures to influence selection. You may be surprised that guys with lower averages are some way above those with more impressive figures. I was looking for players who have done the business in all conditions, home and away, over a long period of time. No doubt, if I come to do this again in five years then the names of Michael Clarke and Kevin Pietersen will rank some way higher. They have so much talent to fulfil and time is on their side. One problem was to separate batsmen from bowlers. And there’s also wicketkeepers, a group of players who tend to get overlooked when the “greats†of the game are considered. As a spin bowler, I know only too well the value of a quietly reliable guy operating behind the stumps or a bloke who can pouch catches at slip. Another tricky issue was to compare players from different eras. We are said to be in a golden age of batting at the moment. Runs are being scored quicker than ever before and more batsmen can boast averages in the fifties. But does that mean they are better than the likes of Allan Border or Graham Gooch? Those two guys, and others I came across early in my career, had to battle against the most hostile battery of West Indies fast bowlers probably ever known. So courage and resilience enter the equation. Hard runs in tight situations are worth more to me than nice hundreds against inferior bowling. An extra difficulty was in comparing those I played with, for Australia, against some of my opponents. Being in the same dressing-room, and spending day after day together on tours, gave me a privileged insight into characters. Although I like to socialise with opponents, the circumstances are different. Fortunately, I have played against the likes of Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh in our domestic game, so there is some experience of being in opposition there, as well. In fact, I had some really fierce battles with Mark Waugh when Victoria played New South Wales and we were usually very good mates off the field. Without giving anything away, I can say that a couple of the 50 did not actually play Test cricket. There is something to puzzle any of you who might want to start throwing guesses. Another clue: my top ten is split exactly between Australians and the rest. Then again, I’ve still got five days to change them around. --------------------------------------------------- I think Laxman lost on that account.

[Ram]

A list that contains McMillan but not Laxman is abs bull.

[Chandan]

A list that contains McMillan but not Laxman is abs bull.

Why are you getting agitated MM? The list also doesn't have Azhar, Inzi, both of whom are/were better players than Laxman. It is fully Warne's opinion and everyone is entitled to have his/her opinion. Isn't it?

[Ram]

Why are you getting agitated MM? The list also doesn't have Azhar, Inzi, both of whom are/were better players than Laxman. It is fully Warne's opinion and everyone is entitled to have his/her opinion. Isn't it?

Yes , but having played competitive cricket for so long , you expect Warne to make sense with his choices. His right to make his own choices doesnt mean he makes stupid ones. His list doesnt contain Inzy ? Arguably amongst the top 5 best subcontinental batsman ever :haha: Warne thirst for publicity is not easily quenched i suppose. I am really suspicious about the timing of such a list.

[MundaPakistani]

50 was just too big of a number to deal with, he should have done a top 10 list of which most people might have agreed with about 7 and for the other 3 we could have had a debate. This current list and more importantly the reasoning for the picks is strange to say the very least e.g he says that he doesn't rate Waqar too highly because he fed off Wasim yet 2 days later he puts Lee(a man who fed off not just one but 2 great bowlers and still had a far worse record) 20 places ahead of Waqar.

[Ram]

Forget VVS , how can any sane person leave out Inzamam , and include Brian McMillan ?

[Holysmoke]

who the f are the 2 victorians in there.. i mean come on.. u rate guys who never even made it to the aussie test team more than vvs, ganguly, inzi, jonty and chanders?

[King Tendulkar]

Sachin is No 1 in the list! Warne gets it right!

[Chandan]

Yes , but having played competitive cricket for so long , you expect Warne to make sense with his choices. His right to make his own choices doesnt mean he makes stupid ones. His list doesnt contain Inzy ? Arguably amongst the top 5 best subcontinental batsman ever :haha: Warne thirst for publicity is not easily quenched i suppose. I am really suspicious about the timing of such a list.

Come on MM. You just can't say that his choices are stupid. He is the player who has played with or against these players. So obviously he knows much more about them than we do. And he said that he followed his instinct and gut feeling rather than sheer stats and figures. So... Laxman might take out a list of 50 players he has faced or played with and might put Warne at number 50. You won't be able to argue with that either because Laxman has faced Warney and we haven't.

[Anakin]

Sachin is No 1 in the list! Warne gets it right!

Where is the top 10 list? It's obvious SRT would be either #1 or #2, alternating with Lara in most bowler's book.

[zubinpepsi]

Where is the top 10 list? It's obvious SRT would be either #1 or #2' date=' alternating with Lara in most bowler's book.[/quote'] Read post #37

[Ram]

Come on MM. You just can't say that his choices are stupid. He is the player who has played with or against these players. So obviously he knows much more about them than we do. And he said that he followed his instinct and gut feeling rather than sheer stats and figures. So... Laxman might take out a list of 50 players he has faced or played with and might put Warne at number 50. You won't be able to argue with that either because Laxman has faced Warney and we haven't.

You dont know Chandan. Most of these player rankings are to settle personal scores more than anything else. Again , you seem to give too much importance to " a person's right to have his own opinion". This is a cricketing issue. To rank Waugh at 26 , leave out Inzy and VVS and rank Lee above Waqar is abs nonsense.

[Chandan]

The field is vast. Everybody I have played with or against since my debut for Victoria way back in 1991 is in contention. I hope that it starts a few debates; I would be surprised if it settles any.

Doesn't this tell you something? Warne might be doing this to settle a few personal scores but does that matter? He has rated the persons as he felt and made that clear in the beginning itself. So it is Warne's top 50 and we should see it from his point of view, not ours, or general or wisden's or whatever's point of view!!

[Predator_05]

Bradman, Donald, Lara, Warne and numerous others - the greatest cricketers of their time, rate Tendulkar as the best they have ever seen. Nice

[Chaos]

rofl inzy should be rated for wat?? look at him against aussies, he sucks at playing warne, sucks at playing mcgrath, in my book he would at 75. And vvs is wayyy talented and better to watch that inzy the mofo

[Deleted_User_1]

Warnie rates SRT the best http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/shane_warne/article2364258.ece :yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay:

[apocalypse]

There is already a thread for this http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=21093 Mods please merge this thread with other one

[Chandan]

But Shoaib is not included any where either. He has had few good performances vs Australia. So just take it as Warne's opinion, guys!!