TGM continues to lose the plot

His 11 to 20:

What a sledge of Gilly's keeping!



20
Adam Gilchrist (Australia)
Test matches 90 Runs 5,353 at 48.66 Catches 344 Stumpings 37

function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {
var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&&sectionName=Cricket','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');
}





That every country is trying to find an Adam Gilchrist shows his impact. Wicketkeepers now have to bat as well. If we were ever under the pump he could turn around the situation by counter-attacking and he has settled one-day games in the first hour. He is still a batsman-keeper rather than the other way round, but his keeping is improving.
19
Aravinda de Silva (Sri Lanka)
Test matches 93 Runs 6,361 at 42.97
At team meetings we would spend more time talking about Aravinda than the rest of the Sri Lanka batsmen — but our plans rarely came off. He was sheer class, a lovely strokemaker and his hundred in the 1996 World Cup final ranks among the best one-day innings. His off spin was also underrated, especially in his home country.
18
Merv Hughes (Australia)
Test matches 53 Wickets 212 at 28.38
Nobody in our dressing-room will be surprised that Merv is so high. For all the clowning, the moustache and his physique, he was a thoughtful bowler with incredible mental strength. However flat the pitch or well-set the batsmen, you could always throw him the ball. His resilience to play through injuries set him apart.
17
Matthew Hayden (Australia)
Test matches 89 Runs 7,739 at 53.00
There is something individually special about most of the top 20.
In Hayden’s case it is his refusal to give up after struggling in his first go at Test cricket. He kept fighting for his spot, scored heavily in domestic cricket and the tour to India in 2001 was a breakthrough. Since then he has been a phenomenal run-scorer and is now recognised as one of the best openers Australia have had.
16
Andrew Flintoff (England)
Test matches 67 Runs 3,381 at 32.50 Wickets 197 at 32.02
I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way to Michael Vaughan, but it was “Fred” who carried England through the 2005 Ashes with his batting, bowling and sheer presence. He was great for the game in Australia as well as England; our crowds were desperate to see him play in the series last winter.
He is still the best all-rounder in the world and I really hope he can now put his injuries behind him and enjoy a clear run.
15
Graham Gooch (England)
Test matches 118 Runs 8,900 at 42.58
Professional in every sense of the word, Gooch was the toughest opponent from England I faced, which is remarkable given that he had been playing Test cricket for 18 years by the time my first Ashes series came around in 1993. Even then he was the wicket we most wanted. When I called him “Mr Gooch” he thought I was taking the mickey. I wasn’t; it was out of respect.
14
Rahul Dravid (India)
Test matches 112 Runs 9,492 at 56.50
Dravid grew in my estimation the longer I played Test cricket. He will not destroy you like a few batsmen lower in my list, but he can grind you down. As a bowler you know that once he is in, you need to produce a very good ball. That sounds obvious, but he is so strong technically that he makes fewer mistakes than other batsmen. And he should have captained India far earlier than he did.
13
Anil Kumble (India)
Test matches 118 Wickets 566 at 28.73
I can empathise with Kumble as a wrist-spin bowler. He is a real fighter, a bloke who will give you nothing on the field but has always been a true gentleman off it. With his height and bounce he comes into his own when the pitch is up and down, but he adapts well to most conditions. To score a maiden Test hundred in his 118th game was amazing; I wish that I’d matched that.
12
Mark Waugh (Australia)
Test matches 128 Runs 8,029 at 41.81
Whether he was batting, standing at slip or in the outfield, everything about this guy was graceful. Of all our great batsmen, he was my favourite to watch. The key was his timing and rhythm. He and Darren Lehmann have been the best Australian players of spin in my time. “Junior” had so much talent; he could bowl fast or really spin an off break. A good team man.
11
Courtney Walsh (West Indies)
Test matches 132 Wickets 519 at 24.44
He began his career at a time when West Indies could pick from seven or eight genuinely world-class fast bowlers and ended as their stock and strike man in one. For a paceman to pass 500 Test wickets is an incredible achievement given the rigours of the game. He gave you very little to hit and also had a very quick ball when he decided to use it.

Gilchrist's 'keeping has only ever been 'solid'. This actually looks like the most sensibly ranked group of 10 so far.

Henry wrote:Gilchrist's 'keeping has only ever been 'solid'. This actually looks like the most sensibly ranked group of 10 so far.

Mark Waugh ahead of Dravid and Gooch (let alone Steve)?

Flintoff so far ahead of Kapil?

Mark Waugh is a bit out of place, yes. But Warne only played against Kapil when he was in the twilight of his career.

I haven't really followed this Warney bullsh!t fest, but where did he rate Healy?

JGK wrote:12
Mark Waugh (Australia)
Test matches 128 Runs 8,029 at 41.81
Whether he was batting, standing at slip or in the outfield, everything about this guy was graceful. Of all our great batsmen, he was my favourite to watch. The key was his timing and rhythm. He and Darren Lehmann have been the best Australian players of spin in my time. “Junior” had so much talent; he could bowl fast or really spin an off break. A good team man.

And he gave great he@d.

Can't argue with the top 3 though, Ambrose, Lara, Tendulkar. I guess some might switch their positions around.

Tugga 26th, Junior 12th... apparently because Tugga was a 'match-saver' rather than a 'match-winner'. Anyone who has clear memories of Australian cricket in the 1990s knows what rubbish that is.

I think we've known Warney and Tugga didn't like each other since the latter's autobiography came out. It's not really a surprise... Waugh Senior not liking a loudmouthed Vic lair, and aforementioned Vic being a bitter loser. Who'd have guessed?

Warnie's a lot of things, leo, but he ain't a loser.

Bitter about losing the captaincy to Tugga.

Didn't mean he was a loser in general, just that he was bitter about it when it happened.

Respect for Gooch ...Yeah Yeah

Steve Waugh at 26! presumably Warnie slept through the OT test in 1997.

Tugga at 26 is a reminder that TGM is a Victorian

Aye, I don't think either gent is on the other's Christmas card list.

Basil wrote:Steve Waugh at 26! presumably Warnie slept through the OT test in 1997.

Not to mention the whole of the 1995 Windies tour.

Of course Tugga was only a good match saving batsman, don't forget that!

Shane Warne's list of the top 50 cricketers

Flawed yet fascinating

Tim de Lisle

September 4, 2007




















Of Steve Waugh's 32 Test centuries, 25 led to victories, yet Shane Warne called him a match-saver, not a match-winner Getty Images
Cricket generates a lot of lists. So do the modern media. There are now so many lists coming at you that even a list-lover may be left feeling a little listless. But Shane Warne's list of the top 50 cricketers of his time, published last week in The Times, bucked the trend. It was everything a list ought to be: provocative, surprising, talked-about, and, in places, plain wrong.


Most players who have columns are about as good at writing as journalists are at batting and bowling, but Warne is one of the exceptions. He always has opinions and where others might soften them to spare their fellow pros' feelings, he is more than happy to give offence. He takes the same approach with his top 50. He throws himself into it, grasping that, just like any other game, it wouldn't be fun if you didn't take it seriously.

The Warne we know and love, or hate, or both, is on full view here. He cheats, in a minor way: three times he places two players level, and he forgets that if you have two people at 27th, you can't then have one at 28th. In fact, he has two more at 28th, and another two for good measure at 29th, so his top 30 is a top 33.

He also settles a few scores. He places Mark Waugh 12th and Steve 26th. You can certainly argue that Mark was the more gifted twin, the greater stylist, the better catcher, the more useful one-day player. But better player full stop? No way. Steve put a much higher price on his wicket. And he was also a great captain, a quality which Warne cannot see, even though he values it in both Steve's predecessors, Mark Taylor (9th) and Allan Border (4th).

Warne's rationale is that, as a batsman, Steve was "a match-saver rather than a match-winner", and, as a captain, he was "handed" a "wonderful team" by Taylor. The match-saving idea is baffling. Of Waugh's 32 Test centuries, 25 led to victory, and only two to draws. The captaincy line isn't much more accurate. He did inherit a great team, but he took it to another level - and he did it by virtually eliminating the draw, so to accuse him of being a match-saver is doubly unfair.

Warne fails to convince anyone that Steve Waugh was as ordinary as he makes out (below Darren Lehmann and Brett Lee? Come off it). But he tells us a few other things: that one of the greatest teams ever had a rift running through it, with Warne on one side and Steve Waugh and Adam Gilchrist (20th on Warne's list, when he would make many people's All-time World XI) on the other. Perhaps he is also saying that he is still sore about being passed over for the captaincy in favour of Steve Waugh, and later for the vice-captaincy in favour of Gilchrist. Which makes their achievement all the greater. These men played a lot of Tests together. Gilchrist took more stumpings off Warne than Ian Healy (10th) did - and more catches. Just think how good they would have been if they'd all been close mates.



Warne is not unkind to the English, but he can't find room for Graham Thorpe, a better Ashes cricketer than Atherton or Stewart, or for Darren Gough, who took 74 Ashes wickets at 30 Here are the rest of Warne's top ten anomalies:
<LI>Does Warne have too much respect for batsmen? His top two are Tendulkar and Brian Lara. Yet Glenn McGrath, who is 4th, has won more matches than either.
<LI>Merv Hughes is 18th, about 50 places too high. Hughes was a totem and a trouper, but also a bit of a trundler.
<LI>Wasim Akram is 6th, Waqar Younis 45th. Akram was the better bowler in their dotage, but in the early 90s, Waqar was dynamite. You might put him 10 to 15 places behind Wasim (who could also bat), but not 40.
<LI>Brett Lee is 24th, above both Shaun Pollock (27th) and Allan Donald (33rd). Lee is great when the force is with him, but for consistency, economy and sheer class, Pollock and Donald are way ahead.
<LI>Warne acknowledges three of the best batsmen-keepers, Gilchrist (20th on his list, Test average 48), Andy Flower (36th, average as a keeper 53) and Alec Stewart (44th, average as a keeper 34). But two others are nowhere to be seen. With Mahendra Singh Dhoni, it's probably because he hasn't played many Tests yet (20, average 36). With Kumar Sangakkara (48 Tests as keeper, average 42), there is no such get-out. Has Warne forgotten him, or is he not a fan of his educated style?
<LI>Warne includes 20 Aussies, which sounds a lot. But he finds no room for the silky skills of Damien Martyn, or, more criminally, for two one-day finishers - Michael Bevan (the best ever) and Mike Hussey (also very good, and a Test match-winner too). Nor is there any sign of Dean Jones, who, along with Javed Miandad, practically invented one-day middle-overs batting. The places given to Tim May, Darren Berry and Jamie Siddons should have gone to these three.
<LI>Warne is not unkind to the English, finding room for eight of his Ashes opponents. But not too many England fans would recognise them as the eight best players of the last 15 years. Graham Gooch is top of the Poms at 15th, followed by Andrew Flintoff (16th), Kevin Pietersen (30th), Robin Smith (32nd), Michael Vaughan (35th), Steve Harmison (37th), Mike Atherton (43rd) and Alec Stewart (44th). Warne shows respect to all the England captains he faced, except one of the best, Nasser Hussain. He also favours Anglo-South Africans - although South Africans who stay in South Africa go down less well (no Jonty Rhodes, Makhaya Ntini, or Herschelle Gibbs; perhaps their mistake was not to join Hampshire). Most strikingly, he can't find room for Graham Thorpe, a better Ashes cricketer than Atherton or Stewart, or for Darren Gough, who took 74 Ashes wickets at 30 - a record Harmison would love to have.










VVS Laxman's 281was probably the best innings by an Indian, but it wasn't enough to win him a place in Warne's list Getty Images

<LI>Warne has always been decisive, and with the West Indians he has faced, he decides that they are either geniuses (Lara 2nd, Ambrose 3rd, Walsh 11th) or non-entities - no other player gets a look-in. To some extent this reflects West Indies' fortunes, but Ian Bishop, Richie Richardson and Shiv Chanderpaul all deserve better.
Warne is funny about Indians. He lionises Sachin Tendulkar (1st) and pays his respects to Anil Kumble (13th) and Rahul Dravid (14th). But then he forgets about India for some time, and when he does remember, it's all ancient history - Kapil Dev (40th), Ravi Shastri (42nd) and Dilip Vengsarkar (46th). If Shastri is there for the double-hundred he made against the young Warne, that is surely outshone by VVS Laxman's 281, probably the best innings ever by an Indian. And Harbhajan Singh may feel like consulting his lawyers: he has 56 wickets at 24 against Australia, a far better record than Warne has against India. In the end, this exercise, like Warne's whole career, is all about Warne himself. As a piece of selection, it's surprisingly flawed. As a self-portrait, it's fascinating.

Tim de Lisle wrote:With Mahendra Singh Dhoni, it's probably because he hasn't played many Tests yet (20, average 36)

Or maybe because his FTBing puts Hayden to shame.

skully wrote:I haven't really followed this Warney bullsh!t fest, but where did he rate Healy?

10th IIRC

Shane Warne's list of greatest cricketers
1 Sachin Tendulkar 2 Brian Lara 3 Curtly Ambrose 4 Allan Border 5 Glenn McGrath 6 Wasim Akram 7 Muttiah Muralitharan 8 Ricky Ponting 9 Mark Taylor 10 Ian Healy 11 Courtney Walsh 12 Mark Waugh 13 Anil Kumble 14 Rahul Dravid 15 Graham Gooch 16 Andrew Flintoff 17 Matthew Hayden 18 Merv Hughes 19 Aravinda de Silva 20 Adam Gilchrist 21 David Boon 22 Martin Crowe 23 Stephen Fleming 24 Brett Lee 25 Darren Lehmann 26 Steve Waugh 27 Jacques Kallis/ Shaun Pollock 28 Saeed Anwar/ Mohammad Yousuf 29 Shoaib Akhtar/ Craig McDermott 30 Kevin Pietersen 31 Tim May 32 Robin Smith 33 Allan Donald 34 Bruce Reid 35 Michael Vaughan 36 Andy Flower 37 Stephen Harmison 38 Sanath Jayasuriya 39 Stuart MacGill 40 Kapil Dev 41 Justin Langer 42 Ravi Shastri 43 Michael Atherton 44 Alec Stewart 45 Waqar Younis 46 Dilip Vengsarkar 47 Chris Cairns 48 Brian McMillan 49 Darren Berry 50 Jamie Siddons

© Cricinfo

Good article by de Lisle. But TGM is entitled to his opinion no matter how flawed in fact it is. Never the brain surgeon, old Warnie.

FFS he's ranking the players he persoanlly played with and against . . . his take is bound to be different from that of an objective observer or that of another player making a similar list . . . big farkin deal

re: Gough. Yep he took 74 @ 30, but he also had 35 Ashes catches dropped. He was a performer. Not sure how he missed the list.

Thorpey: Averaged 45 versus Aus, amongst a bag of shoite. Not sure how he missed out.

But as mentioned, it's his own list and he can stick who he wants on there.

Did he ever have the plot?