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.
Here are the rest of Warne's top ten anomalies:
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.
Merv Hughes is 18th, about 50 places too high. Hughes was a totem and a trouper, but also a bit of a trundler.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Posted by: Senthil on 09/04/2007
Everyone knows that Shane Warne has much better cricketing brain than anyothers who played in his era. This is the list he picked because he would love to play against them or with them.
The author has questioned the placement of Steve Waugh. Let me ask you this, if Steve Waugh is a better cricketer than Mark, would you watch Mark bat or Steve bat. I would settle for Mark.
Also, the author questioned about McGrath's placement and said he is better match winner than Sachin and Lara. In my view, no one player could win a match on his own. Look at McGrath, he played alongside Warne, Gilly, Ponting, Hayden and other match winners. No wonder McGrath ended up in the winning team where as the poor Sachin and Lara got the weaker teams.
Posted by: nathan on 09/04/2007
Warne is full of himself. His rating is based on his personal feelings not as professional player evaluation based of factual records.
Posted by: rahul agarwal on 09/04/2007
i have read tim dilisle 's comments and also many others. what most of them are overlooking is that this is an individual's opinion, a brilliant individual in his chosen field. the selections are not necessarily correct if you go by stats but thats the beauty of it all. unlike most other lists warne's list is from his perspective, as a player, as a competitor and as a human. it is not a list based on skills or achievements or record. i think the best way to look at it is through warne's eyes and grasp the fact that a 'great' like him can also be flawed in perception which he clearly is in some cases like steve waugh, donald, etc. when he puts merv hughes at 18th, its laughable but he must have seen something which was not clearly evident on the field of play, maybe hughes contributed in his own inimitable way more to a team then some of the more talented and better achievers, its this facet which we are all missing while looking at the list. tangibles are clear but intangibles are what a player feels and believes in. otherwise there is no point in such an exercise as top 45 out of 50 will be the same for all players who have played with warne. also the fact that he has ranked them shows that warne really believes in what he feels. i feel that the list should be viewed as a channel which gives us insight into warne's personality and way of thinking rather than any specific value to what he thinks about how great some of his contemporaries are. also it tells us that all players have their favorites and not so favourites and no matter how great our achievements are we all are in the end, humans.
Posted by: M. Khan on 09/04/2007
Just one comment - where is Inzamam in this list?
Posted by: Devendra Sawant on 09/04/2007
I do agree with Shane Warnes ratings. He has played with these players and thats his opinion. An also in my opinion, Tendulkar is the best ever cricketer the world has seen after Sir Don Bradman. There is no doubt about that. Few guys with linguistic differences from subcontinent might think otherwise. But Tendulkar is great..
Due respect should be given to his opinion. What other cricketing experts feel will not necessarily be felt by Warne.
I live in Australia and have seen and really awed by the respect and fan following Tendulkar gets. Tendulkar and Shane Warne are great.
Posted by: Marcus on 09/05/2007
Great writing Tim - I think you nailed my feelings regarding the list and Warnie. I thought the comments on Steve Waugh and Gilly were the most insightful - as well as Nasser and Thorpey and VVS and Harbhaian Singh (except I'm not sure Warnie got to play much against Dhoni? Or even Kumar for that matter...)
Posted by: Ali on 09/05/2007
Yet its good to honour someone's personal opinion but once it comes into public, its a public domain. Warne's list is not in any respect correct, it definitely has taste of prejudice and pride. Steve Waugh would top any list as he was the best Aussie captain, not from the best team he got but the attitude he instilled in those skilled gentlemen. Pakistan and South Africa were also not less skilled in those time but lacked the Waugh attitude and that made the difference. Gilchrist is my top keeper, not to say I don't regard Healy as amongst the best. Hughes being in that list of top 50 says a lot about the listing.
Posted by: Jonathan on 09/05/2007
Agree with Tim de Lisle. Fascinating but flawed and biased, as any individual's selection is likely to be - like it's originator. Which is why most selections are and will continue to be the domain of a panel - to eliminate personal bias. Let's enjoy the emotion and rhetoric that it is generating and may all of the great players who have been wronged through this flawed process, understand that it is just that.
Posted by: Ron on 09/05/2007
I believe that Shane Warne although a gifted cricketer has once again shown why he was never Australia's captain. He obviously has never accepted the fact the Steve Waugh was the right choice for captain above himself, and his placing of Mark Taylor in a top 50 at all is ludicrous as Taylor should have been dropped from the side yeas before he was. In my book Taylor would not be in the top 200. Shane Warne as fantastic on the field as he was has never accepted that he should ever have been dropped and has not forgiven Steve Waugh for that, and this makes Shane's choice both flawed and shows that he bears a grudge that belittles his humanity. Having said all of that it is his list and good luck to him for as we all know he will always be asked to be controversial.
Posted by: Umang Mittal on 09/05/2007
You can call it a first draft. I'm sure Warne would like to change a few names in there a week or two down the line. Though it's pretty obvious that he's only included cricketers that have had an impact on him. So it can't be called a best all time 50 or anything similar. Great to see Ambrose at No. 3 though.
Posted by: jogesh on 09/05/2007
nice article. hey, maybe warne knows that the standards expected of a journalist are not as high as those of a leg-spinner.
its 'his' list, where's the question of it being flawed? absurd adjective to use in this context. i think he left out inzamam (so did you by the way).
Posted by: Ramelton on 09/05/2007
Warne is right. Sachin and Lara redefined batting in the last 20 years. Trend setters are like visionaries and Warne is smart enough to recognise that. Both Brian and Sachin are absolutely class apart. I would like to quote Tony Greg who said " There is Sachin, then there is daylight and then others "
Posted by: Amer Akhtar on 09/05/2007
Every human being has a right of self opinion, personal likings and dislikings. This is exactly what Warne has done here and there is nothing wrong with it. Although he did include Steve in his list but we should not blame Steve if he even leaves out Warne from his.
Posted by: Harris Iqbal on 09/05/2007
I totally agree with Tim. The list is completely biased and flawed. Too many Australians. How can you have Merv Hughes in the Top 20 World Players. I am not even sure he makes the Top 20 Australian players. Waqar Younis at 45? Is that supposed to be a joke??? No Dean Jones, Miandad, Hussey??? Where did the best ODI player Bevan go? What about Saqlain Mushtaq? And I definetly agree with Tim about Steve Waugh. Cricket is not just about style, it is about guts, determination and winning games. Steve had all that. He should definetly be in the top 10 at least.
Posted by: Kappa on 09/05/2007
As i read in the surfer, putting Steve Waugh and Adam Gilchrist so low proved that there was division in the Australian team but unlike other teams they put it aside- it proves us different to all other cricketing nations, we set aside all our differences and focus on the main goal,winning.
Also Shane did miss out some very good players and placed some higher than they warranted. As to what Tim said regarding the lack of ODI specalists he did miss arguably the greatest contempory ODI player (and one of the all time greatest) Andrew Symonds. He would place in a fair few peoples all time ODI XI.
Posted by: Anees on 09/05/2007
I don't agree, maybe no one will except warne. List is based more on people he like/have good relations then their achievements.
Posted by: muhammad pervez on 09/05/2007
What about Inzamam the best batsmen Pakistan had and one of the best and most elegant player of fast bowling.Saleem Malik is one of the very few batsmen who scored a double hundred against Warne but he also was neglected.
Web Feeds
