Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - Warne remains at his entertaining best

And so to those scores and agendas. Before the Top 10 were unveiled, being a shamefaced, anorak-wearing member of the anally-retentive brigade, I jotted down a list of certs and outsiders. On the basis that Warne was picking purely from among those he has played with or against, the main contenders, by a process of elimination, were fairly obvious: Ambrose, Border, Healy, Lara, McGrath, Muralitharan, Ponting, Mark Taylor, Tendulkar and Akram. The absence of even one would doubtless incite a riot in the blogosphere.

But might there be an honorary mention, even though the two never opposed each other on the field, for Abdul Qadir, for reinvigorating Warne’s trade and inspiring its master practitioner? Or perhaps VVS Laxman, that most elegant defier of baggy green caps, would squeeze in? Primarily on the back of his 281 at Kolkata in 2001, almost certainly the most resplendent music Warne has ever faced, but also for that magnificent lone-handed 167 in Sydney the previous year, comprising as it did virtually 70% of the non-extras in India’s second dig.

Not that Nos 11-53 lacked intrigue. Was Waqar’s insalubrious 45th place a comment about ball-tampering? The appearance at No.16 of Andrew Flintoff, fully 11 berths ahead of Jacques Kallis, whose allround returns have been of Sobersian proportions, was surely nothing if not a measure of Warne’s lack of fondness for South Africans and those whose play he perceives as being devoid of passion or soul. Justification for Tim May standing eight rungs higher than Stuart MacGill, owner of the best strike rate among modern Test spinners, was much harder to comprehend. Unless, that is, you attributed it to self-justification. After all, MacGill might have doubled his cap tally by now had he not been unfortunate enough to play in Warne’s vast shadow.

Then there was the sight, at a conspicuously lowly, pointedly humdrum No.26, of Steve Waugh, in his erstwhile colleague’s view a match-saver rather than a match-winner whose captaincy record had been buffed up for posterity because he inherited such an awesome side from Mark Taylor. That Warne himself might well have – and possibly should have – succeeded Taylor should not detract overmuch from the soundness of his logic. That Waugh's twin should rank 14 places higher was an even greater slap in the face.

In the event, the Top 10 were precisely as predicted. Headed by Tendulkar, who averaged a run more against Australia than Laxman and Lara (53 to 52), Lara emerged as the runner-up, leaving VVS, presumably, a tad miffed.

That a brace of batsmen should head this bowler’s chart was inevitable. Fellow bowlers never intimidated Warne, but there were times, assuredly, when Tendulkar and Lara came close to doing just that. That Murali emerged in seventh spot was a case, one rather suspects, of having one’s cake and eating it. High enough to stave off any charges of self-affirming bias but low enough (beneath Ambrose, McGrath and Akram, his top three bowlers) to make it clear that, well, even though the Sri Lankan will presumably steal that hard-earned wicket-taking record before the year’s out, he isn’t THAT good. Which could in turn be interpreted as disapproval of his action. The opening comment, “No matter what anybody thinks about his action…”, does little to deter this. If he truly believed Murali was beyond reproach, why bother mentioning it? The entries on Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar contained no such riders.

So thank-you Warney, as ever, for the entertainment. And yes, 708 wickets does earn you the right to cock snooks and ruffle feathers. Mind you, the next time you attend a dinner with Mr Waugh it might be wise to hire a food taster.

Be very careful when judging players opinion! Anyone who has played cricket from school level up will tell you some incredible stories about the best player they ever played against that will leave those who watched the game wondering "Was he actually there?". The best example from the Warne's list is Alec Stewart, the lasting memories from those in the stands and those viewing the game on TV is Warne humiliating another English batsman time and time again...but what did Warne think of that contest?

If you read through the biographies of a lot players there are always names that ask the question; how on earth? This list is no different, Warne has given respect where respect is due ( he only played Kapil Dev once, on what personal basis was he meant to make his judgement on? He is still in his top 50 though) and he has given high marks to those that had a great effect on him or had something, he believed, beyond the stats.

This isn't a list for the people, this is Warne's list, take it for what it is not what you want it to be.

I agree that Warne's list was a very entertaining read indeed, with interesting personal input on each player generating enough ammunition for many 'snubbing' conspiracy theories.

One point that I found may have been overlooked compared to some of the more controversial placings was Adam Gilchrist in at only number 20.

To see Ian Healy (prominent Channel 9 Australia commentator - Warney after his job back?) in the top 10, far above Gilchrist, was surprising. I read an article in a Melbourne newspaper a few years back where Peter Roebuck rated Adam Gilchrist as the 3rd greatest cricketer of all time, behind Bradman and Sobers... which I find a very legitimate claim.

Gilchrist has changed the face of cricket. He has won countless matches for Australia on the attack (e.g. World Cup final), held up its Test lower order for a decade (at an average of 50) helping to provide those frustrating extra 100 runs at the end of an innings - with Shane Warne's support of course. At the same time, he has been one of the top keepers in the world. He captained Australia over its final great obstacle of modern times, the first series win in India in 35 years, in 2004. Jealousy?

People often forget the pressure on Gilchrist (including being booed by home Australian crowds) in the first season or two of his international career as well, after the national selectors ended Healy's one-day career early for Gilchrist.

His handling of everything from the finest leg-spin in the world to the fastest bowling in the world (Lee) has been top-notch, perhaps slightly below that of Healy (stats suggest that Gilchrist stumps, and catches, at a superior rate to Healy in Tests though).

The article was a great read anyhow! Enjoyably controversial.

whilst Warne's list probably didn't involve too much deliberation, i enjoyed it simply for providing an alternative history on the Aussie cricketers of the last 2 decades. there was a period when Mark Waugh was Australia's lone world class batsmen. that he was never one for stat-padding, nor one for being a statesman (rather than solely a sportsmen) seems to have eroded our collective memories, perhaps unjustly. not unlike AB.

notable omissions in my mind were Damien Martyn and Jason Gillespie. and Gilchrist being well below Healy is, i think, significant.

I don't think you can or should read too much into the ranking of the international players. Ravi Shastri?

Warne's abilities as a cricketer cant be questioned. But all through his sordid life he has shown that he is too less a man. What is the intention of this ranking exercise? As I see it, its merely for Warne to get back at those who he never liked. He has been kind to those who praised him in public or those who were close to him. Ranatunga has no place in his list - but far lesser captains and players do. Waugh was not a great captain because his side was great anyway? Well, if anything, it only vindicates Australia for not having made Warne the captain for such narrow views on captaincy. Dravid must have captained India much earlier - taking a potshot at Ganguly who clearly miffed him more than once. He has talked of Lehman as a great player of spin - perhaps he has forgotten Navjot Sidhu who badly exposed him.His ratings of fast bowlers shows how little he knew of bowling other than spin.One can expect other surprises in the top ten - but really should we care?

I think Warne has bungled in his list. Laxman was the main tormentor of the Aussie attack and he likes to forget Laxman. So much for warne and his sportmanship. Every innings that Laxman played for the country was in times of crisis and most of the times India was on the winning side. He is like Vishwanath of the present era - a truly classy and wristy player. If he was given the confidence that the other seniors of the team were provided with, in my opinion Laxman would have been way ahead of all the other batsmen. He was always a uncertainty in the side and had to fight for his place every time. Just imagine in Hyderabad more than half the Ranji team left the side to play for ICL. This speaks badly of the local administration that they support only the relatives of office-bearers. Also spoken by some players after joining ICL. So Laxman had no support from his association and no clout like sachins, rahuls or saurvs have.

So much for fairness in Indian cricket.

well some folks mentioned abt warne's lack of knowledge abt fast bowling,i would second that.i hav seen mcgrath and ambrose and rank them above walsh and conteporary in terms of class of marshal,roberts,holding,lillee and imran khan BUT i reckon wasim and waqar far ahead of rest of fast men as reckoned by wisden and i will tag it with wasim akram's response to a question,when asked mcgrath had more wickets than him he said "i never got batsmen out on their weakness,i bowled to their strenghs giving them all the chance in the world to score off me.check my list and u will find bowled and lbw's unlike mcgrath's caught behind,give me a ball with no fielders just an empire and i will make my way thru his (batsman) stumps"
secondly all the players in the world agree that he had the most variety they had witnessed or possibly could be achieved
in his own words akram said "i can bowl 36 different bowls"
further he is the only man to break viv's ribs,srikanths head,lara's toes,knocked sachin a few times n head,broke inzimam's toes,jayasuria's guard etc.
allan border and arjuna ranatunga said if we were to born again we would ask the GOD to make us wasim akram.
lara places akram highest better than marshal.
imran said leave akram aside,then start ranking fast men.
to things short,warne's list is his list and unfortunately with due apologies has a tinge of bias.............anyhow its up to one self to agree or disagree
peace

It makes me close to being ashamed to being Australian. India smashed Warne at almost every opportunity, yet he can't find a place for VVS Laxman. If anything VVS smashed him more than the man he placed at number one.
Second point is that apparently Warne rated the players as people as much as cricketers in his list. What would be really interesting would be the right of reply. Warne has one interest - Warne. Selflessness, loyalty and patriotism are foreign to him. Had Australia not had Border to straighten them out Warne would have been a Pietersen (new best mate and member of the list)and joined New Zealand if they had a better side.
As for Lux - You will never ever see another Gilchrist. Go and join Warne and his friends in the room of mirrors. Ask Warne himself how easy it is to hit sixes at will (99 at the WACA ring a bell?) and the man will be the first in 130+ years of Test cricket to hit a 100 of them in a test career (and predominantly on Australian grounds - not postage stamps in WI and England). Of all the people fortunate to play in a dominant era of Australian cricket Warne can place himself top of that list. Without McGrath Warne would have been a joke. I hope he has a life without cricketing friends in Australia because that is what he deserves. His list, as per usual, is self serving