Shane Warne RIP

[Flynnie]

I remember listening to the Channel 7 (or 9?) commentary — they used to stream it on CricInfo — when Warne got his 99 vs NZ. The whole ground and commentary crew was on pins and needles as to whether Warnie would get his century, then he hit a ludicrous hook shot that was caught backward of square leg and the commentary crew burst out in laughter. Classic Warne.

[Gas In Name Only]

From the Bristol Post on his spell at Imperial CC in 1988:

Warne spent a summer playing for Imperial Cricket Club in Brislington, Bristol in the 1980s before his legendary career took off. He recalled in his autobiography that he "thought of it as an opportunity for some fun and games away from home while I pondered my future."

In 1988 Steve Windaybank, now president of Knowle Cricket Club, was sent to pick up two young Australian cricketers from Temple Meads. They were the latest players to take advantage of an arrangement, started in 1979, between cricket clubs in Bristol at the St Kilda club in Melbourne.

On that day in 1988, one player was already familiar to Knowle – and the other was an unknown. Mr Windaybank said: “There was a very good young player called Ricky Gough, who had been over once already. He came on the train from Heathrow with Shane Warne, although I did not know Warne’s name when I went to pick them up.

"He had this long blond hair – he looked like he had come straight from the beach. I took them both up to the George Hotel on Wells Road, sat them down and told Ricky that he was playing for Knowle and Shane that he was going to be at Imperial. Looking back you could say we made the wrong decision but nobody knew at the time he was going to go on and become the player he did, being named as one of Wisden’s five cricketers of the century.”

In his autobiography, Warne wrote about getting pints for 20p at a bar called Busby's, describing himself and the team as "drinking machines" by the end of the summer. He also described a pub called The George, which was "owned by some of the nicest people I've ever met."

Probably the greatest sporting occasion I've ever attended in person was the 1999 World Cup semi final at Edgbaston. So many things about that day were memorable, not least the chaotic run out with scores level that saw the Australians go through with a superior record in the previous round. But it was Warne's bowling that gave them a chance, it was utterly mesmerising. Wonderful to watch as a relative neutral when I was more used to being tied in knots as he pulled England to pieces.

I also saw him bowl bouncers on occasion - first time at Hampshire's old ground in Southampton in his debut season there.

Honestly still in shock. I saw his picture come up on a news site and scrolled past, thinking it was something to do with Rod Marsh and reversed hard when the words I'd barely registered sank in.

A guy who inspired mixed feelings even amongst my Australian friends. But my goodness, WHAT a cricketer

[Uncle Ethan]

I remember listening to the Channel 7 (or 9?) commentary — they used to stream it on CricInfo — when Warne got his 99 vs NZ. The whole ground and commentary crew was on pins and needles as to whether Warnie would get his century, then he hit a ludicrous hook shot that was caught backward of square leg and the commentary crew burst out in laughter. Classic Warne.

And it was a no ball too.

[ursus arctos]

A significant "majority"?

(a) surely not
(b) all majorities are significant

I'm curious about this.

First of all, the Lewis coverup/whitewash/redemption thing is very much real in the US. I would guess that more than 2/3 of respondents to any poll would say that he ran clean. It would be significantly lower among people who followed the sport and/or his career, but that is a distinct minority in the US.

USians tend to use "significant majority" to mean (very roughly) something between 60/40 and 80/20. More than 80 and the majority is "overwhelming"; below 60 (or 55) and it is "slight".

Or at least that is what I think. There is actual a widely accepted unwritten convention to this effect in securities law, as to what adjectives one can safely use without running a real risk of losing a court case and it is perfectly possible that I have unconsciously internalised same.

[ad hoc]

On the first point, I'm genuinely surprised

On the second, I've never heard the expression "significant majority" before and it sounds weird since it feels like any majority is significant.

[CY_Boaby]

I'd just moved to Perth when the WACA hosted the first interstate domestic 20/20 game between Western Australia and Victoria in January 2005. A friendly match being played midweek saw a record domestic crowd for the WACA of 23,000 turn up. The fascination of this new fangled format was definitely catching the public's attention, but the fact Shane Warne was playing for Victoria was also a huge draw card.

I remember the huge anticipation all around the ground when he bowled his first over, and even the home crowd were chanting "Warnie, Warnie". If memory serves he only bowled a couple of overs, got smacked to the boundary quite a few times with WA hit the winning runs off his bowling. I'd watch him play over the next couple of years whenever the Test matches came to Perth, but that fading memory of seeing him play in the flesh for the first time,17 years ago at that 20/20 match, is the one I'll remember the most.

[ursus arctos]

I find ad hoc's response genuinely interesting in both respects.

This is pedantic, but it would seem to me that the "significance" of a polled "majority" within the acknowledged margin of error is very marginal at best.

As to Lewis, it is difficult to overestimate the capacity of the US population when it comes to hypocrisy and willingness to be deluded/ignore contrary evidence.

[ad hoc]

I guess it's because I'm familiar with the term significant minority which at least seems comprehensible. 30%of people seems significant. 1% probably isn't.

So on those grounds all majorities are significant. But what I see you saying is that it's the size of the majority itself that is being referred to, not the actual share of the population. So, the people who voted for Brexit simply constitute a majority - not a significant one (though from where I sit they represent something incredibly and depressingly significant)

[ursus arctos]

Yes
Single vote majorities or pluralities in elections (or representative bodies) can be massively consequential.

Alas

[Uncle Ethan]

Saw Warne bowl a few times. One of the players who prompts an intake of breath as they get involved. Also that rare sportsperson who attracts people to their sport who might never otherwise have paid attention. Had a drink with him in once in the company of footballers and cricketers. Had that reserve that celebrities have around strangers. A flawed man in many ways, but most of us are. In terms of attracting eyeballs to his sport at least as important as Michael Jordan.

[Incandenza]

I find ad hoc's response genuinely interesting in both respects.

This is pedantic, but it would seem to me that the "significance" of a polled "majority" within the acknowledged margin of error is very marginal at best.

As to Lewis, it is difficult to overestimate the capacity of the US population when it comes to hypocrisy and willingness to be deluded/ignore contrary evidence.

I'd also say a majority of people thought that the French and maybe other Europeans were trying to take down Lance Armstrong by any means necessary and that he was clean until the evidence became too overwhelming to ignore.

[ursus arctos]

Absolutely true.

I enjoyed this Warne tribute from Jarrod Kimber

https://wickets.substack.com/p/three...m_medium=email

[Uncle Ethan]

There's a great thread on Twitter which shows overs rather than single deliveries. How he set batters up was the true skill. Hopefully someone technical can link it.

[ursus arctos]

I think it is this one from the invaluable Rob Moody, but he is continuing to post more remarkable clips of the man's mastery, so it is very much worth going to his account (and following him if you are on Twitter).

https://twitter.com/robelinda2/status/1499764448873316355?s=20&t=ImAj7aIauJCpyojmKZwLxQ

[Flynnie]

I’ll start with Warne before I get to Carl Lewis.

Robelinda is such an incredible YouTube page, I believe that’s where I saw the over against Craig McMillan where Warne outthinks him to the point McMillan looks like an idiot.

there’s a fantastic YouTube out there from Fox Sports Cricket today, Warne’s best 50 wickets in Australia. Cullinan and Cronje feature multiple times.

as for Lewis, do not underestimate the American media’s capacity to memory hole and bury stuff. Being old enough to remember and cheer on Lewis’s last surprise gold in the long jump in 1996, drugs just weren’t discussed. At all. You’d have had more drug chat about… shit, I don’t know, Kerri Strug (the gymnast who landed on a gammy ankle to win* gold for the USA) than Lewis.

it’s why I’ll never forgive the media for their horseshit about Bonds and Clemens. I remember the home run chase in 1998, an AP reporter found a bottle of androstenedione (legal, but obviously very close to being a steroid) in Mark McGwire’s locker and the entire sports media to a man rounded on that guy and told him to shut the fuck up.

surprisingly, the 30 for 30 on Ben Johnson did a terrific job of making Lewis look sleazy as shit, that was probably where I learned how much of a drug cheat the Canadians felt he was. Hard to approve of what they did, but they were adamant they were just trying to keep up with the US, and the filmmaker actually showed why.

Armstrong-mania was indefensible however.

[Sits]

Saw him play once, a ODI at the SCG in January 2001 which Australia won (obviously). Not a vintage match for him but he was batting with Michael Bevan as the winning runs were scored.

It’s just a “being there” thing really, like the time I saw Johan Cruyff. The fact he was all the way over on the far touchline (managing Barça to their first European Cup) is beside the point.

[G-Man]

I saw hm only once as well, in a very one-sided ODI in 2000, just after Cronje was found out for match-fixing. Warne amd McGrath delivered a masterclass in tight bowling, but Warne took only one wicket, that of journeyman Dave Callaghan. It was Callaghan's final appearance for SA. So while Warne didn't end Cullinan's career, as has been supposed, he might be said to have killed Callaghan.

Australia won that ODI, the second of three, handily. They lost the series though.

[Ray de Galles]

here's a whole song about 'that ball.'

RIP Shane.

That's been in my head since the news broke, though singing the last few words isn't at all fitting.

[Satchmo Distel]

I'd be interested to know Calvin Smith's views on Lewis. IIRC Smith was the only clean runner in the 1988 final.

Warne is more like Maradona in that he took drugs to lose weight for a World Cup. They didn't didn't help them bulk up to run faster or have greater physical power.

[San Bernardhinault]

I’d like to point out that the BBC and British media have traditionally been just as one-eyed about British competitor doping as the Americans are about Lewis (and many others). They always seemed to believe the Linford Christie ginseng story. They always spoke about dodgy foreigners doing dodgy foreigner things. I think they rarely commented on Dave Brailsford or Sky or all those medical exemptions that showed up at just the right time for certain British cyclists…

In my head, I give Warne a free pass. Because his key skills were the kind that no amount of doping could help (or hinder). I don’t think you get better consistency in line-and-length from any medication. And I doubt there’s a steroid that created very powerful wrist rotation. He might have become a slightly more belligerent tail-ender in a 50-over match by going to full Barry Bonds, but nobody remembers Warne for the occasional tail-wag.

[Snake Plissken]

The thing I liked about Warne - or hated when he was bowling in the Ashes - was the feeling that he could take the batsman's wicket any time that he felt like it. He toyed with them like a cat with a mouse. I can imagine him saying to his captain "I can get him out now and we're out here for another 45 minutes, or I can wait three overs and then we can go for an early lunch."

[Janik]

It seems quite possible he dieted himself to death. Or slightly more accurately; put himself at substantially increased risk of health problems by following an extreme fad diet. FFS.

[Sits]

I’d like to point out that the BBC and British media have traditionally been just as one-eyed about British competitor doping as the Americans are about Lewis (and many others). They always seemed to believe the Linford Christie ginseng story. They always spoke about dodgy foreigners doing dodgy foreigner things. I think they rarely commented on Dave Brailsford or Sky or all those medical exemptions that showed up at just the right time for certain British cyclists…

In my head, I give Warne a free pass. Because his key skills were the kind that no amount of doping could help (or hinder). I don’t think you get better consistency in line-and-length from any medication. And I doubt there’s a steroid that created very powerful wrist rotation. He might have become a slightly more belligerent tail-ender in a 50-over match by going to full Barry Bonds, but nobody remembers Warne for the occasional tail-wag.

Good post.

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

I still can't believe he's gone. So much talent, allied to application and dedication to the sport - while being an absolute rock star.