WATCH: Shane Warne launches scathing attack on Steve Waugh

Bakkies, that it was vital for him (and he got out immediately the next day with the job for his team not done) is perhaps my point - if it was vital for his team and helped them win or save a game, I'd rate it much higher. That I think Steve Waugh's captaincy and batting tend to be a bit overrated doesn't mean I think he was other than a very very good player (and clearly the best in the team for a while there) or that I understand where Warne is coming from in what he said.

That last ball century against England was vital as he was struggling for runs at the time and Australian batting depth had more talent knocking on the door for his spot. He had the fight with the bat that a lot of the players in the current team lack. No way would he tolerate getting bowled out for 60 to 80 odd (the players would be doing more than just homework to face facts).

Lachlan, I've always thought Steve Waugh's captaincy was overrated and sometimes his batting also, so I don't mind at all someone looking at his record critically. I'd be intrigued to know what makes Warne rate him as so selfish. I have to say it never particularly struck me that his batting with the tail was selfish, or that he regularly played for himself (although I did think that in his last innings against India). I didn't think the last ball of the day 4 to reach a hundred knock deserves the high rating it seems to get - for one thing, it would have been much better if he'd kept going in the morning, given his team needed more runs not to lose that game. However, I don't think paring down your game a bit so you score a lot more runs is selfish - pragmatic perhaps. Smart certainly. Another criticism that might be made of him is he batted lower than he should have too often - again, I'm not sure I totally agree with that. If you make a lot of runs in one spot, there's a good argument that moving you merely weakens a strength. Finally, I think it's only fair to note that he did have a pretty high number of not outs - 46 out of 260 innings (compared to his brother's 17 from 209). However, another prominent Australian batsman of the same era who few people would describe as selfish on the cricket field managed virtually the same as Steve Waugh - 44 from 265. As you might guess from the number of innings, that was Allan Border.

It's a weird to criticism someone for taking easy runs when quick scoring was needed. Meanwhile, as captains did you ever see AB, Ponting, Clarke or Smith hit out late in the innings to get quick runs? The only person who I ever saw do that regularly was Gilchrist - inevitably Australia would declared when he got out.

Only when not on Channel 9.

It is all about perspective. How is changing your game (by not hooking etc) to such an extent that your average rises from the 30s to the 50s AND you win lots of tests for your country selfish? Wouldn't you have wished for a "selfish" player like that in England in 2015? Rather than guys who seemed to bat without any sense of calculation, self-discipline or mental strength? How is his attitude to batting with the tail selfish? Although it did always pay off, on balance, demanding that the tail bat properly (and showing faith and support for them) not only led to more runs from the lower order, but also changed the way players tend to bat with the tail these days. Hussey has never been called selfish, but his approach to batting with the tail is very similar to Waughs. I think Chappelli loathes Waugh because Waugh's philosophies were quite different to his own - Chappelli, for eg, would never put away the hook shot. If you read the book on Chappelli written by Mallett, so much of the criticism of Waugh seems incredibly mean-spirited.

You are the first person I have seen put that comment about him protecting his average and exposing the tail. I agree with you. Of course there are two schools of thought. The tail became better batsmen or Waugh got a better average. I always thought he was protecting his average. However, I still loved watching him play and I have fond memories of that

When the top and middle order batting was under pressure he had a tendency for overly risky singles to get off strike needlessly running out numerous players over the years. Apart from that I think he was an absolute LEGEND !!

Yes his unselfish support for the media by constantly doing stupid things is saint like

You don't improve your batting without facing deliveries which is what Waugh wanted and as achieved. Majority of tailenders are competent now due to the attitude. The selfish jibes should be more aimed at seeing his partners sacrifice themselves (ie Martyn) when caught up in mix ups. They sacrificed their wicket so he could stay in.

Well this is to much and glad everyone else sees the off field Warne for what he is. Yes he was a good bowler but I've lost all respect for the man and couldn't care less how good he was. In my eyes he stinks. Let's remember to,even if Shane is correct and Waugh is selfish,you would have to go a long way to be more selfish than Warne himself.

who was that guy at the end that asked him whether they won the test?

good cricket commentator tho

Sadly, life isn't as simple as you may like. Sometimes good people have flaws. Sometimes dickheads aren't completely wrong.

Incidentally, since I find myself on this mission, one of the reasons the Shane Warne Foundation was wound up was the report that 86% of the money raised on "expenses associated with staging lavish, star-studded events such as gala dinners, cricket matches and poker tournaments". Source http://www.smh.com.au/business/shane-warne-shuts-controversial-charity-20160129-gmh1z6.html#ixzz3zk0w0W6U Only 14% spent on charitable work. Still, that's twice as much as the 7% the horrendous Mother Theresa spent on charitable activities. Source \: http://www.salon.com/2016/01/03/the_wests_big_lie_about_mother_teresa_her_glorification_of_suffering_instead_of_relieving_it_has_had_little_impact_on_her_glowing_reputation/

Could be a little thirsty in the jungle...

This is sad. Shane Warne is one of my three favourite athletes of all time, along with David Campese and Mark Ella. But that admiration is based solely on his on-field ability, and not his off-field behaviour. He has a bruised ego because a former Australian of the Year dropped him before a Test he deserved to be dropped in... Everybody who reads my post should read Peter FitzSimons article on Warne's comments - it sums me up perfectly. Oh wait, here it is - http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/my-message-to-shane-warne-just-shut-up-and-eat-the-grubs-and-leave-steve-waugh-alone-20160210-gmq8md.html

I'm with everyone else: Warne was a wonderful cricketer but is a pretty average human. And on that note I know a writer - a non-sports writer but massive cricket tragic, who worked on a book with Warne and describes him as possibly the least likeable person he has ever met.

Your logic is twisted. Waugh a sporting legend and humble human, period.

Good to see the verdict being unanimous here..and yes warnie is making no sense.