Shane Warne made a career out of confusion. Armed with an array of deliveries that made even the most accomplished squirm, countless batsmen would end up befuddled, walking back to the rooms wondering just what had happened.
And as his career has shifted from on-field exploits to off, he remains as difficult as ever to read. You see, Warne has the capacity to offer rare, nuanced insight into Australian cricket. During an interview with the ABC in October, Warne went into impressive detail about the problems he saw in Australian cricket, namely a wider abandonment of club and Sheffield Shield cricket. This, in turn, has had a long-term detrimental impact of both on-field results and off-field attitudes.
A week later the Ethics Centre Review findings were published, among which Warne’s concerns were inadvertently front and centre. It was impressive insight and showed an acute awareness of the game’s current status in this country.
That very same week, however, the spin king wrote something seemingly incompatible with this insight. In a regular Herald Sun column Warne claimed that Aaron Finch should captain Australia in all formats of the game.
Huh?
He went on to say that D’Arcy Short should open the batting for the upcoming series against India.
Now come on, Warnie. Wait, is he serious?
It was playfully provocative. Warne media 101. It got the clicks, the views and all the hits that News Corp could want from a pundit piece. In a way he’s the perfect employee and media talent. He gets the ‘game’. Which outlet wants a former player to come out and say the selectors are spot on? None. Throw up a few left-field suggestions, a few flighted wide ones to the right-hander, and see who bites.
But is that really the case? Does Warne really put forth deliberately provocative statements simply to keep the media cogs turning? If so, this is puzzling.
As the greatest exponent of what’s commonly known as cricket’s most difficult skill – the art of wrist spin – Warne commands immediate respect. He hardly needs to be inflammatory to command attention; he’ll get it either way.
Some commentators take a decidedly objective, even-handed view of the game and are rewarded for it. Take Nasser Hussain and Michael Atherton, for example, a pair Warne has done plenty of work with on Sky in the UK. The two prominent pundits shape opinion with their cricketing intellect and nuance. When they speak everyone listens. It’s valued and often frames the debate going forward. Warne does the same thing, but unfortunately it’s only some of the time.
Shane Warne’s spin today is just as good as it was in 2006. (Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
The converse argument is that perhaps Warne wholeheartedly backs everything he says, all the way from the Marcus Stoinis and Short obsession to the perpetual Mitchell Starc and Usman Khawaja criticism. Like the batsmen he made a mockery of throughout his career, this too has me stumped. That someone who speaks so absorbingly about cricket’s tactics and the state of the game can put forth such seemingly reactionary suggestions just doesn’t marry up.
Warne was at it again this week. Writing in his column, he suggested that Khawaja shouldn’t play the first Ashes Test and instead be replaced by Marcus Harris or Cameron Bancroft at No.3. Neither should Mitchell Starc, he argued.
“The players’ performances against the worst Sri Lankan team to tour Australia shouldn’t cloud our judgment,” Warne said. Yet Jhye Richardson made his side, presumably picked on the back of his form in the Sri Lanka series. He also claimed, “If Will Pucovski had’ve been picked in the first Test against Sri Lanka at the Gabba, and he should’ve been picked, he would have made a century”. As easy as you like.
Warnie, as we’re always told, is just Warnie and won’t change.
Whether he’s purposefully inflammatory or genuine in his left-field views, I guess we’ll never know.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Bad luck SA your runs don't count againat SL.
JohnB
Roar Rookie
You can consider Henriques as a batsman by all means - but he's taken 0 FC wickets this season and he took 5 in 9 games last season and 3 in 9 the one before that. He hasn't been an all rounder for some time.
Bearfax
Roar Guru
Shane Warne is the Tom Cruise of cricket. Love Tom Cruise movies and he performs them very well. But he's off with the pixies in his behaviour and comments away from the big screen. Likewise Warne performed brilliantly as a cricketer and it is right to admire his achievements. But he's also off with the pixies in his behaviour and comments. I wonder if he jumped on Liz Hurley's lounge like Cruise did with Oprah. His suggestions regarding test spots over the years certainly come from left field, and I never end being befuddled by his selections. Thank goodness he's not a real selector. Like Langer, who tended until recently to lean towards Western Australian players, for Warne its present or ex Victorian players, some not logically in the top ten of players deserving selection. One choice being pushed not just by Warne is Stoinis. If we were looking for an all rounder the most successful in first class cricket in Australia is Henriques. Mitchell Marsh may be off song at present but his averages are far better than Stoinis. And I wont begin to talk of O'Keefe. We don't have a top all rounder in the country at present so why push it. Go for a top batsman who bowls a bit like Maxwell. Stoinis is a fairly good first class cricketer. He's no test player by a long shot.
Dave
Guest
What is the latest score in that test?
lloyd marshall
Roar Rookie
And now?
Tony H
Roar Pro
One of the best comments I've read on here. Well said all round.
josh
Roar Rookie
Warne just says stuff. There's no consequence to what he's doing. He's a real life reality show. He's generating clicks, and likes and online traffic for his employers. That's all.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Thanks Shane.
Matt H
Roar Guru
"seems to have grudges and likes to selectively use stats" That's The Roar below the line Mission Statement right there.
anon
Roar Pro
Warne loves to boost his mates and other mimbo types like Stoinis. Stoinis shouldn't be anywhere the Test side until he puts together a couple of big Shield seasons. His bowling is terrible at FC level. To the point that you wouldn't even bowl him. So he would be in the Test side for his batting. He's not one of the top 6 batsmen in the country. Simple as that.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Warnie is a mystery. Like anyone who's commentated for Channel 9 over the years, it's impossible to know how much of what they said they actually meant, as opposed to just talking rubbish to "draw viewers in". I've often heard that commentators like Slater and Warne are much better when they're on Sky and don't have to "perform". But likewise, I get the feeling Warne does mean some of the things he says. He is a huge fan of aggressive cricket. Whilst this made him, in my opinion, a decent to even excellent captain when he was given the chance, it makes him a poor selector. Being aggressive (playing) on the field is fine, but those teams he captained were selected by others, so his natural instincts were curbed by virtue of the teams he was given. When he puts his selector hat on, he loves guys like Stoinis because they, at least in Warne's eyes, play aggressive cricket - Warne seems to like sides to live by the sword. He's also a big fan of David Warner, another player who personifies his preference for aggressive cricket. The thing he seems incapable of seeing (or caring about) is that the sides he'd pick would more often than not lose a test in the first session, as opposed to win it (though I'm sure a line up of Short, Warner, Stoinis et al would run away with a game every now and then, in commanding fashion no less).
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
It took you a coupla paragraphs, but you got there! Warne is all about the clicks. The mainstream media is all about Warne's manufactured controversies. Warne WAS a brilliant bowler and tactician. Warne IS a terrible commentator pushing a hobby horse to feed his twitter profile. It was great not hearing him on free to air this season.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
It’ll be interesting how much attention that gets (depending on how the match plays out) given the narrative all around about performances vs ‘weak teams.’
Peter
Roar Rookie
The Warnie conundrum. He seems to have grudges and likes to selectively use stats (but don't we all). But then he's very insightful and makes interesting points, and well, he is Shane Warne, Shane the Great. I guess it's just annoying that people that don't question him a bit further on air, pull him up a bit on some things.
Steve
Guest
Probably did, Sri Lanka will get 170, SA 6 dec for 417 and Sri Lanka will be bowled out for 145 in their second innings resulting in 330 odd run loss.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Don't suppose he noticed The Sris cleaned up SA for 235 and are 1/49 in pursuit at stumps day 1?
JamesH
Roar Guru
I might be nitpicking a bit but blind freddy could see that there has been “a wider abandonment of club and Sheffield Shield cricket”, to the detriment of national performance. Plenty has been said about Shield cricket, although admittedly less so about the decline of premier league cricket, due in part to a bleed of players to suburban league sides splashing the cash. If I can self-indulge for a moment: I made my (very undeserved) first grade cricket debut in Tassie at around the age of 19 or 20 in a team featuring Jamie Cox, Shane Watson, Mark Atkinson and Shane Jurgensen… and we were roundly hammered by a side fielding Damien Wright, Scott Mason, Scott Kremerskothen and Shannon Tubb. Either of those teams would have utterly dominated the first grade lineups clubs field down here now. The lack of depth and mature talent is alarming (staggeringly, one 2s team got bowled out for just 12 on Saturday, chasing 333). The problem might not be as acute in Melbourne and Sydney but I’m sure it’s still there to a point. Anyway, back to Warne – I agree with your broader point. He’s incredibly frustrating when he jumps from insightful comments to nonsense. It’s probably connected in some way to the disparity between his tactical nous as a player and his off-field behaviour. Smart and immature at the same time.