Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Warne on Steve Waugh (Read 11850 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #1 –
What is it about retired (mainly) sports people bagging other retired sports people, generally ex team mates or coaches?

I wish they didn't rely on book sales and crap shows for more $$, when they should just learn to disappear gracefully. Edit: Or if they want to stay in the spotlight,  do something good




Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #2 –
Warnies cred after his dodgy foundation wound up ie 16c in the dollar reaching said charities isnt that great and South Africa (I'm a celeb get me out of here TV show) is a good place to hide from the limelight and throw crap at others when you have some friendly TV crew happy to air your trash for some headlines and ratings...

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #3 –
That was bizarre. Waugh did the right thing in dropping him but he's selfish for doing it?

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #4 –
There are times when Shane's cricket insights make a lot of sense.  The rest of the time it is pretty evident that he is far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #5 –
Warne is better off keeping his mouth shut, whenever he opens it he comes across as a buffoon. When you have blokes like Sam Newman and MBB agreeing with you a lot, you know you're in trouble.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #6 –
Warne said before this show started he wanted to let Australia see the real Shane Warne.

Well these comments highlight exactly who he is.
Warne forgets to tell everyone he was coming back from injury and struggling. He says he was bowling well. Before the fourth test he had taken 2/268 in the previous 3 tests in the West Indies.

Australia were down 2/1 in the series. Lara was in amazing form.
Australia won the last test to draw the series.
Stuart McGill took match figures of 5/130
Colin miller took 3/66 and made 43.
 

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #7 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Warne is better off keeping his mouth shut, whenever he opens it he comes across as a buffoon. When you have blokes like Sam Newman and MBB agreeing with you a lot, you know you're in trouble.

Have I missed something?
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #8 –
Quote from: DJC – on
There are times when Shane's cricket insights make a lot of sense.  The rest of the time it is pretty evident that he is far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

x2
I love Warnies commentary on matches but the crap he spews away from the commentary box really undoes all that good work.
IN WADA WE TRUST

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #9 –
Warne isn't the first past player to comment about Waugh, he's been indirectly accused of captaining for the benefit of his own statistics on more than one occasion. I've heard two such comments directly in person at sportsmen's nights. In retrospect they sum the situation up as Waugh being the direct opposite of Mark Taylor, Taylor many believe to be the equal best of any captain Australia has ever had!

I'd always thought Waugh was over-rated. He is nowhere near the best captains Australia had, he was a good batsmen without being exceptional or damaging. His fielding was good without being exceptional. For example Ponting had him covered in most areas on a like for like basis.

At the time Waugh was given the nod Australian cricket was being dominated by the relationship between the NSWCB and MCC, it still partially is the case.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #10 –
Quote from: LP – on
Warne isn't the first past player to comment about Waugh, he's been indirectly accused of captaining for the benefit of his own statistics on more than one occasion. I've heard two such comments directly in person at sportsmen's nights. In retrospect they sum the situation up as Waugh being the direct opposite of Mark Taylor, Taylor many believe to be the equal best of any captain Australia has ever had!

I'd always thought Waugh was over-rated. He is nowhere near the best captains Australia had, he was a good batsmen without being exceptional or damaging. His fielding was good without being exceptional. For example Ponting had him covered in most areas on a like for like basis.

At the time Waugh was given the nod Australian cricket was being dominated by the relationship between the NSWCB and MCC, it still partially is the case.

The comment from Warne was that he was selfish!
What other player said he was?
Waugh is certainly not Australia's best ever captain but he did instill a win every test mentality. I am not sure what else he is meant to do?
Warne clearly hates being told what to do, or that he's not up to it, which at that time, recovering from injury, he wasn't.
To label Steve Waugh selfish?
Warne could have been a tennis player with his sense if self worth

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #11 –
This is why I always laugh a bit when people say, "The coach has lost the players".  Sometimes, the term "the playing group" is substituted to emphasise the solidarity of the players players - instead of individuals, it is a monolith. 

In reality, those who are both "inside the bubble" and sensitive to the undercurrents know just how factional teams can be, much like a microcosm of ALP factional politics.  In any team, there are the haves and the have-nots.

It seems that hardly anyone in one of Australia's best cricket teams got on.  Warnie loathed Steve Waugh, Buchanan, and Gilchrist but liked Pup.  A lot of players, including Katich, hated Pup.  Symons seemed to hate a few.  Well-credentialed batsmen like Siddons and Hodge didn't seem to have any support.  I wonder if any of them are still mates?

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Mav – on
This is why I always laugh a bit when people say, "The coach has lost the players".  Sometimes, the term "the playing group" is substituted to emphasise the solidarity of the players players - instead of individuals, it is a monolith. 

In reality, those who are both "inside the bubble" and sensitive to the undercurrents know just how factional teams can be, much like a microcosm of ALP factional politics.  In any team, there are the haves and the have-nots.

It seems that hardly anyone in one of Australia's best cricket teams got on.  Warnie loathed Steve Waugh, Buchanan, and Gilchrist but liked Pup.  A lot of players, including Katich, hated Pup.  Symons seemed to hate a few.  Well-credentialed batsmen like Siddons and Hodge didn't seem to have any support.  I wonder if any of them are still mates?

Very true Mav. I've been involved with a few organisations over the journey including some community and charitable organisations. The extent of the cliques and even hatreds within some of those was truly amazing. I was pretty shocked at times as to how some so-called "nice" people could be so nasty and vindictive.  :(
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Mav – on
This is why I always laugh a bit when people say, "The coach has lost the players".  Sometimes, the term "the playing group" is substituted to emphasise the solidarity of the players players - instead of individuals, it is a monolith. 

In reality, those who are both "inside the bubble" and sensitive to the undercurrents know just how factional teams can be, much like a microcosm of ALP factional politics.  In any team, there are the haves and the have-nots.

It seems that hardly anyone in one of Australia's best cricket teams got on.  Warnie loathed Steve Waugh, Buchanan, and Gilchrist but liked Pup.  A lot of players, including Katich, hated Pup.  Symons seemed to hate a few.  Well-credentialed batsmen like Siddons and Hodge didn't seem to have any support.  I wonder if any of them are still mates?

I don't think the spoilt brats of the Aus Cricket Team are a great example TBH Mav.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Warne on Steve Waugh

Reply #14 –
But as Cookie points out, it's true of any organisation, even ones with a mission which you'd think would unite its personnel.  Just about every organisation looks shiny and monolithic from the outside until you zoom in and see what's actually happening inside.

Just look at the police, as an example.  It's easy to think of them as a brotherhood.  But then you read the stories about bullying and even rape within the ranks and high-level machinations which would make Machiavelli blanche.  In Victoria, Assistant Commissioner Ashby and the head of the police union, Paul Mullett, beat perjury charges arising out of a move they made on the then Commissioner of Police.  When you throw in the more garden-variety corrupt relationships between some police and drug dealers, even the suggestions that some bent police helped assassinate some informers who were under police protection, it doesn't seem to be such a monolithic brotherhood.

Why, then, would it be a surprise that any elite sporting team would be as fractured and factional?  After all, any success one of the team has works to the disadvantage of one or more of those competing for spots and there will always be those who would prefer individual over team success.  How many footy players have done what Warnie did - trying to force their way into the team for a big game in the hope that they'll be able to rise to the occasion despite injuries or injury layoffs rather than with any real confidence that they will be able to do so?