Warnie to retire?

I wonder what the present-day journos would've been able to dig up on the olden-day heroes had they been around then. I'm sure there was heaps of shenanigans going on that the stiff upper lip crowd conveniently 'overlooked'.
Unfortunately for the current soprts stars, wheather they like it or not they are role models, and are looked up to by thousands of impressionable kids. Hopefully we don't have a generation of fag-smoking drug taking adulterating hair implant rooters as our future sports 'stars'.
I hope too that once Warnie's had a leg over half the western world's porkable shielas he doesn't find himself head-in-hands in some quiet lonely corner looking back at the time he had a great wee family and thinking "Look what I threw away, for a few(hundred) roots!"
Spin: 10/10 - self control: 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

If he wasn't so darned good at throwing a ball 22 yards.....

---

THROWING Midge? :eek: Wash your mouth out! :D

we just can't stand anyone acting like a normal man or woman any more
the A>C>B runs them like puppets .not even footy players can have a drink any more As for being a role model l think thats a perents job
my son and l love the spin king


arty

The Wanka, Who cares? I don't.

over 50% well over:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TassieKiwi

Spin: 10/10 - self control: 0

---

LOL, great summary :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TassieKiwi

I wonder what the present-day journos would've been able to dig up on the olden-day heroes had they been around then. I'm sure there was heaps of shenanigans going on that the stiff upper lip crowd conveniently 'overlooked'.

---

To many to count. One who comes to mind is the other "Great Man" Keith Miller, who from all reports lived an almost identicle social lifestyle as Warnie and he was also married, but back then the press done the right thing and kept his social life seperate from his sporting life and 99% of the public were non the wiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

To say he is a legend and on par with Bradman is an insult to "The Don" and all other cricketing legends.

---

Former teammate Bill O'Reilly considered Bradman cold and calculating, even anti-Catholic. Bradman was known to pass feilding instructions via a 3rd party on the field if it was to go to a Catholic because he wouldnt talk to them. Nice.

Read Bradman summaries from some former players and all this is well documented that he wasnt universaly liked and was grumpy and crabby man. He didnt even go to his own parents' funerals. Nice.

His stockbroking firm collapsed scandalously. He wouldnt drink with the rest of the team. The tightass wouldnt even share with his team mates the prize-money he earned for his own remarkable exploits (in a TEAM sport Midge)

Ian Chappell told how it was Bradmans extreme tight-fisted stinginess as head of the Australian Cricket Board that prompted Chappell and his team-mates to defect to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, nearly destroying the official game in the process. Nice.

So i think its unfair the anti-warne brigade tells us that he shouldnt be mentioned alongsie legends such as Bradman

As a cricketer Warnie is fantastic role model for young people. Some of warnies "non-raw-talent" attributes I can think of are;

Persistence: In these days when kids wilt at the first sign of difficulties warnie's "never say die" attitude is probably his best attribute.

Planning: Kids need it constantly demonstrated that raw talent only gets you so far, warnie demonstrates that you need to plan (your field) and decided carefully on what you are going to do before you do it (bowl).

Strategy and psyching out you opponent: goes with planning eg you give the batsman a couple or even quite a few easy ones and then you have a chance of bowling him around his legs.

Concentration: You can almost hear the gears going around in his head.

I reckon he is also a decent team player. I think that Cricket is a fantastic game for showing these attributes to kids and making (unfortunately) a small foil against the increasing "instant gratification" lifestyle that our kids seem to be adopting. If warnie contributes to this and I believe he does big time, then I "tips me 'at".

As for his personal life, I won't say anything as enough has been said already.

I have to disagree with you on one point, Midge. I think he will be remembered as a cricketing great long after the various scandals have been forgotten. His record on the pitch will stand for itself. I think your grandson, assuming he follows cricket, will know who he was, and probably his grandson too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I have to disagree with you on one point, Midge. I think he will be remembered as a cricketing great long after the various scandals have been forgotten. His record on the pitch will stand for itself. I think your grandson, assuming he follows cricket, will know who he was, and probably his grandson too ;)

---

I reckon you've got that right silent. :)

Part of the reason the media publishes more personal information is because sports personalities are 'public property' now if compared with the players of earlier generations, and the rewards are fantastic too.

I remember hoping a movie theatre would show edited news snippets of sporting events so the hoi polloi could know something about it - only the richer members of society paid to see sport. The general public didn't even know what some sporting games looked like.

Misbehaviour IS of public interest partly because players are recieving contracted sponsorship which often include 'offensive behaviour' clauses, and 'public monies' are also made available through sports grants, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod1949

The Wanka, Who cares? I don't.

---

Only because he's not from the wild wild west. :D

Shane Warne ? Isn't he that bloke who bedded over a thousand women ? Clever fella. I'm flat out scoring in my own house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apricotripper

Shane Warne ? Isn't he that bloke who bedded over a thousand women ? Clever fella. I'm flat out scoring in my own house.

---

LMAO :D :D :D

Yep Silent, you're absolutely correct. (but a bloke's got to argue from somewhere!;) )

Saw Kerry O'Keefe this morning say something like the game won't be the same without Messrs Warne and McGrath, heard Ritchie say that the game has been changed forever by Warne.

It's all this sort of claptrap I can't cop.

The game was changed forever when bodyline was bowled, when the West Indies fielded ten fast bowlers, when the pyjama game was invented, when Hayden and that other bloke started taking the opposition apart in the first over. When Lillee, Thommo and Marsh were there the game was changed forever. We were never going to see a wicket keeper that could score runs as reliably as Healy, heck, I was there when the crowd booed the new bloke onto the ground in his first test. It changed back (forever?) when the selectors picked spinners again!

For those that think it'll be tough without McGrath and Warne, how've they gone in the one-dayers without 'em?

I'm saying good on 'em, they've done well, but don't think the game will stop because they arent' there!

The 700 wickets is a milestone, but check out the real comparitive stats to see what it really means. It means that McGrath and Warne, having played 100 or so more tests than most other bowlers, are right up there with the best.

McGrath in position 8, Warne 21 places below him.

Again, I don't want to devalue their contribution (which all this talk of Warne does for McGrath anyway), just put it into perspective.

Cheers,

P