Talk:Shane Warne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Needs to be organised how this will appear in the article, its already mentioned in three different spots.

Old link[edit]

I was wondering: does the old link in this article need to be deleted? --anton 11:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Gone! --dmmaus 21:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added Warney's Test match statistics... i don't know how to get the numbers in the middle of the columns. help? --Albinomonkey 28 Sep 2004

can someone fix the picture? Xtra 00:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it, but it would be nice to know where you got it from... All images should be marked with a copyright tag to show their source and copyright status. You can't just upload pictures from copyrighted sources such as cricinfo... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone who can remember the details should discuss Warne's attempts to quit smoking in the controversies section of this article. I'd do it, but I can't remember the details, other than that he had a sponsorship with a company that makes a patch (or some other anti-smoking product) and that he was busted smoking several times since. Also the altercation with the young NZ fan who took a picture of him smoking.

1st class century[edit]

someone should add something about his recent 1st class century

Muttiah Muralitharan[edit]

I think that there is perhaps some vandalism. The mentions of Muttiah Muralitharan are both inaccurate and out of context. Muralitharan is a off spin bowler and not a leg spinner, and isn't rated as highly as Warne.

and isn't rated as highly as Warne is also an attack on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please sign the comments. Vivek 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as far as I know he is rated as highly as Warne by most in the cricketing world - the majority have trouble separating them. I guess that represents an ethnocentric point of view. Morgan 12:00 GMT, 23 April, 2009


According to Amazon Books, Warne has published 4 or 5 books? Could this possibly be true? If so, it deserves some reference in the article (as this would make him the only man to have written more books in his life than he has actually read!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture copyrighted?[edit]

I strongly suspect that the picture is copyrighted, but I can't find it with a Google search, or on Cricinfo. I'm inclined to remove it from the infobox anyway. Thoughts? Stephen Turner 09:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeh I thought it was copyrighted too, I think there is a group (Wikipedia:Image sleuthing) that tries to find the source for unknown pictures... although the chance that this is public domain is very slim. Remove it for now and leave a note on the uploader's talk page asking them where they got it from... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The user only contributed for one day. He also uploaded Image:Brian_lara.jpg which is also probably copyrighted, but never included it in an article. I've listed them both on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#June_26. Stephen Turner 10:51 & 11:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image that i have edited through photoshop, i think it is better than the previous pic, as the other seemed very negative and in a way just leaning towards the scandals too much instead of what a great player he is.--Paul 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That picture is just taken from the BBC web site - - and is therefore a copyvio and should be deleted. -- Chuq 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not take it from a bbc site though and did not know the image was copirighted if i edited it, i also did not se anywhere where the image said it was copirighted, but as you have found an image from the bbc which looks exactly like it and is probably just the same image just i found it in a diffrent location. Delete the image or replace it if you must.--Paul 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs much more on career[edit]

There is plenty on Warne's scandals, but very little on his (superlative) career. Would anybody like to have a go at expanding it? Stephen Turner 09:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more - the article seems overly negative, and that image is hardly flattering. --Prof. Alex 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think he got off pretty lightly when he assaulted that kid in New Zealand that took a photo of him having a smoke, when he was receiving money from a non-smoking group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great leg spin bowlers[edit]

I still don't think Warne is THE greatest. Maybe one of the greatest, possibly, but certainly not THE best. Clarrie Grimmett had a lower bowling average, as did Bill O'Reilly. SpawnOfEvil

Agree that it is a matter of opinion, and but in such cases we have to go with the majority and leave the description slightly vague ('is widely considered as'). Tintin 14:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I've changed "widely considered" to "considered by many" — is that less definitive? Stephen Turner 15:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

He is considered the greatest by many. This description is fine to avoid the inevitable POV snipes that occur everywhere on Wikipedia. Harro5 09:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Preposterous to compare O Reilly and Grimmett to Warne. Firstly, Reilly and Grimmett benefitted immensely from bowling on uncovered wickets. Secondly, there wasn't as much touring or cricket played in those days protecting them from injuries. [unsigned]

People keep changing "one of the greatest" to "the greatest", and others of us keep reverting it. I've rewritten this again, to "He is one of the greatest leg spin bowlers in history — many say the greatest." I think that's fairer and still NPOV. Hopefully it will also be more stable. Maybe. Stephen Turner 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Some user keeps visiting this site and fixing it up. Does he have a life outside of Wikipedia? He should stop being glued in front of a computer all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

One could more relevantly ask the same question about the person who keeps vandalising it... -dmmaus 04:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think there have been different vandals but one guy is obsessively on this page, literally checking every day...and not only correcting vandalism but people's viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I expect you're talking about me, although I'm not the only one who keeps an eye on it. Yes, I check it most days — if you log in, you get a "watchlist" which makes it very quick and easy to check your favourite articles.
As for your main point about "correcting people's viewpoints" — you say it as if it's a bad thing, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do! One of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia is neutral point of view — that an article should record facts without bias. For what it's worth, I personally think that Warne is the greatest leg spin bowler of all time, but others disagree, so it's biased to claim that he is the greatest or even that he is "generally regarded" as being the greatest (which is just another way to make the claim while avoiding saying it directly — see avoid weasel terms for more on that).
PS Please sign your comments on talk pages by putting ~~~~ at the end of them. Thank you.
Stephen Turner 15:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the current version seems to contradict "avoid weasel terms" - and that is a style guide. Perhaps it's better to rewrite it? After all, Wisden made him one of the Five Cricketers of the Century, and we could say: "In 2000, he was selected by a panel of cricket experts as one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the Century, the only specialist bowler among the five." Then, for some balance, we could rephrase the next sentence to "Since 2004, he has held the record for the most wickets taken by any bowler in Test cricket, but they have come at a bowling average higher than that of other prominent leg-spin bowlers such as Clarrie Grimmett and Bill O'Reilly." Or, alternatively, that Bradman selected O'Reilly over Warne in his greatest XI. Sam Vimes 15:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the current version is slightly weasely, but the previous version (without the final clause) seemed to be understated, and got constantly edited. I like the current version because it says to me that some people regard him as the greatest but some don't.
I'm not fixed on the current formulation, but I would prefer to avoid getting into a discussion about whether he's really the greatest or not in the introductory paragraph. We used to have a version which tried to do that, but people kept adding their favourite leg spinners to the list. It might be appropriate in a later section.
Stephen Turner 15:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but Benaud has a higher average than Warne, so we could rightfully revert as it's not fact. ;) Here's a source to someone who actually says he's the best, though: [1] Maybe we could work that in, something like: "many agree with Australian TV commentator Richie Benaud, who has stated that Warne is "the best leg-spinner the world has ever seen"? Sam Vimes 15:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Can't we leave it at the current version that he is one of the greatest - which is simple and indisputable - instead of making it complicated and perhaps a bit messy ? IMO, even the 'many consider him the greatest' is unnecessary. Tintin 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we tried that, and people will just add that he is the greatest Sam Vimes 16:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

the point still stands, no need to spend an excessive amount of time policing Wikipedia sites in your awake hours. Get out there and play some cricket or learn guitar or something. 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

<removed comment>

Join the club. I'm Norwegian myself. :) I agree that you're non-biased, but still, to say that it's "absurd" to claim that Warne is not the best spin bowler ever is stretching it. There is this bloke called Muttiah Muralitharan, not to mention Jim Laker or Clarrie Grimmett. Best leg-spinner? Possibly. But not everyone agrees to that, which is why wikipedia can't state that he is - unlike Sir Donald Bradman, who is "universally regarded as the greatest batsman of all time". Wikipedia isn't about what is, it's about what people think. Sam Vimes 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Though in Murali's case, it may be more accurate to call him a spinner than a spin bowler :-) Tintin

We do not need statistics to know that Shane Warne is undoubtedly the greatest leg spin bowler to grace the game. He has singlehandedly altered the outcomes of test matches, and has been one of the main influences on Australia's dominance in the last 10 years. Put simply, no-one is better. Muutiah Muralitharan is good - no doubting that - but in terms of legacy, Shane Warne is one who has actually influenced the way in which the game is played. He has prevented the death of leg-spin bowling, and THAT is why he was chosen as one of Wisden's cricketers of the century. At the very least, i agree that the sentence should be changed to " - many say the greatest." And HE IS universally regarded as the greatest leg spinner of all time. That is what people think, look at the opinion polls. We can put another sentence that is similar to Sir Donald Bradman's ("universally regarded as the greatest.") After all, Sir Donald himself held only two cricketers in the same light as him. One was Sachin Tendulkar, the other was Shane Warne. If, as you say, Wikipedia is about what people think, rather than what is, then whatever way you look at it, the MAJORITY of people regard him as the greatest leg-spinner of all time.

You'll have to quote the experts, or the survey of experts on that. Normal people like us aren't allowed to do anything except report the events and write down the stats, as were are not allowed to partake in original research. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with the sentence in the initial intro saying he is the widely regarded. Its not an encyclopedic content evenif you point put sources from cricinfo. They are just personal opinion of cricinfo authors. Tomorrfow, if I become a cricinfo author I will also write articles about players in my opinion. You cant quote them as wikipedia references. Fahad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop computer (talkcontribs) 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I don't agree with the sentence in the initial intro saying he is the widely regarded. Its not an encyclopedic content even if you point out sources from cricinfo. They are just personal opinion of cricinfo authors. Tomorrow, if I become a cricinfo author I will also write articles about players in my opinion. You cant quote them as wikipedia references.Fahad Muhammed 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop computer (talkcontribs)

Record against India[edit]

I'd attempted to add something about this earlier, but that was removed. (Having just re-read my original contribution, it reads a bit biased, admittedly.) Maybe someone else can do this.

While there is a huge section (bigger than "career") on "controversies," there is very little about his failures on the field. For instance, the Indian team is widely regarded as one of the best players of spin in the world. And his lack of success against India (especially in India where wickets tend to suit spinners) has been a major criticism of his bowling - something that has not been said of Muralitharan. (You could look up the statistics by using the "advanced search" feature of - a site I, unfortunately, have no access to.)

In particular, the 1998 tour of India by Australia (the first of Warne's career) was widely anticipated at the time as a showdown between the greatest spinner of our times against the best players of spin in the world. The Warne versus Sachin Tendulkar battle in particular had many fans salivating. But Warne was taken apart by the Indians - Siddhu and Tendulkar, particularly. In fact, after the series he made some comment about having nightmares of Tendulkar belting him over his head for 6. In the 2001 tour, too, he did not have a great impact. This time, Warne singled out VVS Laxman for special mention.

Maybe some of you could add in more statistics maybe, and find some space for this in the article. It belongs there!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Maybe I was too hasty in removing your contribution — I apologise. The statistics partially bear you out, but only partially.
It's true that India is Warne's worst country. His overall bowling average is 24.91, but in India it's only 43.11. It has got better each time he's gone there. In 1998 it was 54.00, in 2001 it was 50.50, but in 2004 it was 30.07 (although this was still the worst of the main Australian bowlers). Interestingly, his second-worst country is the West Indies (average 39.64), so should we deduce that the West Indians have got his measure too?
You mention the comparison with Murali, but in fact he's had the same problems. His average is 22.23, but in India it's 48.73 (his second-worst country after Australia). It could just be that India are hard to beat at home.
Thank you for bringing this up again. I'll certainly add a sentence about it, although I don't personally feel it deserves a whole paragraph.
Stephen Turner 10:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
You were right in removing my original contribution. It didn't exactly sound neutral. But I still think that there should be more on his performances in India - especially the 1998 tour, as it was kind of a watershed in the way he was perceived by many; fans and journalists alike (especially in India). He came here with such a huge reputation and was expected to blow the Indians away on the dusty, turning tracks here, on which spinners generally thrive.
Regarding Murali, well, I made my comment based on how the Indians generally don't play him with a great degree of confidence, unlike when they face Warne. But then again, statistics don't lie. I just wish I could access Cricinfo here and look at the statistics myself, before posting comments like that one about Murali.
A bit surprised to read that bit about the West Indians. Of course, they've been traditionally very good players of spin. But then again, "traditionally" they've been a lot of things of which they are only a pale shadow now. Maybe you could also take a look at his economy rate and compare them for the 2 countries? That would also be a useful pointer.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
When I said it didn't deserve a whole paragraph, I meant "within the context of the current article". What it really needs is a longer article, where things like this can be properly analysed without making the whole article biased in one direction or another. Then it would certainly deserve a paragraph.
Warne in India: average 43.11 runs/wicket, economy 3.19 runs/over, strike rate 81.0 balls/wicket. Warne in West Indies: average 39.64, economy 3.03, strike rate 78.2. So pretty similar. The West Indies figures are mainly due to a terrible series in 1999 in which he only took two wickets in three Tests. (Was something going on in his personal life at that time?) However, he has a good record against the West Indies at home (average 25.83 as of today) but a poor one against India even at home (average 62.55, albeit in only 5 Tests).
PS To sign your comments, use ~~~~.
Stephen Turner 12:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bowling type[edit]

Isn't it better to leave the bowling type description as (right arm) Leg spin? It's not normal to describe other types of bowling by naming individual delivery types. "Leg spin" includes Shane's leg breaks, flippers and everything else, and he hasn't got much of a googly anyway. JPD 15:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Cricinfo has it as leg-break googly so I guess there is no harm in having it that way. For most ex-players we have blindly copied the bowling style from CI/CA. So assuming that they are consistent about describing the leg spinners as leg-break/googly bowlers, this should also be fine. Tintin 15:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

300th wicket[edit]

Where does this idea come from that Kallis was Warne's 300th Test wicket? Cricinfo StatsGuru (choose List of Wickets) makes it clear it was Richardson, and yet various editors have changed it to Kallis. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I have now found this in several places, including the BBC. See this Google search. I'm confused. How can there be any disagreement about this? Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The CI list of wickets does not take into account the FoW. Kallis batted at No.3 but was dismissed after Richardson. Tintin 12:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, damn. So I'm completely wrong. Sorry... This means I'll have to check all the others too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I've cleared up my mess now (and corrected one error that pre-dates me). Sorry again, everyone. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'twas definitely Kallis, a beautiful top-spinner - remember it like it was yesterday :-) AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you remember the dismissal of Brian McMillan ? Warne bowled five huge legbreaks. When the last ball pitched on the leg stump, McM moved across covering off and middle. The ball went straight and hit the top of the leg stump ! I was late for work that day because Warne was bowling so well. Tintin 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, the memories :-) Reminds me of one against Alec Stewart - four short, wide leg breaks, the final two of which were easily cut for four. Next ball, a flipper, pitched exactly in the same spot as the previous balls and as he went back to cut it went straight through him. Meanwhile, I found a big poster naming all of his 600 wickets and can confirm the info on the page is correct. Alec Stewart doesn't mind being a milestone! (150,250,400) AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was actually a wrong'un around the wicket to dismiss Kallis. Get your facts straight.

Wickets in one year[edit]

Warne set a new record in Dec 2005 for the most number of Test wickets taken in a calendar year. Suggest add this to intro para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks. I already added this on 17 December (it's in the Career section). Now that the year is over, I've put the precise number. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Cronje and Malik[edit]

The user who keeps removing the references to Hansie Cronje and Salim Malik from the article appears to be in South Africa, so probably objects to the reference to Cronje. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am South African. My apologies for not discussing sooner, but I am new to Wikipedia and still figuring things out. I don't see much point in trying to soften what Shane Warne did by comparing him to someone who did something worse. If people want to know about Hansie Cronje's life and crimes, they are fairly well documented on the Hansie Cronje page - the Shane Warne page has nothing to do with Hansie Cronje. BoltonD BoltonD 08:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the reference to Malik and Cronje is a bit gratuitous, and would be better removed. -dmmaus 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I agree. In the context of that period of cricket history, I definitely think it's worth emphasising that Warne did not fix matches. I wouldn't mind saying "other players" instead of "Cronje and Malik", but I don't see why we should be coy about it either — and on balance I think a link to those players is useful to the reader. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a link to the players is definitely useful to the reader and Yes, it is worth emphasising that Warne did not fix matches - but the reference to the other players is still not relevant. BoltonD 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
In response to Stephen: The way I see it, Wikipedia should present the facts, not opinions. Stating that Warne took some banned drugs and was banned for a year is a fact. Saying that he's not as bad some other guys who fixed matches is an opinion. I'd say state the facts and let the reader judge which cricketer did the worse thing. In my view, the current wording violates WP:NPOV. I'm not strongly against it though, and would not be particularly bothered if it's left as is - just stating my opinion and reasoning. -dmmaus 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Dmmaus has summed it up perfectly. In my oppinion Hansie Cronje definitely did something far worse - but thats my oppinion. If you go to the Hansie Cronje page, as silly as it sounds, there is no point stating " Hansie Cronje was convicted of bribery and corruption which is far worse than what Shane Warne did". On another point, is it really necessary to have information in the article which is really not related to his life eg: Horny Warney and the Whites wrote a song called Horny Warney? What use is that info? Perhaps in a tabloid its useful but not a free encyclopedia. Thank you to both dmmaus and Stephen for your comments which have helped me to learn more about Wikipedia. BoltonD 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the article doesn't suggest that he's not as bad as some other guys, but that the offence he admitted to, that is, giving info on weather and pitch conditions is trivial compared with fixing matches, which is a clear fact, and possibly relevant. Having said that, the article does to me feel like it is too accepting of Warne's explanations of the controversies. JPD (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point JPD. I guess I am just nitpicking which is unnecessary considering that the overall article is really good. Guess I am just going to slowly back out of this one. But just to be difficult, I still question the necessity of the info on Horny Warney and the Whites :) BoltonD 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea FC[edit]

Warne is named on the Chelsea FC website as a fan of the team [2] I spent a while looking through the article but I can't find a good place to put it in as it isn't significant enough to be in the introduction and it doesn't belong in any of the other sections. Any ideas? Or is it not significant enough to be added at all? Crito2161 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No real image of Shane Warne?[edit]

Hi, I am curious as to why this article has a crude artistical sketch of Shane Warne and not an actual image of him? I posted the same query on Steve Waugh's talk page (his picture is incidentally even more comical). This seems to be a trend in cricket player articles... Rdysn5 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's because no Wikipedia contributor has a copyright-free photo of these people. Adding a random photo of them from the net is not allowed. If you have taken a photo of either player, please upload it. :-) -dmmaus 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added a very poor one I snapped today at the WACA (he ignored me when I asked him to look at the camera). If I have time, I may try again tomorrow. -- I@n 13:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Greatest of all bowlers[edit]

The comment I put in the article was quite deliberate. After the 2005 Ashes series, some said he now has a justifiable claim to being the greatest of all bowlers. See here: This is not asserting that he IS the greatest of all bowlers, it simply states that some said he now has a justifiable claim. As was said by the author of that BBC article and others. Murali, Barnes, Lillee, and even McGrath might also have a justifiable claim to being the greatest of all bowlers. This statement about Warne does not preclude that. It isn't biased and is factually correct. -- Estate

I happen to believe that he is one of the greatest bowlers of all time, but, so what if some journalist (un-named) wrote a sentence that says "he can surely now make a justifiable claim to being the greatest bowler that has ever played the game." That is not encyclopaedic information and has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Great sportsmen don't need to have lots of peacock phrases placed into their articles by their fans. Its sufficient to report the facts about their accomplishments and those facts will speak for themselves. If the facts are reported correctly they will leave the reader in no doubt about the persons greatness. To view this from another angle, the following is taken from WP:NPOV:
Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
Repeating a journalists POV does not automatically make that statement NPOV here. These POV statements in sportspeople articles are a cancer throught Wikipedia. There's probably fifty articles on cricketers that have a phrase in the opening along the lines of "he is reputed to be the/one of the greatest batsmen/bowlers of all time/of his era". Don Bradman may be one of the very few exceptions, because of the chasm between his average and the next and so there is compelling empirical evidence to support the claim. As far as Warne is concerned, we could have a debate about great leg-spin bowlers here and half a dozen names will be mentioned, so why go down that path at all? I@n 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides all that, the article is wrong to use the word "many". Many may believe that to be true (and most assuredly do), but we need to cite a survey or multiple reports to make that particular claim. See the discussion a few sections up. -- I@n 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair points. Thankyou for the clarification. I originally added the comment because I was trying to empahsise just how great a performance 40 wickets at 19.92 and 249 runs really was. Eighth most prolific bowling performance for a series in history, and four of the seven that were better had an extra Test. I'll add a comment about how that individual performance ranks instead. -- Estate

Weasel Words[edit]

You cant say

"many say the greatest."

in the intro to this article. They are weasel words. This is the 2nd time i have edited that out. Please dont turn this in to an unessory edit war. Check --StewartM82 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can say this. They are not 'weasel words', they are an unambiguous statement that many people have called Warne the greatest leg spinner ever. That said, a source or two would help. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No you cant Nick. I suggest you read the article on weasel words. Look at some of the examples that wikipedia uses of weasel worlds. Just report the facts dont say "many people say". Who are these people? How many of them are there? the questions just go on. There is no debate here it comes out. --Stewartm82 10:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This was debated at length further up this page. It was the only way to stop people saying "Warne is the greatest bowler of all time". Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Turner is a cricket authority. don't dispute him. 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps saying "his achievements are such that he could be considered the greatest" might be better? His position as the greatest leg-spinner in history is not disputed to any great length by cricket commentators. That should be made clear to the reader whilst still sticking to the facts. Obviously, if you go by wickets taken, he's the greatest; impact upon the game, he's the greatest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Why? Why does this or anything like it need to be said at all? Just report the facts and let the reader decide if he's the greatest. -- I@n 05:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Shane Warne Divorced?[edit]

Presently the article states that Shane Warne is seperated but not divorced from Simone.However,I remeber reading somewhere that their divorce came through.Could someone clarify this before I edit?Serenaacw 09:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shane and Simone are divorced officially. They do how ever remain very good mates. They continue to share and live in the same house as they thought it was best 'for the kids' (good on them!)?User:JAbJaberwoky 23:07, 26 December 2006

the previous comment was left by User:JAbJaberywoky was actually left by User:DeafCom. --Dan027 10:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The 1000 women claim[edit]

Respected journalist and unauthorised biographer of Warne, Paul Barry, claimed that Warne had slept with over 1000 women. It was very big news in Australia at the time, but Warne later denied the amount was that large -,00180009.htm 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nothing. Didn't Georges Simenon say he'd made love to 10,000 women?
To be serious, I'm not sure we want to report every bit of gossip about him.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. He is far too ugly to have slept with 1000 women. The rumour is therefore obviously nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Gatting Humiliated?[edit]

It seems a bit harsh to say that the fat Gatt was humiliated - embarrased more like! He certainly misjudged and even underestimated the delivery but how can you be humiliated by the 'Ball of the Century'? Certainly one of the most memorable dismissals in my cricket watching life but I don't regard it as humiliating. I would also quibble with the rest of the sentence (his) subsequent hold on particularly English and South African batsmen provided a welcome sight for cricket watchers weary of the relentless intimidation of West Indian bowlers of the 1980s and 1990s. I think this misses the point that he is actually loved by cricket fans certainly in England and I imagine also in South Africa. But its despite the fact that he has had such a hold over English batsmen. Lets face it, if you don't like watching Warne you don't like watching cricket. I would just remove the whole sentence - the following paragraphs describe the BOTC. A compromise would be 'provided a welcome sight for Australian cricket watchers' however this excludes how much he is appreciated outside of Oz. twitter 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that "humiliation" is inappropriate - it's humiliating to get out to a bad ball, but surely no shame to get out to "the ball of the century". Gatting was bewildered, not humiliated, because the ball's trajectory seemed impossible. Also agree with the other comments, and this section has a "please rewrite" note over it now. I plan to have a crack at it, surprised it's lingered as it for 6 years...Faff296 (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates[edit]

Warne is up for the main page for his 700 test wickets so voice your opinions.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Back up again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamedog (talkcontribs) 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


In 2000, Warne was named by a 100-member panel of experts as the fourth of five Wisden Cricketers of the Century. Warne received 27 votes, behind Sir Donald Bradman (100 votes), Sir Garfield Sobers (90 votes), and Sir Jack Hobbs (30 votes). Sir Viv Richards took the fifth place, with 25 votes. He is the only Wisden Cricketer of the Century who has not been knighted.

Sir Shane Warne!?!? LMFAO - well we still have the Queen's Birthday list to come in '07....

To be honest, Warne has been an amazing player for Australia, and Cricket in general, and has gone down in history as the greatest bowler/wicket taker in history (I predict as of 26/12/06 at the end in Sydney 712 wickets (lol 711 would be good to - great commercial prospects there with the 711 chain of stores! lol)).

But - Sir Shane...... Errrrrmm

I'm an aussie and that umm sort of feels ummm strange to even think that.

Wouldnt suprise me if it happens though.

On the aussies! On ya warnie...

JM—Preceding unsigned comment added by DeafCom (talkcontribs) 11:57, 26 December 2006

Well since the removal of Knighthoods from the Order of Australia back in 86, and the unwritten but firm rule that Australians do not receive honours under the Order of the British Empire, the only chance Warnie has of becoming "Sir" is if he takes British citizenship (unlikely) or is conferred the Order of the Garter/Bath (even more unlikely). Manning 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Even if Warne did take up British citizenship, it's unlikely they'd give him a knighthood unless he plays cricket for the Brits, or renders some service to British cricket, or to charitable works etc. Australians can longer get the Order of the Bath (which is only for military service or civil servants anyway), for knighthoods it's only the Garter, Thistle and Royal Victorian Order.

Change from "positive drugs test" to "positive test for banned substance"[edit]

I think that most people associate "positive drugs test" with someone taking a performance enhancing or illegal recreational drug. Unfortunately the media seldom distinguishes between test results where an individual is found to have taken a performance enhancing drug or a substance which masks the presence of such a drug. Both are technically unacceptable for athletes. However, in the case of a masking substance, there remain the possibilities that use was out of ignorance, carelessness or that there was tampering, rather than trying to get an unfair advantage. Since Warne was only found to have used a masking substance, we can’t be certain that he was using it to cheat and I feel that "positive test for banned substance" was more accurate and appropriate in the sporting context.

Shorvath 4~jan~2007

Fair use rationale for Image:SW illustrated career.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SW illustrated career.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

German Nationality[edit]

Shane's looking into getting dual nationality (German) to allow him to play for Hants in 2008. Anon user 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

cant bowl, cant bat[edit]

Hi Does anyone know who Shane Warne was refering too, when he said 'cant bowl, cant bat' or maybe cant field. Was it some guy called Mueller or B Lee. Think a channel nine camera man indicated he said it, but not sure. Regards Trevor —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Warnie said it to Mark Waugh, when Scott Muller made a wayward throw in from the boundary. Warnie's (very funny) comment was picked up on the stump microphones on the ground, and broadcast on TV. Very funny stuff! But then the subject of an absurd cover-up by Channel 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, except the comment was - "He can't bowl, and he can't throw!" As the previous editor said above, very funny stuff indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pure opinion[edit]

What an odd sentence - "While his career statistics suggest that, despite his aggregate performances, phenomenal popularity and notoriety, he was perhaps less effective and destructive than the interbellum Australian leg-spinners Bill O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett, his durability and impact on the modern game assure his place alongside them in cricket's pantheon". Not really true ... S/Rates: Warne 57.49, O'Reilly 69.61, Grimmett 67.18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Using strike rate to compare BOR/CG with SKW isn't very useful anyway. In the old days, a batsman couldn't be out at all if they were hit outside the line so they could just pad up all day. Similarly, if the ball pitched outside off stump, as long as they were playing a shot, they couldn't be out even if they were hit in line. SO a batsman could stonewall a lot more easily in those days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shane Warne: The Musical[edit]

Maybe create a new article on the musical? (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Wisden cricketers' almanack.jpg[edit]

The image File:Wisden cricketers' almanack.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Warne's figures against India[edit]

Fair enough - Benaud did average less than 20 in India when he played against them 50 years ago when they were a weak Test team. I believe my point is relevant for spinners from the last 30 years. As well as Warne and Muralitharan, here are four other well-known spinners who've struggled in India in recent times:

If you disagree, please discuss it here first before deleting anything.

Wcp07 (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point about Warnie's difficulties in India. He couldn't eat any decent food there! That was his biggest problem, he only had baked beans and cheese toasted sandwiches to eat. If he could have eaten decent meals - he would have dominated, like everywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you telling us that Indian food isn't decent? HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Misfiring Link[edit]

The link to Simone Callahan bounces back to the Shane Warne page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-organisation needed[edit]

The "personal life" section should be broken up into two separate top-level sections. Much of it isn't actually about his personal life, but about his post-playing career: i.e. media commitments and endorsements. Those should be under a separate heading called "After cricket". If there are no objections, I'll do this shortly. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections at all. This article could do with a bit of TLC. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have done an article-wide reorganisation. I've left most of the actual content as is, but large parts of the article seriously need a major overhaul, as you've indicated. The article skips ten years of his career: instead of giving an appropriate summary of notable events between 1993 and 2003, it gave a hagiographic description of his playing style and influence. I've been templating the article and some of the more problematic sections, in an effort to highlight the deficiencies a bit better. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Where is a section on the knighthood controversy? He is the only one of the Wisden cricketers not to receive a knighthood. He definitely deserves one, if his achievements are roughly equal to his Wisden peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia will tell you that Australian citizens do not receive Imperial Honours, which is where knighthoods fit in. So Warne cannot receive a knighthood. I'm not aware of any controversy about this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

-- Warne can receive a knighthood, but it is very unlikely (Order of the Garter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be relevant but as of 2014 knighthoods are once again awarded in Australia. Retroplum (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


The controversy section is a little unbalanced. The bookie and drug scandals, both major career moments, receive less coverage than a silly incident post-retirement. It definitely needs to be pared back. Hack (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


I saw a web article saying he bowled at 1400-2000 rpm. Graeme Swann apparently bowls at 2000, and Borthwick (leg spinner, England) at 2500. Can anyone find a real source for Warne rpm? JCJC777 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014[edit]

Please change "On 11 August 2005 at Old Trafford, in the Third Ashes Test, he became the first bowler in history to take 600 Test wickets. In 2005, Warne also broke the record for the number of wickets in a calendar year, with 96 wickets. His ferocious competitiveness was a feature of the 2005 Ashes series, when he took 40 wickets at an average of 19.92 and scored 249 runs." to "On 11 August 2005 at Old Trafford, in the Third Ashes Test, he became the first bowler in history to take 600 Test wickets. In 2005, Warne also broke the record for the number of wickets in a calendar year, with 96 wickets. His ferocious competitiveness was a feature of the 2005 Ashes series, when he took 40 wickets at an average of 19.92 and scored 249 runs. Warne shared player of the series honour with England's Andrew Flintoff."

Reference:, on this page search for the words "Players of the series" and you will find A Flintoff (England) and SK Warne (Australia) shared the award for the 2005 Ashes series.

The current paragraph talks about his 2005 Ashes Test Series. Here's the breakdown: 1. "On 11 August 2005 at Old Trafford, in the Third Ashes Test, he became the first bowler in history to take 600 Test wickets. In 2005" -- this is referring to the 2005 Ashes Series where he won the Player of the Series. 2. "Warne also broke the record for the number of wickets in a calendar year, with 96 wickets." -- This is a side note on his 2005 season. 3. "His ferocious competitiveness was a feature of the 2005 Ashes series, when he took 40 wickets at an average of 19.92 and scored 249 runs." -- this is referring to the 2005 Ashes Series where he won the Player of the Series. The addition: "Warne shared player of the series honour with England's Andrew Flintoff." -- this is referring to the 2005 Ashes Series where he won the Player of the Series.
The article I quoted is for the 2005 Ashes "series". See my point #3 above where he took a total of "40 wickets at an average of 19.92 and scored 249 runs". May I ask you, in the current article, where did you get his 40 wickets from? He got 40 wickets from entire 2005 Ashes "series" (consisting of First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Tests), not the Third Test only, where he only got 4 wickets ( Similarly, his average of 19.92 and 249 runs are "series" numbers, not for the Third Test only. In cricket, they write the "Player of the Series" in the final/concluding Test match scorecard when the player is announced, so that is why I quoted the Fifth Test page scorecard. Please do not be confused why I only sent you the Fifth Test page and not the others. It was only used as proof to you that he was "Player of the Series". You can also search for Player of the Series in this Wikipedia page: (right hand side). Anyway, you have wrote he won "Player of the Series" honours for other series, I just wanted to be consistent and add in his 2005 Ashes series "Player of the Series" award into his wiki page "somewhere".
Edit made.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzatan (talkcontribs) 06:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Gazzatan (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is that talking about the right match? There's some pretty major mis-matches here... the article says the third test, in August, at Old Trafford. The article you linked to says the fifth test, in September, at Kensington Oval. I know next to nothing about cricket so I'm not going to guess one way or the other, but either these are talking about two different events (in which case this edit won't be made), or they're talking about the same event (and some corrections need to be made along with this edit). --ElHef (Meep?) 01:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I already found that information on the page. You haven't addressed my concerns, though - there are some pretty major mismatches between the content of the Wikipedia article and the source material you've provided regarding the series itself. For me to be comfortable using that source to make the edit you suggest, you'll also need to suggest changes to the existing article text to reconcile the differences. In the meantime, I will leave this edit request open in case another editor who knows more about cricket than I do (in other words - anything at all) would like to review this and make any necessary changes. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 02:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately no, you have not addressed my question. If you look at the ESPN listing, it is referring to the Fifth test (the article you just quoted says the Third test), which took place in September 2005 (the article you just quoted says August 2005), at Kensington Circle (the article you just quoted says Old Trafford). I can see what both the ESPN article and the Wikipedia article are saying, but with all of the differences I've pointed out, they could well be talking about two different events. If they are talking about the same event, then someone who knows something about cricket needs to say so and suggest (or make) the necessary corrections to the Wikipedia article. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)\

This page should be protected2001:8003:4412:A201:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)