Vale Shane Warne

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned elsewhere though one figure that has been missing in discussing the passing of Shane Warne is the legend Bill Lawry. Bill is 85 years old now and his absence might indicate he isn't in the best of health these days.

He was interviewed yesterday on 5aa sport show yesterday afternoon, I wasn't really sure if he was attending or not he never gave a definitive answer but I leaned towards yes
 
Yeah but there are better songs to pick than that one.
Secret Garden was played, Thunder Road which was also played at his funeral, and the instrumental part of I'm on Fire is what I remember from last night. It was never going to be just one song.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I like that he'll never turn into another Neil Harvey now. As Neil Young memorably said, it's better to burn out than to fade away.

My grandfather is 96, drinks, smokes and his still 100% all with it, and lives by himself and looks after himself so not everyone fades out by age.
 
I thought Nasser was a real ‘greater than the sum of his parts’ cricketer and he has a peculiar record in that he averaged mid 20s against Sri Lanka and West Indies which crippled his overall average and kept it below 40. Understandable to a degree in that the first half of his career saw the Windies field great bowling attacks but by 2000 that had virtually disappeared and Sri Lanka had Murali, daylight, Vaas, even more daylight then Wickramasinghe etc who weren’t test class.

He passed 50 13 times in 43 innings against Australia and averaged 39 at a time when australia were incredible and England were a joke.

I can see why Warney had so much time for him

Nasser Hussain was the go-to guy if you wanted hard runs on a greentop, but he didn't play spin bowling very well.

Plus, like Ramprakash/Hick he was forced to debut against what you've correctly described as a very powerful WI bowling unit as a tyro, which didn't do him many favours.

The way that ENG managed their players in the 1990s was often appalling.

Your taking the piss aren't you?

Yasir Shah 235 Test wickets @ 31

in

Australia - 89
Bangladesh - 34
England - 38
NZ - 68
Pakistan - 36.5
South Africa - 123
Sri Lanka - 19
UAE - 24
Windies - 24


The guy didn't even look good watching him.

Warne was getting wickets on tracks all around the world, not just tracks doctored for him to go well.

All this suggests is that Yasir Khan, like 1990s Kumble, cleaned up on pitches which suited him and was mediocre at best otherwise. He's still Test quality.
 
Nasser Hussain was the go-to guy if you wanted hard runs on a greentop, but he didn't play spin bowling very well.

Plus, like Ramprakash/Hick he was forced to debut against what you've correctly described as a very powerful WI bowling unit as a tyro, which didn't do him many favours.

The way that ENG managed their players in the 1990s was often appalling.



All this suggests is that Yasir Khan, like 1990s Kumble, cleaned up on pitches which suited him and was mediocre at best otherwise. He's still Test quality.
I thought Ramps was going to come good after he got those runs in the West Indies in '98 but alas it was not to be. He was always one of my favourite batsmen to watch.
 
I thought Ramps was going to come good after he got those runs in the West Indies in '98 but alas it was not to be. He was always one of my favourite batsmen to watch.


Man it would have been hard to support England at that stage, they seemed to have so many guys with MOST of the working parts.

Like hick and ramps obviously had the raw ability. Didn’t have the mental toughness to go with it.
Hussain and Atherton had this bloody mindedness that would have been invaluable in other players but they didn’t have the natural ability the others had. Stewart and Smith were both elite players of pace bowling but couldn’t get it together against spin. Mark butcher was a player of great innings but not a great player. So many ‘not quite’ guys in their side.
 
I like that he'll never turn into another Neil Harvey now. As Neil Young memorably said, it's better to burn out than to fade away.

Ironically, Neil Young himself apparently came to regret that comment after Kurt Cobain passed, since that was on his suicide note. He noted that burning out in that sense was worse than growing old gracefully.

From a the POV of perserving a band's artistic value, it might be better to pull up stumps while you're around the top, like The Beatles, The Smiths and The Police did, rather than sing yourself into irrelevance ala The Rolling Stones and U2.
 
Ironically, Neil Young himself apparently came to regret that comment after Kurt Cobain passed, since that was on his suicide note. He noted that burning out in that sense was worse than growing old gracefully.

From a the POV of perserving a band's artistic value, it might be better to pull up stumps while you're around the top, like The Beatles, The Smiths and The Police did, rather than sing yourself into irrelevance ala The Rolling Stones and U2.


They may be irrelevant in terms of new material but, and while I can’t speak for the stones having never seen them live even though I’d love to, U2 in 2019 were as powerful live as they ever were
 
Ironically, Neil Young himself apparently came to regret that comment after Kurt Cobain passed, since that was on his suicide note. He noted that burning out in that sense was worse than growing old gracefully.

From a the POV of perserving a band's artistic value, it might be better to pull up stumps while you're around the top, like The Beatles, The Smiths and The Police did, rather than sing yourself into irrelevance ala The Rolling Stones and U2.
Popular music is a young man's game but that doesn't mean continuing to make music is leaning into irrelevance. I look at a band like Pearl Jam, one of the biggest in the world for three, maybe four albums, now they make a new album every four, five or six years, clearly seem to be enjoying themselves, as a fan, the music is still good. And then their live shows are among the best in the business. I imagine U2 are similar, making music for fans and touring for the same fans, as well as those that just want to experience all those hits.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Popular music is a young man's game but that doesn't mean continuing to make music is leaning into irrelevance. I look at a band like Pearl Jam, one of the biggest in the world for three, maybe four albums, now they make a new album every four, five or six years, clearly seem to be enjoying themselves, as a fan, the music is still good. And then their live shows are among the best in the business. I imagine U2 are similar, making music for fans and touring for the same fans, as well as those that just want to experience all those hits.

I wasn't suggesting that Pearl Jam don't have a very loyal base, particularly in this country, but IMO after the mid-1990's or so they ceased to be cutting edge as grunge devolved into the muck that comprises post-grunge.

Relative to where they were in their early 90's peak, they are unfortunately irrelevant.

You could bank on Ramprakash making a great looking 20-odd.

Ramprakash was weird because he actually performed pretty well against AUS, which had a pretty high-caliber all-round bowling unit.

It suggests that he had the talent to play Test cricket, but not the temperament. Like Graeme Hick, he was also forced to debut against an extremely powerful WI bowling unit, which would be a serious test for any tyro, never mind someone with a dodgy temperament. Plus, he had some unsympathetic coaches (particularly Ray Illingworth) and flaky, reactive selectors and media outlets to contend with. If the AUS press can be harsh, the English press could be downright savage.
 
I wasn't suggesting that Pearl Jam don't have a very loyal base, particularly in this country, but IMO after the mid-1990's or so they ceased to be cutting edge as grunge devolved into the muck that comprises post-grunge.

Relative to where they were in their early 90's peak, they are unfortunately irrelevant.



Ramprakash was weird because he actually performed pretty well against AUS, which had a pretty high-caliber all-round bowling unit.

It suggests that he had the talent to play Test cricket, but not the temperament. Like Graeme Hick, he was also forced to debut against an extremely powerful WI bowling unit, which would be a serious test for any tyro, never mind someone with a dodgy temperament. Plus, he had some unsympathetic coaches (particularly Ray Illingworth) and flaky, reactive selectors and media outlets to contend with. If the AUS press can be harsh, the English press could be downright savage.
How are you defining relevance? Mainstream radio station airplay and chart position? That’s why I said music is a young person’s game. The primary audience of radio stations and even streaming sites is younger people and they aren’t going to be listening to millionaires old enough to be their dads.

But when you look at touring, the biggest acts in the world are your Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, Metallica, U2, Chilli Peppers. The only current acts that come close are Adele, Ed Sheehan or Taylor Swift. Yoof appeal is but one factor in relevance.

Mind you, this is all a bit off-topic.
 
How are you defining relevance? Mainstream radio station airplay and chart position? That’s why I said music is a young person’s game. The primary audience of radio stations and even streaming sites is younger people and they aren’t going to be listening to millionaires old enough to be their dads.

But when you look at touring, the biggest acts in the world are your Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, Metallica, U2, Chilli Peppers. The only current acts that come close are Adele, Ed Sheehan or Taylor Swift. Yoof appeal is but one factor in relevance.

Mind you, this is all a bit off-topic.

I agree that radio airplay/youth appeal are but one factor in determining relevance, but it is a substantial factor. While big Pearl Jam/Metallica/U2 fans would no doubt feel differently, I don't think your average person on the street would think that they're trendy. They're more likely to think of the latter three as being trendy.

Of course, trendy /= good music, and I agree that we're drifting off topic.
 
They may be irrelevant in terms of new material but, and while I can’t speak for the stones having never seen them live even though I’d love to, U2 in 2019 were as powerful live as they ever were

Bono's always been a great frontman, so that doesn't surprise me.
 
Popular music is a young man's game but that doesn't mean continuing to make music is leaning into irrelevance. I look at a band like Pearl Jam, one of the biggest in the world for three, maybe four albums, now they make a new album every four, five or six years, clearly seem to be enjoying themselves, as a fan, the music is still good. And then their live shows are among the best in the business. I imagine U2 are similar, making music for fans and touring for the same fans, as well as those that just want to experience all those hits.
And Neil Young himself has always managed to put out interesting stuff going in new musical directions (even did a pretty good album with Pearl Jam back in the 1990's).
 
From a the POV of perserving a band's artistic value, it might be better to pull up stumps while you're around the top, like The Beatles, The Smiths and The Police did, rather than sing yourself into irrelevance ala The Rolling Stones and U2.
Beastie Boys are the only group I can call that went out with a very consistent album range.
 
Beastie Boys are the only group I can call that went out with a very consistent album range.
Gram Parsons only recorded two albums, changed music forever and still he isn't in either the Rock and Roll or Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
I must admit I have no clue who he is.
As Molly would say, do yourself a favour. He discovered Emmylou Harris, they were born to sing together, and anything country that the Stones sing is down to him. Archetype Southern Gothic but with a voice that will break your heart.
 
Beastie Boys are the only group I can call that went out with a very consistent album range.

Depends on what you mean by consistent.

Synchronicity was IMO one of The Police's best albums, and none of their albums were actually bad.

The Beatles had a few blips, but the vast majority of their output is extremely highly regarded, even though I haven't listened to them very much since childhood.

The Smiths were very much a singles band, and their last album was IMO their worst, but their penultimate album is widely considered their best, so you can't say that they outlasted their welcome.

RE The Beastie Boys, I really like their first album (which is IMO their most rock-oriented album), but I found their output to be much spottier after that. Some of their singles (Intergalactic, So What'Cha Want, Sabotage) were great, but in general their brand of rap-rock wasn't really my thing.
 
Warney honoured in this year's Reddit places canvas. For those who don't know it, it's basically a feature where Reddit allows global Reddit users to draw whatever they like on a blank canvas by placing small pixels of colours on it. Happens every few years and it's happening since April 1 this year. There's usually heavy competition for the limited space available on the canvas from different countries and meme pages, it took a concentrated effort from Reddit cricket users and cricket fans worldwide to draw Warnie. RIP King!

Screenshot_20220402-200847~2.png
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Vale Shane Warne

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top