Warne remains at his entertaining best

Like the born showman that he is, he kept us waiting, and wondering, and bitching.

Little things please cricketing minds, and annoy them even more. Which is why Shane Warne’s list of his 50 finest flannelled fools, published in the Times over the past few days and culminating in this morning’s Top 10, was delightful on so many counts, most notably the irate reactions. How could he possibly rank Waqar Younis behind Steve Harmison? And what the blazes was Kapil Dev doing as low as No.40? The fact that he only opposed Warne once in a Test had evidently been forgotten.

The most erudite response on Times Online came, somewhat aptly, from that hotbed of greenswardian appreciation, Minneapolis. “Chill out guys,” suggested Mohit. “This is 'Shane Warne's' list, he has full right to even name his sons and daughters...He has earned that right by taking 708 wickets!!!”

To the last, one suspects, it was a bit of a giggle. Scores were summarily settled, agendas flagrantly pursued and history gallingly made, albeit strictly of the mathematical variety. This was not his “50 Greatest Cricketers” at all, but, given the presence of two 29ths, two 28ths and two 27ths, his “53 Greatest Cricketers”.

And so to those scores and agendas. Before the Top 10 were unveiled, being a shamefaced, anorak-wearing member of the anally-retentive brigade, I jotted down a list of certs and outsiders. On the basis that Warne was picking purely from among those he has played with or against, the main contenders, by a process of elimination, were fairly obvious: Ambrose, Border, Healy, Lara, McGrath, Muralitharan, Ponting, Mark Taylor, Tendulkar and Akram. The absence of even one would doubtless incite a riot in the blogosphere.

But might there be an honorary mention, even though the two never opposed each other on the field, for Abdul Qadir, for reinvigorating Warne’s trade and inspiring its master practitioner? Or perhaps VVS Laxman, that most elegant defier of baggy green caps, would squeeze in? Primarily on the back of his 281 at Kolkata in 2001, almost certainly the most resplendent music Warne has ever faced, but also for that magnificent lone-handed 167 in Sydney the previous year, comprising as it did virtually 70% of the non-extras in India’s second dig.

Not that Nos 11-53 lacked intrigue. Was Waqar’s insalubrious 45th place a comment about ball-tampering? The appearance at No.16 of Andrew Flintoff, fully 11 berths ahead of Jacques Kallis, whose allround returns have been of Sobersian proportions, was surely nothing if not a measure of Warne’s lack of fondness for South Africans and those whose play he perceives as being devoid of passion or soul. Justification for Tim May standing eight rungs higher than Stuart MacGill, owner of the best strike rate among modern Test spinners, was much harder to comprehend. Unless, that is, you attributed it to self-justification. After all, MacGill might have doubled his cap tally by now had he not been unfortunate enough to play in Warne’s vast shadow.

Then there was the sight, at a conspicuously lowly, pointedly humdrum No.26, of Steve Waugh, in his erstwhile colleague’s view a match-saver rather than a match-winner whose captaincy record had been buffed up for posterity because he inherited such an awesome side from Mark Taylor. That Warne himself might well have – and possibly should have – succeeded Taylor should not detract overmuch from the soundness of his logic. That Waugh's twin should rank 14 places higher was an even greater slap in the face.

In the event, the Top 10 were precisely as predicted. Headed by Tendulkar, who averaged a run more against Australia than Laxman and Lara (53 to 52), Lara emerged as the runner-up, leaving VVS, presumably, a tad miffed.

That a brace of batsmen should head this bowler’s chart was inevitable. Fellow bowlers never intimidated Warne, but there were times, assuredly, when Tendulkar and Lara came close to doing just that. That Murali emerged in seventh spot was a case, one rather suspects, of having one’s cake and eating it. High enough to stave off any charges of self-affirming bias but low enough (beneath Ambrose, McGrath and Akram, his top three bowlers) to make it clear that, well, even though the Sri Lankan will presumably steal that hard-earned wicket-taking record before the year’s out, he isn’t THAT good. Which could in turn be interpreted as disapproval of his action. The opening comment, “No matter what anybody thinks about his action…”, does little to deter this. If he truly believed Murali was beyond reproach, why bother mentioning it? The entries on Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar contained no such riders.

So thank-you Warney, as ever, for the entertainment. And yes, 708 wickets does earn you the right to cock snooks and ruffle feathers. Mind you, the next time you attend a dinner with Mr Waugh it might be wise to hire a food taster.