Warne's list proves there was division in the ranks
Robert Craddock writes in the Courier-Mail that Shane Warne’s decision to rank Adam Gilchrist at No
Brydon Coverdale
25-Feb-2013
Robert Craddock writes in the Courier-Mail that Shane Warne’s decision to rank Adam Gilchrist at No. 20 and Steve Waugh at No. 26 in his top 50 cricketers confirms what was widely speculated – Warne never liked either of them very much.
People are saying – they're right – the friendship between Warne and Waugh deteriorated after Waugh pipped him for the Australian captaincy in 1999, then reached an icy low from which it never really recovered when Waugh dropped Warne on a West Indian tour a few months later. They are also saying there was little warmth in the relationship between Gilchrist and Warne because they were men of contrasting styles – the wholesome family man and the reckless cavalier whose lives rarely met in the middle.
Craddock goes on to congratulate all three men for putting their differences aside.
In a perverse sort of way, Warne's modest rating of Steve Waugh and Gilchrist gives us a hint of why Australian teams have been so successful over the past decade – they simply put the personal stuff to one side and go out and play for the team. It sounds easy to do but it has been beyond many fragmented England, West Indian, Indian and Pakistan teams of the same era.
While Warne's list might have been a disappointment for few, it surely wasn't for Sachin Tendulkar, the player he rated No. 1. In his reaction to the Times, Tendulkar said,
“That’s very special. I will absolutely treasure this. I’ve been around for 18 years and Shane has played against me all that time. It feels wonderful when someone of his stature appreciates your performances.”
Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here