surely these comments that make Shane's selection sound as though he knows nothing about cricket. This fifty names are Shanes personnel choice from people he played with/or against, doubtless the list misses lots of excellant players that if the list was a commitee compiled would be included. I think the 50 should be as it was intended taken as his 50, not a definative list. there is no right or wrong, it is his selection.

Al, Stavanger, Norway

Where is Viv Richards, Inzi, Amarnath, Gavaskar, Ranathunga, Dean jones etc.

ajmal, dallas,

Waqar Younis at number 45? and ravi shastri at number 42 is serious.. Waqar younis Has almost 400 wickets and would have been the fastes bowler at 300 wickets. His excuse is he fed off Wasim Akram on the other side. What about him and Mcgrath if you want to look at it like that.

Naeem , brooklyn , ny

No doubt he has got first two right. I don't know about remaining 48.

vicky, pune, India

Srini
Get a life man. Save those tears from someone closer to you. C'mon.

a, a,

Sourav Ganguly???

I think warne forgot the sky scrapes of Ganguly in his deiveries

Vikram, chennai,

I cried like a hell on Lara's final match......But would I on Tendulkar's?

Srini, Hyderabad, India

It is his own view, so i think there should not be such media hype, or rate the world cricketer according to his rating. Since he is an australian, he have to rate much to australian, as it's australian's nature to undermine others. he can't put lara and sachin below any australian, coz firstly a children know no one can be better than them. secondly it will rather put him in another controversy and his rating wouldn't have taken a bit seriously then. he is a clever guy. he rated steve low in ranking coz, he was not at all confortable about his standing in team when steve is captain. at that time he was getting bashing all way from everyone. He rated england cricketer much coz, he played with them much and he have to play county cricket now, he have to please british tabloid. About saurav, he told dravid sould be captain much b4, coz his team will not forget the humilation they got in field when dada was captain. he only stopped australian winning strick in test cricket. cheers.

Ambarish , KOLKATA, INDIA

Sourav Ganguly??????????????????/

Barry Higginbotham, Mancheser,

er where's Ian botham or are we only talkin about players he's played against? Has there ever been a better match winner?

keith, manchester, england

How can you drop Sourav ganguly from the list.
He is the player who always plyed under criticism.
Allmost all the godfathers of cricket disliked him.
Still he managed to play so well and made so many runs.
He is the only person in cricket who speaks his heart out with out any fear. He is not a good 'actor' like others are

John, Brisbane,

B.C.Lara the greatest of all batsmen.. He is white lightening, glorious,fantastic,beautiful , great,greatest. Unbelievable skills he has compared to any cricketer, tendulkar or anyone. When he gets his mind right... GREATEST ever batsmen. He is the only batsmen who gave more than 100% exitement & enjoyment to people around the world with his dominating skilled batting ability..
Also test cricket records relates to B.C.Lara not TENDULKAR.
Most runs=B.C.Lara,Most Doubles=B.C.Lara. All double centuries are against great teams and under pressure and all dominating innings by 1 alone man in the team. Most scores over 150+= B.C.Lara and most match winning innings =B.C.Lara... Tendulkar never won a match on his own where as LARA won so many.. in fact what ever windies won its because of him only.Lara did wonders in TEST cricket, Tendulkar never did that. Lara always likes to dominate bowlers wherever he bats in the world.
Any Spectator dream is to watch 100% of B.C.LARA not Tendulkar.

pavan kumar, Hyderabad, Andhra pradesh / INDIA

Please folks even Shane has a right to his own opinons and there is nothing wrong with being wrong.

wayne, bridgetown, barbados

Shane Warne likes wicketkeeper/batsmen, why no Mark Boucher?
Abetter keeper tan Gilchrist, averages over 30 with the bat and South Africa's keeper for over a decade.
Also no mention of Roberts, Holding Garner and Marshall who dominated fast bowling fo over 10 years.

ian hainsworth, lymington, hants

Sachin is all time great batsman the world have ever seen.

He has given 18 years of top class cricket and his records speak!! Its good to know that a great bowler from a foreign country has aknowlwdge this fact.Its not sachin needs this,belive me when sachin retires a lot of great cricketers will rate him at No.1.

Sachin thanks for your contribution to Indian cricket and to the cricket as a game.

His is the greatest,richest cricketer in the world but still he is still so humble.I have not seen once he reacts when a umpiring decision goes wronge against him.! No even a single controversy in his 18 years of cricket life!!WOW!!

This is what GREATS are!!WE INDIANS ARE PROUD OF YOU MAN!!

Anil Rao, Hyderabad, India

This list doesn't necessarily depict the true greats.. Nevertheless coming from Warne, arguably one of the greatests, I think is a pretty comprehensive one. It covers cricketers from all generations and with Tendulkar and Lara in the top 3, it couldn't be better.

Amin Aijaz, Bangalore, India

Sachin at number 1 .... is very correct.

But I simply cant understand:

Harmison / Merv Hughes above Waquar ??

Mark Waugh ahead of Steve Waugh ?

Ian Healy ahead of Gilchrist ??

(And "Gilchrists keeping is improving" ?? ... I havent seen him dropping any catch / missing any stumping.

Ganesh , Pune, India

B.C.Lara the greatest of all batsmen.. He is white lightening, glorious,fantastic,beautiful , great,greatest. Unbelievable skills he has compared to any cricketer, tendulkar or anyone. When he gets his mind right... GREATEST ever batsmen. He is the only batsmen who gave more than 100% exitement & enjoyment to people around the world with his dominating skilled batting ability..
Any Spectator dream is to watch 100% of B.C.LARA not Tendulkar

pavan kumar, Toronto, ONTARIO / canada

lets see who's left for the top 10
lara, wasim akram, glen mcgrath, sachin tendulkar, inzamam, murali, mark taylor, ponting, healey, ambrose or marshall

khidari, lahore, pakistan

C'mon guys, cut Warnie some slack.....in case you all forgot, its HIS list, not a global list or whatever. Its his perspective, his prerogative, whoever he deems fit to rank wherever.....as cricket fans, lets just take it in the spirit he's put it.....so what if Waqar is #45 for Warney, for McGrath, it could be #10, for Holding, it could be #20......what does it matter? Its all objective.....try n take it fine. So if Waqar puts Warney at $45 in his list....what r we gonna do? Raise the roof again??? Get over it!

I've always enjoyed Warney the cricketer....he was tantalising, compelling, and a true genius....his cricketing brain, mind, strategy, but yes, he could have done better with some good manners and attitude out there, but all said n done, guys like him and a certain Mr. Akram, Lara, Tendulkar, Steve Waugh....yu get guys like them just once in a generation.....cherish them while you still can!

Ps. Wasim, Waqar, and Warney would surely be in my Top 10, no doubts on that!

Pradesh Paris , Kathmandu, Nepal

Biased to say the least. He seems to have all his chums up there. How can he justify that Waqar Younis fed off Wasim? You can say that about any bowler. Warne would not have half the wickets if it wasnt for McGrath. To have Waqar so low is laughable not only statistically but on ability. Its his opinion, but Graham Gooch also says Mushtaq Ahmed is a better legspinner than Warne. And that is a fact.

AJ, Newham, London

grow up all u aussies...murali is wrth his salt...accept it plz...

utkarsh, bangalore india,

ok warney,
where would you rate in this???
and who would captain your side???

philip burgoyne, london,

hei warna,,do you know that inzamim Ul.haq was also a test player?

sushil KC, kokkola, Finland

Its good to see Sachin placed on top by Warne ... Its perfect.

Pradeep, Chennai, India

Sinoj from Banglore criticized of subcontinent umpires. Strange that he does not have the knowledge of newtral umpires i.e. when they were introduced even in subcontinent, in 1986-87. And about Waqar......he started his career in 89-90 and played most of his career in 90's when even in subcontinent newtral umpires were conducting matches.Moreover his fame came bcoz of his performances in England, Newzealnad and West Indies from 1992-96. If considerations are like thsi then about Kapil Dev, it was said that if he would have been in West Indies, he might not have played a single test and most of his wickets were in subcontinent..........50 or 30 it is Warne's choice .

james, Ottawa, Canada /ON

Top 5 are interesting. Then Warne lost his mind. There is a lack of clear thinking in the rest of the list. Not that one should consider his list too seriously, but it is ridiculous to see Lehman and Lee ahead of Steve Waugh.

Muhunt, Seattle, WA

Shane warne was a great bowler, but thats about it, to see Waqar fed off wasim is laughable?!the guy single handedly won matches for pak when wasim wasnt even playing. Sachin ahead of LAra?! Sharne warne thank heavens that you never captained Australia as you would have no doubt made them a laguhing stock.

Rayhaan, Birmingham,

re:Chris from Perth ( the first guy)
Hmmm.... yet more typical australian nonsense!!
Langer was perhaps one of the worst players in test cricket at spin bowling(ask Gilo) and utterly useless against short-pitched bowling yet one of the best players at flukily edging the ball behind the stumps only to not be given out or somehow miss the fielder. He was just very lucky to play with great players to compensate for his inadaquecies and should not have even made a top 100 list.
As for this garbage about biased subcontinent umpires, Australians has been notoriously reluctant to give lbw's and caught behind decisions against their own ( as shown in the Ashes 1971 and countless other crucial times in series) hence ypur argument is just a myth!!

Sanchez garcia, levenshulme, uk

Steve Waugh at 26. Match saver rather than match winner. Taylor handed him a good team. Thats some public venom if ever I read it. Stick to Spin Shane, Steven continued the rise of Australian cricket and further instilled that Allan Border mental toughness, something that may be lacking in the hair care products we have in the current crop.

Michael Wilkinson, Newcastle upon Tyne,

41- 50 k ...what about 1-40 or did I miss it ?

jm, Trivandrum,

Do you know who will be number one on this list? Having watched cricket for the last 20 years I can unequivocally say that its none other than......

Boycott's Mum!

Reality, Hyderabad, India

Well I guess Warnie is just about naming players he knows about. Will see where players like the great Tendulkar, Don, Viv, Sobers and Murali come on his list. But I certainly felt he could have rated Kapil, Sanath and Kumble higher.

Shawn O'Brien, Northamshire, UK

I will be absolutely surprised if there is no Imran Khan, Javed Miandad in his top 50. If he is talking about match-winners, then these two should definitely be there, otherwise I would be inclined to say his list is biased and load of rubbish or he is probably drunk. how can anyone ever forget the 1992 Worldcup final, when these two generals took the game away from England. How can he rate someone in Top 50 who hasn't even played a TEST?
Flintoff is a really good allrounde, top 5 in world cricket today BUT he hasnt proved himself enough to be above the two mentioned.
Curtely Ambrose, the nemesis of batsmen around the world. Coutney Walsh, Malcolm Marshall.
One can argue his list is about people who he has played against but then he never played against Dilip Vengserkar.
Anyway Warnie is surely in my top 50 list for his cricketing abilities but i donot approve of his choice of his top 50.

Syed, London, UK

LONG LIVE CRICKET!!!

Sincere salute to all the cricketing stalwarts till date!! Regarding the list, i see a big HUuuu HAaaaa about waqar!! Oh come on guys, If this same thing happens to THE GREAT WASIM then its worth discussing. Waqar?? i seriously doubt he ever bowled!!! most of his wickets in Sharjah where his umpires take decisions and the rest with the Tail. If Waqar is in top 50? then where should all the greats go? Waqar doesnt deserve a place!! Waqar is good for street cricekt nonetheless!!!

Akram has to be and will be in TOP 10 !!!!

Not a bad work SHANE !!!!

Ray, Singapore, Singapore

Nonsense List.Waqar Should be at Least 12-15.

The Top 20 Should be Lara , Ponting , Tendulkar , Laxman , Inzi , Wasim,,Dravid ,Mcgrath,Ambrose,Langer ,
Gilchrist , Pietersen,Walsh,Arvinda , Hayden,Fleming,Waqar,Saeed Anwar,Donald,Pollock

Saravjit Singh, New Bombay, India

It seems that Warnie's list is not just based on players' ability but also less tangible qualities like mental toughness, style, dedication to the game, and who he just enjoyed playing with and against throughout his career. It doesn't matter who chooses a best of list, you just can't please everyone. For those people who are criticising Warne's selections, let me ask you. How many times have you played test cricket against the people in Warne's list?

Alfie, Singapore,

it doesnt matter about waqar or ne1 else, shane is only putting names of peopel whom he played against, top ten of all time should be from different eras and what i dont get is why do people say bradman was the finest ever, i think he played mostly against england and maybe southafrica and westindies, so he cant be the greates because there were very few test nations at the time, top ten shoudl definately have lara, mcgrath, wasim, imran, ponting, sobres, marshall, ambrose, and few oldies about we don know much.

usama, toronto,

Its fine.. Its not our rating. Its Warney's rating.

.mmn, jkgl,

SACHIN TENDULKAR is the first batsman
LARA is second batsman
PONTING is third batsman
RAHUL DRAVID is fourth
MURALI is on fifth

dushant, mississauga, canada

langer & waquar desrve more

prashant, patna, india

All i see Australians are jealous of Pakistanis. They just can't produce the bowler of Waqar's and Wasim's Calibre. If i'm correct when Waqar took his 200th wicket at a better strike rate than Warne himself, he made the comment about him. I dont exactly remember what the comment was but I do recall him sayin somethin really nasty about Waqar. I'm not here to judge anyone, but I do believe Waqar belong higher in top 50 category even if one has reasons. Can someone tell me the big difference b/w Warne and Abdul Qadir?

M Khalid, Memphis, TN, US

Bruce Reid, Tim May and Harmison all ahead of Waqar Younis...what's the colour of the sky in Shane Warne's world? It's mildly offensive to have a truly great fast bowler, with the best strike rate, a pioneer of reverse swing, placed below Steve Harmison. I can understand Warne favouring his Aussie mates, that's human beings for you, but placing a decent Pom like Harmy over a great Pak like Waqar is plain wrong.

C.B.Fry, London, UK

This is Warne's list and he has every right to keep Waqar at number 45 or for that matter not to even include him in the list.

Pakistani supporters always keep on crying.

Way to go Warne.

Ruchit, Stuttgart, Germany

good to see patriotic rivalry is as strong off the field as is on the field.

paulb, melbourne, australia

Why debate... we all know Waqar was one of the greatest bowlers of all time... on his day even better than Wasim. Shane >> your list could be better...

Fazal Wadood, Dubai, UAE

I am really surprised to see Waqar Younis at 45th in Warne's list surely he deserved much higher ranking simply because of his attacking bowling mind at all time his searing pace and lethal yorker which i remember broke warne's toe in a test match in australia, i am absolutely gobsmacked at steve waugh's ranking at 26 , Hilariously, according to warne waugh was a defensive player he was good at saving rather than winning a game, I think the blondee forgot 1999 world cup inning against S.Africa where waugh single handedly won the match for australia and took them to semis.

Mansoor, London, England

I am not agree with Shane ranking Waqar Younis at No. 45
he is the all time best fast bowler ever it might be becasue Shane is also a bowler. Also i feel steve waugh is not ranked correctly by Shane i think ranking should be unbiased.
Steve Waugh was undoubtedly the match winner any player who save the match for team and give other players to finsh the game for team is the match winner for me.

Syed Wajid Ali, Karachi, Pakistan

I assume Mr. Warne's toe is still hurting which Waqar had broken some 10 years ago. Mate, back of you mind you very well know Waqar is right up there and far better than some of your aussies.

Adnan Kapacee, Mombasa, Kenya

one of the most lethal and genuine fast bowler in cricket history, with deadliest yorker i have ever witnessed ... waqar stands in the league of malcom marshall etc ... i m looking forward to the remaining 40, some of them must be bowlers and i m keen to see pacers ahead of waqar in warne's point of view. m sure i'll get some good light hearted laughters

khan, lahore, pakistan

Definitely its not the place which Waqar deserved. He is placed much below than his rank. Players like Harmison and Vaughan are placed at the lower no. than the Waqar. The players like Daren Lehman, Stephen Fleming, Brett Lee, Kevin Pieterson have been listed in 21-30. He have added Shoaib Akhtar into the list also not because of his class and furious spells but because his run-up makes him fear, more funny the players like Mark Waugh(steve Waugh is listed on No. 26) and Anil Kumble have been listed in Top 15 ever players.
Definitely this list is based on the personal biasing and the way players played him(and against Australia).
KP is listed in top 30 only because he played the Warne well in the 2005 and 2006-07 ashes. Otherwise its the shame to stand the players like Freddie and KP with the legends like Waqar, Steve Waugh, Aravinda De silva and others.
Most funny is the thing to know that Mcgrath is above the Akram and Tendulkar is better than Lara. A thing which first time I knew :D

Talha, Lahore, Pakistan

Well, i just don't understand that why people are saying that shane will be no 1 in his list...i mean it is his favourite cricketers' list so why would he rate himself? while it is his OWN list. Is he really going to rate himself too? Doesn't really make any sense at all.

Hamza Baig, Karachi., Pakistan.

I would be interested to know where Shane puts himself in his best 50 cricketers,as I awaite the last 10, which should be 11.
I watched and listened live to Jim Laker take 19 wickets but have never seen a better display of spin bowling than Shane's 2005 ashes contribution.

Harry Bates, Leeds, Yorkshire

I just cant wait before I see the final ten players. I would assume Shane would rate Brian ahead of Sachin, as the former has decimated him much often than the latter did.

Rakesh Rajagopalan, Chennai, India

Well as far as the MOANING about Waqar Younis is concerned! I guess, rankings by other players is hardly anything to worry about us Waqar fans because a ranking coming from a bowler not a batsman about Waqar has the least bit of AUTHENTICITY about it.

Amer , Islamabad, Pakistan

In my opinion Waqar is all time great bowler and warne did injustice with Waqar. He must be ranked under ten.

Muhammad Sajid, Karachi, Pakistan

After all it is Warne's top 50.

Sub-continent pitches are not helpful to fast bowlers, but still we have Imran, Kapil, Waqar, wasim & Vaas. So I firmly believe that they are more skillfull than most of the fast men coming out of Aus, WI, SA, Eng & NZ. When warne came to bowl, most of the time, the top order was removed by aussi fast men, so it is easy to bowl to new batsmen.

People( all australians & most Englishmen) say Warne is the greatest bowler. That is their opinion but still he is one of the best. So I believe bowlers like Waqar, Imran, Wasim, Kapil should come in the top 20. But no one is better than the Great Sultan of Swing Sir Richard Hadlee.

nalin, negombo,

Shane Warne was a great bowler, but his off-field judgement has often been questionable (to put it mildly). Now that he's no longer playing international cricket, his off-field judgement seems to be taking over. Steve Waugh at 26? Ha. Clearly Warney's still angry at not being made captain after Taylor. I, for one, am very thankful it was Waugh not Warne captaining my country, and Waugh's record speaks for itself. Shane doesn't like to lose, that's what makes him a champion player. But it has clearly made him bitter in the case of Steve Waugh.

Ned, Malibu, USA

Fair call if you complain about Waqar Younis not being higher in the list. He's obviously a great of the game, a player that could change a game against the best opposition. But there is at least one thing in Warne's defense. Waqar's record against Australia isn't great (12 games, ave. 34, strike rate 62) and in Australia it's worse (averaging over 40, strike rate 81). So if Warne's picking the best players he's seen, it's reasonable that he has Waqar down the list.

Scott, London,

I agree with many of you. Waqar is one of the greatest (probably the greatest) exponent of reverse swing. His very fast, reverse swing (the great thing was that it use it to swing really late in Waqar's case which took even the best batsmen by surprise) made him, in my view, one of the top 4 fast bowlers in at least the last 40 years. When on song he was totally unplayable (unlike any other fast bowler I can remmeber) He use to swing that ball almost at will when the conditions were right.

monton, london, uk

This list is based on players he's played with and against not who he has only watched. So a player like Waqar Younis who is ranked where he is is because against AUS Waqar has a poor record avging 33 with the ball. Or a player like Marshall is not on the list is because obviously he's never played against him.

bumble, Perth, Australia

Absolutely mind boggling to have Waqar at 45. It is now obvious to me that Shane compiled the list in the evening after a few drinks. If he had done the list in the afternoon or in the morning, with a clear mind it would have been different. Whats' even more astonishing is the fact that he has ranked Shoaib Akhtar higher than Waqar and let's not even talk about Harmison being ranked higher than Waqar. A big LOL to Shane's list. It is not the greatest cricketers list but Shane's list of players he most got on with on and off the field. Clearly Waqar comes low in that list. Waqar Younis was the greatest fast bowler that I've ever seen and I've seen them all , even the great west indians.

Mike James, Birmingham,England,

I think Waqar being at 45 on Warnie's top 50 list is surprising. He was a top bowler, however Steve Waugh being at 25 overall is also equally ridiculous. Warne has included Stephen Fleming in the early 20's because of his captaincy. Well then surely Steve Waugh should be in the top 5 or 10 if captaincy is a factor as well. Alec Stewart doesn't deserve a spot in the top 100 let alone top 50. Jamie Siddon's, Darren Berry... why would these guys be there. If they were that good they would have atleast played once for Australia!...Even having Ravi Shastri there makes it a joke of a top 50. I think the top 15 should have Bradman, Sobers, Mc Grath, Akram, Murali, Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Mathew Hayden, Graeme Pollock, Rahul Dravid, Jaques Kallis and Shawn Pollock.

Aniket Mulherkar, Sydney, Australia

Darren berry who never played at the highest level is on 49th position. and waqar is on 45!!!!
Interesting!!!

But that is all about Warnie!!

You did it again mate. Got under the skin of the readers this time.

yogi, singapore, Singapore

Lara is my greatest.more than 10000 runs in both tests and one dayers. 164 catches in tests and 120 in onedayers.
Border comes second. More than 10000 runs in tests and more than 6000 in one dayers. 155 catches in tests and 126 in onedayers, and a great captain.
Tendulkar third- 15000 runs in onedayers and 11000 in tests.
Ponting fouth-10000 runs in onedayers and 9000 in tests. 125 catches in one dayers and 100 in tests. good captain too.
5th is Gilcrist.- 440 dismisalls in one dayers and 380 in tests.9000runs in onedayers and 5000 in tests.Ridiclous for warne to rate him as 19th. Some bad blood obviously over captaincy.

shankar, canberra, australia

Warne Top 5
Warne
Warne
Warne
Warne
Warne
:-)

FM, US, US

Im not sure what the objection to Waquars place is all about sure he was a great bowler and thinker and sometimes was deadly but great bowlers are easy to get matchwinners are not and i dont remember waquar winning pakistan too many test matches but pollock holding and mcgrath have won many tests for their countries and as far as murali goes yes he is as good as they say but he was not cleared untill after they changed the law so before that he was illegal unbenownst to him however that does not change the fact that his skills are at genius level (next to warne)and like warne he is fantastic to watch
go ozzies

jim young, wantirna / melbourne, victoria australia

where is the list of 1 to 10

Vs, mumbai, india/maharashtra

shane warne played along side glen for nearly his whole career. the same thing can be said about him. mcgrath was one off the greatest fast bowlers off all time. he got wickets as well as keepin his economy rate down. if u had him operating on the other end then the batsmans only choice wud be to go for the other bowler. which would usually be shane. so shane i think u should be the one counting urself lucky

Waqar, newcastle, nsw

Look, Shane Warne is entitled to his own opinion so we won't get anywhere by moaning about his opinions. But I disagree strongly with his opinion that Waqar fed off Wasim. This means that Warne must have fed off McGrath, Lee, etc. All great bowlers must depend on other bowlers just a little bit to keep it tight at the other end, so you can't call that "feeding off them".

Suhail, Birmingham , England

I am bemused by all these comments from people questioning Shane Warne's judgement. No one who is making comments here has played international cricket so I think that Shane Warne is in a better position to judge.

While I don't agree with every ranking he has made, I respect Warne's opinion as one of the sharpest cricket minds the game as seen in the past 50 years. Warne was voted as one of the 5 cricketers of the century and along with his skills as a bowler came an amazing cricket brain and one of the best captains I have ever seen....unfortunately due to his indiscretions he was never going to be given the Australian test captaincy....not because he was lacking the necessary skills.

Warne is sharing his opinion based on what he has seen and experienced in ODI, test cricket and first class cricket.....so I think he is in a better position to judge as opposed to blog commentators who watch the game on TV and have never played cricket with or against any of the players in question

Kurt Rudder, Bagdad, Tasmania, Australia

What he said about waqar is true for him also. He fed off McGrath at the other end.

Harjinder Grewal, Sydney,

Hey Guys…. All of you just be cool and relax. You have to understand that this is a list of TOP 50 best cricketers and not Bowlers or batsmen or fielders. It’s the all round capabilities that are being mentioned here.

SO lets just relax and wait for the total list before coming to our conclusions.

Roshan Sherigar, Sabiya, Kuwait

I feel Waqar should not even figure in the list. He was good when he started, but had no consistency. Plus his captaincy was a whole lot wanting. Not sure why some of my country men are getting a hell lot patriotic here....

Shakeer Ahmed, Multan, Pakistan

Waqar was just a gud one day bowler??? He has one more test matches on his own than all the players combined, who are ranked higher on ur list e.g May, Reid< Atherton, Harmison. Open ur eyes Mr. Warne.

Asim, Karachoi, Sindh

Warne has every right to have his list of greats as he views them as a profound professional cricketer. Nevertheless it is always felt that had Waqar & Waseem been with Pakistani team in different eras their records would have been much better than what they look like. The very reason for their limits could have been sharing of wickets and non tollerant attitude towards each other. BY FAR BOTH OF THEM WERE THE MOST DEVASTATING BOWLING PAIR WORLD HAS EVER EXPERIENCED, not undermining the West Indian greats, but they were too many for one team to have them.

Fakhar, Lahore, Pakistan

This is personal perspective of great bowler Shane Warne.

We are not aware of parameters which he has gone through but surely this is not the balance list.

Kapil Dev was one of the 4 great all arounders of cricket.

pragnesh, london, UK

I will not comment about Waqar Younis's place in this list,every knows his worth.There was no sight in cricket more beautiful than Waqar younis running in full tilt,with the attractive action of his and delivering one of his toe crushing yorkers.He had the most lethal yorker in cricket.He is unquestionably the king of reverse swing.Imran Khan rated him the biggest match winner Pakistan ever producedahead of greats like Wasim Akram,Saeed Anwar,Inzmam,abdul qadir,javed miandad.NOw,if it was only a mattter of the rank(45) then it would not have provoked mebut just look at this and u will find people like harmisson,ravi shastri,alec stewart ahead of waqar.I bet if you ask ravi,harmisson,or alec,they themselves will be the first ones to admit that Waqar was a far greater cricketer than them.
Anyways this kind of list cannot take away from Waqar,the services he rendered for cricket.Just imagine,deleting Waqar from cricket history,and we all know how ugly will it look without Waqar.

UMER BIN BASHIR ARAIN, WINDSOR, CANADA

ITS Shane warne`s list its nice hi i am vibhor

Vibhor Dharmadhikari, nagpur, India,Maharashtra

Tim May and Bruce Reid above Kapil Dev !
Please correct.

das, Bhubaneswar, India

I think Warne was a great cricketer though he never was as great as the likes of Hussain in my honest opinion. His antics of the field just meant I never rated him as highly. I don't respect his views as highly though considering he put Berry and Siddons in there Symonds must get a place though

Richard(Dick) Dickinson, London, England

Waqar Younis is lucky to be in the list at all. How about names like Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall, Garner, Hughes, McDermott, Donald, McGrath, Lillee to name a few. All the aforementioned have played and triumphed in many more significant, high-pressure, and challenging test/ODI series than Waqar could ever have dreamed of. Taking plenty of wickets against 2nd rate cricketing nations where a meaningless plate was the prize is hardly worthy of being placed higher than 45.

Therefore, to all those expert Waqar supporters: consider it an honour that he even got a mention (because he's not worthy of top 50 in my opinion) and now quit your whining and cry me a river!

A-Man, Sydney, NSW

I understand its your list Warney, but Harmison way way above Waqar and Donald.

Come on... Harmison is a one trick pony.

Twazzer, London, UK

Not bad,I am looking forward to the next forty.

N.Riley, Runcorn, England

I have thoroughly enjoyed the first 10 picks, and the comment they have aroused. Thank you Mr Warne! The best lists are always the ones that get people talking about cricket... I think that it is impossible to pick the 50 best cricketers objectively, so why all the fuss about Waqar? I am sure there are many great cricketers who will miss out on even featuring in the list as there are many more then 50 great cricketers in history! Can't wait to see the next 40...

B Hampton, Birmingham, West Midlands

Shane's list as well as all the comments are subjective. How can you compare two players far apart in time? Staistics alone cannot distinguish two great players nor compare. Probably that's why non-test players made the list. Shane had known them better than past greats in Tests.

Sanka, Houston, USA

Why couldn't it have been called SW's 50 favourite cricketers? You just cannot compare the genius of Sobers, Bradman, Boycott and Hobbs with today's injury-ravaged, totally knackered and mollycoddled prima donnas. Different pitches, different equipment, different levels of fitness and a Test circuit where you can now say with confidence, yeh, this lot will thrash that lot over 5 tests (except if you are talking about England).
By the way, let's ban helmets from Test cricket and see how the Pietersens of today would shape up.

All Rounder, Woodbridge, England

It is amazing to see Waqar Younus placed behind Sahstri and others (perhaps many more to come in remaining 40). After West Indian bowlers before him in 70s/80s he actually changed the trend of fast bowling by targeting the wickets and was totally devastating for the most part of his carrier. He should be in top 20.

javad, Dayton, USA

People wanna know why Waqar is ranked so low? Well because He once broke Shane Warne's shin and got him out on few ocassions. He was as a good a bowler as you'll ever get, the master of reverse swing. And Waqar fed off Akram, what load of rubbish, just like saying Ambrose fed off Walsh or Thomson fed off Lilly or Warne fed off McGrath.

More than a half the comments are against the position of Waqar Younis being so low, has to be some personal bias Warne, justify yourself!! And Waqar Younis ranked below Justin Langer????? Get a life Warne!!

Noman Yousuf Dandore, Karachi, Pakistan

Looks like Warnie is gone nutty! He has impaired judgement!Good that he is not playing test cricket any more!

Ganesh A, Windsor, NSW Australia

Waqar and vengsarkar deserve more!

sinoj, bangalore,

Waqar spot is about right. Someone said he got mostly bowled and lbw's, yea, because sub continent umpires were and are sub standard and very biased. (At least in the eighty's and ninety's).
And up comes the murali crap again. He may be a pleasant enough guy but the fact is his action is dodgy and the powers that be bowed to sub continent biased pressure to change the rules so he could keep bowling. The fact that he will most likely hold the world record for most wickets is a sad joke on world cricket. Im guessing that Warne will put Australian's higher on the list because they have been the dominant force in cricket for the last 20 years.
Langer should have been higher, his record is very good and the fact is he was as hard as nails.
What most people around the world don't realise is that there are guys playing domestic Australian cricket that would be super stars in any other team in the world but can't get a start in the national team because it has so much talent.

Chris , Perth, Australia

To all those Waqar Younis fans, STOP MOANING!

Yes he was a magnificent fast bowler, but this (as the title suggests) is "Shane Warne's 50 greatest cricketers", I had never even heard of 50 & 49 like most of you lot, so let him be, lets just read on with interest (or disgust, amusement etc) what the last 40 will be.

As for Murali, well the man is as good as Warne but he spun it the other way, we were lucky to have them both play in the same era, same as Lara & Tendulker etc

Enjoy Murali and Warne whilst they are still playing as we may never see their like again.

Joe, London, UK

Warne better than Murali??? LOL, Keep on DREAMING. And as for all you Aussies and Pakies calling him a chucker why dont you guys look at your own list of CHUCKERS!! Brett Lee!! called a chucker but cleared by the ICC, Shoib the worlds fastest chucker also cleared by ICC. Murali was also cleared by the ICC so why is it that all you DUMB AUSSIES & PAKIES cant accept he has been cleared???????? Everyone reading this would agree with me when i say "IF MURALI WAS PLAYING FOR THEIR COUNTRY, AUSTRALIA OR ANYOTHER TEAM, THEY WOULD SUPPORT HIM AND LOVE HIM COZ HES A MATCH WINNER" So all you aussies and pakies going on about him being a chucker........GET OVER IT........ he's been cleared like all your chuckers in your national team "Brett & Shoib", The only difference is MURALI can get wickets and he will pass 1000 test wickets....so all you ediots mocking him just shut up and go find your self a murali and see if they can beat murali's final test wicket record what ever it may be :-)

Pradeep, Auckland, New Zealand

Waqar Younis has played 12 tests against Australia since 89 and has played against Warne in nine of those tests. Waqar took his best figures against Australia in 2002/03 of 4 for 55 at Sharjah. His average against Australia is 33 and strike rate is 60.

While in ODI he took 29 wickets in 30 games against Australia with a best of 6 for 59, when comparing against his all times stats, his average and strike rate almost double in ODI.

Great bowler no doubt, but it is quite obvious that Warne that is reflecting on players and how they performed against Australia and himself when he was playing. Therefore ranking them accordingly.

Holden Caulfield, Adelaide, Australia

Shastri at number 42 and Waqar Younis at number 45. Something does't appear to be right.

Saad, Slough,

continuing above...How can poor mcgrath,walsh, ambrose and holding, pollock can be matched with the great waqar...Swing, pase, yorkers, spirit and most importantly the ability of not giving up at any stage. Bradman should thank God that he left the stage early before Waqar joined the scene. Otherwise his Honour of Sir might be in danger. Shane open ur eyes what else u require from a great fast bowler..He had ever thing. Yes he was slight espensive in one dayers but dear then y u forgett his strike in ODIs, his avg and again his wicket taking abilti. South Africa chased 436 against Australia chch..coz waqar wasn't there. We have seen that at the end during death overs ordinary bowlers like mcgrath, lille and walsh can't bowl ppl out the way waqar uprooted their stumps. The bowler who changed the trend of pitching shot..The tiger with great comback ability of taking wickets after hitting for boundries.wether its odi,test or county..he stole the show.I pray if aus get abowler likehim ever

Ali Abbas, Lahore, Punjab

Agreed with the people backing Waqar. At his best, he was as lethal, if not more than Akram (it is another matter his best was not as long as Akram's). He was fast, swung the ball an was accurate...one of the greatest and should be ranked over Shastri at least

shivanker saxena, jersey city,

Waqar was one of the best ever born and I am surprised that he at such a low place.
But what can I say,
WHERE THERE IS SHANE WARNE THERE IS CONTROVERSEY.

Its says for oits self

I Jones, London, U.K.

m really amused and bemused.....as my good frnd. marcus pointed, alleast 30 woul pick themselves in...and wht abt the likes of hobbs, hammond, hutton, hasset, merchant, harvey, compton, benaud, boycott, gover, george hedley, grace, hirst, trueman, tich freeman, wilfred rhodes, the pollocks, barry richards, greenidge, holding, crowe, miller, hanif, abbas, .....wait a min..... this is just the list against w hom he has played......i must have been foolish to understand it now....he shudnt include the likes of vengsarkar and shastri then, coz they hardly played against him..just that double hundred got him to take tht decision i reckon...

utkarsh, bangalore, india

Shane, I am guessing that most of the top 50 players would be batsmen to whom you might bowled at some point in your career. Also please do include tail-enders and genuine bowlers whom yo u feel are worth their salt. Not all tail-enders are Warne's bunnies isn't it.

Raja Halaharivi, San Jose, , USA

okie, so what about the top 40?? is this like a weekly list or daily??? can anyone let me know, thanks.

I agree with the argument over the placements of the players. But then again, this is a Shane's Top 50...Not ICC's or People's Top 50..

Hassib Faridi, Chicago, IL-USA

Different persons have different views. Lets c the complete ranking of Warne. It definitely would be an interesting one.

senthilkumar, chennai, India

It is funny to see Waqar among the top five from bottom of the list. If he were not a victim of the so called Pakistan's Internal politics; keeping his stats in mind, I dont have even an iota of doubt that he would have ended up claiming more wickets than the Great Wsim akram.

Tareq, Regina, Canada/Saskatchewan

To the Waqar Younis fans obsessing over his placing in this list: get a grip. Yes, he was a great bowler. No, it isn't worth whingeing about his position in a completely subjective list put together by a single individual who, being both an Australian and a specialist bowler, can be expected to favour those opponents he has observed most often (i.e. batsmen and people from the domestic competitions he has been a part of).

H, Auckland,

Ravi Shastri before Waqar Younis? You kidding me? Are you ranking test cricketers or commentators?

Fakhrul Alam, Auckland,

warne is a great player. but come on shastri is higher than waqar,
i have serious doubt on his expert comments
its his thinking not the majority

mike, newyork, usa

I'm not sure whether we can criticise Warnie yet until we see the other 40. waqar was a great bowler, but warnie's doing it on the basis of both his recollections in domestic and international cricket.

as for you international viewers who are criticising warne for putting waqar a few places above 'virtual unknowns', theres a reason why. jamie siddons was one of australia's finest batsmen in the late 80s and early 90s and had to fight against the likes of border, boon, the waughs, taylor and jones for a spot. its no wonder he never got a go in tests with those sort of names ahead of him. but if you ever saw him go for victoria or south australia, he was amazing.

as for berry, he had to compete with ian healy. case closed...

Vas, Bowral, Australia

Recently waqar was compared with Malcolm Marshal in one article on cricinfo, in which Waqar surpassed Marshal in almost all categories, they were compared in. I wonder how Waqar can be so down the line in your list. I am wondering where would Marshal fall in your list....finger crossed...

Gohar, , Finland

i knew, it would be little master at no.1 for u. is it right shane?

prabhu, chennai, india

hey, many people believe it was the other way around, that Akram was feeding off Younis especially in west indies when he (Younis) took all those 5 fors.
Many would put him in the top ten for fast bowlers.

frankie bacchus, rexdale, canada

A Yank and a Canadian, talking cricket and critisising Warney. Hilarious. Do you know who he is or did you stumble onto what you thought was a baseball blog?

Marty, Melbourne, Australia

Warne himself said that people would be surprised with the ranking of Waqar, but really: why so much hype? Warne was a bowler and predominantly batted late in an innings and most likely came up against Waqar when he was tired.

As a bowler, Warne can really only rank the batsmen he has played against andjudge who was a better competitor in that regard.

And because it has to be said at every opportunity: Murali throws the ball and should never have made it to international cricket. Sri Lankan cricket authorities should have stopped him playing let alone the ICC.

Ginger Ninja, Melbourne,

Granted Murali has an amazing record. Statistically he is the best ever. But the fact remains, if a young man came through the junior ranks with the same action he would never make it to district cricket let alone representing his state or country. Last time I checked they never needed to change a fundamental rule to allow Warne to keep playing...

Get off the Waqar selection. This is just one mans opinion, not the definitive list set in stone for future generations to look back on. And all this talk about poor old Waqar and the 'dust bowls' he had to deal with. His major weapon was reverse swing. A dry, rough pitch and outfield greatly increases the amount of reverse swing a bowler can produce.

Kim Hassall, Melbourne, Australia

All i would like to say is that how could a guy with the best strike rate ever, a wicket every 43 balls....better than a mile than all the other so called legends, be on 45. Ridiculous.

Vicky, Cardiff, uk

Lewis, I think you'll find that the list is made up of the players with whom Warne has played and those he has played against. So there won't be players from previous eras. It also stands to reason that there will be more Australians than any others.

Matthew Cassano, you refer to Siddons and Berry as "unknowns" - but their capabilities are known to Warne and that's the basis of the list.

Saad, perhaps you can tell us more about all those innings of Bradman that you went to see that leads you to suggest that Waqar would have made him look a "novice".

I personally think that Waqar would be higher in a list such as this. But I guess that's the point: to get all of us talking about whom each would have in our top 50. To suggest that his position has something to do with Warne's personal feelings towards waqar is rather cheap.

James, London,

If Wagar didn't had back injury which kept him out for 2 years then he woud've taken 500+wickets in both forms of game. He was simply the best bowler ever pitty that his career ended like this.

Oman, Hague, Netherlands

This list seems to vindicate the Aussie selectors decision not to make Warne the national captain. Great talent on an individual level, bit no cricketing intellect.!!

Saghir, London,

hmmm its very hard to pick 50 greats from out of so many ...
no doubt warne has done a hard job.
Talking about Waqar, well there are and were so many great bowlers if we count only the bowlers i wonder what number waqar would be . so i think just to be in the list . its a great honor for waqar himself.
and ofcourse shane knows better than us since he is a great player himself so he has better ideas behind his numbers

Shishir, ak, usa

I was at the MCG the day Berry took the leg side stumping off the bowling of Paul Reiffel. The look on Boon's face was reminiscent of the look on Gatting's face as he walked off the ground following 'that ball' from the master Warne. Berry would have played 100 tests for any other nation. Only timing and a man by the name of Healy who will feature later in this list conspired to leave this man test less.

Kim Hassall, Melbourne, Australia

To Matthew Cassano, Birmingham, UK etc ... do you realise this is all a matter of opinion, and that Warne is entitled to state his opinion?

Matthew Cassano, what I find hilarious is that a complete nobody would consider his thoughts on cricket to be above those of one of the greatest ever cricketers to have played.

No doubt Warne will not include himself in the rankings, but if he did, why shouldn't he rate himself above murali? Let's ignore the whole chucking debate and just say that they are both highly talented, match winning bowlers. But Warne could also bat, was a great slip fielder and was a fierce competitor. murali is an average fielder at best, gives his wicket away rather than face hostile bowling, and doesn't want to bowl on the rare occasions that the batsmen get on top of him. I know who I would rate higher!

Nathan, Adelaide,

Shanie, you should be greatful, you are counted amongst the greatest, cause if you had played in the era of 70s and 80s where two other greater legspinners had played, namely Chandrashaker and Qadir, and had you not have the weak players of spinners namely the english, kiwis, proteas and windies mostly at your disposal, you'd be lucky to if you had broken the 300 wicket barrier despite playing all those tests...

Jimmy, Wacaville, US

Guys.. I'm one of the biggest fan of Waqar and Wasim for that matter... but lets not forget this is Warne's top 50 and he has every right to put anyone at any number he likes. Stats or performance matter least when your choosing your top 50. Certain memories, liking towards certain players and alot of bias is involved in making such a list and thats alright.. after all who isnt biased !!!

Shuja, Dubai, UAE

I'm waiting for the complete list. Its only then I can put my views in the right manner. Thanks Warney.

Chris, Mumbai, India

Its wrong to say Waqar fed off Akram , as Warne mite know that fast bowlers hunt in pairs. Never the less, Akram was simply a league apart. But Waqar deserved more....At one time he had the best strike rate in test cricket , a wicket every 36 balls(not sure whether it still stands or not)...mr, warne please ask Mr. Boycott, who famously said during the 92 series, Waqar can bowl the English batsman with an orange without even peeling it to get swing.

shakil, brisbane, australia

If you dont like his views then it is only your problem.If you are thinking that what you are saying is going to change or prove something, then you are really wrong!!So, please do not waste your valueable time arguing about it.
Your favourtie players will be on TOP of a list that you will make but not in Warney's.

Suresh, McLean, USA

A guy who gave us inswinging toe crushing yorkers. A guy who revolutionized fast bowling. A person who made fast bowling a treat to watch. Somebody who inspired Shoaib Akhter to play cricket. A man who influenced hundreds of thousands of kids to take fast bowling on dusty, dead wickets. A modern legend who took 373 Test wickets and easily could have taken more than 400 wickets but forced to retire. Its not just numbers that matter here but the way he took his scalps.
To me, he is a way better bowler than Great Wasim Akram. Somebody who put reverse into swing. Warnie, Waqar deserves better.

Cheers mate.. looking forward to the rest of your list.

Farhan, Toronto , Canada

Well MR.Warne i have the utmost respect for you but i dont know what lines ur thiniking on.Waqar was the probably the most devastating fast bowler of all times and to have him so low and behind players like Atherton and Stewart can only be a joke

Burhan, Warren, NJ, U.S.A

Warne didn't feed off anyone, he was always Australia's best bowler. Wasim Akram was Pakistani's best in his time.

An interesting list so far, keep it up.

Dean, Melbourne,

waqar is useless.... he should not have to be in the list

salman , lahore, pakistan

Murali might be up there with the best bowlers, but Warney has single-handedly won a lot of games for Australia, not only with the ball but with the bat also. Can Murali bat?? Anyone remember the perfect ball I have seen from a spinner?? Hint : Mike Gatting !

Errin, Rockhampton, Qld

Everything being equal a top 50 would have around 12-15 fast bowlers, and in my opinion Waqar would be in the last few spots of that 12-15 so I believe Shane, you have got Waqar about right.

Tristan Wass, Geelong, Australia

Warney only put Waqy in at 45 so there would be controversy in his list. Typical of Warney, but just like his leg spin, effective at getting the response he wants.

I cant wait to see who else he puts up or down! Reveals alot about the man behind the legend.

ree, Lahore,

I bet old Warney rates himself number 1 :-P

Marc, Johannesburg, South Africa

I think Warne and Waqar may not have gone well with each other off the field..... the most 6 wicket taker in one days and such high strike rates in both Test and ODI should definitely figure in top 25 if not 15 in anyones list...

Vincent, Mumbai, India

Regarding Waqar feeding off Wasim... odd comment as great bowlers (barring may be Hadlee) always had to feed off another good or great bowler on the other end over most of there career...like for example a Mr G McGrath... or Marshall with all the other great W Indies bowlers...or even Murali still has a Vaas on the other end keeping it tight.

Eason R, Sydney,

I suppose the top 10 will mostly be from Australia, England and S.Africa ( and maybe 1 from NewZealand)

michael, Nottingham, UK

Why is everyone fussing about Waqar. It's Shane Warne's 50 greatest cricketers. He can choose anyone he thinks was a good cricketer.... so chill guy's and see who the other lucky fellow's are.

Amir, collierville , tn , usa

I think most people will agree that Waqar was far better than Harminson and Stuart McGill..
Mr. Warne, I think you are a good spinner .. but you should never be made a selector......

Santosh, Muzaffarpur, India

Good work done by Mr warne by picking up the all time best 50 batsmen its really not a easy work to pick out the best fifty in a bunch of best cricketers. Good job Mr Warne

sabareesh, coimbatore, india

I am not satisfied with the justification to put waqar at 45.
If waqar fed of wasim,then I can say warne fed of McGrath, Lillie fed of thompson, the outstanding westindians fed of of each other. Its all about hunting in pairs warney. I know u never fed of Mcgrath and u would have been gr8 even without him. But same goes for waqar too.
Just to end on a lighter note, maybe you rated waqar low down because he broke your toe in brisbane test of 1995!!! not serious though.
I love u warney you are a champ.

Muhammad Usman, Lahore, Pakistan

Hello Mr. Warne a needless comment from you, and the replies clearly depicts that you have provoked a lot of waqar fans.

But I do agree with you, bowlers work in pairs for their individual and teams success. But dont forget the same rule goes to you as well.. Your partners Mc Grath, Brett Lee, Gillespie, Damien etc.. would have already created a lot of pressure before you chip in...

Despite your ruthless attitude, I personally admire you as a bowler who can produce sharp turns even in damn flat pitches.. Also I rate you more than Murali!!!!

Hats off to you man..But please try to hold your tongue.. "An ineluctable task" :)

Bala, Chennai, India

I guess i can come up with a list of 50 greats such that waqar might not feature in it, but having Alec Stewart, Mike Atherton and Justin Langer above him in the list would raise questions about the criteria used. One reason might be Warne has seen a lot more of the other 3 play than waqar. But in my honest opinion if Waqar is no.45 then these 3 don't even make the top 100.

Deep, Raleigh, USA

how can you put Waqar Younis at 45 below Ravi Shastri, right next to Vengsarkar, Langer and Alec Stewart? Langer was not even a regular in his own side.
although they were all good players, Waqar was a great in his own right, at his peak he was better than Wasim Akram actually. Though he was never the same after his back injury.

Akram, London,

Everyone is entitled to his personal opinion - but not, apparently, Shane Warne, according to most of the fans here.

It's his list, boys. HIS choice from HIS life, not yours. And since he is a professional cricketer, does it not occur to you all that he may particularly value something in a player that others, including you, don't see? If you can open your minds for 5 seconds, you may even learn something new!

Rusty, Sydney,

I think Shane Warne is entitled to his opinion. It's his personal view that Waqar Younis was 45th in the world and all of you Pakistani/Waqar supporters just have to live with it. If you ranked your top 50, you might rank someone higher than others and that would generate controversies. No list is perfect and neither is Shane's but why don't you guys just let Shane choose his top 50 and make your final assessment. Heck I'll just Shane's judgment over any over-reactive cricket fanatic. And you guys should know, its blasphemy to question Shane, he usually has the last laugh in just about everything.

Sunny Dutt, Toronto, Canada

HOW CAN WE SEE 41-1

azzy, cheshire, england

Warne says "waqar fed off wasim" . Then same could be said about warne. Just don't under estimate a great fast bowler the world has seen, simply because you don't like him or he doesn't like you (like most other people).

tharaka, Riyadh, k.s.a

wow, why am i not surprised that someone complained of waqar being so low?

sgadsgas, sagsagsa, gagsasgsd

Yeah but think logically, this is 50 best players of all time from a perspective, that of Warnie, and i am Pakistani and i do believe that Waqar is a bit lower then expected but not as high as other people are making it out to be, you got to understand he may of been a deadly fast bowler, but he wasn't always the greatest of sportsmen. He was known to be very arrogant and capable of roughing unnecessary feathers. Nor was he a competent tail end batsmen and was a very novice captain.

To be placed in the top 50 players of all time is a very fine achievement no matter what the rank, and to be placed higher than Chris Cairns is an accolade and any one who disagrees with Waqar's ranking is damn right out of their mind. To the person who commented on Kumar Sangakarra being better than Gilchrist, that is completely rubbish. Sangakarra's batting is arguably more text book than Gillie's but no matter has ever been so dominating and single handedly capable of turning matches than Gillie.

Muhammad, Sydney, Nsw, Australia

Dear Mr. Warne,
Isn't that how fast bowlers generally operate? Agreed that Wasim was the greater talent of the two Ws, and that Waqar was never quite the same after his various injuries. But some men are just not to be remembered for their longevity; the Waqars and the Jeff Thomsons belong to this category. The Pakistani was a sight to behold when at his peak and bowled with a squeaky clean action. Just for that magical swirling yorker of his, I think he deserves to be in the top20 at least.
But then, it's your Top 50!

Satyajeet, Dubai, UAE

Is there a bowler who has better strike rate then Waqar in post World War era?

A Ali, Allentown, USA

How about top 50 women? ;)

Jokes apart, I think he's in a unique position to have his best 50 cricketers. Not a fast bowler, not a batsman, not a gentleman cricketer and probably the greatest fighter the world cricket has seen.

Naveen Aysola, Bangalore, India

Waqar Younis has been ranked at no 45...hope i have seen the same Waqar, for what the world knows him...anyways!!! If that is becuz of personal likes and dislikes of Mr Shane, then i guess we won't be able to find the name of great Muralitharan in top 50's...and who knows, Wasim Akram too.

Hamza Baig, Karachi.,

When top 50 has Waqar on 45th spot, you can judge the creditability of the list but then its Warne's top 50 ONLY and not the ultimate list :)

AUH, Washington, USA

Though I liked the guy when he played I found it surprising to find Ravi Shastri placed so highly in Warnie's rankings. Guess it has to do more with the way he played against Warnie in that memorable test innings rather than his cricketing career as a whole. Hope Warne's rankings are not based purely on how others played with/against him rather than their overall performance

Nitin Shetty, Pune, India

Warnie says Waqar was successful coz he had Wasm bowlin at the other end.But I think it was vice versa..Wasim has so many ickets coz he had Waqar bowlng at the other end..Waqar used to create pressure and Wasim used to get the wickets..
And Athers should be way up..He was one of the best test batsman I have ever seen
Cheers

Mark, London, England

As somebody has pointed out - 'It is SHANE's top 50' and not WISDEN's or ICC's top 50'....!!! One request to Warny - Please publish the criteria you have applied to rank the players. That might reduce a lot of aahs and ooohhs from different people.

Vivek, Pune, India

Having seen Siddons and Berry play, I would have to agree with their inclusion. Waqar could have listed higher perhaps, but hard to say without seeing the other 40. No doubt Waqar was slightly less effective when Wasim was out of the team. Good selections so far.

Trevor, Brisbane, Australia/Queensland

I think warne is trying to have his friends in the list, you can find better 50 players than Alec Stewart amongst the present cricketers alone. Or else name the list as" favourite criketers of Warne".

tharaka, Riyadh, k.s.a

Waqar has the second best strike rate of all time and best in the 20th century when he completed his 200th. test wicket. He actually change the trend of fast bowling from quick bouncer to toe crushing yorkers. He should be in top 20.

Zeeshan, Dubai, UAE

On his comments on Waqar, the fact is shane warne himself fed a lot of wickets off McGrath and Lee at the other end.
When fast bowlers bowl well, batting teams tend to target the spinner and loose wickets.

Waqar was no doubt one of the greatest pacemen. His strike rate is 43.xx which is the best strike-rate for any bowler who took over 200 test wickets. beat that?

awais, chicago, il, usa

Let Shane complete the list before I say any thing but definitely Waqar deserves higher ranking; let see who you got higher in the bowling stream.

@ Saad London is in UK not US :)

Jawed Ali, Karachi, Pakistan

For the Waqar arguement, it is surprising that Warne has put him low as he was devastating. But nonetheless, this is Warne's top 50, NOT OURS! If Warne believe's Waqar is a 45, hes a 45.
As for the others who have posted up saying that Sangakarra is better than Gilchrist, there is no way that he is. Gilchrist is better than Sangakarra now, even with the older age.
As Warne continues his list, I would love to see where he ranks Lara, Tendulkar, Akram, Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting, and himself.
And for the record, WARNE IS BETTER THAN MURALITHARAN. Warne knows how to bowl a ball, and its ridiculous how much turn he gets; making opposing batsman look like fools.
Muralitharan lost his credibility with me, as his Action still seems like a PELT to me. Its nonsense how the ICC has accomodated his pelting.

Eric Persaud, Toronto, Canada

acc to warney wasim made waqar life easy well no doubt wasim was better than waqar prbably the best fast bowler of the 90's but u cant help anyone take 370+ wkts in test and 400 + wckts in odis on probably the worst bowling wckts in the world.
When u talk of waqar u r talking abt serious ability a guy who redefined fast bowling from the west indian method of knocking peoples heads out crushing someone toes.
new age fb's akhtar,lee,n malinga all try to imitate waqar i feel
I followed his career and in my humble opinion during the period 90-95 at his pomp he was the most devastating fb ever to him the pitch never mattered he could bowl people out in a beach.
Someone also says tht kumble is better than waqar stop kiddin he is gud but hav u ever seen kumble winning a match for india on neutral wkts.
seriously out of words seeing waqar this down.

vineet , bangalore,

Shane Indeed its your list and the love for Waqar would have been the same had any other bowler of his calibre been at no 45. All bowlers feed off each other, some create pressure some take the wickets, bowlers bowl in pairs like batsman bat in pairs. I feel it is unfair to say he feed off Wasim. But its your judgement and your a great so respect to that

Shaidy, London, England

@Mitch from Kangarooland..."there were so many better" then Waqar...like who that gay pornstar Lillee?...if waqar had perth at his disposal in every home series plus the other high bounce pitches and not the dead dustbowls of Pakistan he would have taken 600 wickets...Yeah and we saw your "better" medium pacer (check out the speed bowling competition on youtube he placed 4th or 5th) bowler lillee sobing his way out of Pakistan, managing a grand total of 3 wickets in all of subcontinet...

Remember if it was'nt for the umpiring and Warne's appealing, and general deterioration in batting standards...he would not have managed even 300 wickets had he bowled in the 70s and 80s...to be truly great and champion bowler you have to average in the low 20s...Warnie has never broken the mid 20s mark...start average below 25 and we the rest of the world might consider you great, let alone greatest...

MASE, Samoa, US

The bowler who scared hell out of batsmen like Lara, Tendulkar, Crowe, etc. at no. 45!

Not a surprise though when you see the list starting with the Victoria team players who never made to the international arena. Although its Warne's list but still a cricket legend should take some responsibility when discussing cricket.

Ahmer, Manchester, UK

Waqar is among the top 10 best fast bowlers ever! Surely he deserves a place among the best 25 in any list IMO.

Jaanasheenster, Toronto, Canada

Shane was a great spin bowler but he does not have the ability to assess a cricketer and come up with a list like this. So we should all take it lightly and have a laugh. I am waiting to see what comes next !!! LOL

Naveed, Rhode Island, USA

I don't see how anyone here has the right to question the opinion of someone who's actually played against\with these players. He may have biases but this is his list and I'd trust his judgement of a player over an average cricket fan's.

Remember this list is the 50 greatest 'cricketers' of all time. So for example, I reckon there's a lot of batsmen better than Stephen Fleming but I can imagine him being ranked in the top 30-40.

And for all those knocking Murali, (mostly Aussies), just shut up and listen to your boy Mark Waugh when he said "I found Murali harder to face than Shane Warne", or Steve when he said "He's the Donald Bradman of Spin. Instead of trusting your biases why don't you trust the words of your true greats who actually played against them.

RJ, London,

Haha Lewis, Yarmouth, that's hilarious. Sangakarra ahead of Gilchrist you have to be joking. Sangakarra is a fantastic player no doubt, but he certainly is no Adam Gilchrist

Adam, Brisbane, Australia

I think Waqar's rating is fair. Compare Wasim and Waqar in all conditions and occasions and Wasim was superior. Take their records against Australia in Australia for example - Wasim - 9 tests, 36 wickets at 26; Waqar - 7 tests, 14 wickets at 40!

Shyam, Los Angeles,

Lost respect completely for the list with Waqar at 45, he was infinitely more successful at the county game than Warne ever was.

Tim, Robinson, london

Waqar was way below where he deserved to be. In his prime he was the best fast bowler the game has produced. Warne only got as many wickets as he did because Australia scored 600 every time and then had 10 fielders around the bat and the pressure never subsided because the bowler at the other end (usually Mcgrath) never gave away any runs. If waqar 45 warne must be out of the top 100.

Riz, London,

Waqar should be ranked in the top 20 of world bowlers and that is a hard task. Imagine having to add a mix of batsmen, allrounders, wicketkeepers etc, and some will pick themselves. Most of us know the automatic top 20 cricketers.
But waqar's ranking is to low.

Worrell, Gros-Islet, St. Lucia

i respect your list of 41-50. it's completely your opinion.but waqar's rank is seriously not justified.but once again it's your list.

king, mumbai, india

what nonsencse Waqar on 45 absolutely ridiculous. I think Waqar did not play against Australia at his peak perhaps this is the reason why he thought thaytway. I can recall Waqar recovering from back injury playing against aussies in 1995 and getting battered but you can not judge people on the basis of how they have played against you that also when they were plagued with injuries.

Dr Rafay Khan, london, UK

I am not a pakistani, but only a genuine cricket fan.
By sheer statistics alone, Waqr is second only to greate Malcolm Marshall. He is above all the rest of them. He is second to Marshall only because Waqar stuggled against the subcontinent teams while for Mardhall, it didn't matter who the oppenent was.
Of course every one is entitled to their own picks, so is Warney too..

SR, Avenel, USA

Why all this fuss about Waqar....surely he doesnt need Warnes's endorsement....and for that that matter why are these folks telling Warne where to place Waqar...it's warnes list....let him put his mom number one on his list.... if thats what he wants...Warne is definitely one of the top ten cricketers ever.....I am waiting to see if good ole Boycott makes his list.

Jose Thomas, Toronto, Canada

Mr. JDR,
Be happy he made the list?? At 45 with 3 first class players behind him? I would have to say that you might not have seen a lot of fast bowling. He is a GREAT fast bowler, and has sure earned a place much better than 45.

Amar, Cleveland, Ohio / USA

Cannot wait to see where Murali and arjuna Ranatunga are

Dr Pankaj Rao, newcastle, australia

Assuming Warne's top 50 would contain a good blend of Bowlers, Batsmen and Allrounders there will approximately 20 bowlers, 20 batsmen and 10 allrounders in his list...Now Waqar being mentioned as the only Genuine Bowler assigns him the rank of 20th best bowlers ever...And mind you if he has less that 20 bowlers mentioned in his list then his ranking might go up...And i find it totally justified coz in any given day I wouldn't name Waqar before any of these bowler: Akram,Donald,Walsh,Ambrose,Murali,McGrath,Warne,Kumble,Lille,Thomson,Michael Holding,joel Garner...So guys be patient and watch for the other top 40...

MD, Chicago, USA

I would like to disagree with many comments saying that murali was a better bowler than Shane Warne. Firstly Murali has played 3/4 of his tests on the subcontinent on spin friendly wickets and also a high proportion of games against bangladesh and Zimbabwe compared to Warne. Warne also bowled in a line-up of bowlers who could all take wickets, not just the one man band that has played for sri lanka all these years, leaving murali to take easy wickets at the end and wipe up the tail, where Warne had to