Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[BhupinderSingh]

Shane Warne is himself the 2nd greatest leggie ever because the best ever is Bill O'Reilly.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Never really considered Barnes as a bowler who could be classified, personally. He wasn't pure spinner, and he certainly wasn't seamer. I'd never include him in a list of either spinners or seamers, though I consider him better than any of either of them.

As regards the best spinners, it's so ridiculous the way some people state out-of-hand that Warne is the greatest conventional Leg-Break-stock-ball wristspinner (ie, excluding Muralitharan who is a unique one-off and incomparable to any other wristspinner). He might be, sure, but there's no way he's unequivocally greater than either O'Reilly or Grimmett. Maybe in 10 years' time when the Warne-o-mania has faded more people will start to offer a fairer assessment.

As SJS mentioned, too, other fine wristspin bowlers included Benaud and Gupte (the most often criminally forgotten). But Abdul Qadir was in many ways a wasted talent.

Kumble - and, so I hear in recent times (would be interested to hear SJS's words on this as he'll have seen both bowl plenty), Chandrasekhar too - are somewhat different to the "normal" wristspin in that neither were prodigious spinners of the ball. They weren't fingerspinners but they were more like fingerspin than wristspin in one respect. This means I don't rank either up with the Grimmetts, O'Reillys and Warnes, or even Benauds or Guptes, but of course both were excellent bowlers.

How was Abdul Qadir a wasted talent?He was as good on Pakistani wickets as Kumble has been India but as worst as any worst bowler when playing outside Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

i would always find a place for faulkner on any such list. bosanquet deserves a mention for obvious reasons.

Forgot about Faulkner actually TBH. Faulkner, Vogler and Schwarz were none exactly bad.

 

[Craig]

A list of all time great leg spinners might include (in no particular order)

• Grimmett
• Orielly
• Benaud
• Gupte
• Chandrashekhar
• Abdul Qadir
• Warne
• Kumble

You see now I know I would of missed at least a few of them. As for Qadir, I remember the ESPN 50 greatest cricketers of all-time thing, and Qadir did not even make the cut

 

[Richard]

How was Abdul Qadir a wasted talent?He was as good on Pakistani wickets as Kumble has been India but as worst as any worst bowler when playing outside Pakistan.

He wasn't really as good as Kumble at home, though, that's the thing - Kumble went for series after series of bowling well at home, Qadir only did it on a few occasions here and there.

In any case, from what I've read Qadir had several things over Kumble - he could spin the ball more, without losing that much in accuracy. He didn't have Kumble's speed, but that's about it. Hence, I've always thought that Qadir, had more things gone right for him, could have ended-up a far better bowler than Kumble. Not only done better at home, but also put-in more than the occasional performance away too.

 

[Richard]

You see now I know I would of missed at least a few of them. As for Qadir, I remember the ESPN 50 greatest cricketers of all-time thing, and Qadir did not even make the cut

Can't say I'm surprised. Without thinking about it too much, I reckon I could have a decent stab at naming 50 better bowlers than him. 25 would be very, very easy.

 

[Craig]

Can't say I'm surprised. Without thinking about it too much, I reckon I could have a decent stab at naming 50 better bowlers than him. 25 would be very, very easy.

Your ready to put your money where your mouth is? I'll be interested to see at least 25-50 bowlers better then Qadir.

I'm not talking up Qadir or anything as I never saw him bowl.

 

[pasag]

Your ready to put your money where your mouth is? I'll be interested to see at least 25-50 bowlers better then Qadir.

I'm not talking up Qadir or anything as I never saw him bowl.

25 off the top of my head - Lindwall, Davidson, Warne, McGrath, O’Reilly, Grimmett, Lilliee, Hadlee, Marshall, Holding, Botham, Donald, Roberts, Lohmann, Ambrose, Larwood, Veirty, Akram, Imran, Waqar, Miller, Trueman, Barnes, Garner, Murali, Laker etc.

 

[Richard]

Your ready to put your money where your mouth is? I'll be interested to see at least 25-50 bowlers better then Qadir.

I'm not talking up Qadir or anything as I never saw him bowl.

25 off the top of my head, and not in any particularly ordered order...

Barnes, Marshall, Hadlee, Donald, Imran Khan, Ambrose, McGrath, Lindwall, Lillee, Davidson, Garner, Wasim Akram, Holding, Bishop, Statham, Bedser, Trueman, Adcock, Heine, Pollock (P), Pollock (S), Waqar Younis, Miller, Johnston, Fazal Mahmood.

And all of these bowlers were exceptional ones. There are many more "good" bowlers who I'd also put above without much thought required.

EDIT: blast that Zachary Gelman for beating me to it.

 

[Manee]

He also swung it prodigiously in the air. He was a medium pacer and bowled with the new ball. The 'spinning' the ball is more to do with delivery and action rather than what he was trying to get the ball to do.

Almost all the early pace bowlers bowled 'off breaks' at very high speeds which were not very different from the 'slower 'off break' bowlers as far as grip and delivery of the ball at release were concerned.

It would become too nuanced and an exercise in futility if we were to describe the bowlers by the grip alone.

One sees similar debates on what constitutes a 'wrist spinner' and people write of Murali as a wrist spinner. This is again getting into semantics rather than what the bowler is trying to get the ball to do, which is 'break from the off' which is what off break is supposed to do. Just like a leg break is one which breaks from the leg.

The off cutters and leg cutters came later with the finger just moving (cutting) across the seam to give the movement off the wicket in a direction different from which the ball would have moved off the seam if it had not been 'cut'.

In very old texts one finds most references to bowlers as just slow bowler or fast bowler. The difference was probably only in trajectory with the slower bowlers tossing the ball a bit in the air at the time of delivery. That is why so many bowlers we classify as spinners actually opened the attack on so many occasions. The line was hazy and some of the 'spinners' or 'break bowlers, bowled at pretty high pace.

It is very semantic though, because pace bowlers, as a category do not spin the ball.

PS: I know it is ridiculous to compare the two - but did Barnes bowl something similar to what Munaf Patel bowled in the final day against Pakistan in Bangalore where he was bowling off breaks at about 70mph?

 

[SJS]

i would always find a place for faulkner on any such list. bosanquet deserves a mention for obvious reasons.

Yes one could also include Vogler and Tich Freeman for that matter and then some may say why not Mailey ?

 

[Craig]

25 off the top of my head - Lindwall, Davidson, Warne, McGrath, O’Reilly, Grimmett, Lilliee, Hadlee, Marshall, Holding, Botham, Donald, Roberts, Lohmann, Ambrose, Larwood, Veirty, Akram, Imran, Waqar, Miller, Trueman, Barnes, Garner, Murali, Laker etc.

25 off the top of my head, and not in any particularly ordered order...

Barnes, Marshall, Hadlee, Donald, Imran Khan, Ambrose, McGrath, Lindwall, Lillee, Davidson, Garner, Wasim Akram, Holding, Bishop, Statham, Bedser, Trueman, Adcock, Heine, Pollock (P), Pollock (S), Waqar Younis, Miller, Johnston, Fazal Mahmood.

And all of these bowlers were exceptional ones. There are many more "good" bowlers who I'd also put above without much thought required.

EDIT: blast that Zachary Gelman for beating me to it.

Pardon my igornance, but how can you say a fast bowler is better then a spinner? They are two different types or what is the phrase I'm looking for? Comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Richard]

As a rule, for my money, seam-bowler >>>>>>> spinner of comparable ability, ie Malcolm Marshall >>>>>>>> Shane Warne \ Muttiah Muralitharan and Jason Gillespie >>>>>> Anil Kumble.

And TBH, the question you asked was why wasn't Abdul Qadir in the 50 greatest cricketers ever - where, inevitably, the question of comparing apples and oranges must be done. Never mind seamers and spinners - you have to compare bowlers and batsmen (and all-rounders, and wicketkeeper-batsmen, etc.).

 

[Engle]

Well, if you look at the 50 greatest, one would find many fine cricketers excluded.

Now, comparing spinners to quickies, one would find generally that quickies have the better numbers. In fact, they may even be better than spinners (generally). But given that you need a diverse attack on a sporting wicket, then one would have to include the (lesser ?) spinners over the (better?) quickies to bring variety to the attack.

Otherwise, one could just take the 4 best bowlers, regardless of their type and put them at the top of the list.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

As a rule, for my money, seam-bowler >>>>>>> spinner of comparable ability, ie Malcolm Marshall >>>>>>>> Shane Warne \ Muttiah Muralitharan and Jason Gillespie >>>>>> Anil Kumble.

Not bad, Dicko, 'cept there's the rather telling statistic that there has, save for the West Indies and South Africa in patches, nary been an all-seam attack that's carried a team in all conditions. Despite there being a statistically superior seam alternative most of the time to every post-war non-Murali/Warne spinner that's ever drawn breath? Why, then, are Test teams so loath to leave home without one?

Don't get me started on conditions, either, which you've passed over fairly emphatically.

 

[Ikki]

Never really considered Barnes as a bowler who could be classified, personally. He wasn't pure spinner, and he certainly wasn't seamer. I'd never include him in a list of either spinners or seamers, though I consider him better than any of either of them.

As regards the best spinners, it's so ridiculous the way some people state out-of-hand that Warne is the greatest conventional Leg-Break-stock-ball wristspinner (ie, excluding Muralitharan who is a unique one-off and incomparable to any other wristspinner). He might be, sure, but there's no way he's unequivocally greater than either O'Reilly or Grimmett. Maybe in 10 years' time when the Warne-o-mania has faded more people will start to offer a fairer assessment.

As SJS mentioned, too, other fine wristspin bowlers included Benaud and Gupte (the most often criminally forgotten). But Abdul Qadir was in many ways a wasted talent.

Kumble - and, so I hear in recent times (would be interested to hear SJS's words on this as he'll have seen both bowl plenty), Chandrasekhar too - are somewhat different to the "normal" wristspin in that neither were prodigious spinners of the ball. They weren't fingerspinners but they were more like fingerspin than wristspin in one respect. This means I don't rank either up with the Grimmetts, O'Reillys and Warnes, or even Benauds or Guptes, but of course both were excellent bowlers.

Are you suggesting Benaud is victim to Warne-o-mania? Benaud himself who is amongst the greats considers Warne the greatest ever. Not much not question in his tone either. Warne has innovated in leg-spin, and spin in general, with his style and variation. Warne is comfortably in front.

 

[social]

People that rate anyone other than Warne as the greatest ever wrist spinner are living in fantasy land - look at his record ffs

Covered wickets (i.e. flat decks), full professionalism, ulta slow mo replays allowing scrutiny of his every ball ad nauseam + 700 WICKETS draws only one conclusion

Those who rabbit on about Barnes only need to remember one thing - how many wickets would the average second grader have got against early 20th century batsmen ON MATTING WICKETS.

A truckload - just like him

 

[silentstriker]

People that rate anyone other than Warne as the greatest ever wrist spinner are living in fantasy land - look at his record ffs

Covered wickets (i.e. flat decks), full professionalism, ulta slow mo replays allowing scrutiny of his every ball ad nauseam + 700 WICKETS draws only one conclusion

Those who rabbit on about Barnes only need to remember one thing - how many wickets would the average second grader have got against early 20th century batsmen ON MATTING WICKETS.

A truckload - just like him

 

[social]

Look it up

Barnes' series vs SA on matting wickets

As anyone that has played on matting would know, biggest problem Warne, Murali, etc would have had was pitching anything on the covered area that ended up remotely near the stumps - friggin' minefield that bounced, spun and seamed at high pace

 

[Richard]

Not bad, Dicko, 'cept there's the rather telling statistic that there has, save for the West Indies and South Africa in patches, nary been an all-seam attack that's carried a team in all conditions. Despite there being a statistically superior seam alternative most of the time to every post-war non-Murali/Warne spinner that's ever drawn breath? Why, then, are Test teams so loath to leave home without one?

Don't get me started on conditions, either, which you've passed over fairly emphatically.

Obviously conditions make a huge difference. Obviously in certain conditions spinners > seamers. However, since covered pitches (different times in different countries, but by 1970 it was uniform to have some amount of it, and by, IIRR, 1977 or so pitches were covered everywhere the second it started to rain) only the very best wristspinners have been worthy of selection under any circumstances for a Test team. Since covered pitches, conditions which make spinners worthwhile have been rarities.

What you seem to overlook is that for all the fact that there's been virtually no good attacks without a spinner, there've also been numerous bad attacks featuring one (or two). If you've got enough good seamers, you don't need spinners. That some countries are brainless enough to continue to pick them (I lost count of the number of Tests Giles played which he shouldn't have for instance) doesn't actually matter. Bad selection is not a justification.