Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[Richard]

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.

No. Warne was comfortably a better bowler than Benaud. Benaud was too much of a late developer to fit into the very, very top echleon of wristspinners.

 

[Richard]

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

700 wickets comes from playing lots. Nothing more. If Warne had played 80 less Tests than he did, he'd have taken a lot less wickets. Anyone will get wickets if they play and bowl lots. Warne's wicket-taking was impressive, but not notably more so than other great wristspinners Grimmett, O'Reilly and Muralitharan.

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

Barnes played a single series on matting wickets. No more. And had he not played that series most people who assess him would make the exact same assessment.

Do you really imagine the copious informed cricket historians who all agree that Barnes was head-and-shoulders above anyone else who has picked-up a cricket-ball are basing their entire assessment on a single series?

 

[Ikki]

No. Warne was comfortably a better bowler than Benaud. Benaud was too much of a late developer to fit into the very, very top echleon of wristspinners.

Did you purposely ignore the point of my post?

Benaud was around not long after Grimmett and O'Reilly. But Benaud considers Warne the best, and does so without a qualm. Why would, for example, someone like Benaud succumb to the Warne-o-mania, as you suggested is the reason why people so clearly put him in front?

I think this goes back to the point Lillian Thomson is making in the other thread. You harp on about people exaggerating past players flair, performances...as if past players or long-term fans decide who they rate on a whim or because of some fad. And then some of you have the nerve to get offended if someone calls you out on your over-reliant statistical judgment.

 

[Ikki]

700 wickets comes from playing lots. Nothing more. If Warne had played 80 less Tests than he did, he'd have taken a lot less wickets. Anyone will get wickets if they play and bowl lots. Warne's wicket-taking was impressive, but not notably more so than other great wristspinners Grimmett, O'Reilly and Muralitharan.

The only player in the above who comes close is Murali. Grimmett and O'Reilly bowled tonnes of overs (almost 20 more than Warne per match) and strike almost 10+ balls slower per match too. Not in the league of a Warne or a Murali, and then there are things that social mentioned like the conditions.

Do you really imagine the copious informed cricket historians who all agree that Barnes was head-and-shoulders above anyone else who has picked-up a cricket-ball are basing their entire assessment on a single series?

Hahaha, yet you use the collective fashion here to your advantage. You can ignore the testimony of many bowlers regarding Lillee (not historians, actual contemporaries who rival Lillee) because of a few test matches and yet you ask the above?

 

[Richard]

Did you purposely ignore the point of my post?

Benaud was around not long after Grimmett and O'Reilly. But Benaud considers Warne the best, and does so without a qualm. Why would, for example, someone like Benaud succumb to the Warne-o-mania, as you suggested is the reason why people so clearly put him in front?

I think this goes back to the point Lillian Thomson is making in the other thread. You harp on about people exaggerating past players flair, performances...as if past players or long-term fans decide who they rate on a whim or because of some fad. And then some of you have the nerve to get offended if someone calls you out on your over-reliant statistical judgment.

I don't go on about people exaggerating past players' flair, I go on about people exaggerating all players' flair. It's just with players of my lifetime people can't fling the ridiculous " of course you don't have a clue and don't understand a thing because you didn't watch them " crap.

And yes, certain people do IMO place too much impact on wow-factor, as it's come to be known on CW. I'm not saying Richie Benaud does - I'd be very interested to hear why he considers Warne better than Grimmett and O'Reilly. I don't think the suggestion that he was is outrageous. But I do think the suggestion that Warne is unequivocally and obviously better than them is so, and I highly doubt Benaud is stupid enough to suggest it. Because I know beyond doubt that he thinks very highly of all three bowlers.

 

[social]

700 wickets comes from playing lots. Nothing more. If Warne had played 80 less Tests than he did, he'd have taken a lot less wickets. Anyone will get wickets if they play and bowl lots. Warne's wicket-taking was impressive, but not notably more so than other great wristspinners Grimmett, O'Reilly and Muralitharan.

Barnes played a single series on matting wickets. No more. And had he not played that series most people who assess him would make the exact same assessment.

Do you really imagine the copious informed cricket historians who all agree that Barnes was head-and-shoulders above anyone else who has picked-up a cricket-ball are basing their entire assessment on a single series?

Romanticism

McGrath + any number of recent greats on uncovered wickets = career average less than 10

Oooooooooh!

Players today on current wickets would be absolutely crapping themselves against a slow medium bowler.

Get Real

 

[social]

700 wickets comes from playing lots. Nothing more. If Warne had played 80 less Tests than he did, he'd have taken a lot less wickets. Anyone will get wickets if they play and bowl lots. Warne's wicket-taking was impressive, but not notably more so than other great wristspinners Grimmett, O'Reilly and Muralitharan.

Barnes played a single series on matting wickets. No more. And had he not played that series most people who assess him would make the exact same assessment.

Do you really imagine the copious informed cricket historians who all agree that Barnes was head-and-shoulders above anyone else who has picked-up a cricket-ball are basing their entire assessment on a single series?

Romanticism

McGrath + any number of recent greats on uncovered wickets = career average less than 10 against TODAY'S PLAYERS

Oooooooooh!

Players today on current wickets would be absolutely crapping themselves against a slow medium bowler.

Get Real

 

[Richard]

The only player in the above who comes close is Murali. Grimmett and O'Reilly bowled tonnes of overs (almost 20 more than Warne per match) and strike almost 10+ balls slower per match too. Not in the league of a Warne or a Murali, and then there are things that social mentioned like the conditions.

And they also conceded less runs per over.

Hahaha, yet you use the collective fashion here to your advantage. You can ignore the testimony of many bowlers regarding Lillee (not historians, actual contemporaries who rival Lillee) because of a few test matches and yet you ask the above?

No, I don't ignore it. I read it, then I make my mind up about what I think about it. I do the same with Barnes.

 

[Richard]

Romanticism

McGrath + any number of recent greats on uncovered wickets = career average less than 10

Oooooooooh!

Players today on current wickets would be absolutely crapping themselves against a slow medium bowler.

Get Real

Romanticism

McGrath + any number of recent greats on uncovered wickets = career average less than 10 against TODAY'S PLAYERS

Oooooooooh!

Players today on current wickets would be absolutely crapping themselves against a slow medium bowler.

Get Real

Except a) Barnes wasn't a slow-medium bowler and b) if McGrath would average less than 10 against today's players on uncovered wickets, so would those as good as him have done on uncovered wickets against those of their own time.

 

[Ikki]

And they also conceded less runs per over.

That's because batsmen then struck runs at a lower rate. Hence the reason for the economy rate. If you had paid attention when we were discussing this last time you'd already know the reason.

No, I don't ignore it. I read it, then I make my mind up about what I think about it. I do the same with Barnes.

The fact that in two separate instances you take two different routes, yet you ask of someone else what you wouldn't do before...is hypocritical.

 

[Richard]

That's because batsmen then struck runs at a lower rate. Hence the reason for the economy rate. If you had paid attention when we were discussing this last time you'd already know the reason.

I paid attention, I just don't care for that idea as much as some people do. Good bowlers can and do stop batsmen striking runs at a faster rate. The bowler controls the game, not the batsman.

The fact that in two separate instances you take two different routes, yet you ask of someone else what you wouldn't do before...is hypocritical.

No it's not. I'm free to form whatever conclusions I want from the evidence. So is anyone else. As long as I assess it, I am not being hypocritical in telling someone else to do so. It is hypocritical to take such things as gospel once and not do so another time, though.

 

[Ikki]

I paid attention, I just don't care for that idea as much as some people do. Good bowlers can and do stop batsmen striking runs at a faster rate. The bowler controls the game, not the batsman.

If that's the case then Alf Valentine must be some sort of super-human. He has a lower ER than all of them.

No it's not. I'm free to form whatever conclusions I want from the evidence. So is anyone else. As long as I assess it, I am not being hypocritical in telling someone else to do so. It is hypocritical to take such things as gospel once and not do so another time, though.

Yeah you are allowed to form whatever conclusions you want...but you're a hypocrite and your arguments are more often than not lousy. You just made a hypocritical statement in the above...again.

I know you like posting Richard, but quality, not quantity mate.

 

[Richard]

If that's the case then Alf Valentine must be some sort of super-human. He has a lower ER than all of them.

And Bapu Nadkarni lower still. Yes, maybe both of these were indeed better at controlling the run-rate than either Warne, Grimmett or anyone else. However, controlling the rate isn't the only thing - how you ally that and taking wickets is the relevant factor.

Yeah you are allowed to form whatever conclusions you want...but you're a hypocrite and your arguments are more often than not lousy. You just made a hypocritical statement in the above...again.

I know you like posting Richard, but quality, not quantity mate.

Nah, I'm not. If I was, more people would make the accusation.

 

[Ikki]

And Bapu Nadkarni lower still. Yes, maybe both of these were indeed better at controlling the run-rate than either Warne, Grimmett or anyone else. However, controlling the rate isn't the only thing - how you ally that and taking wickets is the relevant factor.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I knew you'd get there one day. So ER is just one thing. One of three simple stats that they're better. Unfortunately, it's also the least important of the three. So the reply of "they have better ERs" when I make the claim that they are inferior is simply a poor one that does not change the fact that Murali and Warne are ahead by quite a margin. There was really no point even saying "they have better ERs", this is why I say your arguments are lousy.

Nah, I'm not. If I was, more people would make the accusation.

 

[chaminda_00]

Tracks in 30s were as flat as tracks are now, especially in Australia. I don't see how flatter tracks in now makes any difference when comparing players from the two eras. It was the period before the 30s and after were spinners really had the advantage of uncovered tracks. Just cus some tracks were uncovered and rain effected and some were even on matted pitchies doesn't mean they all were. Most tracks in the 30s were flat as roads.

Yes Richie Benaud rates Warne ahead of other leg spinners. As much as I rate his opinion, thats just one person's opinion. There are plenty of others that have seen both Tiger and Warne bowl and majority say Tiger was a better spin bowlers. Granted majority of those guys played and faced Tiger and it is always going improve your opinion of a players in that situation. But there is enough scope to claim Tiger is better bowler.

Professionism yeah its improved, but given a level playing field. Then I doubt it would make much difference.

 

[Anil]

As a rule, for my money, seam-bowler >>>>>>> spinner of comparable ability

if one is >>>>>>> the other, then they are not of comparable ability...

 

[JBH001]

The question should have been,

"Given that Shane Warne is the third greatest leg spinner of al time, who are the first two ?"

Haha! Kudos!

Edit/ Lets keep it about leggies, shall we? No need to go down the Murali vs Warne road again...

One thing though, why is Warne's SR (and Murali's for that matter) so much lower than most of their fellow spinners, past and present (with the exception of MacGill iirc)? Especially given covered wickets which I assume would make it harder to get wickets? I dont know either if I buy into the batsmen are more adventurous theory either. For one, runs were scored quite quick back then as well (in terms of a focus on runs per minute although I guess more overs were bowled back then in a day as well), bats were not the mis-hit soaring over the boundary variety either which meant that ER would be in the favour of bowlers back then, rather than say Warne and Murali, and uncovered wickets would again bend ER in favour of bowlers, as would SR, which would also favour bowlers at that time.

I am uni busy at the moment, but anyone have figures on ER and SR of Grimmett and O"Reilly vs Warne and Murali?

 

[Langeveldt]

In terms of raw ability, Mushtaq Ahmed

 

[JBH001]

Because this is bugging me, and I wont get much done unless I look at the figures

Bill O'Reilly 

Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 
 27 48 10024 3254 144 7/54 11/129 22.59 [B]1.94 69.6[/B] 8 11 3 

Clarrie Grimmett
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 
 37 67 14513 5231 216 7/40 14/199 24.21 [B]2.16 67.1[/B] 7 21 7

Shane Warne 
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 
145 273 40705 17995 708 8/71 12/128 25.41 [B]2.65 57.4[/B] 48 37 10 

Murali
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 
120 208 40035 16137 735 9/51 16/220 21.95 [B]2.41 54.4[/B] 42 63 20

There is a big ER gap in favour of O'Reilly and Grimmett (1.94 and 2.16 vs 2.65 and 2.41 respectively), but does that not run in the face of constant comments about flat 30's pitches etc which, I presume, would and should have made batting and run scoring easier (especially considering the standard of batting at that time - England and Australia primarily)? Also, bigger bats and smaller boundaries could go a part of the way toward explaining the higher ER's of Murali and Warne but that makes their SR all the more stunning (as imo, if they had bowled at the same time as O'Reilly and Grimmett they would have had similar or close to ER's due to the fact that they were and are similar bowlers, relentlessly accurate and seeking to build stifling pressure).

IIRC, the SR gap is also noticeable when compared to spinners from the 50s - 70s too. Bedi, I think, had a huge SR (but a low ER) although batting was perhaps slower at that time. And the same holds for Ramadhin, Valentine, Gibbs, Prasanna, and Chandrasekhar (although less so with him, iirc).

(Sorry for the long ramble of a post, got my mind in two places at the moment)

 

[Ikki]

Haha! Kudos!

Edit/ Lets keep it about leggies, shall we? No need to go down the Murali vs Warne road again...

One thing though, why is Warne's SR (and Murali's for that matter) so much lower than most of their fellow spinners, past and present (with the exception of MacGill iirc)? Especially given covered wickets which I assume would make it harder to get wickets? I dont know either if I buy into the batsmen are more adventurous theory either. For one, runs were scored quite quick back then as well (in terms of a focus on runs per minute although I guess more overs were bowled back then in a day as well), bats were not the mis-hit soaring over the boundary variety either which meant that ER would be in the favour of bowlers back then, rather than say Warne and Murali, and uncovered wickets would again bend ER in favour of bowlers, as would SR, which would also favour bowlers at that time.

I am uni busy at the moment, but anyone have figures on ER and SR of Grimmett and O"Reilly vs Warne and Murali?