Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[SJS]

First of all, wicket conditions, in a particular era and the law of the game at that time at that point in time have a lot to do with strike rates (and other statistics) but here lets talk of the style of bowling.

The strike rate has a lot to do with the propensity of the batsman to make a mistake against certain type of bowling. Leg spin does present a bigger problem for batsmen than off spin. Hence leg spinners will induce more mistakes in batsmen than off spinners, generally. (This does not discount the better skills and craftiness of a greater bowler) Here are the economy rates of the great leg spin and off spin bowlers in the game. I may have left out a favourite of yours but thats not intentional, trust me

For the sake of better debate I have not put actual rates but clubbed them in groups. Its possible to look up exact rates or I can post them if needed.
OFF SPINNERS

Muralitharan	50-55
Laker Jim  	55-60
Trumble Hugh	60-65
Tayfield	65-70
Harbhajan 	65-70
Mallett Ashley	65-70
Saqlain 	65-70
Prasanna	70+
Gibbs Lance	70+

LEG SPINNERS

[B]Faulkner	50-55[/B]
MacGill     	50-55
[B]Schwarz    	50-55[/B]
Warne       	55-60
[B]Chandra    	60-65[/B]
Wright       	60-65
[B]Vogler       	60-65[/B]
[B]Kumble     	60-65[/B]
Benaud     	65-70
O'Reilly     	65-70
Grimmett   	65-70
Mushtaq    	65-70
Kaneria     	65-70
Gupte        	70+

Amongst the leg spinners, those that were the early purveyors of the googly and made it their main weapon (the South Africans) and those from India who bowled more googlies than the conventional leg spinner (Chandra and Kumble) too seem to have lower strike rates while the conventional bowlers like Gupte, Benaud, Grimmett and O'rielly (irrespective of the last named's speed) have suffered by contrast.

Doug Wright was a very unusual legspinner again - very fast and high proportion of googlies

- unusually fast bowler for a leg-spinner, almost a genuine medium-pacer
- "running in from over 15 yards, hopping and skipping as he went, and whipping over a wristy and finger-spun ball that would dip, bounce and deviate crazily off the pitch, to expect long-term accuracy was to display a dismal ignorance of physics."​

with the result he took his 107 wickets for England (the most for any leg spinner) at almost 40 each !

Warne, I would like to believe overcomes this by he completely different line of attack. This has both to do with his prodigious spin and the fact that for most of his career he did not have an effective googly. Thus he did not bowl on or around the off stump as his predecessors did but attacked the leg stump which meant that Warne, probably, made the batsman play at more of his deliveries than the traditionalists. This could account for his higher strike rate.

Murali too has the gift of a HUGE spin but his second difference from his fellow off-spinnners was the presence rather than the absence of the doosra. Where Warne made the absence of the googly a reason to develop a different line of attack and other variations, Murali used the presence of the doosra in his armoury to increase the area (linewise) where he could pitch the ball - from wide outside the off stump to middle and leg. This is very different from the traditional off spinners who again pitched on and around the off stump, relying on accuracy and flight to go through the batsman's defence while he was driving or defending on or around the off stump.

But why MacGill ????

I would suggest that he gains a lot from playing against Bangladesh. Take away tests against them and the ICC World X! jamboree and his rate goes up from 53 to a more mortal 60. This moves him from the highest category to number three with Kumble Chandra and Vogler.

Its important to remember that the more accurate bowlers, generally have higher strike rates than the inaccurate ones. The former are played with circumspection and care while the latter, in between bad balls will bowl a good one and get their man. Fans of a big eared Indian new ball bowler named 'Bombay Duck' will know what I am talking about.

 

[Indipper]

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).

I can't believe no one tried to carve an argument along the lines of 'Murali/Warne have better SR because the bats in their day are bigger which means they can get easier edges and boundaries are smaller which means catching is easier.'

 

[SJS]

I can't believe no one tried to carve an argument along the lines of 'Murali/Warne have better SR because the bats in their day are bigger which means they can get easier edges and boundaries are smaller which means catching is easier.'

 

[JBH001]

I can't believe no one tried to carve an argument along the lines of 'Murali/Warne have better SR because the bats in their day are bigger which means they can get easier edges and boundaries are smaller which means catching is easier.'

Because that would be a little silly? Its almost an accepted fact that bowling has become harder for spinners due to bigger and better bats, the onset of a power game, and smaller boundary ropes. I do agree though that the SR part of my sentence there bore little relation to the ER section - thats what happens I guess when you write in haste and inbetween writing uni assignments that are almost due.

Nice pos SJS, will look over it later.

 

[Indipper]

Because that would be a little silly? Its almost an accepted fact that bowling has become harder for spinners due to bigger and better bats, the onset of a power game, and smaller boundary ropes. I do agree though that the SR part of my sentence there bore little relation to the ER section - thats what happens I guess when you write in haste and inbetween writing uni assignments that are almost due.

Was being facetious. 'Carving an argument' might have given that away. Or not. In any case it wasn't really a reply to your post, it just struck my eye there.

 

[SJS]

Was being facetious.

I realised that too. I am surprised that the wise JB did not. I think he was in too much of a hurry

 

[JBH001]

Ah, sorry fellas. My bad. Was a quick look and a quick reply before marking some tutorial assignments due in this evening.

 

[morgieb]

The question should have been,

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

Dire.

 

[morgieb]

Warne is not the greatest spinner of all time. Either it is Murali or Barnes.

Would Sid Barnes be considered a spinner?

 

[Migara]

If you followed th thread , you woudn't have asked that question.

 

[anoop4real]

Anil Kumble

 

[weldone]

The strike rate has a lot to do with the propensity of the batsman to make a mistake against certain type of bowling. Leg spin does present a bigger problem for batsmen than off spin. Hence leg spinners will induce more mistakes in batsmen than off spinners, generally. (This does not discount the better skills and craftiness of a greater bowler)

The opposite happens for left-handed batsmen though...

 

[SJS]

The opposite happens for left-handed batsmen though...

Sure but unlike recent times, left handed batsmen have been far too few to make huge difference in stats in the past.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, economy-rate is every bit as important as strike-rate really.

 

[Richard]

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

Of comparable status amongst their peers, then, is perhaps a better way of putting it.

 

[Richard]

I can't believe no one tried to carve an argument along the lines of 'Murali/Warne have better SR because the bats in their day are bigger which means they can get easier edges and boundaries are smaller which means catching is easier.'

Ashley Mallett, for one, insisted that for all the disadvantages bigger bats wrought to spinners, that was indeed an advantage.

Let's not forget, a six 15 rows back and a six that just clears the rope are worth the same amount.

 

[weldone]

No, economy-rate is every bit as important as strike-rate really.

If economy rate is as important as strike rate then average ( = economy rate * strike rate / 6 ) is more important than both of these...

[ To explain further: A low economy rate coupled with a low strike rate will yield a very low average due to multiplier effect]

 

[Richard]

Average is indeed the most important factor in a bowler's effectiveness, but given there is no average without strike- and economy-rate, it's a straight shootout between the two.

 

[weldone]

Average is indeed the most important factor in a bowler's effectiveness, but given there is no average without strike- and economy-rate, it's a straight shootout between the two.

Agree with the first part of your post...Didn't get the last part...Are you trying to say that if averages are similar then it's difficult to judge who's better because S.R. and E.R. are equally important?...If that's what you're trying to say then I agree to the fullest...

 

[a massive zebra]

One should not just look at the stats of two particular bowlers from completely different eras and blindly assume that one was more dangerous but less accurate than the other because he had a superior strike rate but inferior economy rate. Circumstances in existence at the time must also be taken into account.

In my view, one of the prime reasons for the superior strike rates but inferior economy rates of Murali and Warne in comparison with O'Reilly and Grimmett is the more aggressive mentality of modern batsmen brought on by the prominence of one day cricket. With so much one day cricket being played these days, it is difficult for batsmen not to bring their one day game over to the Test area. With one day time constraints, batsmen must take risks in order to be rewarded with quick runs, but in doing so provide bowlers with higher possibilities for wicket taking.

There is a direct relationship between the increasing prominence of one day cricket and a consistent increase of Test match run rates. With the exception of the 1950s and early 1960s, such run rates were consistent at around 2.5 to 2.6 runs per over thoughout the period 1920-1970, but have since risen on a consistent basis to their current level of around 3.1. Over the entirety of the period mentioned above, there were almost always some spin bowlers with economy rates around 2 per over, from O'Reilly in the 30s to Laker in the 50s to Bedi in the 70s, but these days the lowest that can be seen is Murali's 2.4. This despite the fact that Bradman said "Murali shows perhaps the best discipline of any bowler since the war."

I also believe it is no coincidence that many of the best strike rates shown in SJS's post above were recorded by bowlers who played during the golden age, a period in which run rates were almost on a par with modern times.