Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[Richard]

Not likely, considering he takes 12 on average. And regardless, we are trying to keep the same ratios in terms of average, economy rate and strike rate. So if we were to assume he'd take another wicket we should also give Warne another wicket which would again put him in the lead. This is the difference between SR and ER. If O'Reilly had at least kept the total runs he conceded down despite bowling the extra overs, then that would be a starting point - but he doesn't.

You are trying to make stats work in a way they don't. Your last example was poor, I tried to improve it, and you're now making it worse again.

Look, we've discussed this. I brought a truckload of bowlers and their records Vs S.Africa and pretty much everyone showed very good to amazing figures against them. You'd really have to be stupid not to accept this. This isn't an insult, but a general statement. To ignore that many bowlers and their record Vs S.Africa is just idiocy.

And the link above is just for 3 teams. How many bowlers could 3 teams possible have? ****, even Stan McCabe does well against them. Pretty much all the top ones improved on their career figures. I've seen you go to some depth defying lows, but this one is a new level.

Virtually no bowlers took any notable numbers of wickets against South Africa, as I said the previous occasion we discussed it. The few who did were all bowlers of note, and\or played in a single series only. And you can easily find similar sets of figures for all bowlers against any team at any time through history. Anyway, I have no interest in discussing this issue as you do not realise the realities. You could just as easily discount Shane Warne's wicket tally against England as O'Reilly's against South Africa.

So batsmen like getting tired fielding and then like going in batting with less time than they otherwise would have gotten if the bowlers had bowled faster... Do you EVER read the crap that you type?

Batting is far, far more tiring than fielding. Ever played cricket?

 

[Ikki]

You are trying to make stats work in a way they don't. Your last example was poor, I tried to improve it, and you're now making it worse again.

EDIT: I think I know what you're saying. But, if it were about more likely to take the next wicket in terms of Warne, he will concede 10 more runs than the allotted 11 but he'd be about an over away from taking a wicket. If you mean that's how it should be calculated, then it can be, and id take Warne still.

Virtually no bowlers took any notable numbers of wickets against South Africa, as I said the previous occasion we discussed it. The few who did were all bowlers of note, and\or played in a single series only. And you can easily find similar sets of figures for all bowlers against any team at any time through history. Anyway, I have no interest in discussing this issue as you do not realise the realities. You could just as easily discount Shane Warne's wicket tally against England as O'Reilly's against South Africa.

All bowlers, part-time and front-line took wickets and cheaply. You cannot deny it. Too many bowlers did. Your lack of interest in argument purveys this point. Comparing Shane Warne's England to O'Reilly's S.Africa is like comparing England, in this era, to Zimbabwe. Get a grip, the differences are too large to deny.

What's hilarious is in the above you put a qualification of 20 wickets. 20 wickets? In that era you would be lucky to play a team that many times to have just 20 wickets against a single opponent. What's funny is that even when you do that, the number of bowlers is still large .

BTW O'Reilly's test career started in 1932, not 1906. You're trying to pick at the stats in this way as well. I thought you may have not understood but to purposely try and fix stats shows you're inclinations and that you really aren't holding your point because you think you are right...but because you don't want to be wrong. Poor form.

Batting is far, far more tiring than fielding. Ever played cricket?

Standing in one place for hours on end is tiring, let alone fielding as well. I have played Cricket, evidently more than you. Batting is also tiring. Do you know what makes it even more tiring? Having to score faster because your bowlers did not give you enough time. It's also more likely to make you less successful as a team if forced to do that. It might be so that in an amateur's league you see your friends wanting more time between innings, but a Test class batsman worth his salt will want to bat and make as many runs as he can. Without that mentality, he would have never reached the top level.

 

[Engle]

Batting is far, far more tiring than fielding. Ever played cricket?

But it's far far more enjoyable, and the reason why people become batsmen. I'd rather belt the ball than chase leather.

 

[Richard]

Huh? Would you mind explaining that? The calculations above are what make sense. What you said makes nothing, least of all sense.

The calculations you attempt to give break mathematical law. Re-read them again, carefully.

All bowlers, part-time and front-line took wickets and cheaply. You cannot deny it. Too many bowlers did. Your lack of interest in argument purveys this point. Comparing Shane Warne's England to O'Reilly's S.Africa is like comparing England, in this era, to Zimbabwe. Get a grip, the differences are too large to deny.

What's hilarious is in the above you put a qualification of 20 wickets. 20 wickets? In that era you would be lucky to play a team that many times to have just 20 wickets against a single opponent. What's funny is that even when you do that, the number of bowlers are still large .

Nonsense, on both counts. South Africa circa 1906-1939 were so much stronger than Zimbabwe 2003-2006 it's untrue. England were often pretty poor in Warne's career, especially against Warne-style bowling, but they were still easily good enough to be playing at the level. Likewise, South Africa weren't especially good, but still good enough to compete mostly and win sometimes.

And the fact that not that many bowlers took 20 wickets against one opponent in the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930s means that there's a hell of a lot of bowlers who can have no proper conclusions drawn about them. And someone trying to use their cases to prove so much as a single thing would be clutching at straws.

Standing in one place for hours on end is tiring, let alone fielding as well. I have played Cricket, evidently more than you. Batting is also tiring. Do you know what makes it even more tiring? Having to score faster because your bowlers did not give you enough time. It's also more likely to make you less successful as a team if forced to do that. It might be so that in an amateur's league you see your friends wanting more time between innings, but a Test class batsman worth his salt will want to bat and make as many runs as he can. Without that mentality, he would have never reached the top level.

That he wants to bat doesn't mean that batting is less tiring than fielding. For both things, you have to concentrate for long periods, and expend physical energy. For batting, you have to do far more than for fielding.

 

[Richard]

But it's far far more enjoyable, and the reason why people become batsmen. I'd rather belt the ball than chase leather.

Cricketers do not play as specialist fielders. And you can only belt the ball if you have the ability to do so - batsmen don't choose to become batsmen, they just happen to be good at it. If you don't have the requistite skills, you can't become a good batsman. Obviously, you have to enjoy it too, but enjoying batting is not the most important thing in being a batsman.

Everyone has to chase leather, every game.

 

[Richard]

BTW O'Reilly's test career started in 1932, not 1906. You're trying to pick at the stats in this way as well. I thought you may have not understood but to purposely try and fix stats shows you're inclinations and that you really aren't holding your point because you think you are right...but because you don't want to be wrong. Poor form.

South Africa became Test-class in 1906. They did not flit between being Test-class and not Test-class. You seem to be under the illusion that they were never Test-class until... well, I don't know when, actually. Maybe not even until the 1950s?

And I showed that the number of bowlers who did especially well against them in that time was not unusual.

 

[Ikki]

The calculations you attempt to give break mathematical law. Re-read them again, carefully.

I added:

EDIT: I think I know what you're saying. But, if it were about more likely to take the next wicket in terms of Warne, he will concede 10 more runs than the allotted 11 but he'd be about an over away from taking a wicket. If you mean that's how it should be calculated, then it can be, and id take Warne still. 12 more runs conceded over about 9 overs or a wicket?

Nonsense, on both counts. South Africa circa 1906-1939 were so much stronger than Zimbabwe 2003-2006 it's untrue. England were often pretty poor in Warne's career, especially against Warne-style bowling, but they were still easily good enough to be playing at the level. Likewise, South Africa weren't especially good, but still good enough to compete mostly and win sometimes.

First of all, S.Africa were poor in the Zimbabwe mold, not the England mold. And secondly, Warne has his best performance against England when they actually were good. Thirdly, with regards to types of bowling, S.Africa in the 30s (as is when O'Reilly actually played), they have a glaring deficiency against spin too, as can be witnessed by the performances of O'Reilly, Grimmett and Vivian. But again, this is not even as important as the fact that a lot of the bowlers had drastically better figures against S.Africa. You cannot say that regarding England

And the fact that not that many bowlers took 20 wickets against one opponent in the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930s means that there's a hell of a lot of bowlers who can have no proper conclusions drawn about them. And someone trying to use their cases to prove so much as a single thing would be clutching at straws.

LOL, so because they didn't play enough Tests per year you can't conclude anything about them? Damn, that puts a lot of oldies out in contention for our fun All-Time XIs.

That he wants to bat doesn't mean that batting is less tiring than fielding. For both things, you have to concentrate for long periods, and expend physical energy. For batting, you have to do far more than for fielding.

We are talking about a different calibre competition. Where your team WANTS the bowlers to get out the batsmen as fast as they can. Because it is more BENEFICIAL if they do and just because they can dilly-dally around and still win doesn't mean they are about to not take wickets for saving their breath. That you imply they'd rather sit around more and bat less is not only funny, it's insulting.

 

[Richard]

First of all, S.Africa were poor in the Zimbabwe mold, not the England mold.

No, they weren't. There is no way South Africa were even remotely close to being obviously below the standard required for Test cricket after 1906, whereas Zimbabwe patently were from April 2003 onwards.

And secondly, Warne has his best performance against England when they actually were good. Thirdly, with regards to types of bowling, S.Africa in the 30s (as is when O'Reilly actually played), they have a glaring deficiency against spin too, as can be witnessed by the performances of O'Reilly, Grimmett and Vivian.

England were awful against spin - well, England have mostly been awful against spin since the late-1970s. This was little different in 2005, England played Warne worse that year than they did in several previous series'.

But again, this is not even as important as the fact that a lot of the bowlers had drastically better figures against S.Africa. You cannot say that regarding England

Has the fact that the standard for bowlers was a much lower average in the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s (due to much worse batting pitches) passed you by?

LOL, so because they didn't play enough Tests per year you can't conclude anything about them? Damn, that puts a lot of oldies out in contention for our fun All-Time XIs.

Well, no, it doesn't, because virtually no-one who took 15 or 20 Test wickets would ever be in contention for any all-time XIs.

We are talking about a different calibre competition. Where your team WANTS the bowlers to get out the batsmen as fast as they can. Because it is more BENEFICIAL if they do and just because they can dilly-dally around and still win doesn't mean they are about to not take wickets for saving their breath. That you imply they'd rather sit around more and bat less is not only funny, it's insulting.

It's no more beneficial. If you have, say, 230 overs to get 20 wickets, it's the same if you get them in 140 or 200. And it means the batsmen have to expend less energy. They may not constantly brood on the benefits, but the benefits are there.

 

[Ikki]

No, they weren't. There is no way South Africa were even remotely close to being obviously below the standard required for Test cricket after 1906, whereas Zimbabwe patently were from April 2003 onwards.

You've provided absolutely zero evidence other that stating what you know as a fact. You haven't even dispelled anything I've said. If you're ever wondering why I hold my opinion of you the way I do, refer to these points.

England were awful against spin - well, England have mostly been awful against spin since the late-1970s. This was little different in 2005, England played Warne worse that year than they did in several previous series'.

Whether England was good against spin in the 40s, 50s or 60s has little to do with Warne in the 90s/2000s. They are good enough to manhandle Kumble and Vettori yet they just happen to be pathetic against Warne. Ok.

Now, look at Warne's overall record and look at his record against England. Then look at Tiger's overall record and look at his record against S.Africa. You see the point? Much larger difference. England may be pathetic against Warne, but still not as pathetic as S.Africa Vs Tiger and everybody else.

Has the fact that the standard for bowlers was a much lower average in the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s (due to much worse batting pitches) passed you by?

Wrong. The average bowler in the 1930s averaged around 32, not so different to today.

Well, no, it doesn't, because virtually no-one who took 15 or 20 Test wickets would ever be in contention for any all-time XIs.

Harold Larwood has only taken 78 wickets in his whole career. To suggest he'd need 20 just against S.Africa just to qualify to compare is ********. Next you will tell me he wasn't one of England's all-time best.

It's no more beneficial. If you have, say, 230 overs to get 20 wickets, it's the same if you get them in 140 or 200. And it means the batsmen have to expend less energy. They may not constantly brood on the benefits, but the benefits are there.

You're wrong even on that measure. Bloody hell...

For once they are set to bat, they are going to expend the same energy anyway (if not more if they are restricted by time if the bowlers haven't been fast enough). Wasting more precious hours in the open fielding is still more tiring than not having to do that and just going into batting.

And still, it's such a crappy point. That a team looks to benefit from slower striking of wickets to save energy fielding. Ah geez...

 

[Richard]

You've provided absolutely zero evidence other that stating what you know as a fact. You haven't even dispelled anything I've said. If you're ever wondering why I hold my opinion of you the way I do, refer to these points.

I've said many times why certain teams were Test-class and why certain teams weren't. I'm wasting enough time on this exchange as it is, I'm not wasting any more. Just drop it, I should.

Whether England was good against spin in the 40s, 50s or 60s has little to do with Warne in the 90s/2000s. They are good enough to manhandle Kumble and Vettori yet they just happen to be pathetic against Warne. Ok.

They most certainly weren't good enough to do that at all. England struggled many times against both bowlers.

Now, look at Warne's overall record and look at his record against England. Then look at Tiger's overall record and look at his record against S.Africa. You see the point? Much larger difference. England may be pathetic against Warne, but still not as pathetic as S.Africa Vs Tiger and everybody else.

No, I don't see any point. Warne actually did better against Pakistan (another team with many poor players of spin) than England; his average there, 20, is around 6 points lower than against others; O'Reilly's against England is around 7 points lower than against South Africa. It's not like he averaged 50 against England and 13 against South Africa. The difference is no more remarkable than that of many other bowlers.

Wrong. The average bowler in the 1930s averaged around 32, not so different to today.

Yes - pitches got much, much, much flatter in the 1930s. Notice I didn't mention them?

Harold Larwood has only taken 78 wickets in his whole career. To suggest he'd need 20 just against S.Africa just to qualify to compare is ********. Next you will tell me he wasn't one of England's all-time best.

Not in Tests, no, he wasn't. Only in domestic cricket is Larwood one of England's best.

You're wrong even on that measure. Bloody hell...

For once they are set to bat, they are going to expend the same energy anyway (if not more if they are restricted by time if the bowlers haven't been fast enough). Wasting more precious hours in the open fielding is still more tiring than not having to do that and just going into batting.

And still, it's such a crappy point. That a team looks to benefit from slower striking of wickets to save energy fielding. Ah geez...

It's not a point at all - it's merely a refutal of a nonsensical point, which is that batsmen benefit from their opposition being bowled-out sooner, which they absolutely, 100% don't. Batting always requires more effort than fielding.

 

[Ikki]

I've said many times why certain teams were Test-class and why certain teams weren't. I'm wasting enough time on this exchange as it is, I'm not wasting any more. Just drop it, I should.

You've posted plenty here and you're still without a lifeline. Is it some ****amamy theory again?

They most certainly weren't good enough to do that at all. England struggled many times against both bowlers.

Wow, I am running out of expletives. Vettori averages 40 and strikes at 100 against England in 14 matches. Kumble only does well at home and is shellacked in England, averaging 41 and striking at 87 in 10 test matches.

No, I don't see any point. Warne actually did better against Pakistan (another team with many poor players of spin) than England; his average there, 20, is around 6 points lower than against others; O'Reilly's against England is around 7 points lower than against South Africa. It's not like he averaged 50 against England and 13 against South Africa. The difference is no more remarkable than that of many other bowlers.

You're really blind aren't you? You're hitting key strokes at random?!

You went from England to Pakistan, in order to find a bigger gap in overall record vs. a specific one. That's okay, because the same point exists. Would you mind showing the performance of other bowlers vs. Pakistan or is it just Warne? See, this is the point you keep bloody missing. It's not that only Tiger did well against S.Africa. Hell, almost everybody did! Pakistan also had bowlers in reply and batsmen to compete. S.Africa did not, only to the extent of a Zimbabwe. Not an England or a Pakistan.

Yes - pitches got much, much, much flatter in the 1930s. Notice I didn't mention them?

I know, notice I mentioned the 1930s. That's because that is when O'Reilly played; that is where there is any relevance. When I brought those list of bowlers, they were from the 1930s only, so again, you're wrong and you went off track to irrelevancy.

Not in Tests, no, he wasn't. Only in domestic cricket is Larwood one of England's best.

. Let's move away from that. But would you say because of his lack of playing we can't gauge how good Larwood was? What about Bill Voce? Walter Robins? Get outta here.

It's not a point at all - it's merely a refutal of a nonsensical point, which is that batsmen benefit from their opposition being bowled-out sooner, which they absolutely, 100% don't. Batting always requires more effort than fielding.

LOL, this is getting sad now. No one disagrees that Batting takes more effort than fielding. However, they have to bat ANYWAY so they do not save themselves any more than they would otherwise. The only difference is that in one scenario they have to field longer, in the other scenario they have to field for a shorter length in time. You are effectively arguing fielding for a longer time is more beneficial to fielding for a short time.

 

[haroon510]

anil kumble and mushtaq ahmad

 

[Richard]

You've posted plenty here and you're still without a lifeline. Is it some ****amamy theory again?

Nope, I've stated it many times. Go and find it if you really want to, but you don't, and you know you don't.

Wow, I am running out of expletives. Vettori averages 40 and strikes at 100 against England in 14 matches. Kumble only does well at home and is shellacked in England, averaging 41 and striking at 87 in 10 test matches.

You're really blind aren't you? You're hitting key strokes at random?!

You really are losing control of yourself, and I've seen it happen before too. Vettori and Kumble have both caused England plenty of problems on plenty of occasions, even if there have been other occasions when they've done less well. English batsmen have played spin poorly on any number of occasions and to suggest they've routinely conquered both Kumble and Vettori is absolutely nothing short of ridiculous.

You went from England to Pakistan, in order to find a bigger gap in overall record vs. a specific one. That's okay, because the same point exists. Would you mind showing the performance of other bowlers vs. Pakistan or is it just Warne? See, this is the point you keep bloody missing. It's not that only Tiger did well against S.Africa. Hell, almost everybody did! Pakistan also had bowlers in reply and batsmen to compete. S.Africa did not, only to the extent of a Zimbabwe. Not an England or a Pakistan.

South Africa also had bowlers and batsmen to reply, hence they weren't constantly outclassed every game the way Zimbabwe have been since 2003. It is not even remotely close to being the case that every bowler did well against South Africa. A few people took 4 or 5 wickets for nothing much against them, which means precisely nothing, as bowlers have done that throughout Test history. But very few did anomalaically outstandingly against them - again, bowlers have done anomalaically well against certain teams throughout Test history. Bill O'Reilly is not even remotely close to being the only one. This is my last word on the matter, I'm utterly sick of this.

I know, notice I mentioned the 1930s. That's because that is when O'Reilly played; that is where there is any relevance. When I brought those list of bowlers, they were from the 1930s only, so again, you're wrong and you went off track to irrelevancy.

No, I didn't. You have tried claiming that South Africa were not of Test standard in the 1910s, 1920s and 1900s. And also the 1930s. I haven't even looked at the figures for the 1930s alone, I couldn't care less about them. I am not changing my mind, I know more than enough about it, and anything you say on the matter is not relevant to me. South Africa were a Test-standard team as of 1906, and never ceased again to be one.

. Let's move away from that. But would you say because of his lack of playing we can't gauge how good Larwood was? What about Bill Voce? Walter Robins? Get outta here.

We can't gauge how good he was at Test level, no. He had just a single good series, and that was the Bodyline one. Of course, Test cricket is not the only level, and domestic cricket does matter, hence people rating players who haven't played at that level.

LOL, this is getting sad now. No one disagrees that Batting takes more effort than fielding. However, they have to bat ANYWAY so they do not save themselves any more than they would otherwise. The only difference is that in one scenario they have to field longer, in the other scenario they have to field for a shorter length in time. You are effectively arguing fielding for a longer time is more beneficial to fielding for a short time.

I'm arguing that batsmen don't lose-out by being in the field longer.

 

[Ikki]

Nope, I've stated it many times. Go and find it if you really want to, but you don't, and you know you don't.

I geniunely do. I am interested in what kind of logic you are going to bring forth. Maybe, per usual, some insane standard where it stop-starts at the rate of a test but I am willing to be surprised. Thus far, you have provided F-All.

You really are losing control of yourself, and I've seen it happen before too. Vettori and Kumble have both caused England plenty of problems on plenty of occasions, even if there have been other occasions when they've done less well. English batsmen have played spin poorly on any number of occasions and to suggest they've routinely conquered both Kumble and Vettori is absolutely nothing short of ridiculous.

You denied they've clobbered them, which is just stupid. Vettori has almost always had trouble with England and Kumble has almost always had trouble with England in England. That's the point I made. That's irrefutable. Whether they did well in 1 test or 1 inning is not the point here.

South Africa also had bowlers and batsmen to reply, hence they weren't constantly outclassed every game the way Zimbabwe have been since 2003. It is not even remotely close to being the case that every bowler did well against South Africa. A few people took 4 or 5 wickets for nothing much against them, which means precisely nothing, as bowlers have done that throughout Test history. But very few did anomalaically outstandingly against them - again, bowlers have done anomalaically well against certain teams throughout Test history. Bill O'Reilly is not even remotely close to being the only one. This is my last word on the matter, I'm utterly sick of this.

Ah, but who said I was talking about Zimbabwe post 2003? Do you just make it up as you go? S.Africa were poor during O'Reilly's time. Not on the same level as an England or a Pakistan as you implied earlier.

BTW? What the hell is "anomalaically"? If you are saying that Tigre's performance Vs. S.Africa is an anomaly, then you've lost the plot. That's the whole argument I am bringing forth. It was not just Tiger, but almost everybody who did well against them. Not just well, much better than their own career figures. This shows an inflationary trend.

No, I didn't. You have tried claiming that South Africa were not of Test standard in the 1910s, 1920s and 1900s. And also the 1930s. I haven't even looked at the figures for the 1930s alone, I couldn't care less about them. I am not changing my mind, I know more than enough about it, and anything you say on the matter is not relevant to me. South Africa were a Test-standard team as of 1906, and never ceased again to be one.

Have I talked about S.Africa in the 1910s, 1920s and 1900s here? I haven't. I'm constantly trying to get you to stop stat-picking regarding eras/decades that have nothing to do with 1930s.

"I haven't even looked at the figures for the 1930s alone, I couldn't care less about them. I am not changing my mind"

What are you? Some petulant little kid? Maybe if you did read about it and looked at the figures you would stop blabbering about something that is making you look foolish.

We can't gauge how good he was at Test level, no. He had just a single good series, and that was the Bodyline one. Of course, Test cricket is not the only level, and domestic cricket does matter, hence people rating players who haven't played at that level.

Most bowlers of the time had careers not much longer than Voce or Larwood. To suggest we do not know enough about them is lunacy. Voce, for example, has 27 tests: the same amount of tests as Tiger O'Reilly.

I'm arguing that batsmen don't lose-out by being in the field longer.

Not always, but they can. Not just tiredness-wise, but not having much time left to bat. It's one of the bowler's duties to get the batsmen of the opposition out as soon as possible to give their own side as much chance possible to bat out a win. Just because sometimes it isn't necessary doesn't mean that when you have two players you are going to pick the one that takes longer because of it. If you have a choice, you pick the faster one. And to suggest that they'd pick the slower ones because some 'batsmen' conserve energy is ludicrous.

 

[bagapath]

That's because O'Reilly bowls 62 overs a Test whereas Warne bowls about 47. If Warne had bowled the same amount per test he would have more wickets per test - it's that simple. He would also have more big hauls.

Consider the game today, no bowler would be given 62 overs to strike every 12 overs. You need to take wickets faster and one that can is much preferable to one that can't. It's like comparing a Ford and a Ferrari. Both can take you to the same destination within an alotted time, but one can do it faster and gives you the option to do other things.

Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...that's 5 runs over the alotted 11. So in terms of wicket taking AND keeping runs down Warne is ahead. Because, of course, the less overs you bowl the less you concede. And if you can take the same amount of wickets but bowl less and hence concede less runs then you are, in this comparison, superior.

BTW, let's not forget O'Reilly faced a pretty pathetic S.Africa for 7/27 Tests.

no kazoholic. the respective SR and Econ Rate of O'reilly and Warne just reflect the times and wickets they played their cricket on. In a sedate era of slower scoring O'reilly maintained lower economy rate but took more deliveries to dismiss batters since they were more inclined to defend. in the present era of faster scoring, warne has conceded more runs per over but also got the batsmen earlier as they try to be aggressive. it evens out between both of them if you look at economy rate and strike rate alone. had warne conceded the same runs but taken more deliveries he would have been an inferior bowler. similarly had oreilly taken the same number of deliveries to get a batter out but maintained a worse economy rate he would have been bad too. but both maintained numbers which are absolutely masterful for their respective eras. you cant split them on that alone.

i prefer oreilly because he took more wickets per test and he mastered every opposition of his day. the great shane warne was merely a club bowler against india.

 

[Ikki]

no kazoholic. the respective SR and Econ Rate of O'reilly and Warne just reflect the times and wickets they played their cricket on. In a sedate era of slower scoring O'reilly maintained lower economy rate but took more deliveries to dismiss batters since they were more inclined to defend. in the present era of faster scoring, warne has conceded more runs per over but also got the batsmen earlier as they try to be aggressive. it evens out between both of them if you look at economy rate and strike rate alone. had warne conceded the same runs but taken more deliveries he would have been an inferior bowler. similarly had oreilly taken the same number of deliveries to get a batter out but maintained a worse economy rate he would have been bad too. but both maintained numbers which are absolutely masterful for their respective eras. you cant split them on that alone.

i prefer oreilly because he took more wickets per test and he mastered every opposition of his day. the great shane warne was merely a club bowler against india.

Yes, with regards to their respective eras they placed different value on different aspects of bowling. However, in real terms, Warne is still ahead. I'll try to make it a bit easier to decipher: If both Warne and O'Reilly take 4 wickets, Warne will concede 2.85 more per wicket - meaning about 11 runs overall more for the same amount of wickets. Yet Warne bowls 8 overs less than O'Reilly so he saves more potential runs. EVEN at O'Reilly's very low ER, bowling the rest of the 8 overs will yield a difference of more than 11. This is just not as good for the team as Warne's performance. If a bowler like Warne bowls the other 8, he will concede about 5 more runs than O'Reilly but will be on the verge of taking a wicket - something O'Reilly will not be as close to.

Essentially, O'Reilly's wicket's per match is a poor guide in this comparison. He takes a a lot more overs to take that 0.5 wickets more per match. The difference in their overs per match is 15. If Warne would bowl those overs, he'd be likely to take 1.577266922 more wickets. Which would blow the whole wickets per match out of the water.

If you're saying the difference is era and that batsmen would score slower hence making it harder to take wickets, then there should be no difference between them if you adjust stats. But that is not the case, Warne is better.

And LOL @ Tiger being better all over. He only had really 1 (Engand) country that challenged his side. S.Africa were poor and he played NZ once. Tiger never had to face various countries in various conditions that Warne did. His record 'all over' is unproven really.

 

[bagapath]

If you're saying the difference is era and that batsmen would score slower hence making it harder to take wickets, then there should be no difference between them if you adjust stats. But that is not the case, Warne is better.

how?

o'reilly's average is far superior to warne's. his wkt/test ratio is also better. warne's sr is definitely superior but how does that alone make him clearly better than o'reilly? i read the whole post of yours. so dont ask me to do it again.

here you are just extrapolating of available numbers, kazoholic. i will do that only when the available data is small. not when warne had already played 145 tests. he did not bowl 62 overs per test so he did not bowl 62 overs per test, thats all. there is no way you can prove what he would have achieved had he bowled more. if i were to convert the wkt/ratio stat that way then had oreilly played as many tests as warne he would have taken much much more wickets than him.. and at a lesser average. so you cant assume you have got a winning argument already.

 

[Ikki]

how?

o'reilly's average is far superior to warne's. his wkt/test ratio is also better. warne's sr is definitely superior but how does that alone make him clearly better than o'reilly? i read the whole post of yours. so dont ask me to do it again.

His average doesnt have much to do with his wicket-taking capability - well, not near as much as SR. The only reason O'Reilly has a better wkt/test ratio is because bowls a lot more. Not that he is a better wicket taker. The stat for better wicket taking is SR. You're placing a lot on wicket-taking capability in the sense that he has more wickets per test. That's just not accurate. Especially when the difference is 15 overs and 0.5 wickets

here you are just extrapolating of available numbers, kazoholic. i will do that only when the available data is small. not when warne had already played 145 tests. he did not bowl 62 overs per test so he did not bowl 62 overs per test, thats all.

So? Extrapolating is necessary for any stat. That's like me saying you can't say that O'Reilly would have kept his average had he played 145 tests.

It's a linear extrapolation and it is very logical. For example, you do not say Ponting is better than Bradman because he scored more runs overall. The only reason he scores more runs overall is because he played many more tests. That's directly parallel to this example: the only reason O'Reilly takes more wickets per test is beacuse he bowls more. I mean, the difference between strike-rates is probably the biggest stat between the two. It's the most obvious difference.

there is no way you can prove what he would have achieved had he bowled more. if i were to convert the wkt/ratio stat that way then had oreilly played as many tests as warne he would have taken much much more wickets than him.. and at a lesser average. so you cant assume you have got a winning argument already.

Yes, I can. I extrapolate using a linear method. Tiger takes about 70 balls to take wicket. So to take two, on average (his record overall) he will take 140 balls to take two wickets.

Warne doesn't need a winning average. The distance between his SR is enough that the difference in average is negligible because overall Warne's bowling is more beneficial for the team's score. The extra overs O'Reilly needs to take wickets mean his overall run conceding is not on par with Warne's - you need to take wickets as well as concede as few as possible.

 

[Athlai]

Warne IMO.

 

[weldone]

Comparing Shane Warne's England to O'Reilly's S.Africa is like comparing England, in this era, to Zimbabwe. Get a grip, the differences are too large to deny.

These are batting records of some of the top South African batsmen during 1932-1938 (the stats are only for that period)

A D Nourse 21 4 4 2 231 904 53.18 3 0
B Mitchell 31 6 6 3 *164 1245 49.80 14 0
E L Dalton 11 1 2 2 117 479 47.90 4 0
P G V van der Bijl 4 0 1 0 87 166 41.50 0 0
J A J Christy 7 0 3 1 103 280 40.00 1 0

And these are the batting records of some of the top English batsmen during 1992-2007 (the stats are only for that period)

K P Pietersen 63 3 10 10 226 3024 50.40 20 0
A N Cook 45 2 8 7 127 1936 45.02 20 0
G P Thorpe 179 28 39 16 *200 6744 44.66 105 0
M E Trescothick 143 10 29 14 219 5825 43.80 95 0
M P Vaughan 132 9 17 17 197 5356 43.54 43 0

Similar I must say...