Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[SJS]

So. Your other argument is around the fact that Orielly played most of his cricket (all bar one test) in the 30's and it is at that time that South Africa were "minnows" as you like to call them.

Well in the 1930's, South Africa played 3 test series against England of 5 test matches each. The results of these 15 tests were as under

• Drawn : 12
• Won by South Africa : 2
• Won by England : 1

South Africa won two of those three series one at home and one away.

Not bad for minnows to beat the second best side in the world dont you think. Of course, you might well say that all sides barring Australia were minnows in which case of course we will have to accept that ALL of Orielly's and Grimmett's test wickets came cheap

England's batsmen in these three series included

30-31 : Hammond, Hendren, Chapman, Leyland
1935 : Sutcliffe, Leyland, Wyatt, Hammond, Ames
1938-39 : Hutton, Paynter, Hammond, Edrich, Valentine, Ames

The Bowlers

• 1930-31 : Tate, Voce, Peebles, Hammond
• 1935 : Nicholls, Verity, Bill Bowes. Hammond, Tate
• 1938-39 : Farnes, Verity, Doug Wright, Hammond

Not a bangladesh, Zimbabwe or even West Indies of 2008 this England side and yet...

More later.

 

[Richard]

SJS - the South Africa Test-standard-or-not question involving KaZoH0lic is a waste of time. Please, just don't do it. You and me and most sane people realise that South Africa were a Test-standard side from the moment the wristspin triplet came together in 1906. Yet for him, because a few bowlers took 4 or 5 wickets at 12.63 against them, this to him means they weren't Test-standard.

 

[Richard]

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've been the one trying to stop and start it. I've said any number of times that South Africa became a competetive Test team in January 1906, because that's when they went from being crushed every game to actually competing and winning, Tests and series', often enough. No team ever goes from Test-standard to non-Test-standard and back again, I've said that when people have brought in the ludicrous assertion that some Bangladesh games should count and others shouldn't. Most teams were Test-standard from the moment of promotion; South Africa, New Zealand and recently Bangladesh were promoted when they did not deserve it, but the former two eventually made the grade. Zimbabwe are the only team who went from being Test standard to not being.

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.

They haven't, though - England have pretty much never "clobbered" either Kumble or Vettori. They've kept them out sometimes, but they've also had whole series where they presented a considerable threat - Kumble in 2002, Vettori in 1999 and 1996/97. Warne also had series or partial series where he was ineffective against England - they blocked him out easily later on in the series' in 1993 and 1994/95 and he hardly dominated in 2002/03 or 2005/06. English batsmen have never looked at ease against either bowler other than when they were completely useless, like Vettori when he was injured in 2001/02 and 2004, and Kumble when he was crap away from home period in 1996. I wonder how often you've seen either bowler bowl at England.

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.

South Africa's batsmen were poor against spin like Pakistan's, and they were a weak team to the level of England between 1986 and 1999. Such a thing is irrefutable, anyone who looks can see that.

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, they didn't. Many bowlers failed to do well against South Africa, and by "anomalaically well" I mean "much, much better than normal" - ie, an average difference of about 20 or 30 runs.

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.

I don't look foolish, most people (not that anyone will be reading this ridiculous exchange) think you look far more foolish with your overbearing and patronising manner than I ever do. I have no interest in taking anything you say seriously about when South Africa were Test-class, as you don't have any interest in realising the truth.

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.

Yes, and Voce can indeed be judged on his Test career. Larwood can't entirely, though, as you'd think he was roundly poor if you judged him on that. But it was only in Tests that he was poor.

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.

And that suggestion was not made. Merely that you wouldn't pick a bowler who took wickets faster just because of some silly notion that it was better for the batsmen that way.

 

[Ikki]

Now I know what problem you are having with Richard.

If you are going to run down Bruce Mitchell because of an average below 50 for some period you prefer to take, let me tell you something.

Bruce Mitchell is considered by most people as the greatest South African opening batsman ever. The only one to whom he is compared in this regard is Barry Richard who unfortunately played only four test matches.

Bruce Mitchell in five successive series (other than Australia) scored had the following phenomenal performances.

[B]Opponent/year	Tests	Runs	Average[/B]
1930-1931 ENG	5	455	50.56
1931-1932 NZL	2	166	55.33
1935      ENG 	5	488	69.71
1938-1939 ENG	5	466	58.25
1947      ENG	5	597	66.33
1948-1949 ENG	5	475	52.78

• In his career he played 30 tests against England and averaged 54.64
• He played just two tests against NZland and averaged 55.33
• It was against Australia that this great batsman had a more modest record. In ten tests he averaged 31.8

Could it be becuase Australia had two of its greatest bowlers bowling for her around that time ??

More later

I just said it as a matter of accuracy - so we know that none of those players averaged 50+. Since every other player you named played 1-2 tests, and were poor in that period, or none against Tiger. It is a serious fallacy to consider a player good by the opposition they play when said player has not played that opposition. This point is irrefutable and does not need any explaining by you. It is akin to saying Hussey played against Ambrose, Donald and Waqar - none of them which he has faced - and say by that measure he is a great batsman. As aforesaid, it's wrong, it's inaccurate and places whatever argument you placed on this argument void.

Zimbabwe also had Andy Flower, it didn't make them a great test side or even an average one.

 

[Ikki]

SJS - the South Africa Test-standard-or-not question involving KaZoH0lic is a waste of time. Please, just don't do it. You and me and most sane people realise that South Africa were a Test-standard side from the moment the wristspin triplet came together in 1906. Yet for him, because a few bowlers took 4 or 5 wickets at 12.63 against them, this to him means they weren't Test-standard.

, you, sane?

 

[silentstriker]

All right guys, cut it out.

 

[gwo]

lulz

To summarize the thread...

KaZoh0lic - Thinks Warne is the greatest BOWLER ever. Clearly bias.

Richard - Is bitter about how good Australia actually have been over the past 15 years or so. Clearly Bias.

close thread plz and reopen in about 50 years time.

Time will tell us how the legend of Warne grows. How his legacy develops gives us a clearer idea as to how O'reillys legend has been exaggerated or not.

Let time tell us who was better

 

[Ikki]

OK so we get two world class batsmen in Nourse and Mitchell in that team...Now name more than two world class English batsmen against whom Warne has bowled much...

. England might not have a batsman of the class of Flower, does that make Zimbabwe better than England? I am talking about the whole side here. And even if you were to remove England from Warne it would increase his overall record by about 0.8 runs on average and 0.9 balls in SR. You remove the equivalent stat for O'Reilly and he raises his average by almost 3 runs and his SR by almost 8. Quite a difference.

You see, the average S.African wicket is worth 26.7 runs in the 1930s. The average English wicket is worth 35.9 runs in the 1930s. A difference of 9 runs on average.

Let's compare that to Zimbabwe who's batsmen of the 1990s average 24.4 and the best team of the same era, Australia, who's batsmen average 33.07 in the 1990s - a difference of 8.67 runs on average, essentially the same.

Now I will address SJS's other post.

 

[Ikki]

KaZoh0lic - Thinks Warne is the greatest BOWLER ever. Clearly bias.

Of course I am biased, everyone is biased somewhat in their own opinions. But why does bias have to be the only factor? Many former players and current players, not even Australian, consider him the best bowler ever. They're clearly biased too?

 

[Athlai]

Of course I am biased, everyone is biased somewhat in their own opinions. But why does bias have to be the only factor? Many former players and current players, not even Australia, consider him the best bowler ever. They're clearly biased too?

Yes, everyone holds bias to what they prefer for whatever reasons, nationality, the age it existed in, personal preferences (spin over seam) and this isn't withstanding the character Warne brought to the field. I personally believe he is far from the best bowler ever, but when it came to a man who could win games, his personality made him one of the finest that ever existed.

 

[Migara]

Zimbabwe also had Andy Flower, it didn't make them a great test side or even an average one.

You are nuts. Whn they had two Flowers, Goodwin and Johnson, they were able to beat any opposition in the world. South Africa in 1999 WC will be a good case to study.

 

[Migara]

. England might not have a batsman of the class of Flower, does that make Zimbabwe better than England? I am talking about the whole side here. And even if you were to remove England from Warne it would increase his overall record by about 0.8 runs on average and 0.9 balls in SR. You remove the equivalent stat for O'Reilly and he raises his average by almost 3 runs and his SR by almost 8. Quite a difference.

You see, the average S.African wicket is worth 26.7 runs in the 1930s. The average English wicket is worth 35.9 runs in the 1930s. A difference of 9 runs on average.

Let's compare that to Zimbabwe who's batsmen of the 1990s average 24.4 and the best team of the same era, Australia, who's batsmen average 33.07 in the 1990s - a difference of 8.67 runs on average, essentially the same.

Now I will address SJS's other post.

Now give us the same figures for bowling. Use Bangladesh and Australia for a change and we'll be able to comapre the "minnowness" of each side then.

 

[Top_Cat]

You are nuts. Whn they had two Flowers, Goodwin and Johnson, they were able to beat any opposition in the world. South Africa in 1999 WC will be a good case to study.

Couldn't help but notice this phrase in his post;

Zimbabwe also had Andy Flower, it didn't make them a great test side or even an average one.

Sure they won a couple of games in the 1999 WC but so what? There's always one shock team who puts it together for a few games and beats some good sides. Kenya in 2003 (with a little help from boycotts) made the SF's after all. And Kaz's point stands; even with those batsmen, they were a low-mid table Test side at best.

 

[Ikki]

So. Your other argument is around the fact that Orielly played most of his cricket (all bar one test) in the 30's and it is at that time that South Africa were "minnows" as you like to call them.

Well in the 1930's, South Africa played 3 test series against England of 5 test matches each. The results of these 15 tests were as under

• Drawn : 12
• Won by South Africa : 2
• Won by England : 1

South Africa won two of those three series one at home and one away.

Not bad for minnows to beat the second best side in the world dont you think. Of course, you might well say that all sides barring Australia were minnows in which case of course we will have to accept that ALL of Orielly's and Grimmett's test wickets came cheap

England's batsmen in these three series included

30-31 : Hammond, Hendren, Chapman, Leyland
1935 : Sutcliffe, Leyland, Wyatt, Hammond, Ames
1938-39 : Hutton, Paynter, Hammond, Edrich, Valentine, Ames

The Bowlers

• 1930-31 : Tate, Voce, Peebles, Hammond
• 1935 : Nicholls, Verity, Bill Bowes. Hammond, Tate
• 1938-39 : Farnes, Verity, Doug Wright, Hammond

Not a bangladesh, Zimbabwe or even West Indies of 2008 this England side and yet...

More later.

What does the above result stat say anything about how cheap S.African wickets were? Firstly, many of those players that played against England did not play against Australia. Secondly, back then a Test match was 3-days, 4-days or timeless, I believe. Would go very far in explaining the amount of draws and possibly a few averages.. Two wins? Well, what does that prove? That on their day S.Africa managed to beat England twice? I am sure even you agree England were the better side back then. The results mean essentially very little - I already put up the average S.African batsman's value in this era, you cannot argue that they are equivalent to England.

This is a list of the players that played against both that English side and O'Reilly's Australia:

These are all their batsmen from the 1930s. They are all middle-order to top-order batsmen too, I left out tailenders. From about Syd Curnow onwards, a new generation takes place. The reason some of them have so few games against O'Reilly are because that a lot of them were at the end of their careers.

Since Bruce Mitchell played all the tests against England and Australia I will use him to see how many of the other good batsmen batted with him in the 1930s.

-Bruce Mitchell and Dudley Nourse play in total 9 matches with each other, 5 of them against Australia.

-Bruce Mitchell and Herbert Taylor play in total 4 matches with each other, 3 of them against Australia.

-Bruce Mitchell and Eric Rowan play in total 12 matches with each other, 3 of them against Australia.

-All 3 never played in the same Test together.

I mean, even if you wish to still contend that S.Africa was not the equivalent of a minnow side (which I find that hard to believe) you should agree that the S.Africa against O'Reilly, at least, is very poor.

I also checked the 2 test matches they won. Surprisingly, had nothing to do with their batsmen. They were two low scoring tests where S.African bowlers got England out cheaply and surged to victory.

 

[Ikki]

Now give us the same figures for bowling. Use Bangladesh and Australia for a change and we'll be able to comapre the "minnowness" of each side then.

Er what? What does the bowling matter anyway? We are talking about O'Reilly vs. BATSMEN. So only that is relevant. If you want, you can get it, I've just spent about an hour going through S.African batsmen.

Furthermore, why Bangladesh? Isn't Zimbabwe enough? I only really care for Zimbabwe anyway as I compared this S.Africa to the 1990s Zimbabwe.

 

[JBH001]

Sure they won a couple of games in the 1999 WC but so what? There's always one shock team who puts it together for a few games and beats some good sides. Kenya in 2003 (with a little help from boycotts) made the SF's after all. And Kaz's point stands; even with those batsmen, they were a low-mid table Test side at best.

Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.

Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.

Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.

So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.

Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.

 

[Ikki]

You are nuts. Whn they had two Flowers, Goodwin and Johnson, they were able to beat any opposition in the world. South Africa in 1999 WC will be a good case to study.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Murali played Zimbabwe a lot. Geez, really? Zimbabwe able to beat anyone?

 

[Ikki]

Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.

Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.

Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.

So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.

Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.

So, you're saying they were Test standard. OK, but they weren't even of average strength. That goes for S.Africa largely too. And then O'Reilly faced New Zealand which is the equivalent to Bangladesh. 8 tests out of 27 are against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Does that not inflate a record?

 

[Migara]

Er what? What does the bowling matter anyway? We are talking about O'Reilly vs. BATSMEN. So only that is relevant. If you want, you can get it, I've just spent about an hour going through S.African batsmen.

Furthermore, why Bangladesh? Isn't Zimbabwe enough? I only really care for Zimbabwe anyway as I compared this S.Africa to the 1990s Zimbabwe.

If the bowling was very strong, you could not call them minnows.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dont know about that TC. Whether they were mid or low table is irrelevant.

Were they test class in the 1990's? Yes.

Were they test class after 2001? No, they were not.

So it is with South Africa in the 1930's. To say, and to claim otherwise, is purely subjective.

Otherwise we run into the danger, as we did earlier, of comparing upper and lower order batsmen between teams with all the confusion that results. A qualitative judgement as to whether a team was test standard is sufficient (in the same way that, for instance, NZ since about the 1950's and 1960s have been a test standard side, even if not boasting many great batsmen and bowlers with phenomenal averages). Anything else is pure statistical number massaging.

Alright, I'll be honest; I didn't read the previous posts so wasn't arguing anything in relationship to the Saffies in the 30's.