Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[Ikki]

mcgill's SR is better than warne's. does that make him a superior spinner?

simple question!

if your answer is no, then dont tell me warne is better than oreilly because his SR is better.

and dont keep harping on the fact that oreilly took more wickets per test only because he bowled more overs than warne. warne bowled more overs than mcgill and took less wickets than him on average. so dont use that line of argument also.

LOL, wait, who said a player is better than another player purely because of SR? The reason O'Reilly does take more wickets is because he bowls more. Now, you put a great argument forth with the runs conceded and I gave you my reply on that, so this is not about that.

But O'Reilly takes more wickets in a Test than Warne because he bowls more. That's just plain logic to me. And that's inclusive of S.Africa/NZ. If you put any weight in the argument I've put forth in the last few pages O'Reilly is behind by quite a bit even by your measure.

last..

if you are going to separate mcgill and warne based on the teams they bowled against, match conditions etc. then choose games they both played in. mcgill comes on top again.

if you use your regular, oft repeated arguments to prove warne is better than oreilly, you'll end up proving mcgill is better than warne. so choose your tool carefully.

warne can be deemed better than oreilly and hailed as the greatest leg spinner of all time. but oreilly's case is stronger, thats all.

by using weak statistical arguments you are making me attack warne's career which i dont intend to at all.

And how do you figure that? Warne has a better record (in 2 cases probably even) against every country bar Bangladesh. If not for Bangladesh, MacGill would average 30 and his SR would be higher than Warne's.

 

[aussie]

One thing i don't get with CW these days with all these comparison threads is how you blokes get into such an indept argument about players that i'd say 80% of you have never seen live & are just going on perception & statistics?

This thread tops them all since i know no one here as ever seen O'Reilly bowl other than in clips (which hardly tells you anything about how good a bowler is) & yet you want to have a serious comparison between him & Warne. Give it a rest fellas..

 

[bagapath]

you know what kazoholic? i think we both have said enough on this topic, at least i have.

my last statement on this would be - both were all-time greats. if you are going to choose the greatest ever spinner, i would go with oreilly; this decision could be influenced by seeing warne getting tonked for a decade and a half by indians. not just by sachin; but by sidhu, azhar, sehwag and laxman (even shastri in one memorable innings) too. the fear imran and richards invoked and the respect marshall and mcgrath got for three generations from my national team and the contrasting casual treatment they rendered to shane must have shaped my belief that warne's greatness is not beyond argument. (while the other four are without argument, in my mind set, the best in whatever they did)

i will continue to read this thread as long as it lasts. but dont have anything else to say.

 

[Ikki]

you know what kazoholic? i think we both have said enough on this topic, at least i have.

my last statement on this would be - both were all-time greats. if you are going to choose the greatest ever spinner, i would go with oreilly; this decision could be influenced by seeing warne getting tonked for a decade and a half by indians. not just by sachin; but by sidhu, azhar, sehwag and laxman (even shastri in one memorable innings) too. the fear imran and richards invoked and the respect marshall and mcgrath got for three generations from my national team and the contrasting casual treatment they rendered to shane must have shaped my belief that warne's greatness is not beyond argument. (while the other four are without argument, in my mind set, the best in whatever they did)

i will continue to read this thread as long as it lasts. but dont have anything else to say.

That's fine. To me, O'Reilly took almost a third of his wickets against minnows, which inflate his figures. Against good opposition, his record is not close to Warne's. Yes, Warne was handled by Indian batsmen but even Superman has Krytonite. Would I pick Batman because Superman has Kryonite? Nope.

Also, against India, for a big proportion of those matches it was in a period where he was injured or in the trough of his career. He wouldn't have had excellent figures, but I do think he'd have done much better if he met them in the right conditions. As I said before mate, I don't think a few average points or SR points makes much difference. For me, nobody stepped up as much as Warne and in the most direst of situations. No one made that kind of difference in a game when it was really needed like Warne did. As I said, I'm biased, I think Warne the greatest ever. But it's not such a silly thing, his contemporaries also name him the greatest ever.

P.S. you can call me Kaz.

 

[SJS]

As I advised a dear friend a day or two ago, "leave a debate when its getting nowhere" - count me out of this.

Have fun.

 

[Ikki]

As I advised a dear friend a day or two ago, "leave a debate when its getting nowhere" - count me out of this.

Have fun.

That's a shame SJS. I was hoping you could look over the replies and explain why their batsmen average so low. Because that's kind of the point, the lower they are able to score runs the less runs bowlers against them will concede. As a qualitative study, generally batsmen that score more on average appear to be of better quality.

It's really not coincidental that so many bowlers average and strike well against them in this era and that their batsmen also don't score that many runs. They just weren't a good side.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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

Ever played four day cricket?

 

[Richard]

I've played on 4 consecutive days. Not quite the same, but not much different.

 

[Richard]

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.

Would say 2003, not 2001, TBH. The exodus of players in April 2003 was far greater than that of July 2000.

Obviously there was a still greater exodus in March 2004, but that was immaterial - that just turned them from awful to a joke.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Enormously different. I've played numerous times on four consecutive days, and only in one match of four days, and I can tell you that the difference is huge.

The original point that my quote was from was you talking about how some batsmen like rather time between innings. You find me the batsman that wants to be out in the field for more than 50 overs any time their team is fielding, and if he doesn't have some sort of contacts with bookies, he's non-existant.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying batsmen want to be out in the field. I'm saying batting for 140 overs is more tiring than fielding for 140 overs.

The place this whole silly thing originated from was a claim that a bowler with a strike-rate of 10 balls higher was worse for his batsmen because that way they'd have to spend a little bit longer in the field. Which, frankly, is nonsensical.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not saying batsmen want to be out in the field. I'm saying batting for 140 overs is more tiring than fielding for 140 overs.

The place this whole silly thing originated from was a claim that a bowler with a strike-rate of 10 balls higher was worse for his batsmen because that way they'd have to spend a little bit longer in the field. Which, frankly, is nonsensical.

You're misrepresenting the argument. You're saying that as if it was my main point.

One of the main points, with regards to time, was having more time to bat. You want bowlers who strike 57 over bowlers who strike 69 generally. The more time your batsmen have to score their runs the more likely they will score more. With Warne and O'Reilly, it's balanced out because of O'Reilly's average/ER.

However, to say it makes no difference...:rolleyes:

 

[weldone]

You're misrepresenting the argument. You're saying that as if it was my main point.

One of the main points, with regards to time, was having more time to bat. You want bowlers who strike 57 over bowlers who strike 69 generally.

Doesn't matter really...A batsman while facing a good swing bowler or a good spin bowler will be least bothered by how quickly the bowlers in his team packed the opposition line-up (if the bowlers take 1 whole day more that's a different story...but not for 10 balls, or even 100 balls for that matter)...He'll rather be worried by the amount of runs to be chased, or the amount of lead or deficit at the moment...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Doesn't matter really...A batsman while facing a good swing bowler or a good spin bowler will be least bothered by how quickly the bowlers in his team packed the opposition line-up (if the bowlers take 1 whole day more that's a different story...but not for 10 balls, or even 100 balls for that matter)...He'll rather be worried by the amount of runs to be chased, or the amount of lead or deficit at the moment...

Yes, but generally if you're taking longer to get the wicket, then that raises the possibility of the batting team still scoring runs from not only yourself, but the bowler up the other end, which means that the batting team will be chasing more. This is the more important part of the SR discussion for mine. Not that I really like it at all.

 

[Ikki]

Doesn't matter really...A batsman while facing a good swing bowler or a good spin bowler will be least bothered by how quickly the bowlers in his team packed the opposition line-up (if the bowlers take 1 whole day more that's a different story...but not for 10 balls, or even 100 balls for that matter)...He'll rather be worried by the amount of runs to be chased, or the amount of lead or deficit at the moment...

Uh, yes he will. There is a balance. You don't want to take too long taking wickets but you also don't want to concede a lot bowling the opposition out quickly. For example, if both Warne and O'Reilly were to take 10 wickets each, Warne would concede 28 runs more than O'Reilly but would save 20 overs in doing so. So what do you pick? 28 runs less to chase or 20 overs more time?

Yes, but generally if you're taking longer to get the wicket, then that raises the possibility of the batting team still scoring runs from not only yourself, but the bowler up the other end, which means that the batting team will be chasing more. This is the more important part of the SR discussion for mine. Not that I really like it at all.

This too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In O'Reily's day they bowled 22 overs an hour, not the 15 they manage today even with two spinners on, so even if one is quicker than the other on a spreadsheet, in terms of real playing time it's impossible to compare. Next the argument will be that the opening batsman will be more tired after five hours in the field depending on the overrate.

 

[weldone]

So what do you pick? 28 runs less to chase or 20 overs more time?

Same...But if I really have to choose one between the two I'll choose to chase 28 less runs most of the times...

 

[Ikki]

Same...But if I really have to choose one between the two I'll choose to chase 28 less runs most of the times...

Why would you ever pick 28 runs most of the times? A batsman given 20 overs only has to score 1.4 runs an over to achieve the difference, most batsmen against most bowlers will achieve almost a whole run more per over than this - an extra 20 runs more.

 

[weldone]

Uh, yes he will. There is a balance. You don't want to take too long taking wickets but you also don't want to concede a lot bowling the opposition out quickly. For example, if both Warne and O'Reilly were to take 10 wickets each, Warne would concede 28 runs more than O'Reilly but would save 20 overs in doing so. So what do you pick? 28 runs less to chase or 20 overs more time?

...Well I'll give you the answer...

Using your figures only....If Warne takes all 20 wickets, he'll do that giving away 508 runs in 192 overs (2 days and 1 hour, say)....So I have more than 2 days 2 sessions and 1 hour to make 509 runs...

Now, if O'Reilley takes 20 wickets, he'll do that giving away 452 runs in 232 overs (2 and a half days, say....though in those days the time taken would have been much less)...So I have almost 2 and a half day to make 453 runs...

Since available time is clearly not an issue in both scenario, I'll choose to chase 55 less runs...

Now, don't tell me they won't take 20 wickets alone...It was your assumption, not mine

 

[weldone]

Why would you ever pick 28 runs most of the times? A batsman given 20 overs only has to score 1.4 runs an over to achieve the difference, most batsmen against most bowlers will achieve almost a whole run more per over than this - an extra 20 runs more.

...Well I'll give you the answer...

Using your figures only....If Warne takes all 20 wickets, he'll do that giving away 508 runs in 192 overs (2 days and 1 hour, say)....So I have more than 2 days 2 sessions and 1 hour to make 509 runs...

Now, if O'Reilley takes 20 wickets, he'll do that giving away 452 runs in 232 overs (2 and a half days, say....though in those days the time taken would have been much less)...So I have almost 2 and a half day to make 453 runs...

Since available time is clearly not an issue in both scenario, I'll choose to chase 55 less runs...

Now, don't tell me they won't take 20 wickets alone...It was your assumption, not mine