Warne was pretty bad when he was injured a lot of the times sure. Otherwise he was extremely consistent.
?? Who said this?
Haha, yeah, Tendulkar who faced Saqlain in a whole 2 Tests when Saqlain was any use, 1 of which was a pitch that'd been vandalised.
Geez, sometimes it needs spelling out with you it seems.
Dismissed 3 times in 2 tests? Doesn't mean anything eh?
Of course it means something. It means he did very well against him. I still don't see your point. The fact is pace bowlers still would have far far better luck than spin bowlers. Even if you say two Test matches is enough of a sample to prove anything (if you do, I hope you're consistent when discussing other areas).
No one, but it seems to be assumed that Warne/Murali would struggle set against Tendulkar/Lara in a side. I think that to be no more the case than a McGrath struggling against a Richards. This was the point of my initial post.
We're actually talking about 4 tests, just 2 against Tendulkar. My point was let's not pretend that the rest of the Indians were not excellent players of spin. Because if it was just Tendulkar then that's not a talking point. One Tendulkar in an all-time XI is not going to make people leave out Murali or Warne.
I never said the greatest would be better on uncovered. You are again trying to spell-out something that isn't there.
I am not saying greatest bowler, the greatest spinner.
But wouldn't they? Warne has played 14 Tests, a pretty good sample that, and averages close to 50 runs per wicket vs. India. Murali averages better, but still 32 (and worse in India). And though he did well against the West Indians, when you saw Lara playing him, you knew he was outclassed.
Oh, if you're saying Warne is the greatest spinner of all time, I've no problems with that as I can certainly see that case.
Which brings me back to a question I raised in another thread: are we assuming we are bowling against all-time XI batsmen or just the Indian side? Not all the batsmen in an all-time XI are adept at playing spin, in fact they're mostly adept at playing pace.
The side was full of the greatest spin players. This is worse for a spinner than a side for all-time batsmen - not all of them are that good against spin or never faced spin to the quality of Warne/Murali.
No, you're mixing this up with Richard's post. Let me clarify.
pretty bad is a relative term. Are you actually saying Murali and Warne have been PROVEN to be worse than the Marshall and McGraths on flat tracks under hot conditions? I don't think so. Harbhajan Singh outbowled McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper in Chennai in 2001 and that was a flat track, as flat as anything you ever see in Chennai. Sourav esp. mentioned that fact in his post match interview. And the batsmen he was bowling to were not the worst players of spin either. Hayden was awesome, Langer was very good against the spinners too, Slater wasn't bad either, Mark Waugh was a proven player against spin by that time, Steve Waugh was there. Only Ponting struggled like anything and even he had scored heavily against Murali juz a few months back in Sri Lanka.
I think they certainly have. Marshall was one of the best ever at bowling on flat pitches, especially with his cutters. And McGrath's abilities are well known in India.
McGrath's ABILITY only came in in 2004. He didn't set the world on fire or anything in 2001. And I don't think he became a better bowler in 2004 than he was in 2001. The simple fact was in 2004 India were not playing well... Even Warne looked good against our batsmen.. They looked undercooked in that test series and were struggling to score against even Warney and that is when McGrath became a big wicket taking option in India. And don't forget, they had tests in Bangalore and Nagpur, two wickets which have helped seamers on a number of occassions.
Actually Mcgrath did have a pretty good series in 2000-01 and I think he bowled better than 2004. That said He does average 30+ against Pak and SL in away condition.
He bowled well, there is no doubting that at all and I think he has been one of the best visiting fast bowlers to India of all time, probably... But I still think the reason he got better returns in 2004 was not just because he bowled slightly better but also because the Indian batsmen were struggling, period. They struggled against Warne, they struggled against Gillespie, heck, they even struggled against Michael Clarke. The fact that they got bogged down even against Warne meant that they were poking at a number of deliveries they would have probably left well alone in the 2001 series. THAT is the difference I am talking about.
