3rd Greatest Cricketer - The Poll

[akilana]

Zimbabwe once beat Pakistan in Pakistan.

any no ball bowled?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Grimmett averaged 32.44 against England.

The only team during Warne's time whose batting against spin bowling was comparable to that of England during Grimmett's time (not saying batting in general, I emphasize on 'batting against spin bowling') was India, and Warne averaged 47.19 against India.

That's a pretty big extrapolation.

 

[Uppercut]

That's a lolbad extrapolation.

Fixed.

 

[GotSpin]

How about being one of the finest close fielders add to the weight?

If Sobers had had the bowling of Keith Miller I'd agree with you but although Sobers may well lay claim to the title of greatest all rounderd cricketer, the sheer amount that Bradman is ahead of anyone else will mean that in my books he will remain no.1

 

[Ikki]

You might think that Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Duleepsinhji, Jardine were not as good players of spin as Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Sidhu. But I don't.

Murali averaged 32.62 against India, and 36.07 against Australia. Not excellent, but not something that might suggest that he wasn't in the same league as Grimmett (32.44 against England).

Sri Lanka was never a class batting lineup against spin bowling (they were good, still), until very recently.

But Murali never had to bowl against India in Australia and Warne didn't get to bowl against India in Sri Lanka. Still, even as it is, you're suggesting that Grimmett is better than Murali because of that one fact. Which, I think, is flawed.

The point is there are many variables and I'd almost always put Warne and Murali ahead of those two. And if you're going to put them ahead of Warne, surely you gotta put them over Murali. It almost sounds like an excuse to beat Warne with.

----

And Sri Lanka in the 00s were spanking spin bowlers in SL - pretty sure you've seen this as an Indian fan yourself. Warne in 04 in Sri Lanka was simply irresistible against them. There's no way Sri Lanka were that bad against spin and India were that good, to explain the difference between his records against those two countries.

 

[Benny2k1]

no love for brian lara?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

On ability it would be Ian Botham, but unfortunately he had pastimes other than cricket which he put rather too much effort in to.

 

[bagapath]

And Sri Lanka in the 00s were spanking spin bowlers in SL - pretty sure you've seen this as an Indian fan yourself. Warne in 04 in Sri Lanka was simply irresistible against them. There's no way Sri Lanka were that bad against spin and India were that good, to explain the difference between his records against those two countries.

In the last 30+ years no leggie has bowled out India. Apart from Warne, who in his long career tasted great success against every team except India, there have also been instances of a bob holland routing west indies. qadir bowling out england and west indies. danish kaneria and mushtaq ahmad having great successes against different teams. indian spinner kumble has exploited the weakness of his opponents against wrist spin many a time. even hirwani bundled out west indies once. india is the only team that has never ever had any trouble playing out leg spin. off spinners saqlain and murali have bowled them out. michael clarke's left arm spin was good enough to wipe them out once. tauseef ahemad and iqbal qasim buried them once. even greg matthews took a tenfer against them. but no leg spinner has ever had a match winning - match turning spell against india in a long long time. so warne's good record against sri lanka and a horrendous record against india can be easily explained. the reason is.... he had no chance against the indian teams he played; they were just too good for his type of bowling.

that being said, the 2004 sri lanka - australia series was a classic western shoot out. murali vs warne was too fascinating to watch and almost overshadowed the big battle itself. agree with ikki otherwise that warne and murali both should be in top 3 with oreilly taking the other spot. grimmett will have to settle for no.4

 

[Jono]

Kaneria did very well in the 2005 Pakistan tour of India, all things being considered.

19 @ 31.52 with two 5-fers over 3 test matches.

 

[weldone]

That's a pretty big extrapolation.

Fixed.

That was a reply to the conclusion drawn by someone that 'Grimmett is not as good as the other 3 because he didn't do extraordinarily well against England'.

I just elaborated to show that can't be the reason to put Grimmett out of the top tier. Both Warne and Murali had not-so-good results against some of the best batting lineups against spin bowling. Grimmett isn't alone there, probably O'Reilly is.

I did not, let me reiterate, try to show through that extrapolation that Grimmett is a better bowler than Warne. If I did, that would be a 'lolbad' explanation.

And if I think that Grimmett is slightly better than Warne, it has to be for other reasons. Surely not for this one.

Let me reiterate once again, it was just a reply to a random post stating that Grimmett isn't as good as the other 3 because he didn't do extraordinarily well against England.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The point was that there was a very large discrepancy between Grimmett with regards to England and the weaker teams of the time. It's different when there's only four teams going around, and two are in their infancy; as opposed to when there are 7 or 8 teams getting around of a decent standard.

 

[weldone]

Still, even as it is, you're suggesting that Grimmett is better than Murali because of that one fact. Which, I think, is flawed.

I am pretty sure that after reading post no. 230 (the post above this one) by me, you wouldn't have this confusion any longer.

Let me reiterate for the 223rd time, I didn't try to show that anyone is better than anyone else for this one fact.

Rather I tried to disprove someone stating that anyone can be better than anyone else for this one fact.

 

[Uppercut]

No, but it's a pretty good point about Grimmett. It obviously doesn't make him a bad player, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be reduced to absurdity by deliberately making a ridiculous extrapolation about Shane Warne.

 

[weldone]

It's different when there's only four teams going around, and two are in their infancy; as opposed to when there are 7 or 8 teams getting around of a decent standard.

7 or 8 teams of a decent standard is by no means equal to 7 or 8 batting lineups of a decent standard against spin bowling.

The fact that South Africa, England, West Indies, New Zealand were decent teams in the 90s doesn't mean that their batsmen were decent against spin bowling.

My point.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If you want to compare South Africa and West Indies of the 1990s to their prepubescent versions, then I reckon it's a bit of a stretch.

 

[weldone]

No I won't (Ambrose, Donald, Walsh, Pollock and Boucher would kill me if I did). But I can compare their batting against quality spin bowling.

I don't see any evidence how Brian Lara was undoubtedly a better player of spin than George Headley; or Kallis, Kirsten and Cronje than Dudley Nourse and Bruce Mitchell. As for the rest, the least is said the better.

 

[Migara]

But you could very well tell that Navjot Sidhu and Virender Sehwag are better than a what we have seen during last century against spin. Comparing India's 90s line up against spin to any is a farce. They were the undoubted best in the business, like the Windies four peong pace attack, which was the best in the cricketing history in that regard. If O'Riely and Grimmet bowled against India, I won't expect them to do better than how Murali or Warne faired against them.

 

[weldone]

We were so used to see England, South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand crumble cluelessly against spin bowling on helpful wickets that India's batting lineup came across as something beyond extraordinary. They were extraordinary against spin bowling for sure, but they weren't like batsmen from Jupiter or something. I don't see any reason to keep them ahead of Engalnd of Hobbs, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Duleepsinhji, Jardine (or ahead of the invincibles under Bradman, for that reason) in this respect.

 

[Ikki]

The point was that there was a very large discrepancy between Grimmett with regards to England and the weaker teams of the time. It's different when there's only four teams going around, and two are in their infancy; as opposed to when there are 7 or 8 teams getting around of a decent standard.

This. Grimmett faced 3 teams and the only one that was any good pretty much handled him. O'Reilly did much better than him, although in comparison to Warne/Murali he too is helped by playing a significant proportion of matches against weak opposition. Actually, when you look at it in those terms, it kinda pushes Warne/Murali to an even higher stratosphere in terms of spin bowlers.

 

[weldone]

And I think I replied to that. Most of the decent/good test teams during Warne's and Murali's time were trash against spin bowling.

They were decent teams because they had some great bowlers, and some good/great batsmen against fast bowlers.