Best ODI spinner::: Murli vs. Warne vs. Saqlain

[Francis]

I didn't read the stats of each player before posting above, because stats are misleading. But once I did read them I didn't realize how similar Warne and Murali's stats were. Warne only went for an extra three runs per game. Their strike rates are almost similar (one ball between them). And two runs separate their averages.

Saqlain's stats are good viewing. His average isn't much better than Murali, but what DOES stand out to me is his strike-rate. That really is an incredible strike rate.

 

[bagapath]

Saqlain by a huge margin.

"huge margin" is not the kind of term you can use in this thread. murali, warne and saqlain are so close in ODIs that they could be siamese triplets.

 

[ankitj]

Talking of peaks, I just checked this:

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

Surprised to see fairly low peak ratings for Saqlain and Warne. In case of Warne, it may be due to not playing ODI's frequently enough. Not sure what explains Saqlain's rating given he holds records for quickest to 100, 150, 200 wickets.

 

[chicane]

I'll go for Murali if we're talking about ODI's.

But the contest between the three is actually pretty close.



And that's the thing about Warne in ODI's.

People forget his ODI heroics. They forget his performance against the West Indies in the 1996 World Cup semi final, when the West Indies had that game won. And then there were his two performances in the semi-final and final of the 1999 World Cup. There are others I could mention too.

On the big stage Warne wins this. Without wanting to start a Warne v Murali debate, I always watched Murali closely on the big stage, such as the last World Cup, and I don't think he was as good as Warne on the big stage. Of course I do remember Murali tearing through New Zealand in the last World Cup semi final, which was a joy to watch for so many personal reasons.

Warne was so competitive when he bowled, and he just wanted to be in the spotlight and perform. Lara talked about this on youtube when comparing Warne and Murali. Warne just kept coming at you, and loved to compete as much as anyone. That's what I think made him great on the big stage.

This isn't forgetting Warne's success in ODI's against guys like Cullinan (who was a very good ODI player before Warne ruined his reputation) and Inzamam. Warne had the number of some pretty big names.

You just can't rely on stats when it comes to judging players, you have to go by experience. I remember in the mid 90s Warne had a good number of MOTM awards for ODI's, although his stats never reached the level of say Murali. While I've seen plenty of ODI's where teams seem content not scoring too fast off Murali, knowing they're not chasing a big score, and they don't have to risk their wicket.

This doesn't change my choice though. It's Murali for me in ODI's. I'm just making the point it's closer than people are willing to admit between the three. I'd go for Murali based on his longevity. He was also curiously a great death bowler, which is rare for ODI's. Saqlain would be my number three just because he didn't go for long enough. If he played for longer then maybe he would have been the greatest ODI bowler ever.

Yeah Warne was a genius, that WI 96 WC performance was so superb. Him and Saqlain were different in that regard to Murali, who didn't quite rely on cunning. Warne was also unique for being so relentless. I rate Saqlain better however, just for the doosra. It was like Mendis's carrom ball and Waqar's inswinging yorker, lethal.

Saqalin was the better bowler before he started using his small bag of tricks a little too often. Lost his ability to flight the ball well towards the end of his career. His doosra became very predictable. Murali and Saqlain debuted around the same time and Saqlain for a good 4-5 years was rated ahead or at least alongside Murali. THEN came the slide and Saqlain just withered away.

Yeah because of that he just disappeared! But when he still had it in him, he was incredible, definitely the best.

 

[Migara]

At their best Saqlain was magnificient. But SC batsmen found out his doosra later in his career and he was never the same bowler to them. In latter parts of the career Jayasuruya, de Silva, Ranatunga, Sachin, Ganguly and few others took to Saqlain once they figured out the doosra. If he played another 10 years, his stats wouidn't have been better from the way his career went. That is assuming that he doesn't re-invent his stratergies. (he was good enough to do so). It's not a small deed to capture 500+ wickets and play for 18 years. So gone with Murali.

 

[andyc]

And that's the thing about Warne in ODI's.

People forget his ODI heroics. They forget his performance against the West Indies in the 1996 World Cup semi final, when the West Indies had that game won. And then there were his two performances in the semi-final and final of the 1999 World Cup. There are others I could mention too.
.

TBH I think it's the other way around. A lot of people remember those heroics and rate him higher than he should be when it comes to the 50 over stuff. He was a good ODI bowler, no doubt, but would take Saqlain and Murali over him any day.

 

[Migara]

I would have added Bradd Hogg there too. Had a amazing 5 years in ODI s with neck and neck with Murali.

 

[Athlai]

Hogg was actually a better ODI bowler than Warne for a good patch of his career. Really quite fantastic bowler.

 

[Ikki]

Warne or Saqlain. Saqlain has prima facie the better stats of the 3 by a bit. Warne and Murali's stats are very close once you account for minnows but Warne will always be #1 for me because of his WC heroics. I think Murali's longevity makes people overrate him somewhat. Always thought both Saqlain and Warne were capable of a slightly higher level.

 

[ankitj]

Warne or Saqlain. Saqlain has prima facie the better stats of the 3 by a bit. Warne and Murali's stats are very close once you account for minnows but Warne will always be #1 for me because of his WC heroics. I think Murali's longevity makes people overrate him somewhat. Always thought both Saqlain and Warne were capable of a slightly higher level.

Don't agree with this slighting of Murali at all. Check the peak ICC ratings to see who had best peaks of the three. I know it's not the be all and end all. But the difference is too large to be ignored.

And longevity has to be rated. Look at a Tendulkar and a McGrath. It just shows how much you have it in you to keep re-inventing your game and keep the motivation going. Saqlain, though great at his peak, would have had much poorer stats if he played for as many matches as Murali did. He lost his sheen after a 5-6 great years.

 

[ankitj]

TBH I think it's the other way around. A lot of people remember those heroics and rate him higher than he should be when it comes to the 50 over stuff. He was a good ODI bowler, no doubt, but would take Saqlain and Murali over him any day.

+1

I had Warne in my top 25 ODI player list the ongoing CW rating, purely for Warne's performances in some of the big games.

 

[bagapath]

against india and pakistan warne averaged 33 whereas murali got his wickets for 27. considering those two teams were the common enemies for both of them among batting line ups that traditionally feast on spinners, it clearly gives murali the edge. when you include sri lanka and australia also in the equation, saqlain comes on top with his wickets coming at 24, murali slips a notch to 28, warne stays on the other side of 30.

 

[Ikki]

Don't agree with this slighting of Murali at all. Check the peak ICC ratings to see who had best peaks of the three. I know it's not the be all and end all. But the difference is too large to be ignored.

And longevity has to be rated. Look at a Tendulkar and a McGrath. It just shows how much you have it in you to keep re-inventing your game and keep the motivation going. Saqlain, though great at his peak, would have had much poorer stats if he played for as many matches as Murali did. He lost his sheen after a 5-6 great years.

Chatfield has a higher peak than Wasim Akram according to ICC ratings.

Whilst your points are true to an extent I still maintain at their best IMO they were better than Murali. Warne was arguably the best ODI player, let alone bowler, in WCs.

I can take the argument that Murali had a better career than those two, with respect to his longevity, but if you were asking me to pick a spinner for a team to play tomorrow I would pick Warne, then Saqlain and Murali third.

 

[chicane]

This is going to get merged with Warne V Murali soon.

 

[Migara]

That old shocker of Ikki's. Best WC final player = best ODI player.

 

[Migara]

Chatfield has a higher peak than Wasim Akram according to ICC ratings.

Whilst your points are true to an extent I still maintain at their best IMO they were better than Murali. Warne was arguably the best ODI player, let alone bowler, in WCs.

I can take the argument that Murali had a better career than those two, with respect to his longevity, but if you were asking me to pick a spinner for a team to play tomorrow I would pick Warne, then Saqlain and Murali third.

So that seals the argument. Tendulkar >> Ponting according to the WC stats.

 

[JBH001]

Murali => Saqlain >> Warne. It's a close-ish decision, but in the end a pretty easy one, IMO, for Murali as an ODI bowler over the other two.

Although Murali's ODI bowling has taken a bit of a hit since 2007 when he began to decline as a bowler.

 

[Burgey]

Don't agree with this slighting of Murali at all. Check the peak ICC ratings to see who had best peaks of the three. I know it's not the be all and end all. But the difference is too large to be ignored.

And longevity has to be rated. Look at a Tendulkar and a McGrath. It just shows how much you have it in you to keep re-inventing your game and keep the motivation going. Saqlain, though great at his peak, would have had much poorer stats if he played for as many matches as Murali did. He lost his sheen after a 5-6 great years.

Why is it slighting him? It's not slighting him anymore than someone else coming on here and saying it's a two horse race between Saqlain and Murali is a "slight" to Warne, is it?

 

[Burgey]

Hogg was actually a better ODI bowler than Warne for a good patch of his career. Really quite fantastic bowler.

Lol.. No.

Just no.

 

[ankitj]

Why is it slighting him?

This seems to me like slighting:

I think Murali's longevity makes people overrate him somewhat.