Greatest Bowler

[benchmark00]

Ikki, Australia is a good place to bowl leg spin. Is a **** place to bowl finger spin, but it's good to bowl leggies.

 

[harsh.ag]

Honestly, this is a weak argument. When both of them bowled together, Mcgill out-bowled Warne.

Precisely. But akilana, that's only because Warne made it so much easier for MacGill to take wickets, as the batsmen tried to go after him while being cautious against Warne.

At least Murali was an outlier as a bowler in his own country at least.

 

[Ikki]

Oh, but Ikki, I thought that Warne was the ultimate outlier, wasn't he? I mean, there would sooner be a Bradman than a Warne, right? If he wasn't an outlier, then on what basis are you calling him to be the best of all time above Murali?

You do realise you're talking nonsense now? Warne is the best bowler (IMO), but he is not a Bradmanesque outlier. He is in the argument with several bowlers, including Murali.

I'll take the digression as the concession for your argument.

Honestly, this is a weak argument. When both of them bowled together, Mcgill out-bowled Warne.

Yes, in those 9 matches he out-bowled Warne. So?

The point was that MacGill's home record is not directly comparable because he did not have a long career in the side and when he did bowl he was generally bowling when it was good for spin. Whereas someone like Warne bowled at home regardless of how conducive the pitch was to spin.

I should've taken the hint from your first post that you don't really know what you're talking about.

At least Murali was an outlier as a bowler in his own country at least.

You mean, except for when Warne bowled there.

 

[uvelocity]

He was so good that he was born with an Ashes urn on his giant penis.

You blokes minds are set in stone. Just talking to brick walls as usual.

cliffs. no dont

 

[harsh.ag]

You do realise you're talking nonsense now? Warne is the best bowler, but he is not a Bradmanesque outlier. He is in the argument with several bowlers, including Murali.

I'll take the digression as the concession for your argument.



Yes, in those 9 matches he out-bowled Warne. So?

The point was that MacGill's home record is not directly comparable because he did not have a long career in the side and when he did bowl he was generally bowling when it was good for spin. Whereas someone like Warne bowled at home regardless of how conducive the pitch was to spin.

I should've taken the hint from your first post that you don't really know what you're talking about.



You mean, except for when Warne bowled there.

Warne's record in SL: 9 tests 48 wickets @ 20.45 is better than Murali's 73 tests 493 wickets @ 19.56?

And suddenly 9 tests became enough of a criteria for Warne, but not for MacGill?

And you can take my digression to mean that I think you are full of ****.

 

[Ikki]

Warne's record in SL: 9 tests 48 wickets @ 20.45 is better than Murali's 73 tests 493 wickets @ 19.56?

And suddenly 9 tests became enough of a criteria for Warne, but not for MacGill?

And you can take my digression to mean that I think you are full of ****.

Whoosh. My pointing out that was to expose your using 9 tests. I'm glad you got the message, albeit late.

You were wrong on O'Reilly, wrong on Grimmett, wrong on Benaud, wrong on MacGill, and wrong on Warne. Throughout, trying to squirm and squeeze any point you could to show that bowling spin wasn't that hard...but I'm full of ****. Ok.

 

[harsh.ag]

Whoosh. My pointing out that was to expose your using 9 tests. I'm glad you got the message, albeit late.

You were wrong on O'Reilly, wrong on Grimmett, wrong on Benaud, wrong on MacGill, and wrong on Warne. Throughout, trying to squirm and squeeze any point you could to show that bowling spin wasn't that hard...but I'm full of ****. Ok.

1) I pointed out MacGill's home record of 135 wickets taken in 26 tests, not 9.

2) I never said O'Reilly, Grimmett and Benaud had better records in Australia. You brought that up. I said a country which produces such great leggies (plus MacGill) has no basis for claiming that Aussie pitches don't suit leg spinners.

3) I wasn't wrong on MacGill. That's just what you think on account of your death-defying logic.

4) And you are full of ****. Just say that you like Warne better and that you think he is a better bowler than others like a normal person, instead of propping up his stats as, when, and however you please.

 

[Daemon]

You did it again.

The pitches are worse. That's the whole point. You seem to be implying that you have to be expected to bowl better at home than away, which is ridiculous. If Warne bowls on sticky wickets in Dunedin then that will be a better pitch than his home, it's that simple.

More to the point, we are talking about averages here. That bowling in Australia will raise one's average due to the factor of difficulty bowling in Australia. That doesn't mean Warne bowled worse, per se. He is the best spinner, from any country, to bowl in Australia during his career.

Did you watch cricket much during this time? It doesn't appear so.

Stuart MacGill was generally played when the pitches were conducive to spin at home. They were basically the only times you'd see both MacGill and Warne bowl together - his record is fantastic at these times.

And, even IF, this, or any other singular bowler was a legitimate counter-argument, it is more like an outlier. Christ, just look at the spin averages in each country during their careers. Look at the spinners bowling in Australia - from Australia and abroad. We are arguing over something which isn't really debatable.

just quietly..

 

[Ikki]

@akilana

Sorry I didn't mean 9 tests, I meant the sample you did pick. The point is that the sample is not entirely representative of the argument you're trying to make. MacGill was not better than Warne at home because of that statistic, no more than Warne is better at bowling in SL than Murali because of his.

You brought up the point that Australia had several great spinners...which wasn't relevant. What was mentioned was that their home records suffered because of the pitches they inherited. The two points are different.

You are wrong on MacGill, because insofar as proving that Australia is a good place to bowl spin it doesn't matter, even if we were to accept MacGill as a counter, on the whole it isn't a good place to bowl spin. Even more relevant, it is not near as good to bowl spin in Australia than it is in SL. You see, whether you think Murali is better or not is not my gripe...it is that you think their bowling at home should be given the same accord.

I say Warne is better, and I show why I think Warne is better. If I make assertions, I like to show that they're verifiable by objective facts. Sue me, I don't like to make up arguments from my rear like some people.

just quietly..

It doesn't conflict. The first is a general statement - the pitches by and large are not prepared to be turners. MacGill, however, featured on the pitches that often were. It is not that they never were, but that they usually were not. And definitely not to the quality/extent Murali got.

 

[benchmark00]

I have no idea why you lump leg spin and off spin together.

 

[akilana]

Hey harsh, friendly request. Pls no need of personal attack. You bringing up Mcgill's record did enough.

 

[Ikki]

I have no idea why you lump leg spin and off spin together.

If a pitch is conducive to bowling spin, it does so on both sides of the pitch.

 

[harsh.ag]

Hey harsh, friendly request. Pls no need of personal attack. You bringing up Mcgill's record did enough.

I had no intention mate. He started it.

 

[benchmark00]

If a pitch is conducive to bowling spin, it does so on both sides of the pitch.

Do you genuinely think that if conditions are good for leg spin they're good for off spin?

 

[Ikki]

Do you genuinely think that if conditions are good for leg spin they're good for off spin?

Yes, insofar as we've talked about. What part of the 'conditions' do you think makes it so different so as to make the distinction?

I had no intention mate. He started it.

And where did I begin being personal with you? If you contest a point, be prepared to be called on it when it is neither relevant nor is factually correct.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yes, insofar as we've talked about. What part of the 'conditions' do you think makes it so different so as to make the distinction?



And where did I begin being personal with you? If you contest a point, be prepared to be called on it when it is neither relevant nor is factually correct.

" If you're going to make an argument, please don't be ridiculous and make arguments like the above."

 

[benchmark00]

Yes, insofar as we've talked about. What part of the 'conditions' do you think makes it so different so as to make the distinction?

Well if you think that, you're wrong.

In Australia, the nature of the pitches means there is more bounce than other countries. If you impart a bit of side spin as a leg spinner, you will also get very favourable bounce which makes you a big danger.

As an off spinner, you don't necessarily want extravagant bounce in to the right hander as it makes it difficult to attack the stumps and get LBW and bowelds. And it makes it easier to hit with the arc because you can get under the ball with more ease.

In India, for example, it is harder to bowl leg spin because you won't get that bounce with the side spin. Kumble bowled with over spin so he was successful there, however his over spin meant he wasn't successful in Australia because he didn't have the spin and bounce that he would otherwise get.

In the sub continent off spinners can attack the stumps easily because the bounce is variable and not high, as well as gripping, so if you attack the stumps for long enough you will get rewards.

Now you can choose to listen and take the above on board and acknowledge that was a part of your cricket knowledge that you were missing, or you can bring in to play some stats that you have picked out and ignore it. Your call.

 

[Ikki]

" If you're going to make an argument, please don't be ridiculous and make arguments like the above."

How is that a personal post? I am saying you've made a ridiculous argument. It may be harsh, but it isn't personal, nor did I mean for you to take it as such.

Generally, from what I've read from you in other threads you seem way more reasonable but it comes across here that no matter what is replied to you, you're ignoring it and digressing so you seem to have a visage of a point.

 

[harsh.ag]

Awesome article on Leg Spin Physics

 

[harsh.ag]

How is that a personal post? I am saying you've made a ridiculous argument. It may be harsh, but it isn't personal, nor did I mean for you to take it as such.

Generally, from what I've read from you in other threads you seem way more reasonable but it comes across here that no matter what is replied to you, you're ignoring it and digressing so you seem to have a visage of a point.

Actually you may be right. Not a good day. Accept my apologies.

This is not to concede your point though