Greatest Bowler

[Ikki]

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.

This is just an orthodox understanding of how you may want to bowl spin. You mention the off-spinner wanting to avoid bounce but this isn't true, always. In fact, in an interview Murali specifically mentions that Warne helped him by introducing more bounce in his repertoire and as such was equally concerned with how much bounce he got as well as spin. When queried how during the latter half of his career he became a better bowler he talked about using drift more. In that sense, if you can use your drift well bounce is no bad thing. Moreover, it is not like Murali pitched the ball wide all the time and hence wouldn't have wanted bounce because it meant he couldn't get LBWs or bowelds.

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.

But that doesn't matter. Warne could not only spin the ball a mile he could also use bounce. So could Murali. It wasn't a one or the other consideration for them. Whenever Warne bowled in SL he looked even more imperious than usual - he could use overspin as well as pitch to extract more spin.

The reason someone like Kumble was less successful in Aus was because of his lack of sideways movement more than considerations re bounce. Bounce is important for a spinner, but it is a secondary consideration to spin. Especially when you're not as gifted as someone like Warne or Murali.

 

[benchmark00]

Ok, I see you have decided not to take it on board. Good for you. Have a good day.

 

[abmk]

Wow! Some debate going on here it must be said. A few points : 1) I see the bloke who refused to make allowances for Tendulkar being injured against McGrath in a couple of matches is now using the same line of defence for Warne. Hmmm, hey, we all have our biases. Not a biggie. 2) The argument used for Pak bowlers by Ikki is nonsense. Pak bowlers weren't born swing bowlers, they had to ADAPT because of the nature of the pitches. Similarly, Warne too made adjustments for his home pitches (bounce, etc) and learnt to bowl on them in a manner that produced optimal results for him. Shouldn't get extra credit there because both Warne and Murali had exceptional away records so that shouldn't be a factor. 3) Murali's away average is skewed by one bad place (ATG side, harsh conditions, small sample) just like Ponting's overall away average is skewed by one very poor record (India). 4) Murali faced a stronger Indian line up and he was clearly past his peak in that last series. Moreover, India prepared flat decks against Sri Lanka more often than they did against Aus because they didn't want to give Murali a sniff. You can check the number of high scoring draws in India-SL tests in India during this period if you want. 5) Warne is a better bowler by a hair's width IMO but the arguments presented here are farcical. 6) The best bowler of all time is Glenn McGrath. No one has a record as complete. Marshall has a crap record in one place IIRC.

this ....... apart from the last series when he was well past his best and was taken apart ; murali was more of a threat in India than warne was, actually looked far more of a threat .....even though the pitches for Ind-SL tests were on an average quite clearly flatter than those in the Ind-Aus tests ....

 

[Daemon]

Ok, I see you have decided not to take it on board. Good for you. Have a good day.

can you like rebut his second post or something, i genuinely want to know more on this topic.

 

[the big bambino]

Sort of amazed at the poll really. If a decn has already been made on Warne and Marshall shouldn't it be a race in two?

 

[harsh.ag]

Sort of amazed at the poll really. If a decn has already been made on Warne and Marshall shouldn't it be a race in two?

The obvious answer seems that the large majority of Wane fans are voting for Marshall here, or it could just be that Jono's Kohli pics have pissed the f*** out of half the users of CW into never returning to the forum.

 

[Viscount Tom]

The obvious answer seems that the large majority of Wane fans are voting for Marshall here, or it could just be that Jono's Kohli pics have pissed the f*** out of half the users of CW into never returning to the forum.

Or you know people think Marshall is the best ever bowlers.

 

[harsh.ag]

Or you know people think Marshall is the best ever bowlers.

I only meant to answer the question of why is Murali ahead of Warne here while being behind Warne in the best spinner poll. The obvious answer is that the majority of people who voted for Warne there are voting for Marshall here, but the same is not true for the majority of Murali voters.

 

[Daemon]

what sort of assumption is that? could be assumed the other way too tbf, that the marshall voters think murali > warne.

 

[harsh.ag]

what sort of assumption is that? could be assumed the other way too tbf, that the marshall voters think murali > warne.

That too, but that doesn't explain the low number of votes for Warne, right?

 

[Prince EWS]

what sort of assumption is that? could be assumed the other way too tbf, that the marshall voters think murali > warne.

He's making that assumption because the Warne v Murali poll on the same website is really close (and in favour of Warne IIRC?). He's trying to explain how that can be the case with Murali comfortably ahead of Warne here, and his theory is that the overwhelming majority of people who rate Marshall the best bowler rate Warne higher than Murali.

Personally, I just think we've had different people vote on each poll.

 

[kyear2]

In a straight fight btwn the two I would vote for Warne, but yes a lot of the Warne vote is divided btwn Marshall, Mcgrath and Lillee. When we voted for the CW AT XI it also was pretty decisive for Warne over Lillee.

I need though to say though, Warne and Murali are the two greatest spinners ever and by a large distance and were undisputed match winners and very difficult to separate.

When forced to choose between the two and I choose Warne because of a couple of factors.

1) Warne mastered the most difficult art in cricket as it is more difficult to bowl leg than off spin

2) Despite what Alkina says, Murali did have an advantage of playing half of his matches where the pitches were prepared for him and Sri Lanka was the best country for spin bowling as Warne's figures there testify and there is a large disparity between his home and away numbers which is hard to explain otherwise. There is also the factor that Murali got to play much more games againts Bangladesh and Zimbabme that Warne and we just saw how Zimbababwe made Shillingford look an awful like Murali.

4)Warne was the better cricketer when one combines his batting and his slip fielding, which for some reason is under rated here, he wasn't Chappell or Ponting, but wasn't that bad either.

As I said It is very close, and both had their troubles with the two greatest batsmen of their generation, so there is nothing to be gained in that area, so I go with what I saw and what I would have stated above and I choose Warne by hair.

 

[Daemon]

He's making that assumption because the Warne v Murali poll on the same website is really close (and in favour of Warne IIRC?). He's trying to explain how that can be the case with Murali comfortably ahead of Warne here, and his theory is that the overwhelming majority of people who rate Marshall the best bowler rate Warne higher than Murali.

Personally, I just think we've had different people vote on each poll.

Oh, carry on then harsh.

 

[harsh.ag]

Oh, carry on then harsh.

Thanks for the vote of continuation, Daemon

 

[smash84]

Thanks for the vote of continuation, Daemon

 

[Plumbinfront]

Excuse me, it doesn't matter if they weren't born swing bowlers. No one is born anything in any place, even if the home in question suits a certain type of bowling. The insinuation that bowling in X is harder - therefore they had to 'adapt' - is relative only to a point. One can only 'adapt' so much. But as aforesaid, Imran, the 2 Ws, had far better records at home than they did away. If Pakistan is such a terrible place to bowl then they'd take advantage bowling away from home. Clearly, the hypothesis doesn't match the real world. Warne, however, averages better away than at home. Which means despite his adapting, his home pitches were still worse for him than those away.

Maybe Imran and the 2 Ws just adapted better to their home pitches than Warne did to his home pitches? Seriously, your argument makes no sense. Pointing averaging less than Harbhajan in India does not mean India is the hardest place to bat in, it means he had trouble adapting to those conditions. Pakistan is a graveyard for fast bowlers. It is the nature of pitches that influenced the bowling styles of the Pakistanis. Surprise surprise they had the skill to adapt.

 

[Howe_zat]

He's making that assumption because the Warne v Murali poll on the same website is really close (and in favour of Warne IIRC?). He's trying to explain how that can be the case with Murali comfortably ahead of Warne here, and his theory is that the overwhelming majority of people who rate Marshall the best bowler rate Warne higher than Murali.

Personally, I just think we've had different people vote on each poll.

I think it's a fair shout. If you rate anyone ahead of Murali you probably rate Warne ahead of Murali, because he's often either clearly the best bowler ever or a home track bully who chucked it.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it's a fair shout. If you rate anyone ahead of Murali you probably rate Warne ahead of Murali, because he's often either clearly the best bowler ever or a home track bully who chucked it.

Yeah, it's probably fair to say that rather than most Warne>Murali believers rating Warne higher than Murali>Warne believers do, they just rate Murali less so. Warne's standing in the game seems to generate less varied opinions than Murali's.

 

[uvelocity]

i'd take warne over murali just because he's ours, i've seen more of him, and he won more games for australia than murali did. i think they are bloody close together and not worth me getting my mind in a twist about, more important things to do.

but i voted ambrose here because he was lethal when on song. i took the approach of who is the bowler i'd least like to face. and i knew he wouldn't win and needed voting for.

 

[harsh.ag]

i'd take warne over murali just because he's ours, i've seen more of him, and he won more games for australia than murali did. i think they are bloody close together and not worth me getting my mind in a twist about, more important things to do.

but i voted ambrose here because he was lethal when on song. i took the approach of who is the bowler i'd least like to face. and i knew he wouldn't win and needed voting for.

To be fair, Murali did try his best to win more games for Australia