Was Sehwag the greatest player of spin in the hisory of the game ??

[Starfighter]

Bangla wickets support spin. And most of that records are home matches. No rocket science.

Actually, 33 home matches and 35 away matches in the record I selected. Stop making stuff up.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Actually, 33 home matches and 35 away matches in the record I selected. Stop making stuff up.

Completely irrelevant to his point anyway.

He's trying to claim that BD were better players of spin during Murali's career than England were, in the setting that he thinks Murali would have done better against England than against Bangladesh (even though he didn't).

Then when produced with the evidence that they actually fared worse against spin than pace, he states that it's because they play in spin-friendly Asia, which completely ignores the whole point of his comparison because all of Murali's games against BD would be in Asia, whereas the stats you produced were for everywhere and if anything, their comparative average against spin would be even worse if we limited it to matches only Asia.

 

[Starfighter]

The difference between the two is practically negligible, even if I limit it to home matches. Bangladesh were simply bad against bowling full stop.

 

[the big bambino]

Bangla wickets support spin. And most of that records are home matches. No rocket science.

Yes I agree Murali was very lucky in the conditions he got to bowl in. Would have to adjust his average appreciably upwards to compensate for the advantages he got.

 

[marc71178]

Murali, herath, Kaneria and Vettori is the only odd name. You expect Asian spinners to dominate Asian teams one time or the other. ANd this is what happened when they toured. Pacers average 12-18 against Ban. Good spinners as well. But when Collins, Sammy, Streak, Holder and Fernando average peanuts against them, you know the problem.

Small sample sizes or are we extrapolating those to decide that they'd keep that record up over multiple series?

Or maybe the problem is a one-eyed poster with a massive chip on his shoulder?

 

[_00_deathscar]

So now we can add "Shewag" to "Ghandi" and "Kholi".

Who is he and what is his average on bouncy and fast wickets, cloudy and green wickets, and rank turners?

 

[vcs]

Who is he and what is his average on bouncy and fast wickets, cloudy and green wickets, and rank turners?

Pretty bad, got discarded after one match.

1st Test, India tour of Australia at Adelaide, Dec 10-14 1999 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

 

[trundler]

Doesn't matter. Gets points for having one of the coolest names ever. DJ Gandhi.

 

[vcs]

His less famous namesake on the other hand, would have probably preferred a joint India-Pakistan team, and an end to aggressive fast bowling.

 

[trundler]

Might have been less crap in England with a joint team

 

[Red]

Neil Harvey was the greatest player of spin in the history of the game.

 

[mr_mister]

you'd have to say Hammond and Sutcliffe were good too, since they averaged so high even though they played a majority of their tests against Grimmett, Ironmonger and O'Reilly

 

[trundler]

Old LBW rule must have played a huge part. Sutcliffe was a notorious padder upper. Sutcliffe didn't play much against those spinners anyway. They must've been great still obviously.

 

[a massive zebra]

Yes its incredible isn't it? Its amazing how much better off Murali would have been playing more often against England but can't see that Warne would've benefitted playing BD and Zim more often than he did. Its almost as if you have to open your other eye to see that.

I'm not convinced Warne's stats would have improved that much if he had played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as much as Murali. Don't get me wrong, Warne was an iconic matchwinner who won many Tests against quality opposition including plenty against Australia's old enemy, and put in a match winning performance in a world cup final. But he simply wasn't the sort of player who decimated the weaker teams. He was the kind of big match bowler who could use his innovative bowling brain to pick his game up for the big matches in order to maintain the same level of effectiveness at the highest level of the game as he achieved in first class and even first grade cricket. For instance, he averaged 26 for St Kilda in first grade cricket, 35 for Victoria in the Sheffield Shield, 27 for Hampshire in the county championship, 27 in Tests against Bangladesh and 23 in Tests against Zimbabwe. In 156 first class matches excluding Tests, he took 10 wickets in a match just twice. These aren't the kind of figures one would expect of a bowler capable of really cashing in against minnows. You might say he only he only played a handful of Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. But he played his entire career for Victoria, over 50 matches for St Kilda and several seasons for Hampshire.

By comparison, Murali averaged 14 in the county championship, 13 against Bangladesh and 16 against Zimbabwe - pretty much half Warne's average against the corresponding opposition. And there aren't really any teams of first grade standard or higher for whom Warne played more than a handful of matches and consistently dominated to the extent Murali did against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and in the county championship. He simply wasn't that sort of bowler.

That's not to say Warne couldn't bowl as effectively as Murali in big matches against top sides, as he showed many times in the Ashes, the World Cup and on many other occasions including big series against Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

 

[Furball]

Pretty sure this is my favourite ever Sehwag innings:

2nd Test, Sri Lanka tour of India at Kanpur, Nov 24-27 2009 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

Pretty sure he was batting like complete arse against the seamers, then had a lot of fun with the spinners.

I'm sure Mendis got absolutely belted as soon as he came on.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm not convinced Warne's stats would have improved that much if he had played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as much as Murali. Don't get me wrong, Warne was an iconic matchwinner who won many Tests against quality opposition including plenty against Australia's old enemy, and put in a match winning performance in a world cup final. But he simply wasn't the sort of player who decimated the weaker teams. He was the kind of big match bowler who could use his innovative bowling brain to pick his game up for the big matches in order to maintain the same level of effectiveness at the highest level of the game as he achieved in first class and even first grade cricket. For instance, he averaged 26 for St Kilda in first grade cricket, 35 for Victoria in the Sheffield Shield, 27 for Hampshire in the county championship, 27 in Tests against Bangladesh and 23 in Tests against Zimbabwe. In 156 first class matches excluding Tests, he took 10 wickets in a match just twice. These aren't the kind of figures one would expect of a bowler capable of really cashing in against minnows. You might say he only he only played a handful of Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. But he played his entire career for Victoria, over 50 matches for St Kilda and several seasons for Hampshire.

By comparison, Murali averaged 14 in the county championship, 13 against Bangladesh and 16 against Zimbabwe - pretty much half Warne's average against the corresponding opposition. And there aren't really any teams of first grade standard or higher in which Warne played more than a handful of matches and consistently dominated to the extent Murali did against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and in the county championship. He simply wasn't that sort of bowler.

That's not to say Warne couldn't bowl as effectively as Murali in big matches against top sides, as he showed many times in the Ashes, the World Cup and on many other occasions including big series against Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

I may wander a bit in reply. Most of my posts here are teasing. Its not that I don't rate a certain poster just the coordinates of that poster and the topic of Murali, for whom he has a seemingly irrational though understandable love. We all have favourites. My opinion on Murali and the issues around his controversies are I think Hair was within his rights and was right to call him. The administrators subsequent solution to the issue of throwing was reasonable and is conclusive. I disagree with some of the justifications regarding the misunderstanding of flexion. Their application of the new rules was initially a little slack and maybe Ajmal benefitted from administrators not willing to provoke another controversy. Murali has complied with the rules of cricket. His record is valid. Its easy to understand why some people rate him the greatest spinner and probably bowler ever. Its not as if he doesn't bring a lot to the table.

I think your post raises a fair point. Warne was probably a little like Miller in that he wouldn't put lesser opponents away. That speaks more of his personality rather than a comment on his skill, though it would still be to the comparative detriment of his figures. Neither am I implying that Murali was a downhill skier. In fact you could say he showed his lesser opponents greater respect by taking the opportunities against them more seriously. As an aside, if I were a county chairman I'd see greater value in employing Murali based on the figures you've provided.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not convinced Warne's stats would have improved that much if he had played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as much as Murali.

Not reading the rest of your post because I'm lazy but I agree. He might have averaged 18-20 against them but I don't seem him bullying them as much as Murali.

I don't think that was ever the discussion though. I don't even know why Warne is being brought into it. It was just about Murali benefiting from it, which is indisputable.

 

[cnerd123]

tbh I think Warne is more of an 'uphill skier', in that his method of bowling relied quite a bit on being able to put the batsmen under pressure. The pressure on a batsman in club/domestic cricket, or in a massive mismatch, is not the same as the pressure on a batsman in a big series with a lot a stake. Warne's ability to set traps and deceive batsmen really shone in those circumstances. In comparison, Murali's bowling was built around just bowling a lot of very good to unplayable deliveries and constantly testing a batsman's technique, he'd thrive at any level of cricket, no matter what was on the line.

 

[GotSpin]

Warne was just one of those guys that delivered on the big stage. I'm not exactly sure either how spin friendly all these first class matches pitches were either

 

[TheJediBrah]

tbh I think Warne is more of an 'uphill skier', in that his method of bowling relied quite a bit on being able to put the batsmen under pressure. The pressure on a batsman in club/domestic cricket, or in a massive mismatch, is not the same as the pressure on a batsman in a big series with a lot a stake. Warne's ability to set traps and deceive batsmen really shone in those circumstances. In comparison, Murali's bowling was built around just bowling a lot of very good to unplayable deliveries and constantly testing a batsman's technique, he'd thrive at any level of cricket, no matter what was on the line.

And Murali relied more on beneficial pitch conditions, whereas Warne was just as effective in almost all conditions.