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

[_00_deathscar]

Well ok, pretty short generation though. He’s even younger than Faf.

It's a general thing though - Cook quite young when he made his debut and it was midway through 2000s.

 

[Ikki]

Eh, I wouldn't phrase it that way. I think Murali exploited beneficial conditions better than Warne did, but that's not a demerit and shouldn't be held against him.

It's just that when your bowling is built around playing a batsman's mind as much his technique, like Warne, then you have more tools to call upon when the pitch is flat.

This is why Warne struggled with India - he got very helpful conditions to bowl in, but couldn't get into the heads of the Indian batsmen, and so found himself lacking. Once he lost the mental battle he didn't have the depth of skill to test them technically - see Sachin, VVS and Dravid repeatedly driving balls outside legstump to cover. Murali was better against Indian batsmen in the same conditions because his bowling was more about constantly testing a batsmen's skill and technique. He didn't play many mind games. So when he went to Australia and found the pitches unsuited to his bowling, he didn't have a bag of tricks like Warne to call upon.

I love how these topics are still going on

Just some points:

- Warne bowled better in SL than Murali did, and his sample size is against the home side that was one of the best players of spin, far outplaying him in those series.
- Warne bowled better than Murali in India as well, and this is despite having several career threatening injuries surrounding those series.
- Warne never got to bowl in the dustbowls of SL against India, remembering that Warne creamed SL there.
- Let's not even get started on Murali in Australia.
- Warne was much better than Murali away from home in general (even allowing for Bang/Zim descrepancy) and Murali was better at home than Warne was Australia - remembering that Australia wasn't good for spin and SL rivalled India for how good it was for spin.

As I've gotten away from cricket, I have grown fonder of Murali the person as opposed to Warne the person. But as a cricketer, I maintain now as I did then that Warne was simply the better player and match-winning bowler. Murali wasn't far behind but his figures, just like Warne's, have to be put into context. In ODIs Murali has a better claim. Murali himself said Warne was the greatest bowler.

 

[a massive zebra]

You do an excellent job of never letting the facts get in the way of a good argument!

- Warne bowled better in SL than Murali did, and his sample size is against the home side that was one of the best players of spin, far outplaying him in those series.

So Warne "far outplayed" someone who got more wickets than him at a similar average against a better team, sure.

- Warne bowled better than Murali in India as well, and this is despite having several career threatening injuries surrounding those series.

No he didn't. Warne ended up with a poor but very marginally better record than Murali in India because India recognised Murali as a greater threat and spent considerable time developing an effective plan to tackle him. Such extensive preparation wasn't necessary against Warne.

And no one except biased Australian fanboys buy into this nonsense about career threatening injuries impacting his effectiveness against India. He simply wasn't up to the job.

- Warne never got to bowl in the dustbowls of SL against India, remembering that Warne creamed SL there.

The very same "dustbowls" on which no spinner other than Murali, Warne and Mendis took over 20 wickets at an average of under 26 over the entire duration of Warne's career?

- Let's not even get started on Murali in Australia.

This is actually a fair point, if not very well made. Murali's failure in Australia is one of the few blots on his otherwise virtuoso career.

- Warne was much better than Murali away from home in general (even allowing for Bang/Zim descrepancy)

How exactly was Warne "much better than Murali away from home in general"? Despite his relative lack of bowling support, Murali had a better average and strike rate in Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies. Warne had a better average and strike rate in South Africa. They both failed in India but the Indians recognised Murali as a greater threat and spent considerable time developing a plan to tackle him that wasn't necessary against Warne.

It would be disingenuous to award points for Zimbabwe where Warne played just one match, and inappropriate to do so for India where they both failed. So that looks like 5-1 to Murali to me. Even if this overstates Murali's dominance abroad, there is absolutely no way Warne was "much better away from home than Murali in general".

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't know why you always try and compare Murali and Warne's careers and imagine that if they swapped positions that Murali would have done better. He almost certainly wouldn't. Even disregarding opposition/minnows etc, Murali playing more than half his games in Asia is huge. Likewise Warne playing home games in a spinners graveyard. If Murali had to play half his games in Aus his career would have looked awful.

If Murali was born Australian I don't think he would have made it as a professional cricketer because the Australian system simply doesn't allow bowlers with such, ahem...., "unconventional" actions to seep through into their first class system.

 

[stephen]

You do an excellent job of never letting the facts get in the way of a good argument!



So Warne "far outplayed" someone who got more wickets than him at a similar average against a better team, sure.



No he didn't. Warne ended up with a poor but very marginally better record than Murali in India because India recognised Murali as a greater threat and spent considerable time developing an effective plan to tackle him. Such extensive preparation wasn't necessary against Warne.

And no one except biased Australian fanboys buy into this nonsense about career threatening injuries impacting his effectiveness against India. He simply wasn't up to the job.



The very same "dustbowls" on which no spinner other than Murali, Warne and Mendis took over 20 wickets at an average of under 26 over the entire duration of Warne's career?



This is actually a fair point, if not very well made. Murali's failure in Australia is one of the few blots on his otherwise virtuoso career.



How exactly was Warne "much better than Murali away from home in general"? Despite his relative lack of bowling support, Murali had a better average and strike rate in Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies. Warne had a better average and strike rate in South Africa. They both failed in India but the Indians recognised Murali as a greater threat and spent considerable time developing a plan to tackle him that wasn't necessary against Warne.

It would be disingenuous to award points for Zimbabwe where Warne played just one match, and inappropriate to do so for India where they both failed. So that looks like 5-1 to Murali to me. Even if this overstates Murali's dominance abroad, there is absolutely no way Warne was "much better away from home than Murali in general".

Saying that India prepared for Murali but not for Warne is such a silly thing to say. Tendulkar had a net specifically prepared to turn and prepared non stop against leg spinners in preparation for facing Warne.

Both bowlers underperformed against India in India and that's surprising because India were very weak against finger spinners (Clarke 5/9 for example), so one would expect Murali to have performed better than he did. One would have expected Warne to perform better too, given his performance against other leading nations at the time.

 

[Chrish]

Murali was a wrist spinner..

 

[stephen]

Murali was a wrist spinner..

He turned it like an off spinner.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali was a wrist spinner..

elbow spinner

 

[Shri]

Yeah, shame he didn't spin his elbow into some ****s' faces.

 

[cnerd123]

Both bowlers underperformed against India in India and that's surprising because India were very weak against finger spinners (Clarke 5/9 for example), so one would expect Murali to have performed better than he did.

Oh God this is an awful argument

'Let's pick one-off performances by individual bowlers against a batting lineup and use that to generalise said batting lineup's abilities against a certain type of bowling, completely ignoring the context of form, conditions, match situation, and the fact that no two bowlers are identical even if they practice the same style. That will prove my point!"

 

[Shri]

Oh God this is an awful argument

'Let's pick one-off performances by individual bowlers against a batting lineup and use that to generalise said batting lineup's abilities against a certain type of bowling, completely ignoring the context of form, conditions, match situation, and the fact that no two bowlers are identical even if they practice the same style. That will prove my point!"

Border got a 6fer against India. Clearly a better bowler than Warne.

 

[ankitj]

Murali has 7 fivers against India and 2 MoMs. Lay it off Warne fanboys.

Let Indian fans judge it for you who watched these 2 against India with some emotional investment.

 

[cnerd123]

Border got a 6fer against India. Clearly a better bowler than Warne.

It's strange how Warne struggled against India given Border exposed this weakness to wrist spin. Warne just wasn't that good clearly

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's strange how Warne struggled against India given Border exposed this weakness to wrist spin. Warne just wasn't that good clearly

Border was a finger spinner m8

(Clarke 5/9 for example)

*6/9 m8

get your **** together guys, I can't be correcting you on here all day I have work to do

 

[harsh.ag]

Poor Warne, having to hail from a country where leg spinners haven't found much success. Much easier for Murali, playing in SL with no one else to grab away his share of wickets. And even then he struggled against India. Woeful record. Even more woeful when you consider Warne was injured/fat when playing against India.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne was injured/fat when playing against India.

True. We should adjust his average down 5-10 runs to account for his borderline obesity.

 

[Coronis]

True. We should adjust his average down 5-10 runs to account for his borderline obesity.

That is why his roundness is the GOAT.

 

[Shri]

True. We should adjust his average down 5-10 runs to account for his borderline obesity.

Borderline?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Borderline?

I was being politically correct

 

[the big bambino]

Oh God this is an awful argument

'Let's pick one-off performances by individual bowlers against a batting lineup and use that to generalise said batting lineup's abilities against a certain type of bowling, completely ignoring the context of form, conditions, match situation, and the fact that no two bowlers are identical even if they practice the same style. That will prove my point!"

You're as salty as Jim Laker talking about Hugh Tayfield.