CW's Ranking of Spinners (Tests)

[ataraxia]

I hope O'Reilly gets first and Grimmett second, because (a) it gets us the correct result (b) it illustrates drawbacks of FPP in three-person tussles and (c) we get three rounds of Murali vs Warne

 

[cnerd123]

Murali

I like Warne, Grimmett and O'Reilly, but Murali's body of work and statistical feats are unmatched. There will never be another cricketer who will accomplish what he has. Plus he passes the eye test, looked damn near unplayable for most of his career, and no person can honestly say they think batting against him would be easier than batting against any of the 3 Aussie leggies, except for perhaps on some of the dead strips of tarmac that pass for pitches in Australia.

 

[Migara]

Murali

 

[Bitmap]

Murali

 

[ankitj]

Murali

 

[subshakerz]

Murali

I like Warne, Grimmett and O'Reilly, but Murali's body of work and statistical feats are unmatched. There will never be another cricketer who will accomplish what he has. Plus he passes the eye test, looked damn near unplayable for most of his career, and no person can honestly say they think batting against him would be easier than batting against any of the 3 Aussie leggies, except for perhaps on some of the dead strips of tarmac that pass for pitches in Australia.

I used to go for Murali but switched as of late for Warne. I realize that Murali's stats are much more impressive, but once you take away the minnow wickets, the difference between them is smaller.

What pulled me over for Warne is:

- Murali not really having success in Australia, which is a big hole in his resume. If he had a good series there under his belt, his case would be much stronger.
- Murali also failing in India, just not to the same degree as Warne, which takes away the main argument against Warne
- More importantly, Murali, by his own captain's admission, was a defensive bowler whose gameplan was to control and bottle up the batsman and wait for wickets using his variations. Warne, by comparison, was more adaptable, willing to take risks to get wickets and come back after getting hammered.

Sidhu commented how even when he was pasting Warne and Murali, Warne never asked for an extra fielder to block runs through mid-off/cover as he would still be fishing for a wicket, whereas Murali would. Lara mentioned that if he survived Murali's confusing variations long enough, Murali would lose confidence whereas Warne would keep going after him.

Still, the difference between them is small. I readily admit that Murali on song and in the right conditions is more deadly than Warne.

 

[Migara]

I used to go for Murali but switched as of late for Warne. I realize that Murali's stats are much more impressive, but once you take away the minnow wickets, the difference between them is smaller.

What pulled me over for Warne is:

- Murali not really having success in Australia, which is a big hole in his resume. If he had a good series there under his belt, his case would be much stronger.
- Murali also failing in India, just not to the same degree as Warne, which takes away the main argument against Warne
- More importantly, Murali, by his own captain's admission, was a defensive bowler whose gameplan was to control and bottle up the batsman and wait for wickets using his variations. Warne, by comparison, was more adaptable, willing to take risks to get wickets and come back after getting hammered.

Sidhu commented how even when he was pasting Warne and Murali, Warne never asked for an extra fielder to block runs through mid-off/cover as he would still be fishing for a wicket, whereas Murali would. Lara mentioned that if he survived Murali's confusing variations long enough, Murali would lose confidence whereas Warne would keep going after him.

Still, the difference between them is small.

I don't know whether Murali has actually failed in India in comparison to Warne, but he was responsible for one or two monumental collapses of Indian side, which Warne could never do.

- Warnes record against India was poor. Both home and away. Both in test and limited overs. At least Murali bossed Indians at home (pitches are very similar for batsman, so "home advantage" is non existant)
- Warne was poor against West Indies in West Indies
- Murali was never a "defensive" bowler. His plans were less flashy, but we see they are more effective.
- If you remove minnows and home matches and compare matches against common oppositions (adjusting for the number of matches), both end up with very similar SR and Average. Even then, Murali had bowled 5 - 10 overs more per game, which shows he was much fitter than Warne.
- If you ask me to choose the bowler I like I'd choose Warne. If you ask the bowler whom I want to win a match for my life, I'd pick Murali.

Edit: And Sidhu did not play Murali post 2000, where he was at his best. Sidhu howlever played Warne at his best in late 90s. Shewag would give the better comparison IMHO.

 

[Line and Length]

Murali

I like Warne, Grimmett and O'Reilly, but Murali's body of work and statistical feats are unmatched. There will never be another cricketer who will accomplish what he has. Plus he passes the eye test, looked damn near unplayable for most of his career, and no person can honestly say they think batting against him would be easier than batting against any of the 3 Aussie leggies, except for perhaps on some of the dead strips of tarmac that pass for pitches in Australia.

If we are comparing Murali with these 3 Aussie spinners, I believe we should look at their records away from their home tracks.
Away from SL, Murali's average goes from 22.73 out to 27.79, and that's not withstanding his games against minnows.
Understandably, away from the Australian wickets which are renowned for being non-spin friendly, Warne (24.62), O'Reilly (21.18) and Grimmett (23.86) all average below their overall test average. In the interest of impartiality, we should look at records away from both Australia and Sri Lanka.
In that context, their averages are:
O'Reilly 85 w @ 21.18
Grimmett 111 @ 23.86
Warne 341 @ 25.12
Murali 295 @ 25.86

On this basis I rank Warne above Murali and both above the other pair by virtue of the volume of wickets and the fact that wickets were more batsman-friendly in the modern era (no uncovered wickets which became a spinner's delight).

 

[Xix2565]

Murali

 

[subshakerz]

If we are comparing Murali with these 3 Aussie spinners, I believe we should look at their records away from their home tracks.
Away from SL, Murali's average goes from 22.73 out to 27.79, and that's not withstanding his games against minnows.
Understandably, away from the Australian wickets which are renowned for being non-spin friendly, Warne (24.62), O'Reilly (21.18) and Grimmett (23.86) all average below their overall test average. In the interest of impartiality, we should look at records away from both Australia and Sri Lanka.
In that context, their averages are:
O'Reilly 85 w @ 21.18
Grimmett 111 @ 23.86
Warne 341 @ 25.12
Murali 295 @ 25.86

On this basis I rank Warne above Murali and both above the other pair by virtue of the volume of wickets and the fact that wickets were more batsman-friendly in the modern era (no uncovered wickets which became a spinner's delight).

Once you take out minnow's wickets, Murali's away average goes up to 29. So quite a difference.

 

[mr_mister]

so is Sidhu some kind of secret GOAT against spin. must have been terrible against pace to not be an ATG batsman

the reverse robin smith?

 

[ankitj]

Murali won an MoM in India and one more against India at home. Warne came nowhere close to doing this. Has 5-6 fivers and 2 tenfers against India. If this is a factor, Murali wins by a huge margin.

 

[mr_mister]

too many question marks over Murali's action

 

[subshakerz]

Murali won an MoM in India and one more against India at home. Warne came nowhere close to doing this. Has 5-6 fivers and 2 tenfers against India. If this is a factor, Murali wins by a huge margin.

He didn't. Murali's success against India was almost all at home, except for that magical 7-fer in 2005.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't want to enter a Warne/Murali debate again, there isn't much separating them both. 1/2 either way is fine. However rating O'Reilly or Grimmet above Murali is nonsense given their respective career accomplishments.

 

[trundler]

Murali

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Murali

 

[_00_deathscar]

- More importantly, Murali, by his own captain's admission, was a defensive bowler whose gameplan was to control and bottle up the batsman and wait for wickets using his variations. Warne, by comparison, was more adaptable, willing to take risks to get wickets and come back after getting hammered.

This right here is the perfect example of 'how playing for a great team benefits you'.

Incidentally, Brett Lee being the other.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Murali

 

[OverratedSanity]

Murali