Imran Khan vs Shane Warne (as bowlers)

[Adorable Asshole]

Yeah MacGill was great but he was no Warne.

Close enough I reckon.

 

[subshakerz]

Every era has outstanding quick bowlers. Can't think of another cricketer at all like Warne.

Let's not confuse exclusivity with effectiveness.

 

[Slifer]

There is not a single batting lineup Marshall had to bowl to that was anywhere near as good as India/Aus of the 2000s. The only great lineup of his era was his own team's. It is nonsensical to compare records like this.

Ok and he never bowled to any batting lineup as pathetic as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Murali played a full 20% of his tests vs those two teams.

Under no circumstances do I believe if Marshall played India/Australia of the 2000s would he average 32 and 36 respectively. Be realistic.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Under no circumstances do I believe if Marshall played India/Australia of the 2000s would he average 32 and 36 respectively. Be realistic.

Under no circumstances? Really? What if he toured there raw and early in his career, got injured halfway through the second and had one final tour when he got diarrhea. 32 and 36 are not "unrealistic" averages for any bowler to have in a country lmao. No one has any idea what his numbers would've been in a hypothetical like that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ok and he never bowled to any batting lineup as pathetic as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Murali played a full 20% of his tests vs those two teams.

This is a pointless retort. Subshakerz argument for separating the two was that Murali failed in Australia/India and Marshall didn't. Perfectly fair to point out the massive gulf in actual quality of the lineups the two bowled to.

Particularly Australia. It's literally the best Australian lineup ever for Murali vs the worst Australian lineup ever for Marshall.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok and he never bowled to any batting lineup as pathetic as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Murali played a full 20% of his tests vs those two teams.

Under no circumstances do I believe if Marshall played India/Australia of the 2000s would he average 32 and 36 respectively. Be realistic.

Unfortunately some here are stuck in this romantic delusion that the greatest spinners can transcend the limitations of their discipline and be just as effective as pacers.

The reality, as Sidhu who hammered both Murali and Warne, pointed out, is that any spinner really only has one good length they can bowl on consistently. Which means it just takes a batsmen skilled enough against spin to anticipate how they will bowl and neutralise or clobber them. Whereas a pacer has more options, he can york or bounce or adjust his length subtly if necessary and his pace means the batsman can't adjust as easily.

Because of this, you are always going to find more batsmen who can destroy top tier spinners than batsmen who can even be half as destructive against top tier pacers.

How many batsmen truly dominated Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Imran, etc. ?

 

[subshakerz]

This is a pointless retort. Subshakerz argument for separating the two was that Murali failed in Australia/India and Marshall didn't. Perfectly fair to point out the massive gulf in actual quality of the lineups the two bowled to.

Particularly Australia. It's literally the best Australian lineup ever for Murali vs the worst Australian lineup ever for Marshall.

No, you didn't get my point. Any player is judged by how they do against the best of their time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No, you didn't get my point. Any player is judged by how they do against the best of their time.

Marshall didnt have to bowl to the best in his time, that's the point. It is inherently an unfair criteria.

Now, if you said Hadlee or Imran, then I wouldnt argue.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall didnt have to bowl to the best in his time, that's the point. It is inherently an unfair criteria.

Now, if you said Hadlee or Imran, then I wouldnt argue.

Ok let's talk Imran vs Warne then.

Oh wait, Warne never bowled against his own lineup. Guess Imran gets the edge then.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ok let's talk Imran vs Warne then.

Oh wait, Warne never bowled against his own lineup. Guess Imran is better by default.

Yes exactly, dont use it as a criteria then. It's dumb.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes exactly, dont use it as a criteria then. It's dumb.

Let me clarify then. Judge bowlers by the best they got to face home and away in their time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Let me clarify then. Judge bowlers by the best they got to face home and away in their time.

What if the "best they got to face" for one of them was way way better

 

[subshakerz]

What if the "best they got to face" for one of them was way way better

Then we evaluate that performance.

If they did moderately ok, then we can possibly excuse them in a comparison.

You still can't excuse an outright failure against them though. That will be demerited, especially if the other being compared with succeeded against all they faced.

 

[Slifer]

Under no circumstances? Really? What if he toured there raw and early in his career, got injured halfway through the second and had one final tour when he got diarrhea. 32 and 36 are not "unrealistic" averages for any bowler to have in a country lmao. No one has any idea what his numbers would've been in a hypothetical like that.

Ok since we don't know what their numbers would have been the logical intelligent thing is to go with the numbers they actually have. Great!!

 

[Slifer]

This is a pointless retort. Subshakerz argument for separating the two was that Murali failed in Australia/India and Marshall didn't. Perfectly fair to point out the massive gulf in actual quality of the lineups the two bowled to.

Particularly Australia. It's literally the best Australian lineup ever for Murali vs the worst Australian lineup ever for Marshall.

Dude the point is, it balances out. Murali played formidable Aus and Indian teams but he also played pathetic Bangladesh and Zimbabwe teams. Marshall played vs zero minnows during his time.

 

[Slifer]

Marshall didnt have to bowl to the best in his time, that's the point. It is inherently an unfair criteria.

Now, if you said Hadlee or Imran, then I wouldnt argue.

Ok so then compare them vs common opponents: Hadlee vs Marshall compare them vs India, Australia, Pakistan and England. Looks like this:

Hadlee

Mts: 70
Wkts: 343
Ave: 23.3
SR: 52.4

Home: 24 SR 55
Away: 22.6 SR 50

Marshall

Mts: 74
Wkts: 340
Ave: 20.88
SR: 46.6

Home: 20.5 and SR 43.4
Away: 21.1 and SR 48.5

What's the next argument? That Marshall had better Home wkts? He was too short? Etc

 

[Slifer]

Marshall didnt have to bowl to the best in his time, that's the point. It is inherently an unfair criteria.

Now, if you said Hadlee or Imran, then I wouldnt argue.

So I assume you favor Murali over Warne for the highlighter reason.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ok so then compare them vs common opponents: Hadlee vs Marshall compare them vs India, Australia, Pakistan and England. Looks like this:

Hadlee

Mts: 70
Wkts: 343
Ave: 23.3
SR: 52.4

Home: 24 SR 55
Away: 22.6 SR 50

Marshall

Mts: 74
Wkts: 340
Ave: 20.88
SR: 46.6

Home: 20.5 and SR 43.4
Away: 21.1 and SR 48.5

What's the next argument? That Marshall had better Home wkts? He was too short? Etc

What are you even talking about, who is arguing Hadlee vs Marshall ffs

 

[OverratedSanity]

So I assume you favor Murali over Warne for the highlighter reason.

I rate Murali>Warne yes. But not because of that

 

[honestbharani]

Murali > Warne simply because Murali was the better bowler.