Best Spinner ever

[a massive zebra]

Hey I'm on your side here, but looking only at his wickets/match ratio, it doesn't make good reading, however as he rarley played in his prime, they have to be accepted.

His wickets/match ratio is low because he played loads of matches for England when he was opening the batting and hardly bowling at all, but far less in his bowling peak.

 

[a massive zebra]

When was the last time Shane Warne took 15 wickets in a Test?

 

[a massive zebra]

And when was the last time any spinner played the major hand in bowling a top class Test team out for 36?

 

[archie mac]

Wlfred Rhodes? I just took for granted that everyone would agree that he is an all time great

 

[cameeel]

Warne - The best spinner never to have the rules of the game changed on their behalf

 

[Tom Halsey]

Comparing Warne to the likes of Rhodes is possibly the most idiotic thing I've seen on these boards due to the advent of covered pitches etc, and as such I never usually vote on these types of threads.

Best I've seen is Warne IMO, doesn't mean he's the best ever though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Murali outperforms Warne in virtually every measurable category. There is no way an unbiased person could claim that Warne is better than Murali, except if they prefer one over the other. Murali has a better economy rate, a better average, a better strike rate, more wickets per test, more five fors and more ten fors (even while playing less tests). For example, Murali has played like 35 less tests than Warne, yet still has about 20 more five-fors, and 8 more ten-fors.

At risk of sparking another debate, all this has been brought up by the Murali contingent before, yet it means nothing. Even AMZ admits that Murali taking more wickets means nothing because he plays in a team where no-one else is there to take the wickets, and Murali has the advantage of playing over half of his games on dustbowls.

 

[silentstriker]

At risk of sparking another debate, all this has been brought up by the Murali contingent before, yet it means nothing. Even AMZ admits that Murali taking more wickets means nothing because he plays in a team where no-one else is there to take the wickets, and Murali has the advantage of playing over half of his games on dustbowls.

Well I agree with you, but Murali outperforms Warne in other places as well.

In any case, this is not for argument because Murali could average 5 with the ball, and it still wouldn't matter for me.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well I agree with you, but Murali outperforms Warne in other places as well.

No he doesn't - Murali's record outside the subcontinent is extremely similar to Warne's IIRC. IIRC it was almost exactly the same last time I checked (the last time Warne v Murali came up) and I doubt it'll have changed much.

Add in the fact that copious amounts of Murali's wickets were taken against minnows, which is what ultimately sways me into thinking Warne is better.

 

[JBH001]

His wickets/match ratio is low because he played loads of matches for England when he was opening the batting and hardly bowling at all, but far less in his bowling peak.

AMZ speaks true about this.

Rhodes began as a bowler, but as he began to concentrate on his batting in the mid portion of his career, more or less gave up his bowling - at least in Test matches.
In this middle period, he hardly bowled at all (perhaps only a few overs) or did not bowl at all - therefore the affect on his overall bowling stats. Later on, his batting declined and he turned back to his bowling though by that time, due to age, he had lost some of his zip and spin and had to depend more on flight and cunning.

In any case he bowled for his country at the age of 52!
To me that means something! Selected at that age, moreover he played a crucial role in the final test of the 1926 Ashes when recalled at the age of 48, by taking 6 wickets (incl 4 in the 2nd innings iirc).

Though, I may offend Grecian , I would say that Colin Blythe was perhaps the better spinner - as he had greater ability to turn the ball.

 

[archie mac]

AMZ speaks true about this.

Rhodes began as a bowler, but as he began to concentrate on his batting in the mid portion of his career, more or less gave up his bowling - at least in Test matches.
In this middle period, he hardly bowled at all (perhaps only a few overs) or did not bowl at all - therefore the affect on his overall bowling stats. Later on, his batting declined and he turned back to his bowling though by that time, due to age, he had lost some of his zip and spin and had to depend more on flight and cunning.

In any case he bowled for his country at the age of 52!
To me that means something! Selected at that age, moreover he played a crucial role in the final test of the 1926 Ashes when recalled at the age of 48, by taking 6 wickets (incl 4 in the 2nd innings iirc).

Though, I may offend Grecian , I would say that Colin Blythe was perhaps the better spinner - as he had greater ability to turn the ball.

Good post, Blythe was more then likely the better spinner, but he suffered a lot from nerves when playing at the hightest level, and as pressure is a big part of the game, I think Rhodes should be given the nod.

Another slow bowler that should be mentioned is Hugh Trumble

 

[JBH001]

Add in the fact that copious amounts of Murali's wickets were taken against minnows, which is what ultimately sways me into thinking Warne is better.

Well, 20 of Murali's test matches have been played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and his record against them is considerably better than his overall record.

Even so, Zimbabwe needs to be broken down into the pre Mugabe and post Mugabe phase - as in the pre Mugabe phase they did have a good test side with decent batsmen and bowlers and I would hardly classify them as minnows.

In any case, I removed Murali's record against Zim and Bang.
Here are his revised test career stats against all nations except the above.

88 Tests
29985 balls
12339 runs
520 wickets (5.9 wkts/test)
9/65 BBi
16/220 BBm
23.72 runs/wkt
57.66 balls/wkt
2.46 econ
43 5wi
13 10wm

These are Warne's total career figures.
Note, he played only 1 test versus Zimbabwe and his record his not much better than his career record, he has also played 2 tests against Bangladesh for a poorer record again them compared to his overall record.
Therefore Warne's figures against all test playing nations (not inclusive of second ashes test):

141 Test
39915 balls
17446 runs
689 wickets (4.88 wkts/test)
8/71 BBi
12/128 BBm
25.32 runs/wkt
57.35 balls/wkt
2.64 econ
36 5wi
10 10wm

Even removing the figures against Zim and Bang (though as I said Zim had a decent test side up until 2001 or thereabouts) Murali has better or equal figures in all departments.

 

[Slifer]

No he doesn't - Murali's record outside the subcontinent is extremely similar to Warne's IIRC. IIRC it was almost exactly the same last time I checked (the last time Warne v Murali came up) and I doubt it'll have changed much.

Add in the fact that copious amounts of Murali's wickets were taken against minnows, which is what ultimately sways me into thinking Warne is better.

Murali's away record is similar to Warne yet Warne has more world class bowlers around him and he doesnt have to bowl to his own awesome batting attack so imo things even out in the end. and as for Murali takin wkts against minnows. well thats not his fault when the major test nations decide to play more against each other than they do SL. with all due respect, if murali had more matches against RSA or England for example i think he wood still far outstrip Shane Warne. Such is the ineptness of these 2 teams against spin. if u have ne doubts, see murali's last 2 series against both teams.

 

[a massive zebra]

Thought you were a Warne man JBH?

 

[JBH001]

Good post, Blythe was more then likely the better spinner, but he suffered a lot from nerves when playing at the hightest level, and as pressure is a big part of the game, I think Rhodes should be given the nod.

Another slow bowler that should be mentioned is Hugh Trumble

Yeah, fair call AM.

Tbh I believe Rhodes to be the better spinner too - though Blythe did take 100 wickets in 19 Tests iirc, but I was sorta taking the part of Devils Advocate.

I have always been a fan of Rhodes ever since I read of him and Hirst making those runs in the last test of 1902 Ashes series. One of the all time greats imo - though I would not rank him as a genuine all rounder as he did not do both at the same time.

However, he was undisputably an exceptional cricketer.

Edit/

Incidentally, though the tale is of "lets get 'em in singles, Wilfred" for the final Ashes Test of 1902, Rhodes's first scoring shot was, iirc, a drive through the covers for 4!

 

[chaminda_00]

And people question why i took Murali and Warne out of the spinners battle. I've been on CW for like 2 years and everytime a Murali/Warne debate comes on we here the same old arguments, it so boring guys.

 

[JBH001]

Thought you were a Warne man JBH?

Ahah - I am more likely confused AMZ.

Seriously though, I ranked Warne slightly ahead because of his mental toughness and bowling nous. Murali in my mind has sometimes come off second in that department - as at certain times he had tended to go on the defensive too early or too often when opposing batman are taking the stick to him. Though, in Murali's favour he has had to play the role of strike and stock bowler which meant that if he was having a bad day, or up against a great batsman, or a batting line-up getting on top of him, continuing to attack was often not an option for him. The interests of the team meant a more defensive posture - something that Warne has not had to deal with, considering his supporting cast.

However, I still believe that Warne has the better cricketing brain and greater nous - but then, Murali with his range of abilities may simply have less need of these in any case.

I was a little shocked and disappointed though by Warne against KP in Adelaide.
It really changed some things in my mind about both bowlers, regarding bowling nous and ability to withstand pressure - Warne simply seemed to give up, and that was a little pathetic. It is true that Murali has had his own problems versus KP in England, but I think, come the end of the series he had won the war with KP. A lot is made of the runs Murali conceded against KP - but against a batsman of his class it is better to attack, and take a pasting, and get him out early as Murali did in the last 3 innings he bowled to him, iirc. I remember Bedi commenting somewhere about how he had bowled out Barry Richards, working to a plan on a flat pitch (in English County Cricket) after having conceded 16 runs in the over - and as far as Bedi was concerned, it was a worthy trade-off.
Murali did the same to KP I think, and eventually got on top of him, if only just.
It remains to be seen if Warne can do the same.

Therefore, as of now, I am unsure where I stand in the Murali vs Warne debate.
Despite my poor judgement a year ago (I said Murali was fading) Murali seems to be getting better and better, while Warne is not what he was - even it seems against the English, though 3 tests do remain to be played. But longevity is a part of the game and should be a factor in considering players - this will count for even more if Murali has some sense and ceases with the ODI's after the 2007 WC as Warne has been doing. In which case, assuming he remains free of injury, 800 wickets for Murali is well on the cards.
That may then be the best time to judge both careers, at the conclusion of both.

So as of now AMZ, I will take the cop out route and rank them as equal!

 

[JBH001]

However, I did vote for Murali!

*chuckles*

 

[Dasa]

At risk of sparking another debate, all this has been brought up by the Murali contingent before, yet it means nothing. Even AMZ admits that Murali taking more wickets means nothing because he plays in a team where no-one else is there to take the wickets, and Murali has the advantage of playing over half of his games on dustbowls.

That works both ways - batsmen play out Murali's overs and can attack at the other end because they're generally not facing anyone decent. At any rate, it seems to me that 'lone bowlers' tend to take more wickets, but at a higher average (e.g. Kumble) whereas bowlers in a pack take less wickets but at a low average (e.g. Wasim) - the difference is Murali takes more wickets, but maintains a low bowling average. It indicates to me that despite the best efforts of the batsman, he can still take wickets - and it's a great deal more difficult to take wickets against defensively minded batsman (as most batsmen are when they play Murali) as opposed to attacking batsman who are likely to give their wicket away.

 

[archie mac]

I think Murali a great bowler but I heard this on the ABC

Colin Eagar and Ian Meckiff are still on speaking terms, they met the other day, and Eagar told IM that if he was bowling under the current tolerance levels he would not be called for throwing.

Projecting, I think this means that Eagar would have called Murali if he played in the 60s, under the laws then in play.