Best Spinner ever

[The Sean]

This is a toughie, and to be honest it’s hard to add anything to this debate that hasn’t been said ad nauseum for years now by every other cricket fan on the planet. But that’s never stopped me before, so…

I’ve always preferred Warne, probably because of the Aussie bias, and probably also because – without wanting to start an internet war – I’ve always believed that Murali chucks at least some of his deliveries. As Matt79 said, I don’t believe this makes Murali a cheat, because it’s the way he’s always bowled, and the ICC have always backed him to the point of even changing the arm-bending rules out to 15 degrees to make his action (where he just happened to bend is arm by 14 degrees) more legal . One of my main arguments against Murali was also the fact that he’s played something like 21 Tests (out of 108) against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh – virtually one fifth of his Test cricket. Warne, on the other hand, has played just 3 out of 142 Tests against those two countries. I’d always used that stat as a justification for Murali’s statistical dominance…but then two things happened – 1) I had a look at Murali’s stats against other countries, and he still outperformed Warne. And 2) Warne got his shot against Bangladesh earlier this year and celebrated by taking 0/113.

Obviously, identifying a one-off performance like that is not giving the whole picture, but if we also take the first three innings of this Ashes series, Warne has taken (on home soil, remember) 0/25, 4/122, 1/167. When was the last time Murali had a run like that, against any country? Not to mention the fact that Warney, as has been mentioned by more than one poster, takes a lot of his wickets in the lower order after Ooh Ahh has cleaned up most of the top 6.

After all that my heart still says Warney, for what he’s contributed to Australian cricket and for the fact that I’ve seen him bowl at such close quarters for so many years and that the laws of cricket have never been changed for his benefit, but it’s hard for the head to say anything other than Murali. Warne seems to be described by everyone on Australian and British TV from Richie Benaud down as the greatest bowler of all time. Personally I don’t see how you can call a bloke the greatest bowler of all time, when it’s questionable whether he’s even the best spinner of his own generation.

So I guess that’s the long, convoluted way of saying I have no sodding clue who’s better…

 

[Slifer]

Great post. Even stevens then??

 

[The Sean]

Thanks mate.

Yeah, I'm happy to share the love and call it a draw.

 

[mohammad16]

Murali should not be discredited because of his action, MORE then his elbow, WAY more then his elbow, its his wrist that actually generates that spin
if he could bowl with a straight arm, he would generate nearly the same amount of spin, if not the same

i can bowl murali wrist off spinners with a perfectly straight arm and let me tell u, i get way more spin then traditional finger spinners, but nothing liek murali because my wrist are nowhere near as flexible

ITS ALL IN THE WRIST
so please stop discrediting murali when comparing him to warne because of his action

 

[JBH001]

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.

Hmmm, fair enough - but what does that really mean?
Nothing, really.

After all, did Meckiff suffer from Polio? Did he have a permanently bent arm? Did he have a super flexible uber wrist? And so on? Doubt it?

If anyone has read MCC by Colin Cowdrey, he made a comment about Robin Hobb, a left arm spinner for an English County Side (my apologies if the details are a little sketchy as it has been years since I read the book and I am quoting from a patchy memory) who had a dount jointed elbow. When he bowled, according to the then strict interpretation of the law it looked like he was chucking it - when actually he was not - and often got a hard ride from umpires as a result of it. In situations like these, and with Murali's now, I am glad that the rules have been changed, as in some cases the strict application of them would have been totally unjust.
Therefore, if Eager had called Murali, knowing what we know now, he would have been in the wrong. Guilty of indiscrimate application of an unfair law.

I think most of us accept Murali's action as being legitimate, at least his 'normal' one - it is the doosra that sometimes seems to break the law in too unacceptable a fashion. Even going beyond the 15 degree threshold, or seeming to at any rate.

But even if the doosra does tend to flirt even with the revised rules - is this such a bad thing? Why are we so hard on the doosra when we absolutely love reverse swing bowling?
Despite the fact that both doosra and reverse swing tend to contravene the strict interpretation and enforcement of cricketing law? Why the double standard?

 

[age_master]

Warne.

 

[Matt79]

Hmmm, fair enough - but what does that really mean?
Nothing, really.

After all, did Meckiff suffer from Polio? Did he have a permanently bent arm? Did he have a super flexible uber wrist? And so on? Doubt it?

If anyone has read MCC by Colin Cowdrey, he made a comment about Robin Hobb, a left arm spinner for an English County Side (my apologies if the details are a little sketchy as it has been years since I read the book and I am quoting from a patchy memory) who had a dount jointed elbow. When he bowled, according to the then strict interpretation of the law it looked like he was chucking it - when actually he was not - and often got a hard ride from umpires as a result of it. In situations like these, and with Murali's now, I am glad that the rules have been changed, as in some cases the strict application of them would have been totally unjust.
Therefore, if Eager had called Murali, knowing what we know now, he would have been in the wrong. Guilty of indiscrimate application of an unfair law.

I think most of us accept Murali's action as being legitimate, at least his 'normal' one - it is the doosra that sometimes seems to break the law in too unacceptable a fashion. Even going beyond the 15 degree threshold, or seeming to at any rate.

But even if the doosra does tend to flirt even with the revised rules - is this such a bad thing? Why are we so hard on the doosra when we absolutely love reverse swing bowling?
Despite the fact that both doosra and reverse swing tend to contravene the strict interpretation and enforcement of cricketing law? Why the double standard?

How does reverse swing contravene the letter of the law?

 

[Matt79]

if we also take the first three innings of this Ashes series, Warne has taken (on home soil, remember) 0/25, 4/122, 1/167

Sean... is there something you'd like to say to Mr Warne after today?

 

[The Sean]

Sean... is there something you'd like to say to Mr Warne after today?

I never doubted him for a second! In fact, I phoned Warney last night and said I'd (sort of)dissed him in CW and if he wanted any credibility with the cricketing fraternity at all ever again he'd have to go out and bowl like the champion I knew he could be. He thought for a moment and then replied "Fair enough Sean, I'll do it for you."

True story.

 

[R_D]

Sean... is there something you'd like to say to Mr Warne after today?

Fifth day of a test match.. You expect a great spinner to do well on that pitch and with a team like Eng playing... you'd be laughing. Eng are probaly as adept as Bang team at playing spin.

I was having a laugh the other day watching Warne bowl to KP thinking to myself... is this supposed to be the greatest leg spinner ever or as Richie puts it perhaps the GREATEST BOWLER of all time.

 

[The Sean]

After all that my heart still says Warney, for what he’s contributed to Australian cricket and for the fact that I’ve seen him bowl at such close quarters for so many years and that the laws of cricket have never been changed for his benefit

Though if we ARE just going to randomly quote me out of context...

 

[Matt79]

Fifth day of a test match.. You expect a great spinner to do well on that pitch and with a team like Eng playing... you'd be laughing. Eng are probaly as adept as Bang team at playing spin.

I was having a laugh the other day watching Warne bowl to KP thinking to myself... is this supposed to be the greatest leg spinner ever or as Richie puts it perhaps the GREATEST BOWLER of all time.

Funny though - nobody was expecting him to do that this morning.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, geez there's some rubbish posts on this page. Reverse swing contravenes the rules? England as good as Bangladesh against spin? Did you see the way Pietersen played Warne? Or Murali six months ago, for that matter? I can't think of any Bangladesh player that can play the two best spinners of the last 50 years with utter contempt.

 

[The Sean]

How does reverse swing contravene the letter of the law?

Was wondering the exact same thing myself. I must be missing something...

 

[Nate]

Voted 'Other' for Dave Mohammed.

But I think Muralitharan. Anyone have Murali and Warne`s stats against countries other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

 

[Matt79]

Got a feeling A Massive Zebra might tbh...

 

[Ikki]

Did I mention Warne is a legend - the greatest ever?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

On Warne today, this is a perfect example of why you can't judge players solely on their statistical records.

In the match, Warne took 5 for 216 from 85 overs, which is around his normal rate of wicket taking, but with an average of 43 and a strike rate over 100. That makes it a pretty poor match by his standards. Only his economy rate was lower than his career record.

Nevertheless, Warne was one of the best players in the game. He played a crucial role in the first innings keeping the runs down on a flat wicket, though overall he didn't bowl particularly well and got the worst figures of his whole career. His 4/49 in the second innings is a good set of figures, but doesn't tell the story of his impact at all. Without Warne, Australia wouldn't even have gotten close to winning the match. He only took the two top order wickets, but bowling non-stop from one end for the whole day and the pressure he exerted had a huge impact on England's negative style of play which eventually stopped them from setting a reasonable target and saving the game. When Warne's career is long over and people are writing about his achievements in the game, there's no doubt today's performance will be mentioned as an example of his brilliance, and the fact that his test average is higher than it was before the match doesn't have any bearing on that.

He took the first two wickets to fall to a bowler on the day, including the top scorer and the best batsman in the team, and his pressure caused a run-out, which Warne himself finished off with a direct hit from close range after Clarke's wayward throw. After lunch he came back and picked up two more wickets when the tail looked set to keep Australia in the field for long enough to earn the draw. To put it simply, 5/216 doesn't tell the full story of his impact, just like you'll see plenty of games where a player will take a sizable bag of wickets because nobody else is capable of taking them and have basically no impact on the outcome of the match. Both Warne and Murali have done this from time to time.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting Murali wouldn't be capable of any of the things Warne did today (though I do rate Warne's presence on the field and his ability to exert pressure higher), but it's things like this which make saying "X player has an average 2 runs better than Y player, therefore he is inarguably the superior player" pretty stupid, IMO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

But when you look just how many more wickets per match Murali averages, it shows that he is a helluva lot more than Warne.

 

[The Sean]

On Warne today, this is a perfect example of why you can't judge players solely on their statistical records.

In the match, Warne took 5 for 216 from 85 overs, which is around his normal rate of wicket taking, but with an average of 43 and a strike rate over 100. That makes it a pretty poor match by his standards. Only his economy rate was lower than his career record.

Nevertheless, Warne was one of the best players in the game. He played a crucial role in the first innings keeping the runs down on a flat wicket, though overall he didn't bowl particularly well and got the worst figures of his whole career. His 4/49 in the second innings is a good set of figures, but doesn't tell the story of his impact at all. Without Warne, Australia wouldn't even have gotten close to winning the match. He only took the two top order wickets, but bowling non-stop from one end for the whole day and the pressure he exerted had a huge impact on England's negative style of play which eventually stopped them from setting a reasonable target and saving the game. When Warne's career is long over and people are writing about his achievements in the game, there's no doubt today's performance will be mentioned as an example of his brilliance, and the fact that his test average is higher than it was before the match doesn't have any bearing on that.

He took the first two wickets to fall to a bowler on the day, including the top scorer and the best batsman in the team, and his pressure caused a run-out, which Warne himself finished off with a direct hit from close range after Clarke's wayward throw. After lunch he came back and picked up two more wickets when the tail looked set to keep Australia in the field for long enough to earn the draw. To put it simply, 5/216 doesn't tell the full story of his impact, just like you'll see plenty of games where a player will take a sizable bag of wickets because nobody else is capable of taking them and have basically no impact on the outcome of the match. Both Warne and Murali have done this from time to time.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting Murali wouldn't be capable of any of the things Warne did today (though I do rate Warne's presence on the field and his ability to exert pressure higher), but it's things like this which make saying "X player has an average 2 runs better than Y player, therefore he is inarguably the superior player" pretty stupid, IMO.

Couldn't agree more - I'm a huge stats nerd, and seem to memorize them all much more than any human being needs to (though I daresay I'm in good company on this forum... ) but I'm the first to acknowledge that you can't just judge players' greatness purely on their numbers. Firstly, there's so much more to it than that...and secondly, how dull a game would cricket be if we couldn't judge players on what they made us feel?