Spinners

[Eclipse]

As such, Richard 'assumed the extreme' (as he was entitled to do) and had a little dig (no surprise there).

Personally, I think that there is very little between Pollock, McGrath and Gillespie when all of them are bowling at their best with respect to extracting life from an otherwise unhelpful pitch, although as you correctly pointed out Gillespie does it a bit quicker (which, of course, he will cease to do in about 5 years as he slows down)

Were all entitaled to our own opinion but judgeding by what Richard said thats is that Gillespie is a swing bowler witch he quite clearly is not I said somthing about it. An honest opinion and be it correct or incorect I do have more ground's to comment on him and stand the chance of being correct given I have not missed a test match he has bowled in since about 1999.

I may be slightly biased mind you because he is my favorite bowler but if that is true it's unintentional I do beleve what I have said.

 

[luckyeddie]

Were all entitaled to our own opinion but judgeding by what Richard said thats is that Gillespie is a swing bowler witch he quite clearly is not

Neither is he a spinner.

Back on topic

 

[Richard]

were the hell did I say that?? what i said is that even on flat pitches he gets life out of them better than any bowler I have seen.

Somone has to do it the best and in my opinion that is gillespie.

You see, therein lies the problem. "Someone has to do it best". No, they don't. Different pitches have different amounts of life in them for different bowlers. Chaminda Vaas at his best can extract something out of any surface. So can Warne and Muralitharan.
In my opinion Gillespie and McGrath can exploit green or uneven conditions better and more consistently than anyone else, but neither are especially good at exploiting conditions where there is no seam, swing or uneven bounce. However, I am prepared to concede that they are better than I was before I spoke to Corey.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Vaas is a Hoggard, he needs the ball to swing or he is crap

 

[lord_of_darkness]

god no.. Vaas is pretty good!

dont ever make a silly comparison like that...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's right though. Vaas needs some measure of swing to be truly effective.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If Vaas was good in all conditions, he would have an average of below 25, like Gillespie and co., but he infact averages above 30

 

[Tom Halsey]

Sorry to start this up (again), but some people say Murali has a better record than Warne, which is true.

But consider that he plays about 60% of his games in the subcontinent.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hmmm...

Muttiah Muralitharan

in Australia (2 Tests)
3 wickets @ 116

in England (3 Tests)
24 wickets @ 21.54

in New Zealand (4 Tests)
13 wickets @ 29.38

in South Africa (6 Tests)
35 wickets @ 26.02

in the West Indies (4 Tests)
25 wickets @ 18.24

in Zimbabwe (5 Tests)
12 wickets @ 41.41

That's 24 Tests, meaning that Murali plays about 71-71% of his Tests on the subcontinent.

His record at home is:

49 Tests
309 wickets @ 20.17

It seems to me that it's very much a case of him not having to face the best. It's a bit like McGrath and Gillespie not having to bowl to Australia. Warne doesn't have a good record on the subcontinent because he has to bowl to the best players of spin in the world. Muralitharan doesn't have to bowl to the Sri Lankans.

That said, he does have to face the Indians and the Pakistanis...

in India (5 Tests)
15 wickets @ 48.73

in Pakistan (7 Tests)
49 wickets @ 21.48

Shane Warne in India (6 Tests)
20 wickets @ 52.25

in Pakistan (3 Tests)
18 wickets @ 28.00

Interesting stats. Make of them what you will.

 

[age_master]

interesting...

 

[Swervy]

there isnt that much to separate them is there

 

[tooextracool]

there isnt that much to separate them is there

except that one chucked his way to 491 wickets while the other didnt

 

[Swervy]

now now..lets not start on that one again.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Nope.

Whether Murali chucks or not, I reckon Warne (at his peak) was a better bowler anyway.

 

[Richard]

except that one chucked his way to 491 wickets while the other didnt

Lord give us strength.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

there isnt that much to separate them is there

Exactly - so why anyone bothers trying I don't know.
They're both fantastic bowlers who enjoy many of the same virtues (big spinning wrists, accuracy incredible for the amount of spin they impart, superbly disguised variations) and IMO there is no significant difference between their ability.

 

[Shane Warne]

I just read a very good article in the latest Inside Edge by Ashley Mallet & Richie Benaud , it was comparing Warne & MacGill & asking who was better.

So it just kind of rekindled this question in my mind , who , is the best spinner of All Time.

Did Benaud & Mallet give any opinions on the question? if so, what were they?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Mr. Warne, I'm flattered that you chose to quote me in your sig., but I'd appreciate if you do it in context.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

appaling

its very shocking and sad to see that shane "momma's boy" Warne is winning this poll and not murali. Probably becoz one eyed aussie fans make up the majority of this forum :rolleyes: O well ur entitled to have ur opinion.

IMO Murali is the best bowler EVER.

 

[Shane Warne]

Re: appaling

its very pleasing & good to see that shane "the greatest" Warne is winning this poll and not murali. Probably becoz he is the best spinner ever :rolleyes: I`m glad we are entitled to have our opinions.

IMO Warne is the best bowler EVER.

Agreed.