Who is the no.1 spinner of the Post Packer Era?

[Ikki]

Hmm, well I believe he wouldn't of been, it's all conjecture really, and to call him "piss-poor player against spin", whilst admitting he did well at what he had to face, is a somewhat odd statement.

Just seems to me you wish to undervalue Warne's ball in anyway possible.

BTW "ball of the century", is a ridiculous overhype I'd agree. There are probably 100s of thousands of balls that have giving a batsman no chance of playing, and cleaned them up......

TBF, the "ball of the century" is as much about the circumstances in which it was bowled as the skill of the delivery itself.

 

[Migara]

But there were other players whose careers were ruined because the law wasn't changed. Murali's wasn't, so the ICC should get credit for that - I mean, if you agree with the rule change.

You don't agree with the rule change?

 

[grecian]

I have just typed that Warne's delivery to get Basil Ali is my favorite. SO I can't understand where I have undervalued Warne. There are much better deliveires by Warne to much better players of spin. That's it.

Well I was just trying to understand why you've got such a downer on Mike. I really don't see how you can justify "piss-poor" statement, did you watch him much?

Basit Ali was hardly a great player of either, or of any form of bowling.....

 

[Ikki]

You don't agree with the rule change?

Yes and no.

The point being that you whinge about Warne getting more LBW decisions yet leave out the fact that what the ICC did for Murali (as well as Cricket) was huge. Allegations of bias, especially against neutral umpires, is a low blow.

 

[JBH001]

I never said murali was a dumb bowler i think warne was a smarter bowler and he bowled the ball of the century for a reason id like to see murali bowl a ball like that plus if warne hadnt of got suspended he probably would have reached 800 test wickets

Murali has bowled quite a few balls comparable to Warne's 'ball of the century' (a ball of Butcher springs to mind). Both of them had the key ability to really rip their stock balls. There are quite a few vids on youtube floating around showing Murali pitching a couple of feet outside off and bringing it back in to hit leg stump. There were quite a lot of these earlier in Murali's career when he used to bowl his standard line outside off stump. The doosra means he has tended to bowl a lot straighter over the last few years than he used to (sometimes I think to his detriment as a bowler).

Anyway, if I have the time, will see if I can find some of those vids.

Edit/ bagapath has already posted the Butcher one up.

Edit 2/ vid of one of Murali's finest spells. 54 overs, 27 maidens, 65 runs, 9 wickets against England at the Oval in 1998. All he had at the time was the big spinning off break and a top spinner still in development. This spell really marked his arrival on the international stage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZrEPFtMZTI&feature=related

 

[Ikki]

People who keep saying there were "other balls like it" don't seem to understand that the ball bowled was excellent in itself, but the fact that he bowled it on his first ever ball against England/The Ashes meant something much more. It sent shockwaves as Warne was established as just not another spinner.

It made people look at spin differently and started a whole new wave of interest in spin. Amit Mishra said he owes his career to Warne after watching that ball, for example.

 

[Uppercut]

Amit Mishra

 

[Migara]

The point being that you whinge about Warne getting more LBW decisions

Warne gets more lbws because the way he bowls makes it easy for the umpires go give it. It has been a historically known fact. But you rarely get off spinners who can pitch the ball a yard outside off and still hit the stumps. The potential only was demonstrated after the hawk eye cam in to use. There is nothing to whinge, because RHB > LHB, and leggies will get more LBWs than offies who spin it a mile. But in Murali's case he was given far fewer number of LBWs he should have got.

 

[Migara]

People who keep saying there were "other balls like it" don't seem to understand that the ball bowled was excellent in itself, but the fact that he bowled it on his first ever ball against England/The Ashes meant something much more. It sent shockwaves as Warne was established as just not another spinner.

It made people look at spin differently and started a whole new wave of interest in spin. Amit Mishra said he owes his career to Warne after watching that ball, for example.

this people, I am sure are poms and Aussies. India, SL and Pakistan have seen Qadir a decade before Warne, and he used to produce such deliveries. Just because he was from Pakistan and hence no coverage of his feats were available like Warne's. If you can get WI of early 80s for less than 80, that shows there was a gun bowler has been in operation. Qadir kept the art live, but Warne took it to the world. When you say ball of the century made people think of spin differently, I am still wondering when Qadir took 9/56 against poms, how would they have felt.

 

[Migara]

Well I was just trying to understand why you've got such a downer on Mike. I really don't see how you can justify "piss-poor" statement, did you watch him much?

Basit Ali was hardly a great player of either, or of any form of bowling.....

Pont 1: Mike Gatting looke awful when ever I saw him play against India and Sri Lanka. He was groping against Warnaweera (an unothadox quick off spinner who possessed a doosra). I ahve not seen him before live, but I can judge him on what he has shown in the matches. He was utterly inefficient against spin.

May be he has been better in his youth. But on same note, Kumble, Warnaweera and Murali at that time were not even shadows of Murali / Warne / Kumble of post 2000.

Point 2: Gatting would have been teh better test player, but Basit Ali was umpteen times better ODI player who could biff likes of Ambrose and Walsh at will. His 127 of 90 odd balls agains West Indies tells a tale how good he was.Pakistani politics cause him to lose his place more than poor form.

 

[Ikki]

Warne gets more lbws because the way he bowls makes it easy for the umpires go give it. It has been a historically known fact. But you rarely get off spinners who can pitch the ball a yard outside off and still hit the stumps. The potential only was demonstrated after the hawk eye cam in to use. There is nothing to whinge, because RHB > LHB, and leggies will get more LBWs than offies who spin it a mile. But in Murali's case he was given far fewer number of LBWs he should have got.

You said Warne got his LBWs off aura whilst Murali didn't. I am pretty sure that's different to citing technical reasons.

Now why would Murali get less than he should have got? Because the umpires were biased against him? Back to my original point. If not for ICC he may not have even had a Test career to talk about. You conveniently forget that.

this people, I am sure are poms and Aussies. India, SL and Pakistan have seen Qadir a decade before Warne, and he used to produce such deliveries. Just because he was from Pakistan and hence no coverage of his feats were available like Warne's. If you can get WI of early 80s for less than 80, that shows there was a gun bowler has been in operation. Qadir kept the art live, but Warne took it to the world. When you say ball of the century made people think of spin differently, I am still wondering when Qadir took 9/56 against poms, how would they have felt.

I just gave you an example in Amit Mishra...he's from India.

Let's be frank, Abdul Qadir can't shine Warne's shoes. When Warne came to the scene he not only took spin to another level but Cricket too. People paid attention to him because of his somewhat good looks and new-age approach. The fact that he had instances like the Gatting ball and every other highlight reel he has helped make is why Warne is Warne. He did stuff when no one else could do them and was the main reason Australia became what it became for most of the past two decades.

 

[Migara]

Now why would Murali get less than he should have got? Because the umpires were biased against him?

No it was not. Umpires were reluctant to give LBWs on front food when they kicked the ball outside off. But hawk eye had shown that many kicked like that infact hits the stump on flush. Now that is the change I was referring to. It has nothing to do with ICC, since ICC has not accepted Hawkeye as a tool for desicion making. It only made umpites aware that even balls that they never dreamt of hitting the stumps, actually gets there. Or they knew it earlier, but were waiting for some method to justify their calls

 

[Migara]

Back to my original point. If not for ICC he may not have even had a Test career to talk about. You conveniently forget that.p

Imagine Murali's carrer end like this, and other umpires take a leaf out of Hairs book and starts calling others at slightest kink of action (which may be an illusion). Venkat calls Lee for chucking, and Asoka Silva (who is undoubtedly crap umpire) calls McGrath, and on testing shown to extend it over 10 degrees! That would have ended careers of many/

Then ICC was forced to look at the crap throwing rule because SLC, BCCI and PCB, sensing the conspiracy, threw their weights around, and for a change was found to be correct in the stance.

I just gave you an example in Amit Mishra...he's from India.

Let's be frank, Abdul Qadir can't shine Warne's shoes.

No one denies that mate. But saying Warne kept the dying art of wrist spin alive is a joke. There were many Pakistanis bowling wrist spin a decade ago, and Qadir was the best in the business. Before Qadir there was Chandrashekar, who used to tie knots around the West Indies batsmen. Warne inherited that rich legacy of Chandra and Qadir. To be precise Warne got it from Qadir and Kumble from Chandra. Even SL had a very good wrist spinner Somachandra de Silva (averaging 28 in FC, with most of his games played in England), who averaged 36 with the ball in his twilight years (41 when he played his first test). Wrist spin was a art that was kepl alive in the subcontinent. You people just don't want to accept it, and give Warne more than his fair share for what he has done for wrist spin.

When Warne came to the scene he not only took spin to another level but Cricket too. People paid attention to him because of his somewhat good looks and new-age approach.

That is correct, but still he's not the one who kept that dying art alive. Infact,it was not even a dying art as presumed by many.

The fact that he had instances like the Gatting ball and every other highlight reel he has helped make is why Warne is Warne. He did stuff when no one else could do them and was the main reason Australia became what it became for most of the past two decades.

Sorry to say this, but Mcgrath is the one who took Aussies to the level they were few years back. Warne was a non-factor against India, and was not the threat gainst SL which he was against POMS or Saffies. Unless McGrath had cleaned up likes of Jayasuriya, Gurusinghe and Atapattu early, Warne would have got a it very tough against SL players. (Unlike Indians who bashed around Warne, Lankans wouls have grounded him down). Without McGrath, I would think Warne would have been a disaster against Indians and ordinary against Lankans.

 

[Ikki]

Did you hear me say he kept the dying art of spin bowling alive? You didn't. I said he took spin bowling to another level. The only comparable spinners to Warne before him were O'Reilly and Grimmett really. Neither Chandra nor Qadir were that good, especially away from home, to take the attention away from the dominance that was pace bowling at the time. That's why Warne is credited for keeping it alive because it had been some 60 years since a spin bowler of his caliber, a true match-winner had come about. It was becoming less and less relevant until he came.

 

[Top_Cat]

No one denies that mate. But saying Warne kept the dying art of wrist spin alive is a joke. There were many Pakistanis bowling wrist spin a decade ago, and Qadir was the best in the business. Before Qadir there was Chandrashekar, who used to tie knots around the West Indies batsmen. Warne inherited that rich legacy of Chandra and Qadir. To be precise Warne got it from Qadir and Kumble from Chandra. Even SL had a very good wrist spinner Somachandra de Silva (averaging 28 in FC, with most of his games played in England), who averaged 36 with the ball in his twilight years (41 when he played his first test). Wrist spin was a art that was kepl alive in the subcontinent. You people just don't want to accept it, and give Warne more than his fair share for what he has done for wrist spin.

To be honest, most serious commentators regarding this really mean that he revived leggies as a serious bowling option within Australia. Probably the first genuine Test leggie Aussies had since Benords. Had a few journeymen and FC cricket had a couple going around but Warne playing Tests and doing well certainly encouraged kids around Australia to take it up again because in district cricket, guys who turned the ball (but might have bowled a few more 4 balls than others) just weren't getting a go.

Mind you, aside from Mushie and Kumble, there weren't that many Test-class leggies around when Warne started too. Suddenly every team wanted one which resulted in experimentation with some really ordinary bowles who wouldn't have gotten a look-in otherwise. Just showed that to be a leggie was one thing but to be a really good one was a different thing entirely.

But yeah, Warne is often credited with being the first serious one-day leggie. Again, really only in Aus because all you have to do is see Pakistan's success with Mustaq in the 1992 WC to see he was an awesome ODI bowler well before Warne was.

Sorry to say this, but Mcgrath is the one who took Aussies to the level they were few years back. Warne was a non-factor against India, and was not the threat gainst SL which he was against POMS or Saffies. Unless McGrath had cleaned up likes of Jayasuriya, Gurusinghe and Atapattu early, Warne would have got a it very tough against SL players. (Unlike Indians who bashed around Warne, Lankans wouls have grounded him down). Without McGrath, I would think Warne would have been a disaster against Indians and ordinary against Lankans.

I do agree McGrath was a bigger factor (in India especially) but it's not as if the SL batsmen were lashing out at Warne having been unable to get McGrath/Gillespie/Kasper away. He definitely dismissed batsmen off his own back generally. There's little doubt he benefitted from the pressure at the other end but I think McGrath did too. No doubt, though, that McGrath knocking over Jayasuriya early so often helped the team cause a lot but, well, he's a new-ball bowler so he's expected to take early poles.

Warne's lack of success in India doesn't say all that much about him as a bowler I reckon. No visiting leggie has been successful in India since, well, probably Benaud. It's a tough place to bowl leg-spin, especially against batsmen of that calibre. Very unforgiving.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry to say this, but Mcgrath is the one who took Aussies to the level they were few years back. Warne was a non-factor against India, and was not the threat gainst SL which he was against POMS or Saffies. Unless McGrath had cleaned up likes of Jayasuriya, Gurusinghe and Atapattu early, Warne would have got a it very tough against SL players. (Unlike Indians who bashed around Warne, Lankans wouls have grounded him down). Without McGrath, I would think Warne would have been a disaster against Indians and ordinary against Lankans.

The only team Warne was really not a threat against was India. Against SL in SL he was better than he'd been anywhere. Generally, Warne outperfomed Murali every time they met. In fact, the last time Warne played in Sri Lanka and was MOTS McGrath didn't even play.

The fact is, since McGrath emerged Warne was better without McGrath than McGrath was without Warne. McGrath himself regards Warne as the greatest bowler ever - nevermind spinner. Warne didn't have much of a reliance on McGrath. I'm not going to get into it...but Warne was our greatest match winner - this in a team full of them.

 

[Migara]

The only team Warne was really not a threat against was India. Against SL in SL he was better than he'd been anywhere. Generally, Warne outperfomed Murali every time they met. In fact, the last time Warne played in Sri Lanka and was MOTS McGrath didn't even play.

The fact is, since McGrath emerged Warne was better without McGrath than McGrath was without Warne. McGrath himself regards Warne as the greatest bowler ever - nevermind spinner. Warne didn't have much of a reliance on McGrath. I'm not going to get into it...but Warne was our greatest match winner - this in a team full of them.

Except that one series, McGrath did better than Warne against SL. Even when McGrath was not playing people like Kasper took wickets. During Warne's career against SL, Other AUssie bowlers did much better than him, and most of them are pacers. Stats. Warne was sucessful against SL because other bowlers were much better than him. Warne never had the experiance of other bowlers getting in to tatters against SL except in few ODI matches, and historically he failed to make any dent in tat famous 1996 WC when Aussie pacers had been succesfully neutraliized.

And here against India. If not for McGrath, difficult to think what would have been happened to Warne. Scarey.

 

[Migara]

When Warne came to the scene he not only took spin to another level but Cricket too. People paid attention to him because of his somewhat good looks and new-age approach.

Did he take spin bowler to a level greater than that was displayed by O'Riely and Grimmet? And Remember Murali and Kumble are Warne's compariots, and have a big chunk of making spinners more palatable for the public. Warne always gets more praise than he actually deserves, while others are forgotten for making spin bowling a threat in current era.

 

[Migara]

Mind you, aside from Mushie and Kumble, there weren't that many Test-class leggies around when Warne started too. Suddenly every team wanted one which resulted in experimentation with some really ordinary bowles who wouldn't have gotten a look-in otherwise. Just showed that to be a leggie was one thing but to be a really good one was a different thing entirely.

How many offies of test class were there when Murali started his career?

 

[Ikki]

Except that one series, McGrath did better than Warne against SL. Even when McGrath was not playing people like Kasper took wickets. During Warne's career against SL, Other AUssie bowlers did much better than him, and most of them are pacers. Stats. Warne was sucessful against SL because other bowlers were much better than him. Warne never had the experiance of other bowlers getting in to tatters against SL except in few ODI matches, and historically he failed to make any dent in tat famous 1996 WC when Aussie pacers had been succesfully neutraliized.

In Warne's early tests against SL and India when he was green he did get hit around, other than that he has been fantastic against SL. Remember, you're comparing a fast bowler with a spinner, you can't exactly do a straight stats comparison on average and SR as they bowl at different times and have different roles.

Frankly, Warne didn't really have much trouble with SL. The implication that he needed McGrath was already proven false. Then you say Kasper was taking wickets when McGrath wasn't there...hello...Warne was better than Kasper and would be taking wickets regardless if he was there. You're just trying to undersell Warne again.

And here against India. If not for McGrath, difficult to think what would have been happened to Warne. Scarey.

In matches against SL without McGrath, Warne's figures are as follows: