Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[Ikki]

...Well I'll give you the answer...

Using your figures only....If Warne takes all 20 wickets, he'll do that giving away 508 runs in 192 overs (2 days a nd 1 hour, say)....So I have more than 2 days 2 sessions and 1 hour to make 509 runs...

Now, if O'Reilley takes 20 wickets, he'll do that giving away 452 runs in 232 overs (2 and a half days, say....though in those days the time taken would have been much less)...So I have almost 2 and a half day to make 453 runs...

Since available time is clearly not an issue in both scenario, I'll choose to chase 55 less runs...

Now, don't tell me they won't take 20 wickets alone...It was your assumption, not mine

Er, but that's not the point. Just because they can doesn't mean it is best to. A batsman that strikes 20 balls faster than another batsman, averaging relatively the same, is a much better batsman. It is more difficult to score lots of runs and do it quickly. The same with wicket taking, it is more difficult to concede less runs and take wickets quicker. Such feats require more skill and the player with more skill is usually the better bowler .

What you're saying is akin to believing:

Bowler A: Avg. 23 SR 70
Bowler B: Avg. 24 SR 55

Hence Bowler A > Bowler B.

Or the analogy I gave earlier. A Ferrari and a Ford may get to a destination on time but the fact that the Ferrari does it even quicker than what it is needed makes it the better car - even if you don't need a better car.

 

[Ikki]

Also, what you said is when chasing. What if you're not chasing? What if you're using that 40 overs to build a bigger lead than that 56 runs you would have saved otherwise? If so, you would want more than 46 runs for those 40 overs.

 

[weldone]

Er, but that's not the point. Just because they can doesn't mean it is best to. A batsman that strikes 20 balls faster than another batsman, averaging relatively the same, is a much better batsman. It is more difficult to score lots of runs and do it quickly. The same with wicket taking, it is more difficult to concede less runs and take wickets quicker. Such feats require more skill and the player with more skill is usually the better bowler .

What you're saying is akin to believing:

Bowler A: Avg. 23 SR 70
Bowler B: Avg. 24 SR 55

Hence Bowler A > Bowler B.

Or the analogy I gave earlier. A Ferrari and a Ford may get to a destination on time but the fact that the Ferrari does it even quicker than what it is needed makes it the better car - even if you don't need a better car.

Depends on scenario, on the last day if I have to save a match then I'd choose the one with similar average and less strike rate because he stays on the crease for more balls 'on an average'.

Yes, according to me bowler A > bowler B if all the other conditions are pretty same for the two bowlers (the pitches, quality of opposition etc.)...

No, that's an inappropriate analogy...the analogy of Ford and Ferrari will be appropriate while discussing about two bowlers with similar number of total wickets but different average...

It seems this debate will go on and on....So it's better that we agree to disagree ...

 

[weldone]

Also, what you said is when chasing. What if you're not chasing? What if you're using that 40 overs to build a bigger lead than that 56 runs you would have saved otherwise? If so, you would want more than 46 runs for those 40 overs.

What if you lose your 20 wickets for 480 runs? ... Will you choose Warne to take 20 wickets for you which he does giving away 508 runs or will you choose O'Reilly who does the same giving away 453 runs?

 

[weldone]

Yes, but generally if you're taking longer to get the wicket, then that raises the possibility of the batting team still scoring runs from not only yourself, but the bowler up the other end, which means that the batting team will be chasing more. This is the more important part of the SR discussion for mine. Not that I really like it at all.

What if the bowler up the other end takes wickets giving away less runs per wickets and also taking less balls per wicket? (someone like McGrath)...He'll want someone who gives away less runs per over and also gives away less runs per wicket on the other hand to restrict the opposition to as small a total as possible...

 

[Ikki]

Depends on scenario, on the last day if I have to save a match then I'd choose the one with similar average and less strike rate because he stays on the crease for more balls 'on an average'.

Yes, according to me bowler A > bowler B if all the other conditions are pretty same for the two bowlers (the pitches, quality of opposition etc.)...

No, that's an inappropriate analogy...the analogy of Ford and Ferrari will be appropriate while discussing about two bowlers with similar number of total wickets but different average...

It seems this debate will go on and on....So it's better that we agree to disagree ...

Well, no, it's totally fine that we disagree. You say Bowler A > Bowler B and based on that I can see your reasoning. I don't agree with it, but at least you're consistent. I would have found it hypocritical if you had said Bowler B was better but still held on to the time argument.

 

[weldone]

Well, no, it's totally fine that we disagree. You say Bowler A > Bowler B and based on that I can see your reasoning. I don't agree with it, but at least you're consistent. I would have found it hypocritical if you had said Bowler B was better but still held on to the time argument.

Good...The only reason I feel someone may show (as I have stated earlier in this thread) to prove Warne was a better bowler than O'Reilly is if one challenges O'Reilly wouldn't have been able to maintain similar statistics if he had to play 140 tests and/or had to claim 600 wickets...Though even that point is debatable, given his consistency and longitivity at the FC level (an average of 16 with more than 700 wickets)...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I defy anyone who bother's to read the last few pages of this argument to do so without comtemplating suicide.

 

[weldone]

I defy anyone who bother's to read the last few pages of this argument to do so without comtemplating suicide.

That shows you have contemplated suicide as you couldn't have made this comment without reading the last few pages of this argument...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That shows you have contemplated suicide as you couldn't have made this comment without reading the last few pages of this argument...

That actually makes sense......unlike the dross of the aforementioned pages.
Anyway the pub beckons........keep up the um.........good work.

 

[Sanz]

Gooch played from 1990-1995 and Flower played from 1992 onwards. How are they not contemporaries?

Thank You for posting the meaning of the word contemporary, I wish you had read and understood the meaning of it.

Based on your understanding of the word contemporary, Donald and KapilDev are contemporaries. Vengsarkar and Brian Lara are contemporaries, Richards and Tendulkar are contemporaries too.

Guess what I have had enough of your BS.

 

[Ikki]

Thank You for posting the meaning of the word contemporary, I wish you had read and understood the meaning of it.

Based on your understanding of the word contemporary, Donald and KapilDev are contemporaries. Vengsarkar and Brian Lara are contemporaries, Richards and Tendulkar are contemporaries too.

Guess what I have had enough of your BS.

Your posts are increasingly bordering on the idiotic recently.

Let's start from the beginning since you have a history of misreading things or misunderstanding them.

For the comparison I made about the 90s Zimbabwe and S.Africa of the 1930s, I used the 10 year frame for each point I made.

Now, some genius thought that England in the 90s were weaker than Zimbabwe in the 90s. Who did he name as better batsmen? Flower, Goodwin and Johnson. Flower, yes, he is representative of the Zimbabweans squad in the 90s. Goodwin and Johnson have played few tests and did so in about a 2 year span at the END of the decade.

Firstly, how do these 2 players represent Zimbabwe's strength in the 90s? Neither played long enough and one only averages 24 with the bat. You telling me there seriously wasn't an English player as good as Johnson?

Secondly, when I argue that England WERE better I use examples like Gooch, because he played for 5 years in that decade and 45 tests - this being more than Johnson and Goodwin combined.

Thirdly, you state that Gooch is not a contemporary to Flower...let's just agree. What does it change? I conceded before that I doubt England had a batsman of Flower's strength in the 90s. Does that make Zimbabwe stronger than England? No it doesn't, so the point is moot anyway. That Flower, and two players who barely had a test career - one that didn't even have a good average - made Zimbabwe better than England is a joke. What makes it doubly funny is to see you try and purvey that comedy as truth.

Fourthly and finally, Flower himself, by your own measure, is not a contemporary of Goodwin or Johnson. Gooch played in more years together with Flower than those two. So...the whole argument is squashed before it even begins.

Read the whole argument then give your two cents. That way I don't have to come and clarify everything for you as if you were some kid.

 

[pasag]

Kazoholic, did you get the email sent recently?

 

[Ikki]

Nope. I joined here a while ago. It probably isn't my regular email.

Edit: I just read it. I think the request is more than fair.

 

[Julian87]

Clarrie.

 

[DaRick]

For now, Bill O' Reilly takes on the mantle as the second greatest leg-spinner ever, with Warne (until I learn more about O' Reilly) just ahead. If O' Reilly was better, then, like I've said before, he must have been truly captivating, for, IMO, no bowler I've ever been privy to has been as enthralling to watch as Warne.

 

[roseboy64]

Richard and weldone are wrong on the bastmen issue IMO. Would rather have more time to bat than field and the bowler with the faster SR ensures that.

 

[Richard]

Obviously, you'd rather a SR of 55 than 100. But we're not talking absurdly large gaps like that.

 

[Migara]

Now, some genius thought that England in the 90s were weaker than Zimbabwe in the 90s. Who did he name as better batsmen? Flower, Goodwin and Johnson. Flower, yes, he is representative of the Zimbabweans squad in the 90s. Goodwin and Johnson have played few tests and did so in about a 2 year span at the END of the decade.

Gooch averaging 42.58, and Goodwin 42.84, I am puzzled who has a better average?

Then In first 19 matches Gooch averaged 31.93, and Good wn averaged 42.84, and that also batting in a minnow side.

Then rant about Neil Johnson, and I am going to compare him to "great" English all rounder Andrew Flintoff. Since Johnson was not given time to improve, I am using performances in their first 13 matches.

Johnson Batting Avg - 24.2, Bowling Avg - 39.6
Flintoff Batting Avg - 18.85, Bowling Avg 46.65

Now that's now Johnson stands against his English contemparies.

 

[Migara]

Firstly, how do these 2 players represent Zimbabwe's strength in the 90s? Neither played long enough and one only averages 24 with the bat. You telling me there seriously wasn't an English player as good as Johnson?

Point 1, Johnson and Goodwin weren't allowed to play long enough. With the talent they had, they would have easily improved.

Point 2, Goodwin was the 3rd main batsman Zimbabwe had after Houghton and Flower, and Johnson was their top all rounder before Streak started performing with the bat. And you have omitted name of Flower as well. A. Flower, Goodwin, Johnson, Streak and G. Flower were the core material of the best Zimbabwean side ever to play cricket (Add Paul Strang as well, a rare sow bowling all rounder). I ahve mentioned names of three to make that core. So how it is not representing the strength of the ZIM side?