richie benaud's greatest 11

[Richard]

Shane Warne is the best spin bowler of all time.

Almost all evidence points to that Sydney Barnes was better.

 

[Josh]

Almost all evidence points to that Sydney Barnes was better.

But he was not a spin bowler...

 

[Richard]

Yes, he was.

 

[Mister Wright]

You may both be right.

From his player page

"Barnes was creative, one of the first bowlers really to use the seam of a new ball and combine swing so subtly with spin that few batsmen could distinguish one from the other."

 

[Richard]

He was primarily a spinner, he was just capable of bowling medium-slow when he wanted to.
Quite a remarkable bowler, really.
But then again C_C is likely to dismiss him as a superman player in the embryonic stages of a game (despite the fact he actually came at the point which is presently slap-bang in the middle)

 

[C_C]

Don't make me roll out the old arguments about Bangladesh/Zimbabwe matches, lack of bowlers to share wickets with and supportive (dare I say doctored?) home pitches that have all inflated Murali's stats.

Warne gets outclassed by murali not only against zim and bangladesh btu also agaisnt practically every other opposition apart from PAK i think.

As per lack of bowlers to share wickets, you are correct- that is one big reason for murali's superior wickets/match ratio compared Warne's. But lack of support bowlers should mean a higher average for similar-skilled players.
Simply because batsmen succumb against sustained excellence far more often than one-man army.
But Murali's average is superior to Warne's.- significantly so. That implies he is a much much better bowler than Warne is.

And Warne has bombed against the best of the best far worse than Murali has.

But then again C_C is likely to dismiss him as a superman player in the embryonic stages of a game (despite the fact he actually came at the point which is presently slap-bang in the middle)

cricket was in its embryonic stages until well after WWII. so a bowler in 1910s is not slap-bang in the middle but in the embryonic stages.

 

[Richard]

Cricket was in it's embryonic stages in the late-18th-century.
In the 19th and 20th it was well into maturity - Barnes' career was just about slap-bang in the middle, Bradman's was in the later stages at present.
I've shown that quite clearly.

 

[Josh]

If Warne had never succombe to injury, or his mother's pills, he'd be probably 150 wickets in front of Murali... if not further.

 

[Richard]

If Murali hadn't succombed to injury he'd be ahead of where he is, too.
There is no way you can provide any decent evidence that either is superior - they are for-all-intents-and-purposes equal.

 

[C_C]

Cricket was in it's embryonic stages in the late-18th-century.
In the 19th and 20th it was well into maturity - Barnes' career was just about slap-bang in the middle, Bradman's was in the later stages at present.
I've shown that quite clearly.

i am sorry but a sport is not into maturity before its professional days. atleast not by professional standards.
Its still a picnic on sunday compared to professional era.

If Warne had never succombe to injury, or his mother's pills, he'd be probably 150 wickets in front of Murali... if not further.

murali has his share of injuries too. And doesnt matter if warne was 150 or 200 wickets ahead of murali, eh still would eventually lose the rec and would still be an inferior spinner.

Richard - the fact that Warne averages worse than murali despite having quality bowlers to back him up, suggests that he is inferior. He is also inferior against IND, the best players of spin and the guage for the best are performances against the best.

 

[Josh]

inferior??

If you say Warne is inferior, then every bowler other than Murali must be. Which is not the case.

 

[Josh]

Yes, he was.

Then why in all hell is he picked in Richie's side as a seam bowler??

 

[Josh]

SF Barnes (ENG) -
Matches: 27 Overs: 1312.1 Runs: 3106 Wickets: 189 BB (Inns.): 9/103 BB (Match): 17/159 Average: 16.43 Economy: 2.36 S/R: 41.6 5WI: 24 10WM: 7

SK Warne (AUS) -
Matches: 119 Overs: 5558.1 Runs: 14309 Wickets: 561# BB (Inns.): 8/71 BB (Match): 12/128 Average: 25.50 Economy: 2.57 S/R: 59.4 5WI: 28# 10WM: 8#

M Muralitharan (SL) -

Matches: 91 Overs: 5187.2 Runs: 12165 Wickets: 532# BB (Inns.): 9/51 BB (Match): 16/220 Average: 22.86 Economy: 2.34 S/R: 58.5 5WI: 44# 10WM: 13#

#Murali's 5 Wicket Hauls: 16 against "lower-quality opposition" of the times he has played: Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies

#Murali's 10 Wicket Hauls: 8 against the same 3 teams.

#Murali's Wickets: 87 Wickets Vs. Zimbabwe from 14 matches
20 wickets Vs. Bangladesh from 2 matches
53 wickets Vs. West Indies from 8 matches
=160 wickets from "lower-quality opposition" from 24 matches

#Warne's 5 Wicket Hauls: 1 match played against Zimbabwe bearing 6 wickets, 0 matches against Bangladesh, 16 against West Indies which would have included when WI were world-dominant.

#Warne's 10 Wicket Hauls: 2 against Sri Lanka, England, South Africa & Pakistan.

#Warne's Wickets: 6 Wickets Vs. Zimbabwe from 1 match
NEVER played Bangladesh
132 wickets Vs. England from 26 matches
43 wickets Vs. India from 14 matches
86 wickets Vs. New Zealand from 17 matches
101 wickets Vs. South Africa from 18 matches

=6 wickets from "lower-quality opposition" from 1 match
=362 wickets from "top notch" opposition from 75 matches

 

[steds]

Shane Warne is the best spin bowler of all time.

That is debatable, with Murali and all. Murali has taken nearly as many wickets in less matches, with better average, strike rate and economy. He has changed the face of cricket on his own. And it appears sour grapes be the reason that so many Australians seem to dislike him

Shane Warne has to be in the top 5 of ANY bowler of all time.

That is also debatable, with Murali, Marshall, Imran Khan, Holding, Trueman, Barnes, Spofforth, Statham, Lillee, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, McGrath, Garner, etc.

Shane Warne is the greatest Victorian of all time.

That's just stupid! How does that fit into your case for including him? By that statement, the greatest Lancastrian, Western australian, Bajan, Trinidadian, Yorkie, Welshman, New South Welshman, Brummy, etc. should all be included.
What makes Victorians better than everyone else?

W***er!

 

[Josh]

What makes Victorians better than everyone else?

Nothing.

It wasn't a very serious comment because I hadn't imagined a large outrage.

Let's settle by saying Warne is the best leg spinner of all time, and Murali is the best off spinner of all time.

 

[steds]

53 wickets Vs. West Indies from 8 matches
=160 wickets from "lower-quality opposition" from 24 matches

16 against West Indies which would have included when WI were world-dominant.

a) I would hardly call the West Indies "lower quality opposition"

b) Warne made his debut against West Indies in December 92, Murali in December 93. You don't go from being "World dominant" to "lower quality" in 12 months

 

[steds]

Let's settle by saying Warne is the best leg spinner of all time, and Murali is the best off spinner of all time.

That'll do

 

[sledger]

hehehehe that was most amusing, havnt seen such an argument on here for a while.

 

[C_C]

Lets keep it to common oppositions minus bangladesh and zimbabe then

England:

Warne- 26 matches, 132 wickets @ 23.03, B-B: 8-71, 5-fer: 7 10-fer: 2 St/R: 59.03

Murali- 11 matches, 69 wickets @ 20.74, B-B: 9-65, 5-fer: 4 10-fer: 2 St/R: 66.8

murali has a better average and wickets/match and 5-fer propensity, Warne better strike rate.
Murali 1 Warne 0


India


Warne- 14 matches, 43 wickets @47.19, B-B: 6-125, 5-fer: 1 10-fer:0 St/R: 91.28

Murali- 12 matches, 51 wickets @ 32.94, B-B: 8-87, 5-fer: 3 10-fer: 1 St/R: 74.94

against the best players of spin, Murali outguns warne in every category- wicket/match, average, five-fer propensity, 10-fers and strike rate.

Murali 2 Warne 0

New Zealand

Warne- 17 matches, 86 wickets @ 24.85, B-B: 6-31, 5-fers: 2 10-fers: 0 St/R: 57.92

Murali- 10 matches, 52 wickets @ 23.69, B-B: 5-30, 5-fers: 4 10-fers: 0 St/R: 61.85

apart from strike rate, again Warne gets outclassed by murali in every category.

Murali 3 Warne 0

Pakistan

Warne- 14 matches, 83 wickets @ 18.94, B-b: 7-23, 5-fers: 6 10-fers: 2 St/R: 44.11

Murali- 12 matches, 68 wickets @ 23.85, B-B: 6-71, 5-fers: 4 10-fers: 1
St/R: 55.04

Warne outclasses murali in every category.
Murali 3 Warne 1

South Africa

Warne - 18 matches, 101 wickets @ 22.35 B-B: 7-56 5-fers: 6 10-fers: 2 St/R: 60.69

Murali- 13 matches, 82 wickets @ 23.34 B-B: 7-84 5-fers: 8 10-fers: 2 St/R: 60.12

Murali with a better wicket/match, strike rate, five-fer and 10-fer rate, warne with a better aveage.
tough cookies but i'll call this even [average is the most critical of all bowling stats].

Murali 3 Warne 1 draw 1

WI

Warne- 16 matches, 49 wickets @ 32.27, B-B: 7-52 5-fers: 1 10-fers: 0 St/R: 67.02

Murali- 8 matches, 53 wickets @ 19.60 B-B: 6-81 5-fers: 6 10-fers: 2 St/R: 46.21

again, Murali outclasses warne in every category.

Murali 4 Warne 1 Draw 1.

you see, the BD-ZIM question is a non-starter.
Warne gets outclassed by murali against every single opposition barring pakistan.

murali > Warne.

 

[Swervy]

Lets keep it to common oppositions minus bangladesh and zimbabe then

England:

Warne- 26 matches, 132 wickets @ 23.03, B-B: 8-71, 5-fer: 7 10-fer: 2 St/R: 59.03

Murali- 11 matches, 69 wickets @ 20.74, B-B: 9-65, 5-fer: 4 10-fer: 2 St/R: 66.8

murali has a better average and wickets/match and 5-fer propensity, Warne better strike rate.
Murali 1 Warne 0


India


Warne- 14 matches, 43 wickets @47.19, B-B: 6-125, 5-fer: 1 10-fer:0 St/R: 91.28

Murali- 12 matches, 51 wickets @ 32.94, B-B: 8-87, 5-fer: 3 10-fer: 1 St/R: 74.94

against the best players of spin, Murali outguns warne in every category- wicket/match, average, five-fer propensity, 10-fers and strike rate.

Murali 2 Warne 0

New Zealand

Warne- 17 matches, 86 wickets @ 24.85, B-B: 6-31, 5-fers: 2 10-fers: 0 St/R: 57.92

Murali- 10 matches, 52 wickets @ 23.69, B-B: 5-30, 5-fers: 4 10-fers: 0 St/R: 61.85

apart from strike rate, again Warne gets outclassed by murali in every category.

Murali 3 Warne 0

Pakistan

Warne- 14 matches, 83 wickets @ 18.94, B-b: 7-23, 5-fers: 6 10-fers: 2 St/R: 44.11

Murali- 12 matches, 68 wickets @ 23.85, B-B: 6-71, 5-fers: 4 10-fers: 1
St/R: 55.04

Warne outclasses murali in every category.
Murali 3 Warne 1

South Africa

Warne - 18 matches, 101 wickets @ 22.35 B-B: 7-56 5-fers: 6 10-fers: 2 St/R: 60.69

Murali- 13 matches, 82 wickets @ 23.34 B-B: 7-84 5-fers: 8 10-fers: 2 St/R: 60.12

Murali with a better wicket/match, strike rate, five-fer and 10-fer rate, warne with a better aveage.
tough cookies but i'll call this even [average is the most critical of all bowling stats].

Murali 3 Warne 1 draw 1

WI

Warne- 16 matches, 49 wickets @ 32.27, B-B: 7-52 5-fers: 1 10-fers: 0 St/R: 67.02

Murali- 8 matches, 53 wickets @ 19.60 B-B: 6-81 5-fers: 6 10-fers: 2 St/R: 46.21

again, Murali outclasses warne in every category.

Murali 4 Warne 1 Draw 1.

you see, the BD-ZIM question is a non-starter.
Warne gets outclassed by murali against every single opposition barring pakistan.

murali > Warne.

its quite a simplistic way of looking at it...

as has been said on numerous occasions, they are two completely different types of bowlers, who have played most of their cricket in different conditions.

Why cant we settle at saying Murali, the number one offie
Warne, the number one leggy