Does anybody dispute this about Bill O'Rielly?

[Swervy]

Wouldn't be a surprise.

I mean, most of the time he gives off the impression that he hasn't seen any cricket ever.

no comment

 

[Richard]

just as you make some vaild points you have to go and ruin it by coming out with rubbish like '(Qadir) was near hopeless away'

You look at his away average, and yes, doesnt look too good, but towards the mid to late 80s, thats when I felt he was at his best, and he performed well both home and away. Maybe you never really got to see him really turn it on....even IN England

Undoubtedly he had the odd good game away from home. But for most of his career he was hopeless. There's no way repeated 0-, 1- and expensive 2-fors are anything but.

 

[Richard]

no comment

At least you seemed to realise who you were talking to there.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

At least you seemed to realise who you were talking to there.

Yeah, that's what he was getting at by phrasing it like that.

A most telling response, my dear naive fellow.

 

[Swervy]

Undoubtedly he had the odd good game away from home. But for most of his career he was hopeless. There's no way repeated 0-, 1- and expensive 2-fors are anything but.

This is going back to the discussion re; Gary Sobers and whether you can judge a player merely off a scorecard or a particular set of figures without actually watching a fella play.

It is a complete joke for anyone to say that Qadir was hopeless away from home, with hopless meaning 'crap' I assume.

As with most leggies, apart from Warne in my lifetime, Qadir could be quite hit or miss. That tends to be the nature of the art. But as he developed with time he became more and more dangerous on unfamiliar territory. The England team were scared ****less by even the mention of his name, whether home or away. He managed to tear chunks out of WI in WI, he had success in Australia, albeit not as much. I think he did ok in NZ as well . Now you have to bear in mind that pitches in said territories were most definately geared towards the faster end of the spectrum when it comes to bowling.

Fair enough he didn't always take the wickets, but when he bowled you always felt that their was a wicket on the way. I know you don't beleive that one bowler can help another bowler take wickets, but I think Qadir had a similar effect, especially vs England, because England were terrified of him

 

[Goughy]

Qadir was a big name as he was the tallest midget in the world of spin bowling in the 80s.

I (a fast bowler) still have little touches of his action in mine from pretending to be him in the garden as a kid but I think its fair to say that he wasnt anything particuarly special (unless by special you count the treatment the umpires gave him at home, but lets not go there)

He was a good spinner in a time when good spinners didnt exist but he was little more than that. For those old enough to clearly remember when Warne first came on the scene, he blew the pundits, the public, the press and players away. There had been nothing like it before in recent memory. Qadir was part of the group of spinners that had carried the torch in the 80s but were being completely overtaken in terms of quality.

Ive seen both bowl (though in real time I was only a kid when I watched Qadir) but I would rate Mushy ahead of him in terms of leg-spin bowlers.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

It's interesting you say that and I wouldn't disagree with it.

But what baffles me is that Dickie Bird always rates Qadir as the best leg spinner he has seen. I would have thought he should know better, that's all. I also can't imagine him having any agenda.

Also, on the favorable home umpiring treatment which is definately a factor. Amazingly, one of his supporters main arguments is that he was infact hard done by by the conservative umpires of that era, as they couldn't comprehend what was going on and were overly cautious in favor of that batsman.

 

[Goughy]

Id take everything Dickie says with a pinch of salt. Definately a nice guy but not quite the full library.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

Id take everything Dickie says with a pinch of salt. Definately a nice guy but not quite the full library.

fair enough, I guess I just assumed he would have an understanding of the game considering all his picks in other catagories are more conventional.

 

[archie mac]

Tiger in No1 for me

Warne 2

And I would have Murali up the order somewhere

 

[archie mac]

Just one thing they talk about SFB not having a wrong-un which may suggest he was a leg-spinner

 

[shortpitched713]

O'Reilly took 144 Test wickets. Given the amount of cricket played back then, that's a fair amount of an impression.

Well yes, but from what I've heard he could have made more of an impression if it were not for anti-catholic sentiment that kept him out of the team for at least some of his career. As it is Grimmett did more, at least IMO.

 

[Perm]

As it is Grimmett did more, at least IMO.

Huge call. Grimmett is rated very highly as a spin bowler and is often unlucky not to be mentioned alongside Warne, Murali and O'Reilly. But Tiger is ranked much higher in people's opinions and I think that is rightly so. He is quite clearly ahead of Grimmett IMO and is talked of by some as the greatest ever, regardless of what is numbers say.

 

[archie mac]

Well yes, but from what I've heard he could have made more of an impression if it were not for anti-catholic sentiment that kept him out of the team for at least some of his career. As it is Grimmett did more, at least IMO.

He (O'Relley) was left out of the Test team because of his work as a teacher, as he was posted to outback locations

 

[oz_fan]

O'Reilly is definately in the top 3 spinners of all time IMO although it is hard to compare him to modern day spinners like Murali and Warne. Although Grimmett and O'Reilly have similar records Grimmett is often criticised for his poor record against England compared to both his own career record and O'Reilly's. I would still rate Grimmett in the top 5 spinners of all time probably at 4th behind O'Reilly.

 

[Richard]

This is going back to the discussion re; Gary Sobers and whether you can judge a player merely off a scorecard or a particular set of figures without actually watching a fella play.

It is a complete joke for anyone to say that Qadir was hopeless away from home, with hopless meaning 'crap' I assume.

As with most leggies, apart from Warne in my lifetime, Qadir could be quite hit or miss. That tends to be the nature of the art. But as he developed with time he became more and more dangerous on unfamiliar territory. The England team were scared ****less by even the mention of his name, whether home or away. He managed to tear chunks out of WI in WI, he had success in Australia, albeit not as much. I think he did ok in NZ as well . Now you have to bear in mind that pitches in said territories were most definately geared towards the faster end of the spectrum when it comes to bowling.

Fair enough he didn't always take the wickets, but when he bowled you always felt that their was a wicket on the way. I know you don't beleive that one bowler can help another bowler take wickets, but I think Qadir had a similar effect, especially vs England, because England were terrified of him

Wristspinners who are "quite hit and miss" are usually most miss and little hit. Therefore, it's very rare to get a wristspinner who's especially good. Qadir was supposed to be one of the few exceptions to this. The point of a wristspinner, too, is that it doesn't matter whether conditions are geared towards seamers, they can still be effective.

He certainly didn't "tear chunks out of WI" either - he took eight for two-hundred-and-thirty-one in one game over there.

He had virtually no success in Australia or New Zealand, either - one semi-reasonable Test in Aus, and one reasonable one in NZ.

Maybe England were terrified of him, but there was a time when Stuart MacGill had a similar effect, and he certainly isn't much of a bowler. In fact, I'd guess the two of them were probably fairly similar.

 

[Richard]

Huge call. Grimmett is rated very highly as a spin bowler and is often unlucky not to be mentioned alongside Warne, Murali and O'Reilly. But Tiger is ranked much higher in people's opinions and I think that is rightly so. He is quite clearly ahead of Grimmett IMO and is talked of by some as the greatest ever, regardless of what is numbers say.

Some people thought Arthur Mailey was better than Grimmett, too - and IMO that'd be like saying MacGill was better than Warne or May was better than Barrington.

 

[Richard]

Just one thing they talk about SFB not having a wrong-un which may suggest he was a leg-spinner

He was, I've always thought. He could bowl some seam-up balls when he wanted to, but he was principally a quick wristspinner.

And by the sounds of things, he had such an armoury that he didn't need Wrong-'uns of any sort.

 

[archie mac]

Some people thought Arthur Mailey was better than Grimmett, too - and IMO that'd be like saying MacGill was better than Warne or May was better than Barrington.

NC said; one bowled like a millionaire the other a pauper (or something like that)

In defence of AM he was told by most of his captains that his job was to take wickets not to save runs. And famously on one occasion Armstrong took him off after he had bowled a very tight spell telling him just that.

It should also be remembered in AMs day that Tests and SS matches were all played to a finish regardless of time, and it was more important to claim wickets then to save runs

 

[archie mac]

He was, I've always thought. He could bowl some seam-up balls when he wanted to, but he was principally a quick wristspinner.

And by the sounds of things, he had such an armoury that he didn't need Wrong-'uns of any sort.

Again NC said to SF Barnes you never had a wrong-un; to which SFB said I never needed one!