Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by bagapath

i would always find a place for faulkner on any such list. bosanquet deserves a mention for obvious reasons.

Yes one could also include Vogler and Tich Freeman for that matter and then some may say why not Mailey ?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by pasag

25 off the top of my head - Lindwall, Davidson, Warne, McGrath, O’Reilly, Grimmett, Lilliee, Hadlee, Marshall, Holding, Botham, Donald, Roberts, Lohmann, Ambrose, Larwood, Veirty, Akram, Imran, Waqar, Miller, Trueman, Barnes, Garner, Murali, Laker etc.

Originally Posted by Richard

25 off the top of my head, and not in any particularly ordered order...

Barnes, Marshall, Hadlee, Donald, Imran Khan, Ambrose, McGrath, Lindwall, Lillee, Davidson, Garner, Wasim Akram, Holding, Bishop, Statham, Bedser, Trueman, Adcock, Heine, Pollock (P), Pollock (S), Waqar Younis, Miller, Johnston, Fazal Mahmood.

And all of these bowlers were exceptional ones. There are many more "good" bowlers who I'd also put above without much thought required.

EDIT: blast that Zachary Gelman for beating me to it.

Pardon my igornance, but how can you say a fast bowler is better then a spinner? They are two different types or what is the phrase I'm looking for? Comparing apples to oranges.

[Richard]

As a rule, for my money, seam-bowler >>>>>>> spinner of comparable ability, ie Malcolm Marshall >>>>>>>> Shane Warne \ Muttiah Muralitharan and Jason Gillespie >>>>>> Anil Kumble.

And TBH, the question you asked was why wasn't Abdul Qadir in the 50 greatest cricketers ever - where, inevitably, the question of comparing apples and oranges must be done. Never mind seamers and spinners - you have to compare bowlers and batsmen (and all-rounders, and wicketkeeper-batsmen, etc.).

[Engle]

Well, if you look at the 50 greatest, one would find many fine cricketers excluded.

Now, comparing spinners to quickies, one would find generally that quickies have the better numbers. In fact, they may even be better than spinners (generally). But given that you need a diverse attack on a sporting wicket, then one would have to include the (lesser ?) spinners over the (better?) quickies to bring variety to the attack.

Otherwise, one could just take the 4 best bowlers, regardless of their type and put them at the top of the list.

[LongHopCassidy]

Originally Posted by Richard

As a rule, for my money, seam-bowler >>>>>>> spinner of comparable ability, ie Malcolm Marshall >>>>>>>> Shane Warne \ Muttiah Muralitharan and Jason Gillespie >>>>>> Anil Kumble.

Not bad, Dicko, 'cept there's the rather telling statistic that there has, save for the West Indies and South Africa in patches, nary been an all-seam attack that's carried a team in all conditions. Despite there being a statistically superior seam alternative most of the time to every post-war non-Murali/Warne spinner that's ever drawn breath? Why, then, are Test teams so loath to leave home without one?

Don't get me started on conditions, either, which you've passed over fairly emphatically.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

Never really considered Barnes as a bowler who could be classified, personally. He wasn't pure spinner, and he certainly wasn't seamer. I'd never include him in a list of either spinners or seamers, though I consider him better than any of either of them.

As regards the best spinners, it's so ridiculous the way some people state out-of-hand that Warne is the greatest conventional Leg-Break-stock-ball wristspinner (ie, excluding Muralitharan who is a unique one-off and incomparable to any other wristspinner). He might be, sure, but there's no way he's unequivocally greater than either O'Reilly or Grimmett. Maybe in 10 years' time when the Warne-o-mania has faded more people will start to offer a fairer assessment.

As SJS mentioned, too, other fine wristspin bowlers included Benaud and Gupte (the most often criminally forgotten). But Abdul Qadir was in many ways a wasted talent.

Kumble - and, so I hear in recent times (would be interested to hear SJS's words on this as he'll have seen both bowl plenty), Chandrasekhar too - are somewhat different to the "normal" wristspin in that neither were prodigious spinners of the ball. They weren't fingerspinners but they were more like fingerspin than wristspin in one respect. This means I don't rank either up with the Grimmetts, O'Reillys and Warnes, or even Benauds or Guptes, but of course both were excellent bowlers.

Are you suggesting Benaud is victim to Warne-o-mania? Benaud himself who is amongst the greats considers Warne the greatest ever. Not much not question in his tone either. Warne has innovated in leg-spin, and spin in general, with his style and variation. Warne is comfortably in front.

[social]

People that rate anyone other than Warne as the greatest ever wrist spinner are living in fantasy land - look at his record ffs

Covered wickets (i.e. flat decks), full professionalism, ulta slow mo replays allowing scrutiny of his every ball ad nauseam + 700 WICKETS draws only one conclusion

Those who rabbit on about Barnes only need to remember one thing - how many wickets would the average second grader have got against early 20th century batsmen ON MATTING WICKETS.

A truckload - just like him

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by social

People that rate anyone other than Warne as the greatest ever wrist spinner are living in fantasy land - look at his record ffs

Covered wickets (i.e. flat decks), full professionalism, ulta slow mo replays allowing scrutiny of his every ball ad nauseam + 700 WICKETS draws only one conclusion

Those who rabbit on about Barnes only need to remember one thing - how many wickets would the average second grader have got against early 20th century batsmen ON MATTING WICKETS.

A truckload - just like him

[social]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Look it up

Barnes' series vs SA on matting wickets

As anyone that has played on matting would know, biggest problem Warne, Murali, etc would have had was pitching anything on the covered area that ended up remotely near the stumps - friggin' minefield that bounced, spun and seamed at high pace

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

Not bad, Dicko, 'cept there's the rather telling statistic that there has, save for the West Indies and South Africa in patches, nary been an all-seam attack that's carried a team in all conditions. Despite there being a statistically superior seam alternative most of the time to every post-war non-Murali/Warne spinner that's ever drawn breath? Why, then, are Test teams so loath to leave home without one?

Don't get me started on conditions, either, which you've passed over fairly emphatically.

Obviously conditions make a huge difference. Obviously in certain conditions spinners > seamers. However, since covered pitches (different times in different countries, but by 1970 it was uniform to have some amount of it, and by, IIRR, 1977 or so pitches were covered everywhere the second it started to rain) only the very best wristspinners have been worthy of selection under any circumstances for a Test team. Since covered pitches, conditions which make spinners worthwhile have been rarities.

What you seem to overlook is that for all the fact that there's been virtually no good attacks without a spinner, there've also been numerous bad attacks featuring one (or two). If you've got enough good seamers, you don't need spinners. That some countries are brainless enough to continue to pick them (I lost count of the number of Tests Giles played which he shouldn't have for instance) doesn't actually matter. Bad selection is not a justification.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

Are you suggesting Benaud is victim to Warne-o-mania? Benaud himself who is amongst the greats considers Warne the greatest ever. Not much not question in his tone either. Warne has innovated in leg-spin, and spin in general, with his style and variation. Warne is comfortably in front.

No. Warne was comfortably a better bowler than Benaud. Benaud was too much of a late developer to fit into the very, very top echleon of wristspinners.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by social

People that rate anyone other than Warne as the greatest ever wrist spinner are living in fantasy land - look at his record ffs

Covered wickets (i.e. flat decks), full professionalism, ulta slow mo replays allowing scrutiny of his every ball ad nauseam + 700 WICKETS draws only one conclusion

700 wickets comes from playing lots. Nothing more. If Warne had played 80 less Tests than he did, he'd have taken a lot less wickets. Anyone will get wickets if they play and bowl lots. Warne's wicket-taking was impressive, but not notably more so than other great wristspinners Grimmett, O'Reilly and Muralitharan.

Those who rabbit on about Barnes only need to remember one thing - how many wickets would the average second grader have got against early 20th century batsmen ON MATTING WICKETS.

A truckload - just like him

Barnes played a single series on matting wickets. No more. And had he not played that series most people who assess him would make the exact same assessment.

Do you really imagine the copious informed cricket historians who all agree that Barnes was head-and-shoulders above anyone else who has picked-up a cricket-ball are basing their entire assessment on a single series?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

No. Warne was comfortably a better bowler than Benaud. Benaud was too much of a late developer to fit into the very, very top echleon of wristspinners.

Did you purposely ignore the point of my post?

Benaud was around not long after Grimmett and O'Reilly. But Benaud considers Warne the best, and does so without a qualm. Why would, for example, someone like Benaud succumb to the Warne-o-mania, as you suggested is the reason why people so clearly put him in front?

I think this goes back to the point Lillian Thomson is making in the other thread. You harp on about people exaggerating past players flair, performances...as if past players or long-term fans decide who they rate on a whim or because of some fad. And then some of you have the nerve to get offended if someone calls you out on your over-reliant statistical judgment.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

700 wickets comes from playing lots. Nothing more. If Warne had played 80 less Tests than he did, he'd have taken a lot less wickets. Anyone will get wickets if they play and bowl lots. Warne's wicket-taking was impressive, but not notably more so than other great wristspinners Grimmett, O'Reilly and Muralitharan.

The only player in the above who comes close is Murali. Grimmett and O'Reilly bowled tonnes of overs (almost 20 more than Warne per match) and strike almost 10+ balls slower per match too. Not in the league of a Warne or a Murali, and then there are things that social mentioned like the conditions.

Do you really imagine the copious informed cricket historians who all agree that Barnes was head-and-shoulders above anyone else who has picked-up a cricket-ball are basing their entire assessment on a single series?

Hahaha, yet you use the collective fashion here to your advantage. You can ignore the testimony of many bowlers regarding Lillee (not historians, actual contemporaries who rival Lillee) because of a few test matches and yet you ask the above?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

Did you purposely ignore the point of my post?

Benaud was around not long after Grimmett and O'Reilly. But Benaud considers Warne the best, and does so without a qualm. Why would, for example, someone like Benaud succumb to the Warne-o-mania, as you suggested is the reason why people so clearly put him in front?

I think this goes back to the point Lillian Thomson is making in the other thread. You harp on about people exaggerating past players flair, performances...as if past players or long-term fans decide who they rate on a whim or because of some fad. And then some of you have the nerve to get offended if someone calls you out on your over-reliant statistical judgment.

I don't go on about people exaggerating past players' flair, I go on about people exaggerating all players' flair. It's just with players of my lifetime people can't fling the ridiculous " of course you don't have a clue and don't understand a thing because you didn't watch them " crap.

And yes, certain people do IMO place too much impact on wow-factor, as it's come to be known on CW. I'm not saying Richie Benaud does - I'd be very interested to hear why he considers Warne better than Grimmett and O'Reilly. I don't think the suggestion that he was is outrageous. But I do think the suggestion that Warne is unequivocally and obviously better than them is so, and I highly doubt Benaud is stupid enough to suggest it. Because I know beyond doubt that he thinks very highly of all three bowlers.