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.).
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
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.
Don't get me started on conditions, either, which you've passed over fairly emphatically.
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
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
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
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.
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.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
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?
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.
Last edited by Ikki; 04-05-2008 at 02:56 PM.
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?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?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)