• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
They'd fail far far more often than the top quality seamers would. Especially considering that many people consider Warne to be the greatest spin bowler ever, and he was pretty bad a lot of the times.
Warne was pretty bad when he was injured a lot of the times sure. Otherwise he was extremely consistent.

Anyway, take a look at Saqlain's record V India and against Tendulkar. Let's not pretend Tendulkar was going to be successful all the time.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Warne was pretty bad when he was injured a lot of the times sure. Otherwise he was extremely consistent.

Anyway, take a look at Saqlain's record V India and against Tendulkar. Let's not pretend Tendulkar was going to be successful all the time.
?? Who said this?

I said, pace bowlers would have far more success than spinners would.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Warne was pretty bad when he was injured a lot of the times sure. Otherwise he was extremely consistent.

Anyway, take a look at Saqlain's record V India and against Tendulkar. Let's not pretend Tendulkar was going to be successful all the time.
Haha, yeah, Tendulkar who faced Saqlain in a whole 2 Tests when Saqlain was any use, 1 of which was a pitch that'd been vandalised.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Point being?
Geez, sometimes it needs spelling out with you it seems.

I said Bradman considered a spinner the greatest of all time. You said in an uncovered environment it would be likely he would opine as such, but only the greatest would be better on unconvered...which is exactly what Warne and Murali are. So they are greater, by your reasoning, than the bowler Bradman considered the best. Yet they are still overrated?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Haha, yeah, Tendulkar who faced Saqlain in a whole 2 Tests when Saqlain was any use, 1 of which was a pitch that'd been vandalised.
Dismissed 3 times in 2 tests? Doesn't mean anything eh?

Disregarding that the rest of the Indian line-up also did a number on Warne and Murali and Saqlain did very well against them.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Dismissed 3 times in 2 tests? Doesn't mean anything eh?

Disregarding that the rest of the Indian line-up also did a number on Warne and Murali and Saqlain did very well against them.
Of course it means something. It means he did very well against him. I still don't see your point. The fact is pace bowlers still would have far far better luck than spin bowlers. Even if you say two Test matches is enough of a sample to prove anything (if you do, I hope you're consistent when discussing other areas).
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
?? Who said this?

I said, pace bowlers would have far more success than spinners would.
No one, but it seems to be assumed that Warne/Murali would struggle set against Tendulkar/Lara in a side. I think that to be no more the case than a McGrath struggling against a Richards. This was the point of my initial post.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Of course it means something. It means he did very well against him. I still don't see your point. The fact is pace bowlers still would have far far better luck than spin bowlers. Even if you say two Test matches is enough of a sample to prove anything (if you do, I hope you're consistent when discussing other areas).
We're actually talking about 4 tests, just 2 against Tendulkar. My point was let's not pretend that the rest of the Indians were not excellent players of spin. Because if it was just Tendulkar then that's not a talking point. One Tendulkar in an all-time XI is not going to make people leave out Murali or Warne.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Geez, sometimes it needs spelling out with you it seems.

I said Bradman considered a spinner the greatest of all time. You said in an uncovered environment it would be likely he would opine as such, but only the greatest would be better on unconvered...which is exactly what Warne and Murali are. So they are greater, by your reasoning, than the bowler Bradman considered the best. Yet they are still overrated?
I never said the greatest would be better on uncovered. You are again trying to spell-out something that isn't there.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
No one, but it seems to be assumed that Warne/Murali would struggle set against Tendulkar/Lara in a side.
But wouldn't they? Warne has played 14 Tests, a pretty good sample that, and averages close to 50 runs per wicket vs. India. Murali averages better, but still 32 (and worse in India). And though he did well against the West Indians, when you saw Lara playing him, you knew he was outclassed.

It's really simple. I don't know of any (say top five) fast bowlers who would average something like that, home and away, after fourteen Tests, against any side. I just don't see it. And it's not like the side was full of all time great players anyway - which makes it even worse - imagine if the entire lineup was full of all time great players. And it's not about Tendulkar or Lara really - its about how you do against the best players of your bowling in the current era. Tendulkar and Lara might have been best vs. spin in the current era, but the all time XI would be full of people who've played spinners on uncovered wickets and I'd venture to say many of them would give both of them a run for their money. If both of them do horribly vs. good players from their own era, what hope do they have for all time side? And this ignores Murali's abysmal record vs Australia. I mean this is a LOT of players you're talking about now, not just here and there, where two of the best spinners ever are rendered ineffective...
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
But wouldn't they? Warne has played 14 Tests, a pretty good sample that, and averages close to 50 runs per wicket vs. India. Murali averages better, but still 32 (and worse in India). And though he did well against the West Indians, when you saw Lara playing him, you knew he was outclassed.
Which brings me back to a question I raised in another thread: are we assuming we are bowling against all-time XI batsmen or just the Indian side? Not all the batsmen in an all-time XI are adept at playing spin, in fact they're mostly adept at playing pace.

Lara was also outclassed by Murali and Warne too. Too much is made of the fact that Lara and Tendulkar were very good players of spin. They were just as good players of pace.

It's really simple. I don't know of any (say top five) fast bowlers who would average something like that, home and away, after fourteen Tests, against any side. I just don't see it. And it's not like the side was full of all time great players anyway - which makes it even worse - imagine if the entire lineup was full of all time great players.
The side was full of the greatest spin players. This is worse for a spinner than a side for all-time batsmen - not all of them are that good against spin or never faced spin to the quality of Warne/Murali.

I think JBH made a point with regards to spin having a kryptonite of sorts where pace doesn't. But where you are talking about the best batsmen ever, most of them are better players of pace than spin. This is why I am not worried about putting Warne or Murali against the best. Well in Warne's case I am more confident: there is really only one player from that Indian side who would make an all-time XI anyway. That isn't going to rule out Warne or Murali.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Oh, if you're saying Warne is the greatest spinner of all time, I've no problems with that as I can certainly see that case.
No, you're mixing this up with Richard's post. Let me clarify.

Richard was saying that he could see Bradman considering a spinner on an uncovered wicket the greatest bowler of all time but only the very best spinners would be good on covered wickets which is exactly what Murali and Warne are good at. So these two go even a notch above the bowler Bradman thought the best was.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
They'd fail far far more often than the top quality seamers would. Especially considering that many people consider Warne to be the greatest spin bowler ever, and he was pretty bad a lot of the times.
pretty bad is a relative term. Are you actually saying Murali and Warne have been PROVEN to be worse than the Marshall and McGraths on flat tracks under hot conditions? I don't think so. Harbhajan Singh outbowled McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper in Chennai in 2001 and that was a flat track, as flat as anything you ever see in Chennai. Sourav esp. mentioned that fact in his post match interview. And the batsmen he was bowling to were not the worst players of spin either. Hayden was awesome, Langer was very good against the spinners too, Slater wasn't bad either, Mark Waugh was a proven player against spin by that time, Steve Waugh was there. Only Ponting struggled like anything and even he had scored heavily against Murali juz a few months back in Sri Lanka.


And the other thing about great spinners in those conditions is, they only need one wicket and they can well run through a batting side with men around the bat. Not all batsmen can handle that pressure. Certainly the chances of them running through the tail of that side is far far higher than those of the fast bowler in those conditions. Plus, the spinners wont get as tired, physically or mentally, as a fast bowler would in those conditions too.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
pretty bad is a relative term. Are you actually saying Murali and Warne have been PROVEN to be worse than the Marshall and McGraths on flat tracks under hot conditions?
I think they certainly have. Marshall was one of the best ever at bowling on flat pitches, especially with his cutters. And McGrath's abilities are well known in India.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think they certainly have. Marshall was one of the best ever at bowling on flat pitches, especially with his cutters. And McGrath's abilities are well known in India.
McGrath's ABILITY only came in in 2004. He didn't set the world on fire or anything in 2001. And I don't think he became a better bowler in 2004 than he was in 2001. The simple fact was in 2004 India were not playing well... Even Warne looked good against our batsmen.. They looked undercooked in that test series and were struggling to score against even Warney and that is when McGrath became a big wicket taking option in India. And don't forget, they had tests in Bangalore and Nagpur, two wickets which have helped seamers on a number of occassions.

The reason McGrath became such a threat in that series, to me, was because India were, relatively speaking, struggling to score off Warney too in that series, which never happened in 98 or 2001 and it put that much pressure on them and they cracked against McGrath's line and length. The same stuff, he didn't get much out of in 2001 when we were playing well and our batters were in good form. There is no such proof, as you claim, that these guys were better than Warne and Murali. And don't forget, Murali ran through India with a well set Sachin at Delhi not long back.. These guys are world class and in certain conditions better bets than the great fast men. And I would always want at least one spinner in my all time XI.
 

JBH001

International Regular
Some good points there, HB. I had forgotten too about Murali taking 20 wkts (iirc) in 3 tests against India in SL in 2002? Maybe, I need to rethink my stance a little.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
McGrath's ABILITY only came in in 2004. He didn't set the world on fire or anything in 2001. And I don't think he became a better bowler in 2004 than he was in 2001. The simple fact was in 2004 India were not playing well... Even Warne looked good against our batsmen.. They looked undercooked in that test series and were struggling to score against even Warney and that is when McGrath became a big wicket taking option in India. And don't forget, they had tests in Bangalore and Nagpur, two wickets which have helped seamers on a number of occassions.

The reason McGrath became such a threat in that series, to me, was because India were, relatively speaking, struggling to score off Warney too in that series, which never happened in 98 or 2001 and it put that much pressure on them and they cracked against McGrath's line and length. The same stuff, he didn't get much out of in 2001 when we were playing well and our batters were in good form. There is no such proof, as you claim, that these guys were better than Warne and Murali. And don't forget, Murali ran through India with a well set Sachin at Delhi not long back.. These guys are world class and in certain conditions better bets than the great fast men. And I would always want at least one spinner in my all time XI.
Actually Mcgrath did have a pretty good series in 2000-01 and I think he bowled better than 2004. That said He does average 30+ against Pak and SL in away condition.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Actually Mcgrath did have a pretty good series in 2000-01 and I think he bowled better than 2004. That said He does average 30+ against Pak and SL in away condition.
He bowled well, there is no doubting that at all and I think he has been one of the best visiting fast bowlers to India of all time, probably... But I still think the reason he got better returns in 2004 was not just because he bowled slightly better but also because the Indian batsmen were struggling, period. They struggled against Warne, they struggled against Gillespie, heck, they even struggled against Michael Clarke. The fact that they got bogged down even against Warne meant that they were poking at a number of deliveries they would have probably left well alone in the 2001 series. THAT is the difference I am talking about.


Not really trying to put McGrath or Warne or the Indian batsmen or anyone down. Just that I still think a spinner or two is a must in an all time XI when playing in the subcontinent conditions...
 

Top