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

[Son Of Coco]

Well, no, not really. As I said - the batsmen comment is a completely tongue-in-cheek comment - without batsmen, there is no cricket and therefore no seam-bowlers. However, you'd have to really go some to suggest that the job of a batsman isn't far less physically straining than that of a seam-bowler.

And as for the spinners thing - well, as I've said to you before, he's not being stupid at all, he's displaying rare common-sense there that so many others simply refuse to display for whatever reasons. Seam > spin.

Ignoring the fact legspin is one of the most difficult things to bowl and if you're very very good at it that's something quite special.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ignoring the fact legspin is one of the most difficult things to bowl and if you're very very good at it that's something quite special.

Mate, seriously, don't rattle the cage. For the sake of sanity!

 

[Richard]

Ignoring the fact legspin is one of the most difficult things to bowl and if you're very very good at it that's something quite special.

Indeed it is. And the very occasional top-class wristspinner (like Muralitharan, Warne, Gupte, Benaud, O'Reilly, Grimmett - maybe Freeman) is a rare and wonderful thing. They're still (IMO - for Corey's sake ) definitively inferior to the best seam-bowlers, but they are indeed a rare and wonderful thing.

However - this is precisely how rare. In the 108 years since 1900, we have had a whole 7 of these bowlers, 4 of which have come from Australia. There was also the fairly brief-lived South African triplet of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner which remarkably all occurred at the same time.

Great seam-bowlers are far more common. To bowl wristspin to the required accuracy and still attain the spin the style is famous for is a minute minority art. Such bowlers are no rule - they are simply brief, very, very rare exceptions. Decades will go by without such bowlers existing.

 

[Richard]

Remember when I've said to you before that people might not like what you say and why? Here's an example. The above is your opinion, not a fact. You may argue that it's implict that everything anyone on here says is opinion and it's a reasonable thing to say but when you say stuff like 'anyone who thinks otherwise is [insert synonym for madness/idiocy], you're in vilification town.

You may as well say fact > opinion.

Well yes, I do think it's fairly mad to suggest even the very best wristspinners are rivals for the best seamers. I think it defies most cricketing logic. Hence, perhaps, my penchant for putting it accross as fact.

It's odd, though, that with ss people just think "ah, he's on about that again" and nothing much is said (bar the usual Jono comment which recurs every time); with myself, the reaction tends to be totally different. And yet even us two are not - quite - the only ones to suggest this suggestion on CW.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well yes, I do think it's fairly mad to suggest even the very best wristspinners are rivals for the best seamers. I think it defies most cricketing logic. Hence, perhaps, my penchant for putting it accross as fact.

It's odd, though, that with ss people just think "ah, he's on about that again" and nothing much is said (bar the usual Jono comment which recurs every time); with myself, the reaction tends to be totally different. And yet even us two are not - quite - the only ones to suggest this suggestion on CW.

Persecution complex?

SS's opinion is long-standing, yours is less so perhaps.

 

[Jono]

Well, no, not really. As I said - the batsmen comment is a completely tongue-in-cheek comment - without batsmen, there is no cricket and therefore no seam-bowlers. However, you'd have to really go some to suggest that the job of a batsman isn't far less physically straining than that of a seam-bowler.

And as for the spinners thing - well, as I've said to you before, he's not being stupid at all, he's displaying rare common-sense there that so many others simply refuse to display for whatever reasons. Seam > spin.

A true cricket fan respects and appreciates every aspect of the game.

 

[weldone]

However, you'd have to really go some to suggest that the job of a batsman isn't far less physically straining than that of a seam-bowler.

So?

 

[bond21]

Indeed it is. And the very occasional top-class wristspinner (like Muralitharan, Warne, Gupte, Benaud, O'Reilly, Grimmett - maybe Freeman)

erm....lulwut??

 

[silentstriker]

A true cricket fan respects and appreciates every aspect of the game.

?

 

[Richard]

Persecution complex?

SS's opinion is long-standing, yours is less so perhaps.

I've believed seam > spin from the second I first watched cricket, 16 years ago.

 

[Richard]

A true cricket fan respects and appreciates every aspect of the game.

So? Where do you get the idea I don't appreciate the skill of wristspin (and even fingerspin) and appreciate the need for it under certain circumstances?

Respecting and appreciating every aspect of the game does not equal refusing to accept that seam is a more effective style of bowling than spin given equal skill.

 

[Richard]

So?

So hence the fact that some seam-bowlers and ex-seam-bowlers (Angus Fraser for instance) have a little distaste for batsmen given how much physical work they put in and how relatively little in comparison a batsman does.

 

[Richard]

erm....lulwut??

It's not hard to comprehend (well, most people wouldn't find it so, anyway).

Muttiah Muralitharan is a top-class wristspinner. Pretty simple.

 

[bond21]

...nah too easy.....lol

 

[Son Of Coco]

Mate, seriously, don't rattle the cage. For the sake of sanity!

Yeah, I know it's silly to come in here talking sense. But anyway.

 

[Ikki]

Well yes, I do think it's fairly mad to suggest even the very best wristspinners are rivals for the best seamers. I think it defies most cricketing logic. Hence, perhaps, my penchant for putting it accross as fact.

It's odd, though, that with ss people just think "ah, he's on about that again" and nothing much is said (bar the usual Jono comment which recurs every time); with myself, the reaction tends to be totally different. And yet even us two are not - quite - the only ones to suggest this suggestion on CW.

A seamer and a spinner do different things. To judge them the same is asking for these kinds of reactions.

 

[Perm]

'Course, if you break it down to the most basic aspect, they are both there to take wickets.

 

[Ikki]

'Course, if you break it down to the most basic aspect, they are both there to take wickets.

Sure, but the fact that spinners come on later and after a few wickets that are usually down and facing settled batsmen and often in unfriendly spin conditions...makes it a whole different job, more expensive in terms of runs and overs. The fact that a Warne or a Murali can do what they do puts them on a different planet compared to some seamers like Pollock, for example. And certainly in the same league as bowlers like Marshall/Lillee/Lindwall.

 

[Perm]

Sure, but the fact that spinners come on later and after a few wickets that are usually down and facing settled batsmen and often in unfriendly spin conditions...makes it a whole different job, more expensive in terms of runs and overs. The fact that a Warne or a Murali can do what they do puts them on a different planet compared to some seamers like Pollock, for example.

Perhaps.

I have no strong feeling either way on the topic, but I do beleive that generally seamers are of more use than spinners. I was just saying that the primary task of both is to take wickets, but often come in very different scenarios. It depends how in-depth into the analysis of their roles you wish to get.

 

[silentstriker]

If you give me the choice of great spin options and OK fast bowlers, vs. great fast bowlers and a OK spin bowlers, the latter team will be more successful virtually everywhere. Obviously, they do different things, but in almost any scenario, a bad pace attack will hurt you a lot more than a bad spin attack.

A great spinner is a great thing to have in the side, but if I have top quality quicks (something like Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall), I'd much rather play all four of them then any three of them and a Murali or a Warne. That's all I'm saying.

Obviously, if a spinner is one of your four best bowlers, or if the pitch is going to be turning square, you play a spinner. That's fine. But overall, in terms of the impact on a win, I'll take a top quality pace bowler over a top quality spin bowler.

KaZoh0lic said that Warne/Murali are on the same league as someone like Malcolm Marshall...to me its not even close, and I bet I'd win a lot more games with Marshall than Warne/Murali.