Who is the best leg spinner after Warne?

[watson]

Kimble was a great bowler for sure, but I have no recollection of him turning the ball much more than the width of the bat. It' just my preference, but I do like spinners who actually spin the ball.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Jumble seemed a more accurate bowler to me, so even though his spin was non existent by comparison he could ask questions more consistently.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

For the last time, Warne DID NOT revitalise leg spin, and leg spin was certainly NOT an extinct art. Put down Haigh and pick up Guha to get this. Or just take a random look at India and Pakistan in the 80s and 90s.

I was quoting from his cricinfo profile to emphasise the light he was seen in. And leg spin was certainly a dead art outside the subcontinent pre Warne, while now kids are growing up wanting to be leggies rather than fast bowlers.

 

[harsh.ag]

I was quoting from his cricinfo profile to emphasise the light he was seen in. And leg spin was certainly a dead art outside the subcontinent pre Warne, while now kids are growing up wanting to be leggies rather than fast bowlers.

Which is not what was said earlier and so conveniently ignores a large part of the cricketing world, making Warne's revolutionary appeal a local phenomenon. Interesting that Warne's era preceded that of the off-spinners reign with Swann, Ajmal, Ashwin, Lyon and left-arm spinners such as Herath, Monty, Ojha. Kind of makes you wonder where all the kids are. I am tired of this glorification of Warne. Leg spin is a tough, tough art, and we get a good one very rarely. No revolution is happening there. And one would think that Australia's leg spin masters of the past would be enough to inspire anyone who was really looking for inspiration, oh, like, maybe Warne for instance

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Which is not what was said earlier and so conveniently ignores a large part of the cricketing world, making Warne's revolutionary appeal a local phenomenon. Interesting that Warne's era preceded that of the off-spinners reign with Swann, Ajmal, Ashwin, Lyon and left-arm spinners such as Herath, Monty, Ojha. Kind of makes you wonder where all the kids are. I am tired of this glorification of Warne. Leg spin is a tough, tough art, and we get a good one very rarely. No revolution is happening there. And one would think that Australia's leg spin masters of the past would be enough to inspire anyone who was really looking for inspiration, oh, like, maybe Warne for instance

I think you make a good point, however Warne would probably be more a catalyst for kids to become leg spinners now than the likes of O'Reilly or Grimmett etc. I just think they're more likely to see Warne on TV than happen to look up stats on the other greats as some of we who aren't kids would.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Which is not what was said earlier and so conveniently ignores a large part of the cricketing world, making Warne's revolutionary appeal a local phenomenon. Interesting that Warne's era preceded that of the off-spinners reign with Swann, Ajmal, Ashwin, Lyon and left-arm spinners such as Herath, Monty, Ojha. Kind of makes you wonder where all the kids are. I am tired of this glorification of Warne. Leg spin is a tough, tough art, and we get a good one very rarely. No revolution is happening there. And one would think that Australia's leg spin masters of the past would be enough to inspire anyone who was really looking for inspiration, oh, like, maybe Warne for instance

Funnily enough my original post was stating how Warne was over rated because of how glorified he is, ie I agree with you

 

[Julian87]

Clarrie.

 

[watson]

Clarrie.

Check out his Average/Strike Rate against England.

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Opponent

 

[OverratedSanity]

As far as 'real' leg-break google bowlers go I think that Mailey, Grimmett, Benaud, Gupte, and Warne are pretty much tied for first place, with Warne perhaps a nose in front because of his longevity. But I certainly don't think that he was any more skillful than his counterparts.

I'm very interested to hear why you think so.

 

[OverratedSanity]

For the last time, Warne DID NOT revitalise leg spin, and leg spin was certainly NOT an extinct art. Put down Haigh and pick up Guha to get this. Or just take a random look at India and Pakistan in the 80s and 90s.

Yeah t's a load of ****, isn't it? Leg spin was never dead. It was flourishing in the subcontinent decades before Warne came along. It's honestly incredible how so many people buy into that nonsense.
He probably made it more watchable and exciting than ever, though.

 

[watson]

I'm very interested to hear why you think so.

OK, here is some stuff on Benaud since his skill as a leggie is often overlooked..........


During his career Richie Benaud claimed 248 wicket at 27.03 (SR = 77.0). However, these figures are misleading. In 1952 he was selected as an attacking ‘batting-allrounder’. That is, a batsman who also bowled some useful leg-spin. Consequently, his initial bowling figures were pretty awful. However, Benaud was determined to turn himself into a world class leg-spinner, and after about 2 ½ years he had achieved his goal. In effect, from 1954 onwards he was a strike bowler who was also capable of scoring a century – a ‘bowling-allrounder’.

Also, during the 1960-61 series against the West Indies he complained of shoulder pain. This gradually grew worse, and Benaud was finally diagnosed with fibrositis of his right shoulder. By 1962 the pain caused by the fibrositis badly effected his bowling, and this shown in the poor averages of his last 2 series.

Therefore, in order to calculate Benaud’s 'real' bowling figures we should only really consider the middle 7 years of his career. Here are his series results from those 7 years;

1954-55 WIN V AUS: Wickets = 18, Ave = 26.94, SR = 61.61
1956-57 AUS V IND: Wickets = 23, Ave = 16.87, SR = 44.30
1957-58 SAF V AUS: Wickets = 30, Ave = 21.93, SR = 64.57
1958-59 AUS V ENG: Wickets = 31, Ave = 18.84, SR = 60.19
1959-60 PAK V AUS: Wickets = 18, Ave = 21.11, SR = 74.67
1959-60 IND V AUS: Wickets = 29, Ave = 19.59, SR = 66.69
1960-61 AUS V WIN: Wickets = 23, Ave = 33.87, SR = 93.26
1961 ENG V AUS: Wickets = 15, Ave = 32.53, SR = 85.80 (Includes famous match winning 6/70 at Old Trafford)

If the series results are averaged out then they clearly indicate a genuinely great bowler, rather than merely a good bowler;

Benaud 1954-61
Tests = 40
Wickets = 192
Ave = 23.68
SR = 69.0
ER = 2.05
5w = 14
10w = 1

There was also the odd occasion where Benaud played like a great batsman as well as a great bowler. His greatest triumph as an allrounder was probably the 1957-58 series in South Africa when he scored 329 runs at 53.83 and took 30 wickets at 21.93. Importantly, those 329 runs included 2 centuries that were scored against none other than Adcock, Heine, Goddard and Tayfield! I don’t think that even Keith Miller matched that.

We can also get a sense of Benaud’s talent by judging the quality of batman that he dismissed. I don’t think that there’s much doubt that the array of batsman in the list are at least strong, if not stronger, than those offered by any other comparable spin bowler;

Cowdrey – 8
May – 8
Dexter – 7
Contractor – 6
Richardson – 5
T. Goddard – 5
Manjrekar – 4
Mankad – 4
Roy – 4
Weekes – 4
Endean – 4
Waite -4
Kanhai – 4
Barrington – 3
Shepherd – 3
Worrell – 3
Walcott – 3
Borde – 3
Sobers – 2
Graveney -2
McGlew -2
Bailey – 2
Umrigar – 2
O. Smith – 2
Compton – 2
Pullar – 2
Nurse – 2
Illingworth - 2
Lindsay – 2
Bland – 2
Subba Row - 2


Benaud was a classical 'leg-break googly' bowler, and so has been compared to his predecessors by a number of commentators. Roland Perry is one of them;

He fell between the styles of two great leggies, Arthur Mailey and Clarrie Grimmett. Benaud was never going to be the proliferate 'billionaire' with the ball like Mailey, yet at times he was prepared to toss the ball up and tempt the batsman into having a heave-ho and he caused plenty of catches in the deep. Also like Mailey he could get bounce. Yet, on the whole, he was more like Grimmett, who used the top-spinner and wrong’un as surprises rather than stock deliveries, and who applied relentless pressure to batsman. Benaud worked on tying a batsman down and forcing error through adventurism or frustration. He could be pin-point accurate as the other great spinners, but was not afraid to vary his length to unsettle a batsman and keep him guessing. It was rare in Benaud’s career, particularly from the time of the 1956-57 tour of Pakistan and India (24 wickets at 17.66), and for the next seven years, for him to be smashed out of the attack. Not even the great Garry Sobers took control of him more than a couple of times in their many encounters.

‘Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams’

It is interesting that Perry commented on Benaud's accuracy ('pin-point accurate') because he doesn't seem to have that reputation. However, Benaud’s career Economy Rate of 2.11 clearly supports this observation. It is slightly better than Grimmett’s, and a deal better than Warne’s;

Career Economy Rates
Benaud = 2.11
Grimmett = 2.16
Warne = 2.65


And what does that all mean? - that Warne, the apparent 'bench-mark', and Benaud are both champion spinners with not much between them IMO.

 

[watson]

I'm very interested to hear why you think so.

Here is a piece on the great Indian leggie that explains why he is a great Indian leggie. It's really very good;

Subhash Gupte

Subhash Gupte, the Indian leg-break bowler who has died aged 72, was considered by no less an authority than Sir Garry Sobers to be the finest wrist spinner he ever batted against.

This assessment is all the more striking when it is remembered that Sobers fought many a duel against Richie Benaud. Moreover, in his recent autobiography Sobers goes even further, judging Gupte to have been a better bowler than Shane Warne.

Gupte, however, played in only 36 Tests, and rarely enjoyed the luxury of belonging to a dominant batting side which left him plenty of runs to bowl against. He performed against formidable opponents on perfect batting wickets, under captains who sometimes failed to set sensible fields and with fielders who were often unreliable.

Even so, after only 18 Tests he had 10 times taken five or more wickets in an innings - a feat he achieved only twice more in the latter part of his career. It took him only 22 Tests to reach the mark of 100 Test wickets. Such was his early dominance that Mihir Bose, in his History of Indian Cricket, refers to the period 1953 to 1956 as "The Age of Gupte".

Hero-worship spawned imitation, and Bishan Bedi was only one of the great Indian spinners of the next generation to find inspiration in their predecessor's career. Gupte seemed a small and slight figure to bear the weight of so much renown.

Yet his frail, spidery physique lent itself to a classical high-armed action, the only oddity in which was a curious skip as he released the ball. He relished long spells, and never suffered from sore fingers, being very much a wrist rather than a finger spinner, with the ability to turn the ball on even the best batting wickets.

His bowling combined unvarying accuracy of line and length with every permutation of flight and spin. Shane Warne, Sobers points out, is far flatter through the air than Gupte; in addition Gupte mastered not only leg break and top-spin, but also two different types of googly, one bowled with a lower arm. As he would also bowl the occasional leg break with a lower arm, batsmen were none the wiser.

Subhashchandra Pandharinath Gupte, born in Bombay on December 11 1929, learned his cricket alongside thousands of other ordinary Indians in Shivaji Park.

He first created a stir playing for Bombay University in 1947-48, and the next season played for Bombay in the Ranji Trophy. But his first Test, against England at Calcutta in December 1951, was inauspicious; in a dull draw he took no wickets and was dropped.

It was therefore with some trepidation that the Indian selectors picked Gupte for the tour of the West Indies early in 1953. "The Three Ws" - Frank Worrell, Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott - were then at the height of their powers.

Inevitably, they scored highly against the Indians. But they could not altogether master Gupte, who took 27 wickets in the Tests at a respectable 29.22 apiece. In all first class matches he claimed 50 wickets, more than twice as many as anyone else, and nearly half the 107 that fell to bowlers.

The Indian community in the West Indies welcomed the tourists with particular enthusiasm, and at the first match in San Fernando, Trinidad, Gupte met his future wife Carol, who had been taken to the game by her Indian father. She watched entranced as Gupte took six for 29.

In 1955-56, Gupte reached his peak, taking 34 wickets in a home series against New Zealand. Towards the end of 1956, however, he had a harder time against the Australians, hungry for success after their humiliation at Laker's hands in England. In particular, Neil Harvey put Gupte to the sword.

When they first played against each other, Harvey was unable to spot the googly; he simply guessed that he would get one first ball, and dispatched it to the boundary. Yet Gupte kept his head under the onslaught, and the eight wickets he took in the three-match series were purchased at the by no means prodigal expense of 32.87 apiece.

Over the two next years India played no Test cricket. When the West Indies visited India at the end of 1958, Gupte returned the remarkable analysis of nine for 102 in the first innings of the second Test at Kanpur; he would have taken all 10 if the last man had not been dropped by the wicket-keeper.

When India toured England in 1959 Gupte, with 95 victims, was the leading wicket-taker. But in a hot summer, which should have suited him, he disappointed in the Tests, his 17 wickets costing 34.64 each. Uncharacteristically, he rather lost heart, as chance after chance went down in the field.

After three Tests against Pakistan in 1960-61, Gupte was replaced in the Indian side by his younger brother Baloo. Yet he was back at the end of 1961, and against England at Kanpur showed that he had lost none of his skill as he took five for 90, including a spell of four for six in 18 balls.

Gupte was still only 32, and still seemed to have a long international career in front of him. But in the next Test at Delhi he got into trouble after a hotel receptionist complained of being harassed over the telephone by one of the Indian players. The call in question was traced to the room which he shared with Amritsar Kripal Singh.

Gupte, in fact, was wholly innocent. Riled, though, by the suggestion that he should have prevented Kripal Singh from bothering the receptionist, he reacted by giving a member of the Indian Board of Control the rough side of his tongue. He was informed that he would not be selected for the forthcoming tour of the West Indies. He never represented India again.

Altogether Gupte played in 115 first-class matches, taking 530 wickets at an average of 23.71. His best performance was in 1954-55, when he claimed all ten wickets for 78 for Bombay against Pakistan Services and Bahawalpur.

In Test matches he finished with 149 wickets at a cost of 29.55 each. As a batsman he rarely reached double figures, averaging 6.31 in Tests and 8.18 over his career.

He played for Rishton in the Lancashire League between 1954 and 1957; for Heywood in the Central Lancashire League in 1958; and for Lancaster in the Northern League in 1960 and 1961. Representing Rishton against Accrington in 1956, he claimed two hat-tricks in one innings.

Gupte was a jovial character, well liked in the game, though never afraid to speak his mind. After the end of his Test career he retired with his wife to her native Trinidad, where they brought up their two children. He died on May 31 at Port-of-Spain.

Subhash Gupte - Telegraph

 

[Marius]

Imran Tahir is the best (Pakistani) leg-spinner (that now plays for South Africa)

 

[the big bambino]

Warne is the greatest leg spinner ever.Even if you wear the most biased of glasses,no one can argue against Warne being the best leg spinner the game has ever seen.

But who is the 2nd best?Qadir?Kumble?Anyone else?

Discuss.

Nice way of pigeon holing a dissenting opinion even before you start. Warne's aggregate is a reflection of his far greater opportunities. On averages O'Reilly and Grimmett are in front. Those 2 played their strongest opponent more regularly than Warne did too.

 

[Daemon]

 

[Migara]

Nice way of pigeon holing a dissenting opinion even before you start. Warne's aggregate is a reflection of his far greater opportunities. On averages O'Reilly and Grimmett are in front. Those 2 played their strongest opponent more regularly than Warne did too.

Funnily, who was / were Australia's strongest opponet over his career?

 

[Jassy]

India probably. Overall I suppose SA would be the side (if you're counting performances against everyone during Warne's time) but against Aus, India it was.

Don't think you could reasonably say O'Reily or Grimmet were better than Warne...not IMO anyway...not on any statistical basis or on any empirical evidence. 700 at 25 and 140 odd at 23/200 odd at 24 are vastly different. It's too simplistic to say the latter averages are better, not when he's got double the number of wickets that Grimett and O'Reilly had combined. You could still say they were better, that is fine. Opinions need not always be backed up by numbers...there are people who compare Sangakkara and Ponting as batsmen after all...just can't argue for them using numbers. Lack of opportunities, talent etc yes, but not stats. And given the prominence of stats and numbers in such comparisons, you'll most probably have to bite your lip and be in the minority if you're going against the bloke with overwhelmingly better numbers.

They may have played their strongest opponent more regularly (seeing they only played against 3 other teams you might as well say they played against the 3 strongest teams more regularly ) but you can't compare that to Warne having to bowl to Sehwag/Tendulkar/Azhar/Siddhu/Dravid/Ganguly etc in India.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

England and Australia were the best sides of the era. If you want to go into splitting hairs to that extent, Grimett averaged 32.44 against England and O'Reilly averaged 25.36. West Indies and SA were hardly any good back then...and no-one can compare them to the best line-ups that Warne has bowled against with a straight face. Romanticism etc IMO.

 

[turnstyle]

Nice way of pigeon holing a dissenting opinion even before you start. Warne's aggregate is a reflection of his far greater opportunities. On averages O'Reilly and Grimmett are in front. Those 2 played their strongest opponent more regularly than Warne did too.

Quite funny how this line of argument is always used against the likes of Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock et al when they're named in top 10's of all time. Saying that, Glenn McGrath was a better batsman than Brad Hodge. Anyone who disagrees, go look at the statistics

 

[the big bambino]

@Jassy. See that's the problem. You make a fetish out of a statistic (total wicket aggregate) that completely favours the modern player. But that reflects opportunity not superiority. It simply means Warne had the opportunity the other 2 didn't have. Nothing more. You can try and parlay that into something meaningful if you like but you wont get it past me.

You then bring on the other prejudices masquerading as evidence to bias a comparison in favour of the modern player: They play more opponents. Or the older players opponents were weaker. Or the slavish deification of the Indian batting line up Warne faced. Or my perennial favourite, stats don't tell you the whole story backed up by a selective example of why your opinion is apparently more valuable than cricket's vast array of statistics.

Yet it is clear Warne played weaker opponents far more often than Grimmett and O'Reilly. Even then SA, in particular had Taylor, Mitchell, Nourse and Rowan. Outside of India Warne didn't play against batting that strong let alone dominate them as Tiger and Scarlett did. Yes the Indian batting Warne bowled to was great yet no better than the English batting Tiger and Scarlett bowled at. To think otherwise is establishing a narrative pleasing to your bias. Favouring your opinion over stats is just an amplification of your ego.

You have to use a statistic that is comparable. All 3 have played enough to make a meaningful comparison on their averages. Its close. But O'Reilly and Grimmett are superior in every respect. You can fool yourself into ignoring those facts and numbers and still favour Warne. But you should at least try and be circumspect and keep the fantasy in perspective. You have no evidence to say Warne was vastly superior unless you rely on the aggregate figure which I have already explained how you misuse.

The most telling stat when comparing players across eras is their respective records against their strongest opponents. The number of tests played across eras using that measure is quite similar and filters distorting stats that flatter the modern player; namely the greater opportunities he's had plus the greater proportion of games he plays against weaker opponents. So O'Reilly's ave of 25 and Grimmett's of 32 v their strongest opponent is vastly better than Warne's 47 v his strongest opponent.

But to fully appreciate the bias in favour of modern players let us give Warne the same test program as Grimmett. With exactly the same opponents except that we force Warne to play India as often as Grimmett faced England. If Warne played as often as Grimmett he would have averaged 36.18 compared to Grimmett's 24+.

That's quite a difference. Now you will quibble with the stats. But they are presented as they are or tailored to judge Warne as you judge Grimmett. Under both presentations they favour Grimmett. (Even more so O'Reilly). Now you may still ignore them and believe Warne is "vastly superior" or that "you have rose coloured glasses to think anyone other than Warne is the best". But you do so in defiance of the facts which makes you nothing more than a starry eyed groupie of the hair challenged Victorian.

 

[Jassy]

Yes let Warne play against his worst opponent - by far better than any line-up Grimmet had to bowl to-and his average becomes worse. Hey, if he had played all his matches against India he would have averaged 47! Jesus Christ what an absurd argument!

As I said, everyone's free to rate people however they want. But arguing on averages (and the averages are pretty much the same!) when one bloke has played so much more is being disingenuous. Averages worsen after a certain point - no matter how great the player. Assuming that a bloke can keep going at an average of 24 for 550 test wickets more is a big leap of faith if you ask me; if that is fine with you then all cool with me. Nothing else needs to be said. I've seen a couple of blokes who think Philander will go down as better than McGrath if he were to retire tomorrow so there's subscribers to every theory, no matter how inane or absurd it may seem to someone else(in this case I would like to think the overwhelming majority of people)

I have the greatest sympathy for people who did not get enough opportunities or who weren't able to play as much as the modern cricketer but I am sorry, I cannot rate them higher because of that. Someone else may rate players differently but I wouldn't. I have a lot of time for people who claim a number of SA payers would have ended as some of the best players ever if not for apartheid but I cannot rate them over Jacques Kallis just because he got opportunities and others didn't, such is life. I am sure a few hundreds of potentially ATG cricketers have been wasted because they couldn't get opportunities due to no fault of their own. Take Stu McG for instance, he'd have probably had 400@25-26 in any other era or for any other side and gone down as an ATG or at least an Aussie great perhaps...but he didn't.

You quite clearly rate people a lot differently to most others and that is fine. Don't think your posts have to be that strongly worded though, I have the greatest respect for Grimmet and co and I am by no means trying to denigrate them. Unfortunately, actual performances and numbers matter more to most people than they seem to you when it comes to rating players. If one started blowing their lid off at everyone who rated Warne the best spinner ever I suspect they'll end up with some serious health issues sooner rather than later.