Who is the best leg spinner after Warne?

[the big bambino]

@Jassy post 60. Here we go again. The bald and baseless assumption that Warne's strongest adversary was better than Grimmett's. You just blather it out and expect those who know the merits of both teams to accept it. It wont wash sorry. You actually need to back it up otherwise its just the scream of a besotted groupie. What overawes you just amuses me.

Besides you also exaggerate my point. I didn't say let Warne just play India (though if he did his ave would be close to 47 and that is not absurd). I said let us give him the same test program as Grimmett In that comparsion Warne's figures become disfigured. In any case it doesn't matter. That is just one stat where Grimmett excels over Warne. On any other comparison with averages the rating is 1 2 3 O'Reilly, Grimmett then Warne. Whereas your use of stats is selective and contradictory. Hard to criticise someone for drawing your attention to their respective records against their strongest opponents when your own signature uses filtered stats in an attempt to trash talk Sanga EDIT: Did you remove your signature?

Once again you make a statement that I'm bound to challenge as baseless. Why is it a big ask to assume a bloke can go on averaging 24 at 550 wickets when Warne averaged 25 over 708? Why are you at all sceptical when you can see it can be done? Besides Grimmett had his best season at 44 years of age. Hard to believe he would have lost his ability to bowl any time before that age isn't it? Whereas Warne didn't play that long. Yes I know the international program is more hectic now but Grimmett's form at a good age shows he could have kept it up. The difference btwn the 2 is simply the no. of opportunities the modern player gets; that's all.

Whereas your example of Philander is a good one but for the opposite reason you suggest. It shows why older players will always be at a disadvantage to modern players. No matter how well they perform they will always be marked down due to their niggardly test program. I know one joker who srsly suggests Syd Barnes was the only great bowler in the period up to the second war. That's bcos he could only overcome his small test program by striking at 7 wickets per test! Apparently Richardson's 6 per test doesn't pass muster! But it isn't good enough to refuse to judge players on their lack of opportunities. In fact its lazy. Bcos it suits a bias favouring modern players. You have to look at the stats. make comparisons that can be sustained. Which is why the stat against the strongest opponent is so useful. Which is why someone can rate Tiger and Scarlett over Warne on every stat based on averages...

Just finally I find your comments about the supposed "strong worded" nature of my posts to be disingenuous especially in light of your last paragraph. Which in any case is projection. Sorry if I challenged your commandment
"Thou shalt not challenge thy God Warney" He's still a great player. No need to take down your bedroom poster just yet.

 

[watson]

When making a comparison of players from different eras it makes sense to look at their combined skill, determination, and stamina.

Any reading of cricket history will quickly tell you that the likes of Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Gupte, and Benaud match Warne for skill. That is, they all bowled a mean leg-break etc good enough dismiss class batman regularly.

Did they they have the same determination and stamina as Warne? Probably. So if we transpose their respective careers then they would be all about equal in terms of stats. As far as I can tell, there is no real reason to assume otherwise.

But on second thoughts, maybe Warne did have unusually good mental toughness which would set him apart......

 

[the big bambino]

They were all great (the ones you mention) and contrary to the Warne publicity machine the difference btwn them is skinny as to be almost indistinguishable. The interesting one you mention is Gupte. If ever there was a cricketer who should be quietly coughing for the recognition he deserves it is him. Perhaps my memory is letting me down but I have a recollection that Sobers rated him very highly.

 

[Jassy]

Have not removed my signature and don't intend to either. I hope my signature didn't make you remove the Sanga posters from your bedroom! You may leave the desktop wallpapers as they are too

If you cannot see how assuming someone would take 550@24 is a big leap of faith then I think you need to be in my ignore list. Perhaps if Hussey had retired after 20 tests you would have no doubt argued he was second best after the Don....heck after 30 he was averaging 60s. If such an elementary concept is beyond your grasp then I struggle to see the point of trying to engage in a discussion with you. You present nothing of note and resort to ad hominem when your flawed logic stands exposed.

 

[the big bambino]

I admire Sanga. Just a bit rich to complain about the way stats are used to recast Warne when you use them to revise Sanga's reputation. Your use of Hussey as an example is just more selectivity. Of course Hussey playing 30 tests isn't the same as Grimmett playing 37 tests now is it? As I've tried explaining to you they play more tests now. What would have been an entire career for Grimmett would have been a little over 2 years for Hussey. You are describing a purple patch for Hussey and I wouldn't make an assumption based on that anymore than Clarke's golden form in the recent few years. What it does tell you is that Grimmett would have had even more impressive stats if he had the test program to cash in on his purple patches and played more often than he did against weaker opponents.

I understand you find contradicting facts as unpleasant as the unfrocking of your bald assumptions misuse of stats. So go ahead and put me on ignore. At least you do that a little better informed than when you started.

 

[watson]

They were all great (the ones you mention) and contrary to the Warne publicity machine the difference btwn them is skinny as to be almost indistinguishable. The interesting one you mention is Gupte. If ever there was a cricketer who should be quietly coughing for the recognition he deserves it is him. Perhaps my memory is letting me down but I have a recollection that Sobers rated him very highly.

You're quite right re Sober's opinion on Gupte. See the opening paragraph from the article I posted on page 4 of this thread.

 

[the big bambino]

That's a great read. I thought he rated him better than Benaud but he has obviously updated that to include Warne which is great accolade and, from Sobers, to be respected. Of course I'm a fan of Warne and of all the cricketers Ive seen play for Oz was the one whose retirement made me sad. But I like him much much more than his fans who seem to feel the need to exaggerate his magnificence over all others.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think Warne is comfortably better than atleast Grimett tbh. Not just because the stats favour him ( what you refer to as opportunity for Warne is true, big bambino, but he took full advantage of that opportunity to play that many tests) . It's just that most contemporary opinion seems to rate Warne higher too. Even most players from O'reilly and Grimetts time seem to rate Warne higher. And seeing as many players can fall prey to falling prey to rise tinted glasses, this says a Lot. O'reilly is far closer to Warne both statistically as well as in expert opinion.

And much as I hate to side with a stats picker, the point about Grimmet not having a great record against England is a very fair criticism. The difference between his record vs England and Warne's vs India is that Warne did brilliantly against other very strong batting lineups during his career, just never against India . Grimmet's only extremely strong opponent were England. And if you don't really have that great a record against the only really strong side of your era, whom you play more frequently than any other team, it SHOULD count against you, significantly don't you think?
Imagine if Bradman's average vs England was somewhere close to 40-50 and he padded his overall average upto 90+ by averaging 500 against the others, I would be saying he's slightly overrated, no doubt

 

[Migara]

Yes the Indian batting Warne bowled to was great yet no better than the English batting Tiger and Scarlett bowled at.

Hogwash. Indian batting of 90s were the absolute beasts any spinner could come across in their life time. Spinners got away bevause those guys were **** against pace, and goos pacemen kept sending them to the hut. No where in the history, great spinners got owned so badly by a batting line up both home and away with such a regularity.

 

[the big bambino]

I think Warne is comfortably better than atleast Grimett tbh. Not just because the stats favour him ( what you refer to as opportunity for Warne is true, big bambino, but he took full advantage of that opportunity to play that many tests) . It's just that most contemporary opinion seems to rate Warne higher too. Even most players from O'reilly and Grimetts time seem to rate Warne higher. And seeing as many players can fall prey to falling prey to rise tinted glasses, this says a Lot. O'reilly is far closer to Warne both statistically as well as in expert opinion.

And much as I hate to side with a stats picker, the point about Grimmet not having a great record against England is a very fair criticism. The difference between his record vs England and Warne's vs India is that Warne did brilliantly against other very strong batting lineups during his career, just never against India . Grimmet's only extremely strong opponent were England. And if you don't really have that great a record against the only really strong side of your era, whom you play more frequently than any other team, it SHOULD count against you, significantly don't you think?
Imagine if Bradman's average vs England was somewhere close to 40-50 and he padded his overall average upto 90+ by averaging 500 against the others, I would be saying he's slightly overrated, no doubt

Fair enough points OS but Grimmett's record of 32 v Eng isn't bad historically. It is similar to Donald's, and Pollock's record against their benchmark opponents. Or even Hall's or Waqar's or even Botham's and Willis. All paid for playing against the best which is natural and all better than Warne's 47 v India which can be classified as bad.

I agree that Warne faced other good opponents. SA's batting was solid rather than brilliant and the WI morphed from a fine batting side to a tragically bad batting one by his retirement. Equally I think its incorrect to label Grimmett's SA opponents as weak. He faced 4 batsmen who could all be rated amongst their 10 best batsmen ever. Nourse, Taylor and Mitchell probably among their best 5. Anyway my reason for commenting on this thread was to raise the unpopular suggestion that Warne's claim to being the greatest ever is not incontestable. Its very close and not even a certainty.

Migara your post at 69 is just tosh. We all know your a fanboi of India's batting. Good for you. You probably don't have to mention it again. Your post from the 3rd sentence on appears to be meaningless.

 

[Furball]

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.

They also played in an era where they weren't subjected to video analysis and could have their tricks and secrets worked out.

 

[Furball]

Hogwash. Indian batting of 90s were the absolute beasts any spinner could come across in their life time. Spinners got away bevause those guys were **** against pace, and goos pacemen kept sending them to the hut. No where in the history, great spinners got owned so badly by a batting line up both home and away with such a regularity.

Tell us about Warne's record vs Sri Lanka.

 

[Energetic]

McGill.

 

[Migara]

Tell us about Warne's record vs Sri Lanka.

Was very impressive TBH.

 

[the big bambino]

They also played in an era where they weren't subjected to video analysis and could have their tricks and secrets worked out.

True but it works both ways. They'd have to pick up batting weaknesses on observation.

 

[SJS]

Who is/was the best leg-spinner before/above Warne

 

[Burgey]

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

Just think, if Warne had been from the subcontinent, he couldhave opened the bowling. Imagine all those extra wickets with the new ball bounce and the extra drift. Oh man.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Statistically its kumble but if you rate them analytical way, thing will go more complex

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Statistically its kumble but if you rate them analytical way, thing will go more complex

lets see some numbers then boi.

 

[Watson33]

Kumble.