CW chooses the best test spinner ever (50 names, but you only submit a list of 20)

[morgieb]

The batsmen any bowler faced were also product of the prevailing conditions so I don't think we can make such adjustments. And your argument is the reverse of what we usually say... conditions have been batting friendly in recent decade and a half.

Conditions from 2001 to the 2011 World Cup was very batting friendly. Since then it's become significantly less flat, especially in the subcontinent.

 

[Starfighter]

But it's a huge gap certainly beyond just era differences. Herath has a fantastic strike rate. It is much more glaring than their differences in economy rates for one, which can be ascribed to different eras. I'd say it's not as big a difference as raw stats suggest but Herath still wins.

Actually the difference in strike rates, proportionally, is slightly smaller than the difference in economy rates.

The batsmen any bowler faced were also product of the prevailing conditions so I don't think we can make such adjustments. And your argument is the reverse of what we usually say... conditions have been batting friendly in recent decade and a half.

Doesn't even address my point about strike rates. The thing with modern batsmen is they score fast and get out fast, hence bowlers have better strike rates than in previous eras. And I don't think the subcon has been all that batting friendly compared to the 2000s the past 8 years.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, if Underwood or Tayfield were born a decade or 2 later, they wouldn't be rated as highly either for multiple reasons. The effect of DRS surely cant be big enough to bridge the SR difference and difference in 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I suspected at the start of this thread that MacGill would end up as the most criminally underrated, and the suspicion seems to have been confirmed

If Warne didn't exist it could have been "Murali v MacGill" arguments that polluted these threads when discussing the best spin bowler

 

[Prince EWS]

It is much more glaring than their differences in economy rates for one, which can be ascribed to different eras.

If only we had a statistic that took both wickets taken and runs conceded to account, to give us a fairer base comparison....

 

[morgieb]

Yeah, if Underwood or Tayfield were born a decade or 2 later, they wouldn't be rated as highly either for multiple reasons. The effect of DRS surely cant be big enough to bridge the SR difference and difference in 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls too.

Worth noting that uncovered wickets ceased to exist during (rather than after) Underwood's career. If he had played his whole career with uncovered wickets Underwood's average would've been quite a bit lower.

Plus the 5/10 wicket haul thing can also be easily explained by competition for wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

re. Herath, I think his revival has coincided with more bowler-friendly (ie. spin-friendly) Sri Lankan pitches and less roads. He seems to have taken advantage of quite a few hapless touring non-Asian sides on dustbowls over the last 5 years or so. Still a very good bowler in the conditions, but I think it's very generous putting him in top-25 of all time

 

[trundler]

Nope, MacGill bowled far too many long-hops and bad bowls, though he'd be the Botham of spin bowling in the sense that he got many lucky wickets off bad balls. MacGill didn't have the control that only Warne, Murali, Tiger etc possessed.

 

[morgieb]

I suspected at the start of this thread that MacGill would end up as the most criminally underrated, and the suspicion seems to have been confirmed

If Warne didn't exist it could have been "Murali v MacGill" arguments that polluted these threads when discussing the best spin bowler

Nah. MacGill's rep I think is helped a bit by Warne existing, when Warne was absent and MacGill was the lone spinner he was often hit around the park. MacGill probably has 450-500 wickets if Warne never existed, but I feel like his average would've been higher.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nope, MacGill bowled far too many long-hops and bad bowls, though he'd be the Botham of spin bowling in the sense that he got many lucky wickets off bad balls. MacGill didn't have the control that only Warne, Murali, Tiger etc possessed.

He didn't have the control because he was a different kind of bowler with different strengths. He didn't get "lucky" for 200 Test wickets. That's not how luck works.

 

[Migara]

re. Herath, I think his revival has coincided with more bowler-friendly (ie. spin-friendly) Sri Lankan pitches and less roads. He seems to have taken advantage of quite a few hapless touring non-Asian sides on dustbowls over the last 5 years or so. Still a very good bowler in the conditions, but I think it's very generous putting him in top-25 of all time

He is definitely in top 20, but putting anywhere top 10, even as a Lankan, I will not do.

MacGill was very good against players who could not play spin well. Against India and Sri Lanka he was rank crap.

 

[trundler]

He didn't have the control because he was a different kind of bowler with different strengths. He didn't get "lucky" for 200 Test wickets. That's not how luck works.

I'm saying he got some lucky wickets, not that all his wickets were lucky. Of course he was a skilled leggie who could give it a big rip but he was lacking in one important thing relatively which puts him behind Warne. Don't think he'd have generated comparisons to Murali, like Kumble didn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think there's a big field from about 11th to 40th where you could make arguments for many players based on exactly how you wanted to interpret or present data and/or legend, and I think Herath basically falls into that pile. No gripes with anyone putting him anywhere in that field, but if he's lower than 40th or higher than 11th I think you've got some explaining to do.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm saying he got some lucky wickets, not that all his wickets were lucky. Of course he was a skilled leggie who could give it a big rip but he was lacking in one important thing relatively which puts him behind Warne. Don't think he'd have generated comparisons to Murali, like Kumble didn't.

If he ended up with 600-700 wickets at a sub-30 average, which would have been very possible, he might have.

You're right though, I'm probably being overly generous in putting him as top 3-4 of all time. But he has been criminally underrated in this thread

 

[trundler]

I think there's a big field from about 11th to 40th where you could make arguments for many players based on exactly how you wanted to interpret or present data and/or legend, and I think Herath basically falls into that pile. No gripes with anyone putting him anywhere in that field, but if he's lower than 40th or higher than 11th I think you've got some explaining to do.

The problem with Herath is that he isn't a ***y bowler.. He comes in and bowls darts but gets wickets. He's the McGrath of left arm spin. Not the guy Cardus would write a largely apocryphal tribute. Underwood averages 28 in a lower-scoring era once uncovered pitches were abolished but he has a great reputation for his feats on sticky dogs. Maybe in a decade or 2 we'll respect Herath more. I think he's done enough to be rated that highly already. He's effective and that's all that counts.

 

[Prince EWS]

The problem with Herath is that he isn't a ***y bowler.. He comes in and bowls darts but gets wickets. He's the McGrath of left arm spin. Not the guy Cardus would write a largely apocryphal tribute. Underwood averages 28 in a lower-scoring era once uncovered pitches were abolished but he has a great reputation for his feats on sticky dogs. Maybe in a decade or 2 we'll respect Herath more. I think he's done enough to be rated that highly already. He's effective and that's all that counts.

My algorithm doesn't care how ***y he isn't and it has him 16th. To be fair I would've put him lower so maybe there's something to that. And he's above Underwood.

 

[trundler]

My algorithm doesn't care how ***y he isn't and it has him 16th. To be fair I would've put him lower so maybe there's something to that. And he's above Underwood.

Your algorithm has Lillee and Trueman below 50 too though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Your algorithm has Lillee and Trueman below 50 too though.

Yeah, over-rated due to ***iness obvs. Anti-Heraths.

 

[Starfighter]

Your algorithm has Lillee and Trueman below 50 too though.

PEWS' algorithm gives Manny Martindale the best standardised average. I mean, I have no objection to Martindale as a bowler but I think it shows the limitations of a purely statistical based approach to the game. And that's from someone on the Lillee-is-overrated bandwagon.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS' algorithm gives Manny Martindale the best standardised average.

Yeah, that's why longevity is important.