Lets rate some of the top contemporary spinners

[scorpio]

Hi all, i am new here.

I alwys wanted to see how everyone rated the spinners playing now. Let me first shortlist the eligible ones in no particular order.

warne
murali
kumble
saqlain
mustaq
harbajan
Vettori
Symcox (surprise!!)
giles

Warne - Grt record. No need to explain.

murali - ditto

kumble - Extraordinary record against all comers at home.

saqlain - grt spinner. Good record. shined against india.

Mustaq - in his heyday was among the top 3 leggies

harbhajan - i dont think he is a top spinner yet. But good record agaist aus.

vettori - quality left armer. Plays for a weak team but manages to stand out. Not a good record YET.

Giles - mediocre. But seemed to have a knack of playin to a plan. seems to have india by the balls.

Symcox - not many remember him. But i remember him making life hell for india. Was a pretty big spinner. Grt attitude to boot.

When it comes to rating them only warne and murali make the cut.

Eliminations:
kumble - Excellent bowler. I dont think he is a spinner. kinda new style. Super record at home against every one. Blown away abroad.
In defense - never had support, was tensed up.
Verdict - good but not grt.

Saqlain - Has everything. nice record. too many one dayers have changed his style. Over exposed his DOOSRA. Still has time.
Verdict - has to go a long way

Mustaq - was , in the words of sunny i guess , a googly bowler whose occasional delivery was a leg break. Good but faded away. Not super fit
verdict - capable, but faded away. Nevertheless a top bowler

Harb - Has the goods and temperament. But too young and immature. Has to spin more.
Verdict - lets wait and see

Vettori - I like him. Other players rate him. but somehting is lacking.
Verdict - in the right path and young but has to go a very longway. Poor record doesnt help.

Giles - any spinner who makes a impact against india is atleast avg. seems to have a knack of bowling to a plan. but thts abt it.
Verdict - despite application mediocre.

Symcox - same as giles.

Now the top 2.

warne - too good record. not much new to add. But on the flip side sucked donkey balls against india.

Interesting twist : sucked in aus 98 tour to india. excuses - no mcgrath and shoulder injury.
performed moderately well at home against india. but was still played comfortably.

In 2001 aus tour he started well in mumbai. no problems. But once india survived opening spell and the 281 he was treated like a club bowler. No excuses. he is just not upto mark against india..
On hindsight i belive a significant proportion of warnes record is coz of his reputation and some dumb english and sa batsmen.
Suffers in comp with murali.

Murali - super record/dodgy action. Thats is major problem. lets ignore his action for now.
Smashed in the beginning by siddhu and others. Started one dimensional and keeps improving to the extent where now it is scary to think what he will end up at.
Came back against india. with the exception of sachin and ganguly had the number of other indian batsmen - no mean feat that.

very few like lara and trescothick have handled him well.
Biggest plus - one man army stock *** stike bowler.
and what a ****in record he has got. plus genial and nice attitude.

Biggest minus - action. but approved by icc and some respected names. Only ones griping seem to be some sore aussies (Note: SOME...not all) and some old whining indians (west and east).

All considered i think murali just has managed to perform everywhere and seems to have super dedication.

So my verdict murali on top then warne, then the rest..

Lets have a rational discussion

[Edited on 7/15/02 by scorpio]

 

[scorpio]

Oh i forgot macgill. But i leave it for you guys to rate him coz i never saw him live.

 

[Top_Cat]

Great post, scorpio but watch the language, d00d.

 

[Top_Cat]

Anyway, your exclusions are pretty much right on.

And yes, it seems that Murali has overtaken Warne as the finest contemporary spinner. Sure he gets more overs than Warnie and IS SL's main strike bowler (whereas Warnie has to take a bit of a backseat to McGrath and Gillespie on occasion) but there's no denying his quality, regardless of his action. I personally don't have a problem with it anymore (initially he was slightly doubtful) except when he bowls one which spins the other way. That's the only doubtful ball anymore I reckon.

Mind you, Murali has yet to go through the inevitable injury problems that Warnie has been through. He just started to get them now and whilst his record looks impressive now, so did Warnies. Warne was averaging around 22 per wicket before his first serious op (now it's 27) and I'd be interested to see how Murali bounces back from a similar operation.

So currently Murali is the superior spinner but let's see how they compare after their careers are over.

The only part I take issue with is this:

On hindsight i belive a significant proportion of warnes record is coz of his reputation and some dumb english and sa batsmen.

To a limited extent this is true. But anyone who saw Warne bowl between say 1993-1997 before his first major operation will tell you his reputation was well deserved. He was at the top of his game at that stage and no-one, not even the good players of spin in the English and West Indian sides could confidently attack him. Murali is at a similar stage now so, as I said, we'll see how he comes back from his first serious injury.

 

[scorpio]

Sorry abt the language. guess that just slipped out.

Coming back to ur post...warne of 93 -97 was vvery very good. pity india didnt play him then in tests.

i remember one particular match. 96 world cup match vs india...manjrekar was the bat...one ball pitched 1 feet oh never mind standand warne big turner :O
majrekar was stunned and asked for wide. and then or before kambli took him to the cleaners in sharjah.

i have seen matches like in 97 i gues when chanderpaul made 71 he took warne apart. but warne did produce the unplayable one. but the important point was usually one or two seemed to smash him while the others did thier best impersonation of deer in headlight act.

so even when some one was teching him a lesson he used to get 3 or 4 wickets. whcih gave him the confidence and good figures.

on the contrary murali was taken apart as a rookie. but once he got it all together the whole indian team danced to his tune.

As good as warne is i think his support cast, aussie reputation and some exceedingly gutless batting from england and sa padded his record.

for example the ball of the century. it was hyped so much. but murali bowled a similar one to sadagoppan ramesh in the 2001 series. no hype :I why is that ?

I dont have anything against warne but i really think he is not all that and a bag of chips.

 

[MrPerko]

If Stuart MacGill was born in S. Africa, N.Z., England... or just about anywhere where Warne wasn't.... he'd be up in the top five no problems.

... and that's all I have to say about that. :P

 

[Top_Cat]

Coming back to ur post...warne of 93 -97 was vvery very good. pity india didnt play him then in tests.

That's a good point. Warnie never played India at his peak. But that's cricket I guess.

As good as warne is i think his support cast, aussie reputation and some exceedingly gutless batting from england and sa padded his record.

Oh for sure, England and SA certainly haven't played him at all well. Same with the WI and Pakistan and New Zealand and Zimbabwe and..............seeing a pattern here?

So one team totally dominates him. Every player has their bogie team. For Warne it's India. For Sachin it's South Africa, for Murali it's Australia, for Curtly Ambrose it was India and for Dennis Lillee it was Pakistan. So the players from those teams played these particular bowlers better; it happens to every bowler. his does not mean Shane Warne is crapola. His ability has been overhyped but between those years of 1993-1997, he was THAT good.

for example the ball of the century. it was hyped so much. but murali bowled a similar one to sadagoppan ramesh in the 2001 series. no hype why is that.

Yeah that ball WAS hyped somewhat but people were just excited by this new young leggie who could turn the ball that far. It had been a while since someone had come along with that much natural ability. So things went a little over-the-top.

 

[Top_Cat]

If Stuart MacGill was born in S. Africa, N.Z., England... or just about anywhere where Warne wasn't.... he'd be up in the top five no problems.

Won't disagree there!

 

[aussie_beater]

I cannot rate Murali with other bowlers simply because I think he is a chucker...no offence meant to anybody, just that its my opinion formed after watching him over the years.

[Edited on 7/15/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[scorpio]

Warne: http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOpponents.asp?PlayerID=1856
murali - http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOpponents.asp?PlayerID=1234

Note he has above 30 avg agains 2 countries to shanes 3.
And murali against australia has not yet been fair game. both times he was there the chucking allegations bothered him a lot.

coming to warne's record. zimb,nz( pre 99) can be pretty much disregarded when it comes to discussion. which leaves india,eng,sa,sl,wi and pak. I guess we all agree that eng batting team except for the last yr is crap 9) can be pretty much disregarded when it comes to discussion. which leaves india,eng,sa,sl,wi and pak. I guess we all agree that eng batting team except for the last yr is crap pre 99) can be pretty much disregarded when it comes to discussion. which leaves india,eng,sa,sl,wi and pak. I guess we all agree that eng batting team except for the last yr is crap :P

Now lets see year by year break up

Warne : http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=1856
Murali - http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=1234

Murali has been raging for the last 5 yrs.
Warne has got 5 good yrs where his avg was grt. Let the break that further down

93 - 72 6/31 just wickets and strike rate
(played against - wi,nz,sa and england)

94 - 70 18.20
(sa, pak,eng)

95 - 52 24.12
(wi,pak,eng and sl (weakened by throwing controversy))

97 - 68 24.43
(wi,eng,sa,nz)

02 - 51 23.88
(sa) no surprise here..

his overall stats seem to tell me whenever he played against SA and ENG he had good stats..otherwise he was just a good leggie.

A fine example is 2001

01 - 58 31.19
(ind , eng, sa, nz)
He sucked wind against india and nz...then eng do what they do best and south africa lie on the back for him as usual. Result a moderate yr stats wise...but in reality despite being just half the bowler he was all he had to do was turn up and england and SA did the rest.

 

[Top_Cat]

You put a lot of conditionals in your argument which put the bias against Shane Warne.

And murali against australia has not yet been fair game. both times he was there the chucking allegations bothered him a lot.

And Warne against India hasn't been fair game either because he's been injured or just coming back from major operations most times he's played against them, if you want to make excuses.

I mean, you say to disregard South Africa and England? Do the same for Murali too and you'll see the stats are similar. The only one where Murali convincingly beats Warne is against the West Indies. And if you want to talk about opponents, you could say that Warne has played against much stronger opposition more often than Murali. I mean, Murali wrecks Zim and Bangladesh. Gee, didn't see that coming. Either way, did you ever consider that the reason those teams and Pakistan (who it could never be said only play against fast bowlers and don't have decent spinners) struggle against Warne is not because they're no good but because Warne bowled well against them? Regardless of your country, you don't play for them without being very good. SO to put down Warne's success almost entirely to struggling opposition is underselling him quite a bit.

Both times you say that Murali was affected
by chucking allegations? Well if you want to make excuses you could say that against India, Warne has been affected by operations to his shoulder and fingers. At least Murali's problems didn't affect him physically. But either way, that's cricket. Wrnie had to deal with that as Murali has to deal with the chucking allegations. And as I said, let Murali or ANY athlete in the world have the same physical problems Warne has had, have the operations he's had and come back to be anywhere NEAR as good as he. At the time of his shoulder op, only three athletes in the world had the op performed on them and all three never played their sport again. Yet Warnie is back and just to get anywhere NEAR where he was, I give him a lot of credit.

As I said, Murali IS the superior spinner now but both at their peak, well it's hard to separate them. Their strike rates were similar, who they take/took wickets against is similar and how many they take/took is similar. So at their peak, virtually NOTHING separates them.

I notice Murali has been injured quite a bit of late. Let's see how he recovers and see whether he'll be the same bowler. you can't have an awkward action like his and do it for a protracted period of time. Warne found that one out and is a much lesser bowler now. I think the same will happen to Murali too.

So far the only basis for your argument to Murali's superiority seems to rest with India's dominance of him. That's dodgy ground.

All of the other reasons you offer for Murali's shortcomings can easily be applied to Warne too.

 

[scorpio]

I did not rate warne just on how he played against india.
Let me quote my post again for u



his overall stats seem to tell me whenever he played against SA and ENG he had good stats..otherwise he was just a good leggie.

A fine example is 2001

01 - 58 31.19
(ind , eng, sa, nz)
He sucked wind against india and nz...then eng do what they do best and south africa lie on the back for him as usual. Result a moderate yr stats wise...but in reality despite being just half the bowler he was all he had to do was turn up and england and SA did the rest.


This is what i thought abt warne even when he was at his peak.
he is no doubt one of the top spinners ever but like samsons mane without the support cast,media hype and some cowardly batsmen he wouldnt have a grt record.

As for murali, he has bowled well enough against all teams in the last 4 yrs. A full fledged series against aussie ( with no whining abt his action) would tell us who was better conclusively..

cheers

 

[Top_Cat]

he is no doubt one of the top spinners ever but like samsons mane without the support cast,media hype and some cowardly batsmen he wouldnt have a grt record.

Well it's moot really. I reckon in any era, when Warnie was at his best for those 4 years, he would have been able to knock over anyone. I still say he was bowling THAT well. I don't disagree with you about the hype, though.

As for murali, he has bowled well enough against all teams in the last 4 yrs. A full fledged series against aussie ( with no whining abt his action) would tell us who was better conclusively..

Agreed there. And Warnie uninjured against India would have been interesting too.

 

[scorpio]

Another reason why i reckon warne ruled over eng and sa was they used thier pads rather than bat or feet to counter spin. when laxman came down the track the grt outside the leg theory of warne looked like a dud.

even more amazing was a week before he was pounded in mumbai 2001 he looked every bit fit and near his peak.

interesting to see english finalyy kinda crack the murali mystery. if murali can make a successful come back then no arguments.

 

[Anoop]

Don't think S.Warne has ever played against
India well, even in the ODIs. So no point in
saying that he didn't do well because of injury. He himself admitted that he could never play against India without the fear of getting thrashed. But anyway, I think he's the best spinner atleast in the current era.
Even Murali says that over and over again!

 

[Top_Cat]

Another reason why i reckon warne ruled over eng and sa was they used thier pads rather than bat or feet to counter spin.

No dispute there but the Indians were even better than SA and England in playing Warne from the crease. That was the idea when playing a leggie who's quick through the air like Warne; you use your feet because it's more the dip than the actual flight which would get you with Warne. You had to worry about the drift too. Indian players have traditionally been better at countering this than any other spinner.

Don't think S.Warne has ever played against
India well, even in the ODIs. So no point in
saying that he didn't do well because of injury.

As I said, it's merely an excuse if you use that as a reason for why Warne didn't play well against India. The injuries are only part of the reason, another of which was that he didn't bowl all that well. My point was that it's no less an excuse that blaming the questioning of Murali's action on his lack of success. They're all excuses. If they were the only reasons, well then a reasonable assumption would be that in the absence of both of those, both bowlers WOULD have bowled well which isn't a guarantee.

But anyway, I think he's the best spinner atleast in the current era.
Even Murali says that over and over again!

Of the 90's maybe but Murali is bowling pretty damn well right now. Better than Warne is anyway.

 

[Kimbo]

Symcox - not many remember him. But i remember him making life hell for india. Was a pretty big spinner. Grt attitude to boot.

great attitude???
i remember when he was bowling against nz at eden pk a few years ago, nz was about to win the game (needed about 2 runs in lotsa overs with lotsa wickets) and astle needed a run or something to get a century, symcox tried to bowl 4 wides... i cant remember what happened- i am pretty sure astle got his century though.

 

[MrPerko]

I think you're looking pretty shallow at a cricketer when you concentrate only on their average and strike rate to determine how good they are...

While I agree that Warne in 1994 - with 70 wickets at 18.20 - was at his 'performance peak', there is more to being a "better cricketer" than someone else than simply facts and figures.

I think it also comes down to partly a psycological thing... sure the Warne of today isn't averaging 18.20 - but I'm sure that the opposition would rather play Australia minus Warne than have him in the side...

 

[scorpio]

i am not just looking at his avg or strike rate. despite being an indian i have totally ignored kumble coz he stats dont tell the whole story right ?

i am using warne's stats along with what i saw and how players played him.
let me remind you guys of that chanderpaul knock in 71 in adelaide 97 or 98 i think. i was amazed at how easliy he played warne while all the others acted as if he was throwing snakes. this is what helped warne. he rarely was put under pressure consistently when he was at his peak.

and i consider his wickets against the english team not neccessarily a benchmark. hell every spinner fancied them until recently. infact mediocre spinners like chauhan,tim may enjoyed bowling to them which says a lot about the english team of the mid 90s.

i am not sayin he is crap. just that he is not the greatest of even his generation. ( we have to say he is unlucky to play alongside another excellent spinner)

let me use 2001 season to illustrate it

10 @ 50 vs india
31 at 18 vs eng
6 @ 71 vs nz
17 @ 27 vs sa home
20 @ 22 vs sa away..

what does that tell u ?..look at wht a joke england are..it is not that they are a bad team. infact they played our spinners and murali better than any other england team i remember. but the moment they see warne they start pissing in their pants.

Makes me wonder how media hype and place of origin can inflate a players worthiness.

 

[MrPerko]

Yeah, ok Scorpio...

But would you agree that the extent of a cricketer's success goes a bit deeper than wickets and averages??? Let me give you another example...


Is it just a coincidence that we are now seeing a bag of younger spinners coming through the ranks with the same slow, walk-in bowling action as Shane Warne does?? What I mean is, if a cricketer does something that captures the imaginations of young kids around the world, and if he plays the game from his heart the way it's meant to be played, and if he gives everything he is physically and mentally capable of when he's representing his country on the field.... then I don't really give a flying fruitloop how many wickets he's got or how low his average is... these factors shouldn't even come into the equation.