Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[Migara]

Fourthly and finally, Flower himself, by your own measure, is not a contemporary of Goodwin or Johnson. Gooch played in more years together with Flower than those two. So...the whole argument is squashed before it even begins

Good win and Johnson played 100% of their career with Flower. Neither Flower's nor Gooch's careers overlap 100%

 

[Migara]

For the comparison I made about the 90s Zimbabwe and S.Africa of the 1930s, I used the 10 year frame for each point I made.

You have sadly mistaken that ZIM and SAF had totally diffent political background by then, both involving racism. In SAF racism was favborable as majority of cricketers were white skinned. In ZIM it was un favorable as this time it was against majority of fair skinned cricketers.These 10 year period as a whole totaly idiotic to be compared.

 

[Ikki]

Gooch averaging 42.58, and Goodwin 42.84, I am puzzled who has a better average?

Then In first 19 matches Gooch averaged 31.93, and Good wn averaged 42.84, and that also batting in a minnow side.

Then rant about Neil Johnson, and I am going to compare him to "great" English all rounder Andrew Flintoff. Since Johnson was not given time to improve, I am using performances in their first 13 matches.

Johnson Batting Avg - 24.2, Bowling Avg - 39.6
Flintoff Batting Avg - 18.85, Bowling Avg 46.65

Now that's now Johnson stands against his English contemparies.

First of all, Gooch's career starts in the mid 70s, that's why his average is 42. In the 90s, which is when the comparison is supposed to encapsulate, and is relevant, he averages 50+ over 5 years and 45 tests. Regardless, the only similarity between Gooch and Goodwin are their averages. Goodwin is not of the same stature as Gooch simply because he averages similarly over 19 Tests.

Compare Johnson to other batsmen, like Thorpe. You're still far behind. You simply will not convince Johnson was going to be a good batsmen. The fact that Flintoff's first 13 tests he bowled poorly AND batted poorly yet became a great all-rounder later proves this point.

Still, regardless, we are talking about Zimbabwe in the 90s. Neither Goodwin nor Johnson played enough to represent Zimbabwe enough nor did they continue afterwards.

 

[Ikki]

Point 1, Johnson and Goodwin weren't allowed to play long enough. With the talent they had, they would have easily improved.

That's irrelevant. Had they continued the rest of their careers would have been in the 2000s making it post 90s - nothing to do with Zimbabwe in the 90s.

Point 2, Goodwin was the 3rd main batsman Zimbabwe had after Houghton and Flower, and Johnson was their top all rounder before Streak started performing with the bat. And you have omitted name of Flower as well. A. Flower, Goodwin, Johnson, Streak and G. Flower were the core material of the best Zimbabwean side ever to play cricket (Add Paul Strang as well, a rare sow bowling all rounder). I ahve mentioned names of three to make that core. So how it is not representing the strength of the ZIM side?

Even the S.African side of the 1930s had similar, if not better batsmen, throughout their lineup. The line-up you prescribe above has 1 batsman that averages in the 50s, 1 in the 40s (albeit with not that many tests played) and the rest averages in the 20s. This is NOT a strong batting line up. This is NOT an average strength batting line-up. This is a thoroughly WEAK batting line-up only superior to a team like Bangladesh. I also just checked the above line-up, it only played 13 times between 1998-2000 - again, not representative of Zimbabwe in the 90s.

 

[Ikki]

Good win and Johnson played 100% of their career with Flower. Neither Flower's nor Gooch's careers overlap 100%

So? By Sanz's definition they are not contemporaries. Flower starts 6-7 years earlier. Percentage means what? Once Flower retired and had they kept playing the percentage would have fallen again.

 

[Ikki]

You have sadly mistaken that ZIM and SAF had totally diffent political background by then, both involving racism. In SAF racism was favborable as majority of cricketers were white skinned. In ZIM it was un favorable as this time it was against majority of fair skinned cricketers.These 10 year period as a whole totaly idiotic to be compared.

Whether it was racial policy, or any other policy, is of no relevance for this debate. We are talking about teams/players that had to face these teams. These were very weak teams. Minnow sides. S.Africa in the 1930s were akin to Zimbabwe of the 1990s. Argue maybe exactly how much, but leave the comments that Zimbabwe was as good as England aside. It's a non-sensical debate that leaves logic out the door. Your argument did not demonstrate how Zimbabwe were strong in the 90s, and really it can't because it is not true. At the most, you show that for about a 2 year period they looked stronger, but that's it. And still, I wouldn't say Goodwin or Johnson added much to sway that debate.

 

[Migara]

Then the next step is to look at the performance of English vs Zimbabwean batsmen in the sub continent in 1990s. And Incidentally, Flower, Goodwin and Johnson tops the list with Hick.

English and Zimbawean batsman in spin friendly conditions (in sub continent) in 1990s

And here is SOuth African batsman in 1930s Since I am not aware of what were spin friendly pitches, I included the whole number of matches.

And this will elaborate how English were poor against spin. England which Warne bowled to are as bad as SAF that O'Riely bowled to.

 

[Migara]

Wen you add Australias home matches as well (strictly not spin friendly) results are like this

Here you see the spin playing prowess of the English batsmen!

 

[Ikki]

I'll try to be polite here...

Nothing of what you wrote - pretty much none of it - is relevant to what I have been saying. This is almost as bad as your stat-digging in that Murali thread. You've used the wrong numbers as well as whole concepts when it comes to this comparison.

You have just picked at 1 tests or 2 tests to prove something about Johnson and some English batsmen. You have also hand-picked opposition and conditions.

And still, I am not sure what you're trying to prove as you've just shown a shed-load more English batsmen superior to Zimbabwean. Johnson's 2 innings prove nothing. Andy Flower is one of the best players of spin in the world and what you just did is try and imply he is below Neil Johnson. Absurd.

Furthermore, the notion that the English were worse players of spin than the S.Africans is unbelievable. Have you been following the thread? The most successful bowlers against S.Africa were primarily spinners.

The two best Australian bowlers/spinners - O'Reilly and Grimmett - record against S.African is unbelievably good and simply human against England. You're so far from the truth it's astounding. Do some more research.

 

[SJS]

I'll try to be polite here...

.

 

[Migara]

I'll try to be polite here...

Nothing of what you wrote - pretty much none of it - is relevant to what I have been saying. This is almost as bad as your stat-digging in that Murali thread. You've used the wrong numbers as well as whole concepts when it comes to this comparison.

You have just picked at 1 tests or 2 tests to prove something about Johnson and some English batsmen. You have also hand-picked opposition and conditions.

And still, I am not sure what you're trying to prove as you've just shown a shed-load more English batsmen superior to Zimbabwean. Johnson's 2 innings prove nothing. Andy Flower is one of the best players of spin in the world and what you just did is try and imply he is below Neil Johnson. Absurd.

Furthermore, the notion that the English were worse players of spin than the S.Africans is unbelievable. Have you been following the thread? The most successful bowlers against S.Africa were primarily spinners.

The two best Australian bowlers/spinners - O'Reilly and Grimmett - record against S.African is unbelievably good and simply human against England. You're so far from the truth it's astounding. Do some more research.

You have been telling, that. SAF in 1930s were mediocre, equal to Zimbabwe today. - I have shown that against Spin Zimbabwe has done better than England. And SAF in 1930s has good averges as well. That means, you cannot call O'Riely's SAF wickets inferior to that of Warne's English wickets, because English has sucked at spin big time, even worse than Zimbabweans, who you are claiming equal to Saffies in 1930s. If you are having an IQ better than a tree you would have understood what I've been referring to.

 

[Ikki]

You have been telling, that. SAF in 1930s were mediocre, equal to Zimbabwe today. - I have shown that against Spin Zimbabwe has done better than England. And SAF in 1930s has good averges as well. That means, you cannot call O'Riely's SAF wickets inferior to that of Warne's English wickets, because English has sucked at spin big time, even worse than Zimbabweans, who you are claiming equal to Saffies in 1930s. If you are having an IQ better than a tree you would have understood what I've been referring to.

And how have you? They have only two good players of spin in the above. Neil Johnson has only played 2 innings, Goodwin 7; how is that representative of Zimbabwe in the 90s? You've also included England, whereas England don't have a good spinner - a place where Goodwin averages 89? The S.Africans faced many spinners, front-line and part-time and were poor. Also, half of the batsmen that you named from S.Africa never played O'Reilly. Follow the thread because you don't make much sense.

Your posts are bordering on the intellectually dishonest now. I questioned your picking in the Murali thread and thought no more of them than mere mistakes, but now you are crossing that line. Your stat-digging is so non-sensical that you made Nasser Hussain a better player of spin than Andy Flower.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If you are having an IQ better than a tree you would have understood what I've been referring to.

 

[Migara]

And how have you? They have only two good players of spin in the above. Neil Johnson has only played 2 innings, Goodwin 7; how is that representative of Zimbabwe in the 90s? You've also included England, whereas England don't have a good spinner - a place where Goodwin averages 89? The S.Africans faced many spinners, front-line and part-time and were poor. Also, half of the batsmen that you named from S.Africa never played O'Reilly. Follow the thread because you don't make much sense.

Your posts are bordering on the intellectually dishonest now. I questioned your picking in the Murali thread and thought no more of them than mere mistakes, but now you are crossing that line. Your stat-digging is so non-sensical that you made Nasser Hussain a better player of spin than Andy Flower.

The initial question was how good was SAF during 1930, were they minnows or not.. Whether they faced O'Riely or nor is irrelevent. Or are you suggesting that once O'Riely retired SAF came out of there minnow status? IF that's the case I would rate O'Riely as the greatest bowler ever. And the stats I have produced are for matches played in the sub continent where they face good / average spinners on helpful tracks.It never talks about matches played in England.Just go through the post once more and give a work out for your grey-matter. And for the number of innings rant: even most English batsman in 1990s have played less than 10 innings in the sub continent. If it is not a representative sample for cricket in sub continet, you name what is representative then. You are tring to play up dirty tricks by getting down to personal level.

 

[Ikki]

It is relevant. Because 1) you've yet to prove the SAF team were strong and 2) you've yet to list the batsmen that O'Reilly actually faced. You had also included their figures vs. New Zealand which makes no sense - they were worse than S.Africa, something like Bangladesh of now.

Your rant about Zimbabwean batsmen being stronger is an embarrassment. Even if we contend that Johnson and Goodwin were good players of spin it's still only 9 innings combined for 10 years worth of Cricket. You've gone from the irrelevant to the inane.

LOL, by your picking and prodding you've managed to put Andy Flower, one of the best players of spin of all time, behind Nasser Hussain and Mark Ramprakash. I shouldn't have to point these out to you if you really knew what you're saying/doing.

 

[Migara]

It is relevant. Because 1) you've yet to prove the SAF team were strong and 2) you've yet to list the batsmen that O'Reilly actually faced. You had also included their figures vs. New Zealand which makes no sense - they were worse than S.Africa, something like Bangladesh of now.

I have proved with sufficient evidencve that English batsman fared less well than Zimbabweans in the sub continent. So Warne also got most of his wickets against weakest opposition in that department (the critisicm is open for Murali as well, SAF players of present have done nothing extra-ordinay in spin friendly conditions) Unfortunately I cannot diffrentiate the spin friendly pitches where 1930s SAF played. So your analogy of SAF (1930) = ZIM (1990) is correct then ENG (1990) < ZIM (1990) with regards to pl;aying spin. So if O'Riely got cheap wickets against SAF, so did Warne, against Englan who were worse than Zimbabwe in plaing spin.

Your rant about Zimbabwean batsmen being stronger is an embarrassment. Even if we contend that Johnson and Goodwin were good players of spin it's still only 9 innings combined for 10 years worth of Cricket. You've gone from the irrelevant to the inane.

So how representative of Hicks 6, Snith's 4 and Stewarts 6 innings in that decade in the sub continent? If you carefully examine the fixtures of 1990s, you'd see very few English tours to sub continent, and with each new tour, new players have been making debut. Live wioth the reality and come out of your little fantasy world!

LOL, by your picking and prodding you've managed to put Andy Flower, one of the best players of spin of all time, behind Nasser Hussain and Mark Ramprakash. I shouldn't have to point these out to you if you really knew what you're saying/doing.

That's when you include Australia home matches, and we only Sydney is spin friendly. In subcointinet he's only preceded by Johson, Hick amd Goodwin. You are having selective amnesia which is a serious disorder!

 

[Migara]

Here are the players who played for SAF in O'Riely's time.

Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0  
AD Nourse 1935-1936 5 10 1 518 231 57.55 1 2 1  
HW Taylor 1932-1932 2 4 0 164 84 41.00 0 2 1  
B Mitchell 1932-1936 7 14 2 427 95 35.58 0 3 1  
IJ Siedle 1935-1936 5 10 0 332 59 33.20 0 2 1  
EAB Rowan 1935-1936 3 6 0 197 66 32.83 0 1 0  
CL Vincent 1932-1932 2 4 2 62 48* 31.00 0 0 0

Pretty respectable than England's in 1990's and m,arginally better than Zimbabweans in 1990s.
Source

Now I have answered to your second point as well.

 

[Ikki]

I have proved with sufficient evidencve that English batsman fared less well than Zimbabweans in the sub continent. So Warne also got most of his wickets against weakest opposition in that department (the critisicm is open for Murali as well, SAF players of present have done nothing extra-ordinay in spin friendly conditions) Unfortunately I cannot diffrentiate the spin friendly pitches where 1930s SAF played. So your analogy of SAF (1930) = ZIM (1990) is correct then ENG (1990) < ZIM (1990) with regards to pl;aying spin. So if O'Riely got cheap wickets against SAF, so did Warne, against Englan who were worse than Zimbabwe in plaing spin.

Exactly how did you prove with sufficient evidence? This is the whole problem. You're basing this on 2 innings by Johnson and 7 by Goodwin. You are as far away from 'proving' something as can be. If you proved that, then you also proved that Nasser Hussain is a better player of spin than Andy Flower - which is laughable, but that's exactly what your 'evidence' is...laughable.

So how representative of Hicks 6, Snith's 4 and Stewarts 6 innings in that decade in the sub continent? If you carefully examine the fixtures of 1990s, you'd see very few English tours to sub continent, and with each new tour, new players have been making debut. Live wioth the reality and come out of your little fantasy world!

It doesn't prove anything if the sample is as small as 5-7 innings. Regardless who it is. The fact that even the two players who you nominated only played for a very short amount of time - out of a whole decade. Your argument is moot before it even begins.

That's when you include Australia home matches, and we only Sydney is spin friendly. In subcointinet he's only preceded by Johson, Hick amd Goodwin. You are having selective amnesia which is a serious disorder!

LMAO, if this thread has proved anything, it is that you don't know one iota about the players you are talking about. This isn't like making a comment about O'Reilly who played some 70 years ago, this was just last decade. Your posts are absolute non-sense. I am sorry, but they are. What you're arguing is not even debatable. Your replies in this thread are now even worse than the ones in the Murali thread.

 

[Ikki]

Here are the players who played for SAF in O'Riely's time.

Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0  
AD Nourse 1935-1936 5 10 1 518 231 57.55 1 2 1  
HW Taylor 1932-1932 2 4 0 164 84 41.00 0 2 1  
B Mitchell 1932-1936 7 14 2 427 95 35.58 0 3 1  
IJ Siedle 1935-1936 5 10 0 332 59 33.20 0 2 1  
EAB Rowan 1935-1936 3 6 0 197 66 32.83 0 1 0  
CL Vincent 1932-1932 2 4 2 62 48* 31.00 0 0 0

Pretty respectable than England's in 1990's and m,arginally better than Zimbabweans in 1990s.
Source

Now I have answered to your second point as well.

No you didn't. Have you been reading the thread?

I've already addressed all these points.

Most of those players didn't play together or play much together, even had they played with O'Reilly. One batsman averaging mid 40s, another 30s and the rest 20s is not a strong batting line-up. But considering how many points you've missed and how many you've fabricated I doubt it bothers you. You're going down a route I have no time for. I can deal with 100 Richardisms but I despise this.

 

[pasag]

Settle down guys.