Shane Warne vs Jasprit Bumrah

[akilana]

10 years
1983-1991 full time
And he played around 10 tests in 1980 or 1981

in that case imran didnt' have a full time career.

imran has 9 years where he played fewer than 3 tests in a year. he played more than 5 tests a year 9 times.

 

[Johan]

Warne on longevity but there’s nothing obvious about it

700 test wickets vs 200, capability to bowl 200 balls an inning against someone who is breaking apart having to bowl 100 balls an inning, prior doing all in a much more batter friendly era, plus a completed career vs very high probability of decline. Bumrah has a prettier average, an average that will certainly go higher as he continues to play and comes back after his current injury, the workload they cam stand and the era argument won't change.

Yeah, not close as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

What about Marshall? He barely played for a decade.

Marshall played from 78…Couldn’t get his place because of the impact created by the Quatret. While retiring Marshall was the third or fourth leading wicket taker…behind Hadlee and Kapil or Botham i guess and 81 Tests for his time was big.. Imran played 88, Hadlee 86, Lillee 70…so it was a big number.

 

[Coronis]

in that case imran didnt' have a full time career.

imran has 9 years where he played fewer than 3 tests in a year. he played more than 5 tests a year 9 times.

Well, you can only play the tests you’re scheduled. Its a mark against you if you’re missing the matches you could have potentially played.

Imran played 88/138 tests for Pakistan, whilst Hadlee played 86/100 tests for New Zealand, for example.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall became a full time bowler only from 1983

He was making the team on merit from 1980, played 8 tests that year.

Ken Barrington played 2 Tests in 1955, then got dropped and played from 1959-1968. We don’t tell he played for 15 years right?

So know you can't possibly be comparing Marshall to someone who was dropped and played 0 games for 4 years.

 

[kyear2]

I'm not sure I understand your point here, particularly WRT O'Reilly. So, gonna ignore him for simplicity (and the fact that he has fewer wickets than the top pacers)

There is a huge gap between Warne/Murali and any other spinner from the last 75 years or so. I can't recall where you rank the next spinner, but a lot of people would put 15+ quicks ahead of the next spinner, and some a lot more.

There isn't a gap between any of the top quicks.

But that doesn't automatically make the spinners better though.

Actually doesn't make them better at all.

I would place 3 to 5 quicks ahead of both spinners, based on impact, efficiency and being less conditions dependent, having better all round records and less holes in their careers.

 

[kyear2]

nah we should count 1980, he played 8 tests. Also, if we minus longevity points, we should cut his 78 and 79 out of his record, and he'd have 360 wickets at low 20.

All of this.

 

[kyear2]

Well, you can only play the tests you’re scheduled. Its a mark against you if you’re missing the matches you could have potentially played.

Imran played 88/138 tests for Pakistan, whilst Hadlee played 86/100 tests for New Zealand, for example.

Didn't realise it was that many tbh.

 

[Coronis]

Didn't realise it was that many tbh.

I do believe both may not have been regulars earlier in their careers but I’m unsure as to the exact periods of time for those two. Their early careers are sort of a murky mess thats very rarely discussed on here.

 

[Bolo.]

But that doesn't automatically make the spinners better though.

Actually doesn't make them better at all.

I would place 3 to 5 quicks ahead of both spinners, based on impact, efficiency and being less conditions dependent, having better all round records and less holes in their careers.

You could place a lot more than 3-5 quicks ahead of them on this basis, and some huge number of quicks ahead of the next spinner down. This is just an intrinsic advantage that pace has over spin.

Spin also has intrinsic advantages though. There is a reason why all pace attacks are such a rarity.

 

[Johan]

how would Warne vs Stokes's England in the last test go?

 

[Johan]

If Bumrah had twice as many wickets, with a similar level in his bowling (avg, wpm etc), he would be greatest bowler of all time

 

[kyear2]

Someone define better.

If better means more skilled, better at taking wickets or the one I would want in my team right now? It's Bumrah.

 

[Johan]

If better means more skilled, better at taking wickets or the one I would want in my team right now? It's Bumrah.

So you want the guy who might break down at any moment and can bowl a 4-5 over spell at most over the guy who can bowl entire sessions and stay fit for 100+ games?

 

[Coronis]

Someone define better.

If better means more skilled, better at taking wickets or the one I would want in my team right now? It's Bumrah.

Bumrah probably has the edge over Warne at this age. 10 more years and they’d probably be even.

 

[kyear2]

So you want the guy who might break down at any moment and can bowl a 4-5 over spell at most over the guy who can bowl entire sessions and stay fit for 100+ games?

I've consistently said that's his biggest weakness and a possibly probative to him being in the ultimate top tier. And yes, it matters.

But not sure if that falls under better, but point taken and taken under consideration.

The max 4 to 5 over spells are just as damning as missing matches.

As the opposition, he scares me more. Against great batsmen, he still scared me more.

 

[DrWolverine]

If better means more skilled, better at taking wickets or the one I would want in my team.

Bumrah.

 

[kyear2]

This isn't a knock against Warne btw, I have him as the 5th or 6th bowler of all time, and definitely greater or rated higher, better is complicated though.

 

[DrWolverine]

Warne greater
Bumrah better

 

[Johan]

I've consistently said that's his biggest weakness and a possibly probative to him being in the ultimate top tier. And yes, it matters.

But not sure if that falls under better, but point taken and taken under consideration.

The max 4 to 5 over spells are just as damning as missing matches.

As the opposition, he scares me more. Against great batsmen, he still scared me more.

Let me put it this way, against Warne, England lose this game easily. We lost 378/3 game in 2022 too.

Why? because Warne couldn't be just blocked out, he'd be a constant threat, Bumrah is not, Warne would play all 5 games, Bumrah is at a point where he can only play 60% of the games in major serieses, let alone nothing games.

Let me make an analogy, take them as pro wrestles, Bumrah moves faster, sells better and does everything better but Gasses out in 10 minutes, Warne keeps up with Bumrah in quality and has much greater endurance and can keep up for 20-25 minutes, it's obvious who would have a better body of work due to their endurance, and therefore Warne would be regarded as better.

Take Dynamite Kid/Tom Billington as Bumrah, and Rey Mysterio Jr as Warne, nobody would disagree that the prior was pound for pound the most skilled performer, but the body of work matters and how you get to that body of work also matters, and therefore the latter is better. Same for Warne vs Bumrah.

if this was Bumrah vs Underwood, then sure, the gap in quality is too much, but these guys are similar enough in quality that it's not the same thing at all.