CW's Ranking of Spinners (Tests)

[OverratedSanity]

so because we couldn't settle on whether to consider him a spinner or a pacemen you're excluding him from all discussion despite being one of the greatest 20th century bowlers. it doesn't make any sense

Should've just done a combined list of bowlers imo. Would've been nice to get a gauge on how CW rates Warne Murali vs ATG pacers

 

[cnerd123]

FWIW the book Twirlymen considers Barnes as a spinner

 

[HookShot]

FWIW the book Twirlymen considers Barnes as a spinner

Yeah, Chapter 4 goes into some detail as to why Barnes was a ‘twirlyman’, spinner.

Sydney Barnes, a fast spinner, was the most complete bowler of all time. Of more recent spinners, there are those, from Tiger O’Reilly to Bhagwat Chandrasekhar and Derek Underwood, who bowled at medium pace; but very few successful spinners of the present day ape that method.

But I’m happy to go with the vibe of cricketweb and bracket Barnes with Alec Bedser and other pacers.

 

[HookShot]

Head says Murali. Heart says Warne.

So Shane Warne.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Would be good to do a ranking of allrounders. It would be interesting to see the balance between "true allrounders", batting allrounders, bowling all rounders, bits and pieces players, batters who bowled a bit, bowlers who could hold a bat, and no rounders (although the latter group probably wouldn't get many votes).

Wicketkeeping comparisons are more difficult.

 

[Shady Slim]

australian posters about to get Big Mad at how the count finishes for number one

 

[CricAddict]

Should've just done a combined list of bowlers imo. Would've been nice to get a gauge on how CW rates Warne Murali vs ATG pacers

Yes. I know CW rates spinners lower than pacers and that would have been proven in this exercise.

 

[The Sean]

Warne

 

[harsh.ag]

Murali

 

[The Sean]

This is looking like it a bit of a runaway win for Murali - would that be a first for CW? I don't remember him ever coming in ahead of Warne in one of these exercises before, though I likely haven't seen them all.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

O'Reilly

 

[subshakerz]

This is looking like it a bit of a runaway win for Murali - would that be a first for CW? I don't remember him ever coming in ahead of Warne in one of these exercises before, though I likely haven't seen them all.

Didnt Warne just beat him in the all-time Xi exercise?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Didnt Warne just beat him in the all-time Xi exercise?

Yes, but voters would have taken team balance into that - slip fielding and better batting are big pluses.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Should've just done a combined list of bowlers imo. Would've been nice to get a gauge on how CW rates Warne Murali vs ATG pacers

I'd put Murali in 4th behind the big 3 of Marshall, McGrath, and Hadlee. Warne I'd put 6th between Ambrose and Steyn.

 

[Coronis]

Murali

 

[subshakerz]

I don't know whether Murali has actually failed in India in comparison to Warne, but he was responsible for one or two monumental collapses of Indian side, which Warne could never do.

- Warnes record against India was poor. Both home and away. Both in test and limited overs. At least Murali bossed Indians at home (pitches are very similar for batsman, so "home advantage" is non existant)
- Warne was poor against West Indies in West Indies
- Murali was never a "defensive" bowler. His plans were less flashy, but we see they are more effective.
- If you remove minnows and home matches and compare matches against common oppositions (adjusting for the number of matches), both end up with very similar SR and Average. Even then, Murali had bowled 5 - 10 overs more per game, which shows he was much fitter than Warne.
- If you ask me to choose the bowler I like I'd choose Warne. If you ask the bowler whom I want to win a match for my life, I'd pick Murali.

Edit: And Sidhu did not play Murali post 2000, where he was at his best. Sidhu howlever played Warne at his best in late 90s. Shewag would give the better comparison IMHO.

Aside from that one 7-fer in Kanpur, Murali doesn't have anything of note in India. Yeah Murali is better overall against India but its not the slam dunk that I used to think.

Sidhu's comments were more about how they react to getting hit around, not on who is better.

His own captain, Jayawardene, said Murali was defensive and both and he and Jayasuria tried to get him to be more aggressive. Which is fine, that worked for him, but I prefer Warne because he is more likely to bounce back after losing control.

Murali is the bowler more likely to get a new batsman at the crease out, whereas Warne would get a batsman even if he is settled.

 

[Burgey]

australian posters about to get Big Mad at how the count finishes for number one

Not really. It’s just been done to death.
Besides, Warne is a turd so if he doesn’t win it’s much more palatable than it otherwise may be if he was a decent bloke as well as the better bowler.

 

[Burgey]

FWIW the book Twirlymen considers Barnes as a spinner

Fwiw I consider you a **** tbh.

 

[The Sean]

Yes, but voters would have taken team balance into that - slip fielding and better batting are big pluses.

You could be right, though would it have been that much of a factor that the selection would have picked the inferior bowler for handful more runs when he's batting at ten anyway?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Aside from that one 7-fer in Kanpur, Murali doesn't have anything of note in India. Yeah Murali is better overall against India but its not the slam dunk that I used to think.

Against India it's definitely a slam dunk. He had that one great spell in India and in SL was leagues ahead of anything Warne managed at home. Prevented a great Indian batting lineup from winning in SL for an entire decade bar the odd out of the blue runchase.