Shane Warne vs Jasprit Bumrah

[DrWolverine]

300 wickets is enough to be considered an ATG

 

[kyear2]

I'm fine with ranking Mcgrath ahead. It's two contrasting ways of viewing them, and I see both as valid.

Spinners away from home (and in Warne's case at home too) have a much tougher job. They are always going to have worse averages. But a spinner is very necessary, at least long term. And they bring other superior stats to to the table, like WPM and career wickets.

Warne is a long way ahead of basically every spinner. Plenty of quicks reasonably close to Mcgrath, even if you think he beats all of them.

That argument keeps coming up, it doesn't mean that person is better though.

Australia isn't Australia without Pigeon, and Pigeon made Warne's life easier more so than the other way round.

 

[kyear2]

Malcolm Marshall’s full time career was less than a decade(1983-1991).

300 wickets is enough to be considered an ATG

 

[Bolo.]

That argument keeps coming up, it doesn't mean that person is better though.

Australia isn't Australia without Pigeon, and Pigeon made Warne's life easier more so than the other way round.

Is this a way of arguing that quicks are inherently ahead? They are in some ways, and not in others.

 

[DrWolverine]

Great pacer > Great spinner
Generally speaking

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Warne for now.
If Jassi keeps it up at a similar level for another 100 or so wickets, I'll go with him.

Warne has 700 wickets...Bumrah should atleast reach 450 wickets around 22 average for such a rivalry.

 

[DrWolverine]

Warne has 700 wickets...Bumrah should atleast reach 450 wickets around 22 average for such a rivalry.

Marshall. Hadlee. Ambrose.
Does it disqualify all of them as well?

 

[Cricket Bliss]

I meant Longevity. Hadlee played 17 years. But could only play 86 Tests. All have good careers in...if Bumrah played in that era an 300@22 would be fine. Now to prove longevity he would have to play tests and achieve something around or India should reduce their Tests.

 

[Thala_0710]

I meant Longevity. Hadlee played 17 years. But could only play 86 Tests. All have good careers in...if Bumrah played in that era an 300@22 would be fine. Now to prove longevity he would have to play tests and achieve something around or India should reduce their Tests.

Yeah but he'll probably have 300@20 or even less

 

[DrWolverine]

I meant Longevity. Hadlee played 17 years. But could only play 86 Tests. All have good careers in...if Bumrah played in that era an 300@22 would be fine. Now to prove longevity he would have to play tests and achieve something around or India should reduce their Tests.

What about Marshall? He barely played for a decade.

 

[kyear2]

Is this a way of arguing that quicks are inherently ahead? They are in some ways, and not in others.

No please.

The argument that because Warne, or even more fittingly for this scenario, O'Riley, may be ahead of his next rival by a larger margin that McGrath is ahead of Hadlee, somehow means that O'Reilly is greater than Warne, is a false premise.

 

[kyear2]

What about Marshall? He barely played for a decade.

He was playing consistently from 1980 and last I checked he played that 78 - 79 series, under prepared or not and it's part of his record.

He played for over a decade.

 

[DrWolverine]

Marshall became a full time bowler only from 1983

 

[DrWolverine]

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?

 

[Bolo.]

No please.

The argument that because Warne, or even more fittingly for this scenario, O'Riley, may be ahead of his next rival by a larger margin that McGrath is ahead of Hadlee, somehow means that O'Reilly is greater than Warne, is a false premise.

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.

 

[akilana]

What about Marshall? He barely played for a decade.

he played for 13 years.

 

[Johan]

Marshall became a full time bowler only from 1983

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.

 

[akilana]

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?

if he played at least a test in those 3 years, it's fair to say he played for 15 years.

Imran khan played for so many years for only 88 or some tests. hadlee did the same. MM played 80 tests over 10 years. Why is that bad but imran khan and hadlee playing so many years for the same number of tests is good?

 

[DrWolverine]

he played for 13 years.

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

 

[Rob Wesley]

I think if we are realistic enough and considering Bumrah’s regular injury occurrence, he is not likely to play a lot of tests even though he may prolong his career for 5 years. This is a phase where even fast bowlers who maintain good fitness in 20s go downhill.

The likely outcome for Bumrah would be :-

Matches - 70-75
325 wickets
Avg 21-22

This will put him in top 15 bowlers(pace + spin both).

Marshall
McGrath
Warne
Hadlee
Imran

Murali
Steyn
Ambrose
Wasim
Lillee

Donald
Cummins
Bumrah
Rabada
Waqar

I feel this will be the top 15, counting from 1970 onwards.