Spinners

[iamdavid]

I just read a very good article in the latest Inside Edge by Ashley Mallet & Richie Benaud , it was comparing Warne & MacGill & asking who was better.

So it just kind of rekindled this question in my mind , who , is the best spinner of All Time.

 

[Jamee999]

Murralii

 

[masterblaster]

Shane Warne in my opinion, he bamboozled the best of the best in his prime, and has been the most prolific in all sorts of conditions.

Honours also could've gone to Murali, Lance Gibbs and the legend of yesteryear, Jim Laker.

 

[iamdavid]

I voted for Warnie but I would have given O'Reilly second , I recently saw some footage of him bowling & he was something real special , he got so much bounce , even on the crappy tape it was clear , he had a great line aswell & got alot of drop on the ball.
Although he didnt really turn it much.

 

[Richard]

Interestingly, david, you've not included Sydney F Barnes, who by common consent among writers of the time had skills unrivalled by any in your list. For me the best amongst them was Clarrie Grimmett - a weird, loopy, skipping action, but sure knew what accuracy was and turned the ball too. Not wholly possible to compare him and O'Reilly with Benaud with Warne\Murali\Qadir, but Barnes bowled at "medium-slow" (definitions of pace haven't changed much down the years) and turned the ball a mile, plus he bowled variations including seam-up balls.
If he'd been blessed with a better temperament and been born in a better place he'd surely have set records almost unequallable.

 

[Langeveldt]

Well I havent seen most of those guys, so cant comment...

The best spinner ive had the privelage of seeing, probably Mushtaq Ahmed

 

[Rik]

Murali for me, I doubt there's been a spinner who's turned it as far as he has, on any surface. He just gets more and more effective.

Warne's up there and is the best orthodox bowler.

Laker was a legend, if I had seen him bowl I might have put him above Murali.

 

[Kenny]

Murali for me, I doubt there's been a spinner who's turned it as far as he has, on any surface. He just gets more and more effective.

Warne's up there and is the best orthodox bowler.

Laker was a legend, if I had seen him bowl I might have put him above Murali.

Well I don't think there's much doubt that Warne has turned the ball more than anyone in the history of the game - a wrist spinner will always achieve more sideways spin than an offie.......and by 'orthodox' I assume you mean with a legitimate action?

 

[Rik]

Well I don't think there's much doubt that Warne has turned the ball more than anyone in the history of the game - a wrist spinner will always achieve more sideways spin than an offie.......and by 'orthodox' I assume you mean with a legitimate action?

No, I mean orthodox as in a text-book style action. Murali's action is legitimate, we've been over this so many times, and the proof's there if you want to read it.

Murali's turned the ball just as far as Warne, a ball he bowled to Butcher a few years ago was around a foot outside leg and hit off. The difference is I've seen Murali turn the ball much more consistantly than Warne, and further on average, on even the flattest of pitches.

 

[royGilchrist]

the most intriguing spinner i ever saw has been abdul qadir. the most variety and the most stylish, with the follow through, the french beard, the appealing style, the run-up, the classical action.

From stats Murali is tough to beat.

Interestingly, david, you've not included Sydney F Barnes, who by common consent among writers of the time had skills unrivalled by any in your list.

Can Barnes be regarded as a spinner? I thought he was slow medium, who sometimes put spin on the ball but was not a full time spinner.

Shane Warne in my opinion, he bamboozled the best of the best in his prime, and has been the most prolific in all sorts of conditions.

not in india though?

 

[iamdavid]

Interestingly, david, you've not included Sydney F Barnes, who by common consent among writers of the time had skills unrivalled by any in your list. For me the best amongst them was Clarrie Grimmett - a weird, loopy, skipping action, but sure knew what accuracy was and turned the ball too. Not wholly possible to compare him and O'Reilly with Benaud with Warne\Murali\Qadir, but Barnes bowled at "medium-slow" (definitions of pace haven't changed much down the years) and turned the ball a mile, plus he bowled variations including seam-up balls.
If he'd been blessed with a better temperament and been born in a better place he'd surely have set records almost unequallable.

Oh for god sake , Im never going to list all the spinners , thats why I left the 'other' option.
And just off the top of my head , wasnt Barnes a medium pacer anyway , one who swung it a bit & could cut the ball but not a guenuine spinner

 

[Rik]

Oh for god sake , Im never going to list all the spinners , thats why I left the 'other' option.
And just off the top of my head , wasnt Barnes a medium pacer anyway , one who swung it a bit & could cut the ball but not a guenuine spinner

I can't remember when or why but it was a very long time ago, but South Africa's Steve Elworthy was classed as a spinner by a commentator, I think it was when England toured SA last...

 

[badgerhair]

And just off the top of my head , wasnt Barnes a medium pacer anyway , one who swung it a bit & could cut the ball but not a guenuine spinner

Barnes was a pace bowler, but he had such long and powerful fingers that he could spin the ball as well. His most devastating delivery, the "Barnes ball", was a genuine leg-break which turned a long way, but which came through at the pace of the present Martin Bicknell/Shaun Pollock not-quite-fast-medium.

I thikn it is more sensible to regard him as a pace bowler who used genuine spin as part of his arsenal than to include him in a poll of spinners.

 

[royGilchrist]

finally some recognition for Mushy, good going Langeveldt.

How good was Lance Gibbs?

 

[anzac]

I can't cast a vote as IMO we're comparing apples to oranges......
my reasons are the reverse of why I rate yesterday's batsmen ahead of todays counterparts - pitches and protective gear.

Todays pitches are more consistant & batsmen friendly than yesteryear's uncovered ones, and batsmen now have more physical protection to give them confidence to play shots.

Yesteryear's bowlers got more assistance from the wickets, they would have deteriorated quicker & the batsmen would not have had as much confidence re bounce etc. This is not to say that I do not rate yesteryear's bowlers, as IMO many of them would still come up trumps today as they were 'real' class acts (unlike some of today's pretenders), just that perhaps their stats would not be so impressive......

I am dubious of sub-continent bowlers Away from Home (Muri et all), and stats alone can be an inflated misrepresentation of their ability / achievements.......the amount of cricket played in the respective eras also influences stats so far as wicket taking is concerned...

My vote would go to......

the bowler who has been able to influence the most series around the world (not just on his Home turf), and I'm not talking just about taking wickets here.......you can influence a series without being the leading wicket taker of even taking a bag of wickets........

I have no idea who would meet that criteria........

 

[age_master]

dont know, hard to compare the current bowlers, ie Warne and Murali to the greats of the past like Laker and O Rielly

 

[godofcricket]

Currently i would rate muttiah muralitharan as a better bowler then shane warne. murli is a big threat for most oppositions and statistics also show that hes better. Shane warne on the other hand isn't of the same class as he used to be...he can still turn but maybe not good enough to really threaten a team like murli does.

 

[garage flower]

I can't cast a vote as IMO we're comparing apples to oranges......
my reasons are the reverse of why I rate yesterday's batsmen ahead of todays counterparts - pitches and protective gear.

Todays pitches are more consistant & batsmen friendly than yesteryear's uncovered ones, and batsmen now have more physical protection to give them confidence to play shots.

Yesteryear's bowlers got more assistance from the wickets, they would have deteriorated quicker & the batsmen would not have had as much confidence re bounce etc. This is not to say that I do not rate yesteryear's bowlers, as IMO many of them would still come up trumps today as they were 'real' class acts (unlike some of today's pretenders), just that perhaps their stats would not be so impressive......

I am dubious of sub-continent bowlers Away from Home (Muri et all), and stats alone can be an inflated misrepresentation of their ability / achievements.......the amount of cricket played in the respective eras also influences stats so far as wicket taking is concerned...

My vote would go to......

the bowler who has been able to influence the most series around the world (not just on his Home turf), and I'm not talking just about taking wickets here.......you can influence a series without being the leading wicket taker of even taking a bag of wickets........

I have no idea who would meet that criteria........

That was a bit of an anti-climax anzac.

Of those I've seen it's clearly a straight battle between Murali and Warne. Warne's been bashed around a bit on the sub-continent. In the Caribbean this year I'm sure Murali was turning his doosra/wrong 'un/ or whatever you want to call it more than his off break and he has less support from the rest of his attack.

So that settles it. It's got to be Ashley Giles.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Having thought about it, probably Murali.

How would Warney cope with no support (or not much, anyway) leading the attack? Not as well as the Twirly Tamil (just made that up :P)

 

[Anil]

Shane Warne in my opinion, he bamboozled the best of the best in his prime, and has been the most prolific in all sorts of conditions.

No...no against India.....either in India or in Australia....Murali also has fared badly in India, but he has a good record against them in Sri Lanka...