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 said: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.
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.Kenny said: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?
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.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.
not in india though?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.
Oh for god sake , Im never going to list all the spinners , thats why I left the 'other' option.Richard said: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.
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...iamdavid said: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
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.iamdavid said: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
anzac said: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........
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...masterblaster said: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.