• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Murali played Zimbabwe a lot. Geez, really? Zimbabwe able to beat anyone? :laugh:
Goodwin, Jonhson and Andy Flower were better than most of the contempary English batsmen played during that era BTW. Unfortunately the earlier two decided to play for money than for country. With those four in line-up with Streak as well, they could have blossmed in to a very competitive unit. But the pocess was cut short by money on offer from other sources. And I have proved earlier that playing BAN and ZIM did not affect Murali's wicket taking ability, and I think there is nothing to argue about it.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Goodwin, Jonhson and Andy Flower were better than most of the contempary English batsmen played during that era BTW.
As test batsmen only Flower is better than his English contemporaries. Batsmen like Gooch (who averages 51 in 45 tests in the 90s) Alec Stewart and Graham Thorpe spring to mind.

I mean, Neil Johnson averages about 24. :laugh:
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
If the bowling was very strong, you could not call them minnows.
Their bowling was poor too:

S.Africa of 1930s: Avg. 38.12; SR 80.
England of 1930s: Avg. 29.78; SR 70.4

Zimbabwe of 1990s: Avg. 36.05: SR 79.2
Australia of 1990s: Avg. 27.75; SR 61.1

I guess the difference in SR is because Australia in 90s had one of the best attacks of all time whereas England in 1930s weren't as special.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
And Neil Johnson was Gooch's contemprary ? He did alright compared to some of the greates talents that England churned out e.g. Nick Knight and Mark Ramprakash.
Johnson and Goodwin came towards the end of the 90s. I am talking about the whole of the 90s. Gooch played from 90-95. Not sure how that doesn't count. Regardless, it doesn't need explaining that there are English batsmen from 98-2000 that are better than Johnson.
 

JBH001

International Regular
So, you're saying they were Test standard. OK, but they weren't even of average strength. That goes for S.Africa largely too. And then O'Reilly faced New Zealand which is the equivalent to Bangladesh. 8 tests out of 27 are against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Does that not inflate a record?
They were either of test standard or not of test standard. As I said earlier to TC, its irrelevant whether a side is mid-table or low-table or whatever, simply because walking down that path results in making judgements by and large impossible, or just unsound.

In this case you simply have no grounds to judge by how much a sides test strength 'inflates' their record or otherwise. It becomes purely subjective, and quoting figures becomes not only selective, but interpretation of those figures also becomes selective. In other words, intellgible cricketing conversation becomes impossible.

For instance, NZ was a test class side in the 60s and 70s (but did not then and does not now have truly outstanding performers - the only possible exception in the 70s being Turner who averaged 44 iirc). Do we suddenly discount all runs and wickets scored against NZ? But then what of runs scored and wickets taken by them, are they suddenly exponentially magnified? Its not a problem left to the so-called also rans of world cricket either. Even powerful and established sides go through peaks and troughs, for example Australia in the mid 80s, and England in the late 90's. England for example had few batsmen of note in the 90's after the retirement of Gooch in what? 92/93? After that you had Thorpe with an average in the mid 40's and Steward in the high 30's (iirc) and really no-one else. Are wickets taken against this England team suddenly worth less? Of course not, and in any case, there is no grounds to make such a judgement in the first place without being awfully biased. The same problem repeats itself if we look at India in the 60's and 70's and Pakistan in the 70's (or even, for that matter, New Zealand at the present time). Finally and consistently test class, but nothing to rave about. But we would not realistically discount performances against them, or magnify performances by them. Not only would that be bad cricketing judgement, it would be lacking in integrity even in qualitative terms.Were they, or are they, a test standard team? That is all that counts.

I find it more than a little ironic, and somewhat amusing, that recently, on numerous occassions having decried the overall worth and/or validity of statistical judgement you continue to pull it out with some really wonky extrapolation and justification. I really dont understand it, tbph.

O'Reilly's wickets against NZ can arguably be left out. But South Africa? Not really, not with any validity or integrity, and certainly not if you want to have an intelligible discussion on cricket. Finally, apologies again if my post is a little scattered. University this year is hectic (an MA will do that to you I hear) and I have little or no time to get into and participate in forum discussions. Although reading is sometimes a welcome diversion.
 
Last edited:

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
oreilly took five wickets per test match giving away less that 23 runs per wicket (the best ever for a leggie). he took a wicket, on average, every 12th over.

warne took 4.5 wickets per test conceding less than 26 runs and he, on average, took a wicket every 10th over.

if one was quicker in taking wickets the other one was conceding less runs per scalp despite bowling two more overs. strike rate and economy in this argument should nullify each other. warne struck faster, oreilly bowled tighter. deuce.

look at wickets per test, oreilly comes on top.
Who were O' Reilly's bowling partners? Pretty sure he didn't have someone like McGrath to share wickets with.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
They were either of test standard or not of test standard. As I said earlier to TC, its irrelevant whether a side is mid-table or low-table or whatever, simply because walking down that path results in making judgements by and large impossible, or just unsound.
Either test standard or not test standard? Are you serious? If anything that kind of judgement is flawed and ignores facts. That certain teams are better than others and performance against these teams is of more value than performance against weaker teams must always be underlined. That's what these comparisons are about...making judgments. To ignore this is giving the same value to all wickets regardless how they are obtained.

In this case you simply have no grounds to judge by how much a sides test strength 'inflates' their record or otherwise. It becomes purely subjective, and quoting figures becomes not only selective, but interpretation of those figures also becomes selective. In other words, intellgible cricketing conversation becomes impossible.
If anything it is objective. It is not a personal feeling that I wish to make one team look worse by using selective criteria. All the criteria that is relevant was selected and the fact is that S.Africa were a very weak side. If O'Reilly's record is translated into the 90s, it's akin to him playing S.Africa (England) 19 times, Zimbabwe (S.Africa) 7 times and Bangladesh (New Zealand) once. That's almost 1/3rd of his record against a weak team or a very weak team. That's like averaging 40 against good test sides but then averaging 50 overall because of the many games played against minnows. Then you compare that player with someone who averages 50 overall but didn't play any minnows. To say they are equal then is unfair.

For instance, NZ was a test class side in the 60s and 70s (but did not then and does not now have truly outstanding performers - the only possible exception in the 70s being Turner who averaged 44 iirc). Do we suddenly discount all runs and wickets scored against NZ?
You appear to have a problem with the discounting of figures. Don't discount them if you wish, but note there is a large difference between two players like the ones I exemplified in the previous paragraph. They are not equals.

If you are comparing two players of that era, then one who took more wickets against Australia (a very good team at the time) is in actuality superior to a player who took most of their wickets against NZ. This is just obvious.

But then what of runs scored and wickets taken by them, are they suddenly exponentially magnified? Its not a problem left to the so-called also rans of world cricket either. Even powerful and established sides go through peaks and troughs, for example Australia in the mid 80s, and England in the late 90's.
But that's the point. No one is exponentially increasing or decreasing anything. O'Reilly played against 3 teams in his life. One strong, one of them weak, the other very weak. They make up about a third of his Test matches. The only good test side of his day was England, apart from his own. His record against England tells more about him as a bowler than his record against minnows. Warne played very very few games against minnows. Proportionately, they don't impact his figures near to the amount O'Reilly's do to his. To ignore this and to assume O'Reilly would have the same overall stats regardless who he played is a fallacy. You cannot judge like that.

England for example had few batsmen of note in the 90's after the retirement of Gooch in what? 92/93? After that you had Thorpe with an average in the mid 40's and Steward in the high 30's (iirc) and really no-one else. Are wickets taken against this England team suddenly worth less? Of course not, and in any case, there is no grounds to make such a judgement in the first place without being awfully biased. The same problem repeats itself if we look at India in the 60's and 70's and Pakistan in the 70's (or even, for that matter, New Zealand at the present time). Finally and consistently test class, but nothing to rave about. But we would not realistically discount performances against them, or magnifiy performances by them. Not only would that be bad cricketing judgement, it would be lacking in integrity even in qualitative terms.Were they, or are they, a test standard team? That is all that counts.
We're not talking about a peak or a trough of a single season. We are talking about the decade 1930. If said team is much weaker in this period then yes, compared to a stronger side such wickets ARE worth less.

I find it more than a little ironic, and somewhat amusing, that recently, on numerous occassions having decried the overall worth and/or validity of statistical judgement you continue to pull it out with some really wonky extrapolation and justification. I really dont understand it, tbph.
It seems that unless something is statistically stated here on this forum no one will believe it. Hence, I am using using their own tool for deciphering.

BTW, I have not made one wonky extrapolation, if I have, I'd like for you to point it out. I don't wish to mislead.

O'Reilly's wickets against NZ can arguably be left out. But South Africa? Not really, not with any validity or integrity, and certainly not if you want to have an intellgible discussion on cricket. Finally, apologies again if my post is a little scattered. University this year is hectic, and I have little or not time to get into and participate in forum discussions. Although reading is sometimes a welcome diversion.
TBH, your reasoning was poor and your logic inconsistent. You simply cannot judge every opponent the same way. If you wish to compare two players and make a judgment then this is the only fair assessment. Intelligible discussion and it's validity hinges on it's accuracy and fairness. To ignore what I am arguing is closing your eyes to the obvious. Since you talked generally and didn't really disprove anything I argued I can't really agree with anything you just said.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Who were O' Reilly's bowling partners? Pretty sure he didn't have someone like McGrath to share wickets with.
Frankly, even that doesn't matter. O'Reilly only took more wickets per match because he bowled more.
 

bagapath

International Captain
warne took less wickets per match than despite bowling more than him. does that make him an inferior bowler?

i was staying out of this discussion for a while since i thought you made it clear you agreed with me on not using SR as a big deal in determining the class of these bowlers. if you want to go back to that argument you will have to address warne and mcgill and prove your point.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
every time mcgill bowled with warne, he outperformed him. does that make him a better spinner than shane?
No, I don't think it does. But what does that have to do with wickets per match/SR? Grimmett takes more wickets per match than Tiger, does that mean he is better than Tiger? Also another irrelevant question.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Johnson and Goodwin came towards the end of the 90s. I am talking about the whole of the 90s. Gooch played from 90-95. Not sure how that doesn't count. Regardless, it doesn't need explaining that there are English batsmen from 98-2000 that are better than Johnson.
Did he say that Johnson and Godwin were better than all the English batsmen ?

Also I would like to know who were the English batsmen that were better than Flower, Goodwin and Johnson (Although it is funny how selective you have been with the names and continue to misrepresent his statement) ?

Not that I am surprised, this has been the bread and butter of your arguments on this forum for quite some time.

Lastly Gooch played between 1975-1995, How did he become a contemporary of Flower, Goodwin and Johnson ?
 

bond21

Banned
O'Reilly is the second best spinner of all time.

Warne is obviously undisputably the best, so O'Reilly is #2

close thread plz
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
warne took less wickets per match than despite bowling more than him. does that make him an inferior bowler?

i was staying out of this discussion for a while since i thought you made it clear you agreed with me on not using SR as a big deal in determining the class of these bowlers. if you want to go back to that argument you will have to address warne and mcgill and prove your point.
But that doesn't make sense. That's not the reason I wouldn't say MacGill isn't better. If MacGill had continued to bowl just as good without Warne then he'd have an argument as to being better. But it's quite poorer, not sure those matches with Warne serve to establish a trend about MacGill's talent alone.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Did he say that Johnson and Godwin were better than all the English batsmen ?

Also I would like to know who were the English batsmen that were better than Flower, Goodwin and Johnson (Although it is funny how selective you have been with the names and continue to misrepresent his statement) ?

Not that I am surprised, this has been the bread and butter of your arguments on this forum for quite some time.

Lastly Gooch played between 1975-1995, How did he become a contemporary of Flower, Goodwin and Johnson ?
Gooch played from 1990-1995 and Flower played from 1992 onwards. How are they not contemporaries?



Better than Johnson and Goodwin? Thorpe, Hussain, Stewart ..heck even Flintoff? Goodwin matches but Johnson is not even close. And Goodwin only played 19 test matches and Johnson 13. How does this represent Zimbabwe in the 90s? :laugh:
 

bagapath

International Captain
No, I don't think it does. But what does that have to do with wickets per match/SR? Grimmett takes more wickets per match than Tiger, does that mean he is better than Tiger? Also another irrelevant question.
mcgill's SR is better than warne's. does that make him a superior spinner?

simple question!

if your answer is no, then dont tell me warne is better than oreilly because his SR is better.

and dont keep harping on the fact that oreilly took more wickets per test only because he bowled more overs than warne. warne bowled more overs than mcgill and took less wickets than him on average. so dont use that line of argument also.

last..

if you are going to separate mcgill and warne based on the teams they bowled against, match conditions etc. then choose games they both played in. mcgill comes on top again.

if you use your regular, oft repeated arguments to prove warne is better than oreilly, you'll end up proving mcgill is better than warne. so choose your tool carefully.

warne can be deemed better than oreilly and hailed as the greatest leg spinner of all time. but oreilly's case is stronger, thats all.

by using weak statistical arguments you are making me attack warne's career which i dont intend to at all.
 

Top