Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[bagapath]

roughly put, this will be a typical scorecard entry after each test match if you average their career records. i did not calculate the maiden overs.

warne 46.4 - 0 - 124 - 4.88
oreilly 60 - 0 - 120 - 5.33

o'reilly is clearly the better bowler.

 

[weldone]

roughly put, this will be a typical scorecard entry after each test match if you average their career records. i did not calculate the maiden overs.

warne 46.4 - 0 - 124 - 4.88
oreilly 60 - 0 - 120 - 5.33

o'reilly is clearly the better bowler.

Exactly, what Kazoholic was doing was rounding off some figures, thereby not providing the exact figures....I would want more wickets for less runs in test cricket, regardless of 13 extra overs if that takes...

 

[Ikki]

roughly put, this will be a typical scorecard entry after each test match if you average their career records. i did not calculate the maiden overs.

warne 46.4 - 0 - 124 - 4.88
oreilly 60 - 0 - 120 - 5.33

o'reilly is clearly the better bowler.

Firstly O'Reilly bowls about 62 overs.

Secondly, my calculations don't add up with yours. That might be because you are assuming they bowl different amounts whereas I am assuming they take the same amount of wickets. Maybe it's my mistake, I'll explain:

If both take 5 wickets, the difference between the runs conceded is 14.1. (25.41-22.59=2.82; 2.82 x 5 = 14.1).

If they have both taken 5 wickets, O'Reilly takes 58 overs to do that (5*69.6=348; 348/6=58). It takes Warne 47.83 overs to do that (5*57.4=287; 287/6=47.83 overs).

So Warne concedes 14.1 more runs than O'Reilly when taking 5 wickets but O'Reilly ends up using about 10 more overs.

My point is, to a team, what would you rather have: 10 overs more conceding 14.1 runs more or 10 overs less with 14.1 runs less? Because no matter who you bowl (even O'Reilly himself), unless they have an economy of 1.41 then they will go further than the difference in runs and overs. That's why I say to a team striking earlier can be better.

 

[bagapath]

all these are just assumptions. i am talking about existing figures here.

even if i were to play the assumption game with you, what is wrong with o'reilly bowling those extra overs for the extra wicket? he still concedes less runs anyway. extending this assumption game, i can say o'reilly's bowling partner would benefit from his tighter bowling as the batter tries to hit him and gives up his wicket. but lets stop the game here.

warne took 4.88 wickets per test for 124 runs.
oreilly took 5.33 wickets per test for 120 runs.

for me, that is enough. o'reilly is clearly the superior bowler.

 

[SJS]

Strike rate in the context of a test match must be looked at carefully. In a five day match a strike rate difference of ten isn't such a big deal. What are we talking off here if the runs are not bleeding ? How long will it take to bowl an opposition out. Thats it. If spinners are bowling they will bowl something like 18 overs an hour.

At a strike rate of 57.5 (Warne) you will bowl out the opposition in 5 hours and 20 minutes. At 67.2 (Grimmett), you will take 55 minutes more. At 69.6 (Orielly) you will take another 20 minutes.

Big deal.

 

[Ikki]

all these are just assumptions. i am talking about existing figures here.

even if i were to play the assumption game with you, what is wrong with o'reilly bowling those extra overs for the extra wicket? he still concedes less runs anyway. extending this assumption game, i can say o'reilly's bowling partner would benefit from his tighter bowling as the batter tries to hit him and gives up his wicket. but lets stop the assumtion game here.

warne took 4.88 wickets per test for 124 runs.
oreilly took 5.33 wickets per test for 120 runs.

for me, that is enough. o'reilly is clearly the superior bowler.

LOL, because he is not going to take the extra wicket. He'd have to be striking about 10 balls faster to do that. And how is it guessing? Everything in the above is based on their own career ratios. I asked, what would be the likelihood that 14.1 runs less conceded would be better served than 10 overs in hand. Because unless you have someone else in your side with an ER of 1.41 then O'Reilly's bowling has done a disservice to you. Because someone else does have to bowl with you.

Also, O'Reilly's figures are inflated. He played, pretty much, two minnows in S.Africa and New Zealand. Without them - all 8 tests, almost a 3rd overall of his tests - he averages 25.36 and strikes at 77. I don't count those really. Essentially, Tiger only faced one real Test standard side - their one and only rivals. If Warne were to be given the same benefit you'd probably have to increase the proportion of games he has against his own era's minnows.

 

[Pratters]

all these are just assumptions. i am talking about existing figures here.

even if i were to play the assumption game with you, what is wrong with o'reilly bowling those extra overs for the extra wicket? he still concedes less runs anyway. extending this assumption game, i can say o'reilly's bowling partner would benefit from his tighter bowling as the batter tries to hit him and gives up his wicket. but lets stop the assumtion game here.

warne took 4.88 wickets per test for 124 runs.
oreilly took 5.33 wickets per test for 120 runs.

for me, that is enough. o'reilly is clearly the superior bowler.

Tiger O'Reilly taking more overs to bowl the opponent out means that more runs are conceded at the other end. The batsmen wouldn't be out losing patience in that era like modern batsmen are out as they generally were more patient as they batted for overs compared to today and compared to Warne. So the S/R disadvantage does go against O'Reilly. It would not be significant usually but given how it is not crystal clear who is superior between the two bowlers, it adds a shade of grey. You would have to add more than 120 runs for O'Reilly there for the over all impact.

 

[bagapath]

LOL, because he is not going to take the extra wicket. He'd have to be striking about 10 balls faster to do that. And how is it guessing? Everything in the above is based on their own career ratios. I asked, what would be the likelihood that 14.1 runs less conceded would be better served than 10 overs in hand. Because unless you have someone else in your side with an ER of 1.41 then O'Reilly's bowling has done a disservice to you. Because someone else does have to bowl with you.

I am not bothered about your extrapolation. Oreilly takes .5 wicket more per test and he still concedes less runs than warne. he is the better bowler. you can twist and turn stats any which way but what has happened has actually happened. only their existing numbers matter. all other assumptions are pointless.

 

[social]

What a pointless argument!

Is Fred Perry a better tennis player than, say, Roger Federer because he won .03% more of his matches?

Or are we comparing apples with fish?

 

[weldone]

If one has to make a point saying that Warne was a better bowler than O'Reilly, then the only point can be it is tougher for some1 to maintain same stats taking 600 wickets than the same stats taking 200 wickets...Well, that too is a debatable point I agree; for instance some may argue O'Reilly's figures might have been better or might have stayed the same if he played more...But that's the best and probably the only point in Warne's favor.

Having said all these, O'Reilly's first class record is as follows -
Matches 135
Balls bowled 37279
Wickets 774
Bowling average 16.60
5 wickets in innings 63
10 wickets in match 17
Best bowling 9/38
Catches/stumpings 65/–

When Kazoholic brings in proteas and kiwis case, I would rather say one should look at O'Reilly's first class career to see how he performed against minnows.

 

[SJS]

He played, pretty much, two minnows in S.Africa and New Zealand. .

Without getting into the rest of the argument about leg spinners. I must strongly disagree to South Africa of the period in which Orielly played (1932-1946) being labelled Minnows.

• They had in Bruce Mitchell and van der Bijl, two batsmen who averaged in the 50's in this 14 year period.
• In Nourse (49.9) and Melville (47.8) another two in the upper 40's.
• In Dalton and Christy they had another two who averaged in the 40's.

I do not see how a side with batsmen of that caliber can be called minnows - and it is the batting which concerns us when evaluating Orielly the bowler.

Newzealand was weaker but Orielly played just one test against them and that too the last of his test career. Yes he got his 8 wickets very cheap in that solitary test in 1946 but he had played 26 of his 27 test career by 1938 and taken 136 out of his total 144 wickets in them.

That one test did not make or break O'riely's reputation. He was already, before embarking on that 1946 tour to NZland acclaimed as the world's finest bowler. This one test eight years and one world war later made no difference to it.

Of the five series in which O'rielly took 20 or more test wickets, four were against England and one against South Africa.

His wickets till his penultimate test had cost him 23.68 each. After that one test against Newzealand, it came down to 22.60.

Thats no big deal.

 

[bagapath]

LOL, because he is not going to take the extra wicket. He'd have to be striking about 10 balls faster to do that. And how is it guessing? Everything in the above is based on their own career ratios. I asked, what would be the likelihood that 14.1 runs less conceded would be better served than 10 overs in hand. Because unless you have someone else in your side with an ER of 1.41 then O'Reilly's bowling has done a disservice to you. Because someone else does have to bowl with you.

Also, O'Reilly's figures are inflated. He played, pretty much, two minnows in S.Africa and New Zealand. Without them - all 8 tests, almost a 3rd overall of his tests - he averages 25.36 and strikes at 77. I don't count those really. Essentially, Tiger only faced one real Test standard side - their one and only rivals. If Warne were to be given the same benefit you'd probably have to increase the proportion of games he has against his own era's minnows.

ambrose took 4 wickets per test. and averaged 20.99. his strike rate was over 54
akram took 3.98 wickets per test. averaged 23 +. his strike rate was also over 54

christ cairns averaged close to 30. took 3.5 wickets per test. but had a strike rate better than both of them. so does brett lee. does that mean both these guys are better than ambrose and akram?

stuart mcgill's strike rate is far superior to that of warne. is he a better bowler than him, and, better than o'reilly himself? kazoholic... the illogical wall of SR being be all of everything will crumble at the first pat. leave alone a firm push.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Reckon uncovered wickets mitigate Warnie's worse record just a teeny bit. Wouldn't fancy facing Tiger on a sticky-dog.

 

[bagapath]

wish someone could post tiger's article on his first encounter with the don. it is an absolute gem. second only to mailey's experience with trumper. i read it a while ago and the experience stayed with me for weeks. wish i could share it with you.

 

[bond21]

ITT - Bean counters

Warne is the better bowler. See what I did there, I didnt use any stats!!

 

[99*]

ITT - Bean counters

Warne is the better bowler. See what I did there, I didnt use any stats!!

And you still got it wrong.

 

[Ikki]

ambrose took 4 wickets per test. and averaged 20.99. his strike rate was over 54
akram took 3.98 wickets per test. averaged 23 +. his strike rate was also over 54

christ cairns averaged close to 30. took 3.5 wickets per test. but had a strike rate better than both of them. so does brett lee. does that mean both these guys are better than ambrose and akram?

stuart mcgill's strike rate is far superior to that of warne. is he a better bowler than him, and, better than o'reilly himself? kazoholic... the illogical wall of SR being be all of everything will crumble at the first pat. leave alone a firm push.

Point well taken. I don't mean to imply if one is statistically better then that's that. You're as entitled to your opinion as I am. And yes, it is close. Thanks for showing me exactly how close.

 

[Ikki]

Without getting into the rest of the argument about leg spinners. I must strongly disagree to South Africa of the period in which Orielly played (1932-1946) being labelled Minnows.

• They had in Bruce Mitchell and van der Bijl, two batsmen who averaged in the 50's in this 14 year period.
• In Nourse (49.9) and Melville (47.8) another two in the upper 40's.
• In Dalton and Christy they had another two who averaged in the 40's.

I do not see how a side with batsmen of that caliber can be called minnows - and it is the batting which concerns us when evaluating Orielly the bowler.

Newzealand was weaker but Orielly played just one test against them and that too the last of his test career. Yes he got his 8 wickets very cheap in that solitary test in 1946 but he had played 26 of his 27 test career by 1938 and taken 136 out of his total 144 wickets in them. Alan Melville also played no tests against Tiger and debuted in 1938.

That one test did not make or break O'riely's reputation. He was already, before embarking on that 1946 tour to NZland acclaimed as the world's finest bowler. This one test eight years and one world war later made no difference to it.

Of the five series in which O'rielly took 20 or more test wickets, four were against England and one against South Africa.

His wickets till his penultimate test had cost him 23.68 each. After that one test against Newzealand, it came down to 22.60.

Thats no big deal.

Regarding S.Africa: Tiger did not play them at all in the 40s. He only played 1 test against New Zealand. The rest of his career resides in the 1930s. And against S.Africa it is only a period of 4 years between 1932 and 1936.

First of all, Mitchell averaged sub 50 in that period. Van Der Bijl, who has only 5 test matches under his belt, never played against Tiger. Melville never played against Tiger either and debuted in 1938. Dalton also played only 1 test vs. Tiger and averaged 4.5. Christy averages 40 in this period but played only 2 tests against Australia for which he averaged 15. His tonking of New Zealand lifts that average to be honest.

So as you can see, pretty poor line-up faced by Tiger. Generally, apart from Nourse and Mitchell in that period there were no consistently good batsmen. Taking a gander at the names and their records, a lot of them average sub-20 with the bat.

Furthermore, I already posted a list of many bowlers who had done very well in this period. It's just not that coincidental.

 

[weldone]

Regarding S.Africa: Tiger did not play them at all in the 40s. He only played 1 test against New Zealand. The rest of his career resides in the 1930s. And against S.Africa it is only a period of 4 years between 1932 and 1936.

First of all, Mitchell averaged sub 50 in that period. Van Der Bijl, who has only 5 test matches under his belt, never played against Tiger. Melville never played against Tiger either and debuted in 1938. Dalton also played only 1 test vs. Tiger and averaged 4.5. Christy averages 40 in this period but played only 2 tests against Australia for which he averaged 15. His tonking of New Zealand lifts that average to be honest.

So as you can see, pretty poor line-up faced by Tiger. Generally, apart from Nourse and Mitchell in that period there were no consistently good batsmen. Taking a gander at the names and their records, a lot of them average sub-20 with the bat.

Furthermore, I already posted a list of many bowlers who had done very well in this period. It's just not that coincidental.

OK so we get two world class batsmen in Nourse and Mitchell in that team...Now name more than two world class English batsmen against whom Warne has bowled much...

 

[SJS]

Regarding S.Africa: Tiger did not play them at all in the 40s. He only played 1 test against New Zealand. The rest of his career resides in the 1930s. And against S.Africa it is only a period of 4 years between 1932 and 1936.

First of all, Mitchell averaged sub 50 in that period. Van Der Bijl, who has only 5 test matches under his belt, never played against Tiger. Melville never played against Tiger either and debuted in 1938. Dalton also played only 1 test vs. Tiger and averaged 4.5. Christy averages 40 in this period but played only 2 tests against Australia for which he averaged 15. His tonking of New Zealand lifts that average to be honest.

So as you can see, pretty poor line-up faced by Tiger. Generally, apart from Nourse and Mitchell in that period there were no consistently good batsmen. Taking a gander at the names and their records, a lot of them average sub-20 with the bat.

Furthermore, I already posted a list of many bowlers who had done very well in this period. It's just not that coincidental.

Now I know what problem you are having with Richard.

If you are going to run down Bruce Mitchell because of an average below 50 for some period you prefer to take, let me tell you something.

Bruce Mitchell is considered by most people as the greatest South African opening batsman ever. The only one to whom he is compared in this regard is Barry Richard who unfortunately played only four test matches.

Bruce Mitchell in five successive series (other than Australia) scored had the following phenomenal performances.

[B]Opponent/year	Tests	Runs	Average[/B]
1930-1931 ENG	5	455	50.56
1931-1932 NZL	2	166	55.33
1935      ENG 	5	488	69.71
1938-1939 ENG	5	466	58.25
1947      ENG	5	597	66.33
1948-1949 ENG	5	475	52.78

• In his career he played 30 tests against England and averaged 54.64
• He played just two tests against NZland and averaged 55.33
• It was against Australia that this great batsman had a more modest record. In ten tests he averaged 31.8

Could it be becuase Australia had two of its greatest bowlers bowling for her around that time ??

More later