606v2 Greatest Test Spinners Rankings

Afternoon fellas

Your votes on who you believe to be the ten greatest Test spinners of all time have been taken into account, and as a result the following official 606v2 cricket rankings have been compiled.

Thank for voting, the 10 greatest Test seamers vote will be the next one up in the series.

1. Shane Warne
2. Muttiah Muralitharan
3. Bill O'Reilly
4. Jim Laker
5. Abdul Qadir
6. Clarrie Grimmett
7. Lance Gibbs
8. Bishan Bedi
9. Derek Underwood
10. Anil Kumble

-----

Saqlain Mushtaq was voted into 11th place, for the record.

Sounds fair although I wouldnt have Kumble in the top 10 and Saqlain should be nowhere near.

seems pretty good to me, the top 3 is the same as mine, and can't argue with any of the names on there...

Kumble a little too low perhaps, but what really surprises me is the fact that Benaud hasn't made the ten at all. How has that happened!? Certainly a far better spinner than Qadir, and at worst on an equal footing with Bedi.

Would have gone for Murali for top spot (don't know what else he could have done to prove that he was the better bowler than Warne), but when it comes to the popular vote, Warne at top spot is to be expected, I suppose.

Not sure I agree with you at all here, Chris.

Warne's record was better against the 'bigger' cricketing nations, with many more of Murali's wickets coming against the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. He also revolutionised the game in a bigger way than Murali, generally provided the greater entertainment and was, for me, the slightly more skilled bowler particularly on decks that weren't suited to spin. His notorious mind games also cannot be overlooked, given that they were part of the overall package.

Qadir not as good as Benaud? I beg to differ. Qadir was a tremendous spinner, rated in the same bracket as Warne by many, though obviously for various reasons his figures are not in the same league.

Murali was not a spinner.

Kumble was a wkt taker but not a spinner in true sense.....and not as effective outside India.

chandrasekhar was as good a leggie world has ever produced...

and soni ramadhin bamboozled Len Hutton and compnay was an all time great if reports are the be believed.

Don't discoutn Saqlain...because he is contemporary and career cut short prematurely. I never saw ANY batsman who could read Saqlain's Doosra ( his invention) other than Siddhu who played him briefly I think.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not sure I agree with you at all here, Chris.

Warne's record was better against the 'bigger' cricketing nations, with many more of Murali's wickets coming against the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. He also revolutionised the game in a bigger way than Murali, generally provided the greater entertainment and was, for me, the slightly more skilled bowler particularly on decks that weren't suited to spin. His notorious mind games also cannot be overlooked, given that they were part of the overall package.

Qadir not as good as Benaud? I beg to differ. Qadir was a tremendous spinner, rated in the same bracket as Warne by many, though obviously for various reasons his figures are not in the same league.

That's not true, Fists. Take out Murali's performances against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and his record is still superior to Warne's in nearly every way, albeit to a slightly lesser degree. Wickets per match, strike rate, average, economy rate, record against the best players of spin in India...You name it, Murali leads.

With his charisma and the (reluctant) affection us Brits tend to feel towards Australian sportsmen, I can see the appeal in putting Warne at the top, but I just can't justify it when Murali did everything just as well, and to me that little bit better. I don't doubt that Warne 'contributed' more to the game than Murali did in that sense, but the question - and only question - for me here is, was he a better pure bowler than Murali? And to me, he just wasn't.

Sorry I should have qualified my statement by saying that that was true at the time of Warne's retirement. For me, Warne is still the better pure bowler, with more delivery types, and not playing his home matches on 'bunsen burners', which would have helped Murali in Sri Lanka of course.

Also, it has to be taken into account that Murali was carrying Sri Lanka, whereas Warne was amongst a fine battery of fast bowlers, meaning that in some innings he simply wasn't required too extensively. Murali, on the other hand, pretty much bowled non-stop after the initial new ball burst from the quicks.

Fair enough, Fists. Would never deny Warne's greatness - the guy was a phenomenon. It's almost freakish that two spinners of that quality could have careers that ran more or less parallel immediately after a seamer-dominated generation. I'll stress that I have no problem with anyone plumping for Warne, I'd just back Murali, that's all. Again, a lot of it probably comes down to how much you value 'impact' on the sport, in which case Warne has a big advantage.

Chris, I plumped for Warne as my number one bowler, I will see if I can explain why. First off, they were both great spinners, no doubt. Probably the two greatest ever and to have them playing at the same time as each other is a freak coincidence. We will probably never see two players as great as them in the same department play at the same time for a long while.

However, I went for Warne as number one. No doubt Murali has the better record as a spinner, although both are awesome. But for me, Warne hd that "x-factor" in slightly more abundance than Murali. Maybe it just seemed that way due to his charisma, as you say. Or maybe it is because I have seen him destroy England more often than Murali so have a higher opinion than him. I always just felt Warne had more in his locker if things were going against him. He just gave me a tingle when he came on to bowl that I didn't get from Murali. His ability to work out a batsman and set a plan for him and then for it to work to absolute perfection, ball for ball how Warne planned it, was ridiculous. I think on that level, that cannot be measureed in stats, Warne was far superior and that is why I give him the edge. And also because I just prefer watching a good leg spinner to a good off spinner! Don't know why.

Your opinion is more than welcome, Chris, and it'd be good to see you contribute to the cricket section more often.

It is a very tight call, agreed, and as you say fantastic that their careers ran parallel, given that they're a once in every couple of generations type player, if not more than that. Let's count ourselves blessed to have watched their era.

Very surprised to see Abdul Qadir up so high. How many votes did he place for himself? Bedi a bit iffy also.

As for the claims for Benaud, I doubt if even he'd've put himself in the top twenty. Though maybe if this top ten were to need a Captain . . . . .

Big Lance Gibbs fan, took 300 Test wickets even as some of the best bowlers of their time took more than their fair share. Better than Laker in my mind, but Laker's legacy will always be his miracle 1956 season (but tarnished by his monotonous commentary).

What position was Tony Lock in? Always second fiddle statistically to Laker though not necessarily in ability. And a brilliant close catcher, not to mention being a decent batsman.

Kwini - like your comment about Abdul Quadir.

I voted highly for Benaud although far more because of his cricketing brain than natural spinning ability.

Lock was just in my top ten but hardly in anyone else's (if I recall correctly).

Agree with you about Gibbs but you know that. We're now debating putting him in our Hall of that Fame - see the Sticky for that. I've recently posted a link on that Sticky showing a lovely Gibbs / Sobers combo picking up a couple of wickets in 1973. Well worth a look - thought I'd better say that as no one else has!

must admit im still suprised Grimmett is above gibbs, however i think im in the minority there

It is a shame that I didn't see the spinning thread.

Two points.

Stuart MacGill, I am very surprised he is not on the list.

Shane Warne. Once again a player is touted by most as the best spinner, because of the hype that surrounded him by Australian media. I suppose the controversy of Murali's action was also a deterring factor for him to be voted no 1.

For me it is simple, start with a players statictics, they are at the end of the day the most telling fact we have, the rest is pure conjecture, whether personal bias, perception or prejudice.

I know you guys don't agree with me, but I start by the players record and then look for reasons to drop him down a list, not the other way around.

for me it is a case of Murali has by far a better record than Warne. Murali has almost twice the 5 wicket hals Warne has, granted warne had McGrath and the like who were phenominal and shared wickets.

But for me Murali is best.

Sad to see this is one area where South Africa doesn't feature, not even close.

Murali was far and away the best bowler in his team, Biltong, and as such bowl almost unbroken spells after the new ball had been taken by the quicks. Warne, as you hint at, didn't have the same responsibility, as quite often the Australian quicks would cause the majority of damage before he was even required.

Likewise, I'm sure Warne would have more 5 wicket hauls if he played against the lesser sides as much as Murali did.

I'm not sure that the "playing against lesser sides" thing is entirely fair to Murali.
He couldn't exactly choose his opponents...

One aspect of this is that most of us (in England , and of course in Australia) saw a lot more of Warne than we did of Murali , which has probably skewed our impressions of the two players a little.

While I'm sure Warne was the superior cricketer overall , Murali may have been the better spin bowler - but if he was there was little in it.

Individual taste rules here I guess.

Murali's home pitches were bunsen burners as well, we mustn't forget, whereas those that Warne chiefly operated on were hard decks mostly renowned for fast bowling.

Warne spun it more, had better variation in my eyes (though I'd argue that Murali's doosra was perhaps more effective in terms of getting wickets than say Warne's googly was) and had plenty of other aspects i.e. the mental edge over his opponents that all added to his status as the greatest spin bowler there has ever been.

Very much a case of individual tase, I agree, but I do think that Warne has the stronger suit, just.

warnie number one

i wonder if swanny will end up anywhere near this list by the end of his career.

Do you guys think there is the slightest chance that we can somehow find a place for either:

Clive eksteen
Nicki Boje
Gogga

or any of the match winning spinners we have had in our arsenal over the past twenty years.

haha nicki boje

he was more defensive than paul harris!

True, but he did bat a bit. If his bowling was any better he would have been an allrounder.

when did biltong become a mod?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:when did biltong become a mod?

what do people think of ajmal? would he make this list when he retires?