absolutely brilliant article.

little bit surprised to see Stuey Macgill sneak into the top ten but i guess thats the beauty of stats isn't it!

keep up the good work.

Where is Dinanath Ramnarine in this list? 12 tests and 45 wickets!

What would have happened if Warne played the greater number of his tests against the strongest side of his era as O'Reilly and Grimmett did in their's. Tiger played 70% of his tests v Eng. Grimmett 56%. Warne only played 9% of his matches against the strongest opponent of his era, India. Given that Warne averaged 47 against India if he played 70% of his matches against them he may have dropped off the list altogether. The English teams O'Reilly and Grimmett bowled to were atleast as strong as the batting line ups India possessed in Warne's time. Yet their averages against their bete noirs were 25 and 32 respectively: Far better than Warne's 47 v India.
Of course there is a double advantage. If O'Reilly and Grimmett played against NZ and SA as often as Warne did there averages would have fallen correspondingly.
I'd rate O'Reilly and Grimmett Warne's superior against strong opponents and decidely better if they'd played as often against lesser sides of their era as Warne did in his.

I find the number of pre-1930s Aussie bowlers surprising! They probably took a large number of top order wickets, but only played against one or two teams! Surely this should be factored in to your analysis! I understand that a number of current players have picked up "cheap" wickets against the like of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, but most teams (definitely the top teams) only play a handful of tests against these teams in their careers.
To put things in perspective, if only Australia and South Africa played against each other, Shane Warne would have picked up a large number of points on the Holmans Index for getting Daryll Cullinan out regularly, since he's a top order bat. Since Australia only played one or two teams in the pre 1930s era, I think you should factor in the number of opposition teams too. Other than that, great article!

Another great set of stats, I'd never heard of Ranji Hordern until I saw his name here!

its a good article but it isn't as thorough as it seems as you are missing 2 great spinners who are great aussie coaches of leg spin in peter philpott and terry jenner who both fit the criteria to be included but aren't

MacGill's a stange case ; most leggies have the leg-break, googly and top-spinner, but he had the long hop, full toss and magic ball. That he made a career out of that, even in the supposedly ultra-professional Australian setup, perhaps makes him the most romantic of all in this romantic discipline ? Freeman of course belongs in the top ten - says this Man of Kent :)
Oh, and the article's compilers have missed a few 'minor' players - Adam Huckle and Dinanath Ramnarine for instance both meet the 5 Tests / 20 wickets requirements.

Hi -

Great analysis!!
One point and one request...
1. For those with upwards of 150 wickets, their stats might speak for themselves, but for those like Hirwani, we might want to look a bit closer and analyze their consistency in terms of home vs away, with weighting for the same. (This need not necessarily be done for those with 2. It would be great if we could look at spin twins (Kumble/Harbhajan), (Warne/Mc.Gill), (Saqlain Mustaq/Mustaq Ahmed) etc.. and see if leggies indeed work better with other leggies (or) are they better off being paired with offies/ left-armers.

Thanks,
--Prashanth

Hi. Its great that you are doing this analysis. However, as you are measuring the bowlers on how low their effectiveness index is, shouldn't you subtract the the 5WI and 10WM index to calculate the player index score rather than adding it. This is because a player with lots of 5 and 10 wicket hauls is being penalised for their performance as you are adding those indices.

Orville

There are a couple of issues with the index. First of all, it is not clear that the index as created is the best way to go about it. Why not look at the ratio relative to the weighted average strike rate rather than the sum of strike rates. This allows bowlers who have had a relatively small role to play (few tests/wkts etc) to have a large influence. Second, relatively few tests were played each year in the earlier eras compared to the present one. In other words, a player is able to play a whole lot in a short while and consequently realize great benefits when in form in the current era relative to prior eras. This is true both for batting and bowling. It might be useful to consider an analysis that would take this effect into account. Thanks for the interesting analysis.

Great analysis . just wondering if kumble had the same opportunity as warne to play against england as many times as warne-his wickets column would have read much different.He would surely have broken the 700wkts barrier.Would be interesting to compare how many wickets warney took against england and comaparative study with kumble.
Keep up the good job.

and where is that great English legspinner who wrecked havoc on batsmen all over the world Ian Salisbury?

Brendon Bosanquet on 3rd chart s/b Bernard

The list should have been further filtered to remove the likes of B.Simpson, W.Raja, W.Armstrong...those who were more batsman than bowler. Anything beyond the top 20 or top 25 is just a distraction.

Beyond the numbers, there are those who stood out for a variety of reasons.
B.Bosanquet (inventor of the googly), B.O'Reilly (attacking Tiger), B.Chandrasekhar (unusual type), A.Qadir (kept aloft a dying art in an age of pace), S.Warne (made LBG chic)

An observation in the analysis - I haven't read the entire article thoroughly rather brushed thru it so am not sure if I have it wrong. In any case here is the observation.
In your Player Index which contains 4 items (SR, Avg, 5fers and 10fers) you mention that the lesser the better. While lesser the better is true for SR and Avg, it is not for 5fers and 10fers. Hope this discrepancy has been accounted for in the index.

You're also missing Ian Salisbury - 15 tests & 20 wickets: not a great record, to be fair, but he meets your criteria nonetheless. Perhaps you should just increase your criteria though rather than include everyone? And if bowlers like Salisbury qualify, I wonder if you might also have missed any batsmen who bowled occasional legspin? I can't think of any myself, but there must be some batsmen who also bowled enough as part-time leggies to pick up 20+ wickets? I'm not surprised that Stuart MacGill is up there. He was a great bowler and but for his career coinciding with Shane Warne's, MacGill would probably have claimed 400-500 test wickets himself. I bet the Aussies wish he were available now!

Splendid work. Two of my favourites deserve inclusion I feel: Bob Barber and Kenny Barrington.

Commendable effort. However, I have minor qualifications with regards to Table 3. It would have been worth while to define who/which teams are considered weak over the last century because this makes a significant impact in the composite index. According to me India, NZ, and Pakistan would have been weak until end of 1960s. If this is the case, it would significantly alter the indices. Or there might be a definition of a weaker team if it is low in the rank table for given period of time (there were no rankings done in earlier periods leaving us with very subjective opinions). Therefore, I would stop with table 2 which relies only on hard facts rather than divulging into some of the subjective unknowns. For that reason, if opposition's strength are considered, it raises a relevant question to consider home-away effects. If you would really want to extend this debate, then the no of matches played in a year (to calculate form, stress, etc. of a player) should also be considered.

It certainly makes you wonder why on earth Tich Freeman didn't play a lot more tests than he did - even given that England often played only one spinner, and that was Verity (and that, if Verity had played fewer Tests and Freeman played more, Verity would probably hold all the County Championship bowling records that Freeman holds now in terms of wickets per season...)

Did Sachin not qualify the criteria for this list? Ofcourse, I am not a sachin fanatic who wants to see him on every list associated with cricket. Just thought that he might qualify. He is a good leg spinner.

It would be very interesting had O'Reilly and Grimmett played against India, the best spin player in the world. It is true that they played against good English batsmen, but historically England never been comfortable against leg spinners. Looking at what India did to Warne, it wouldn't be surprising that they would have done the same to O'Reilly and Grimmett. Having said that, I'm totally agree that they, along with Warne and Kumble, are the greatest leg spinners ever.

The only thing detracting from this is the absence of Philpott & Jenner (the men who kept leg-spin in Australia alive through their coaching) who both qualify under the rules. Also absent, but who played a huge part in the lineage is Bruce Dooland, but he only played three Tests. He coached my grandad and taught him the five deliveries a leg-spinner bowls - the rest he said was "BS". What the top 10 illustrates is the variety within the art. Warne and Grim gained little success from their googly and rarely bowled it. O'Reilly is often described as a medium pacer. Kumble is sometimes played as a topspin or inswing bowler. Vogler remains a mystery to me. Chandra was a wonderous freak and my hero. Hordern perfected the wrong-un and started the leg-spin school in Australia. Freeman is perceived as an under-achiever in Tests, but oh what a first class record. MacGill was the ultimate number two. Which leaves Mushie who is possibly the most perfect example of the archetypal leg-spinner.

Interesting that you have an effectiveness index. You say it measures the bowler against quality opposition. Gimme a break!! Against people who knew how to play spin(Read India), he got butchered, that too even on spin friendly tracks in India which should have suited him. His wickets were against SA, England and NZ who do not know head or tail of playing spin. His bunny was Daryll Cullinan for christ's sake!!! And you say this is an effective analysis.. So everything cannot be said simply by using stats. Lets remember that.

Chinmay. Your point is a furphy. It is the quality of opposition not the number of opponents that is important. Think of the 80s. Surely you would rate a player who took wkts or scored runs against the WI over anything else he achieved against any other opponent; right?
The same goes for O'Reilly and Grimmett. They played the greater portion of their games against the strongest side of their era; England. England possessed a number of batsman at the time rated amongst the greatest ever. I'll list them next time if you like.
Both players would have loved playing more games against SA, NZ, WI and India to improve their figures. Note there are only 4 more countries that have come into cricket subsequently of which only 2 (Pak, SL) are serious opponents. So infact O'Reilly and Grimmett can be compared to modern players in the number of opponents available and if they played them as frequently would've had startling bowling averages.

Excellent analysis!

Just one criticism- the minimum requirements (ie. >5 matches and >20 wickets) is a little low IMO. For example, should Amit Mishra, who's really just starting his career, be included in a list comparing him to the greats?

Mike of cnbra, I've often wondered how Warne would stack up against the Fox and the Tiger, so thanks for bringing that up. For all this talk about Warne being the bowler of the century etc, I think it's nigh on impossible to know for certain which of the three is the greatest.

How about Tendulkar? He has more than 20 wickets! (Although not sure how many by LBG)

That was awesome.

This is an interesting analysis of the right-handed wrist spinners. It would be interesting to know how the left-handed wrist-spinners (e.g. Paul Adams) fare in comparison. I can also think of a couple of batsmen who bowled a reasonable amount in tests, but ahave not been included (Bob Barber with 42 wickets and Ken Barrington with 29).

really interesting! Perhaps you could make a table like this of all rounders and give it to the Australian selectors!The only criticism is that some actual leg spinners are missed, other people have listed them, whilst some batsmen like Bob Simpson are included. But apart from that the whole concept is really interesting! Well done.

Thankyou Marcus. You seem to be an avid fan of spin; as am I. Of course all facets of cricket are wonderful but spin, and leg spin in particular, provide the game with much of its charm, innovation and mystery.
Adrian. I agree with you to a point. India have a reputation for being masters of spin but it doesn't follow that Englishmen can't play spin. Look at the names O'Reilly and Grimmett faced: Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hendren, Leyland, Paynter, Woolley, Hutton, Compton, Edrich, Barnett, Hardstaff and Walters. Most were all time greats and all would walk into the present English team. I think the records of both Tiger and Scarl against that lot is one of the more impressive efforts in cricket's long history.

Great to see the Tiger on there, he, Warne and Kumble are the three greatest legspinners of all time in my opinion. 'Tich' Freeman is generally thought of as a superb county player but rarely a matchwinner at test level. Bernard Bosanquet needed to be mentioned, he revolutionised leg spin with the 'Bosie', which has now become the 'Googly'.

And one interesting point I'd like to make, Clarrie Grimmett actually averaged over 30 against England. The Tiger I believe was a far more effective bowler during his time, even though he often held 'Scarlett' in a much higher regard.

Very interesting article. Wouldn't the era of uncovered wickets made a difference? And how about fielding support a bowler received from his team-earlier Pakistani,Indian and Sri Lankan bowlers suffered immeausearably! Many of the earlier greats had to prove their effectiveness in 3 day Test Matches albeit with pitches uncovered. Anyway one cannot quarrel about the top 4 being there though comments about Warne's performance against India is a big minus.

By the way, Mike Holmans in his exchange with me during the writing of this article added the insight that perhaps some of the early googly bowlers were very effective because the googly was quite a novelty then! Another factor that we must bear in mind while doing all this stats business!

I wonder if the compilers have considered that if you've played a lot of tests, you've taken a lot of wickets, but also you have had more opportunity to accumulate 5 wicket innings and 10 wicket matches and this will affect the stats.

Longevity is important but I don't think stats that rely on the number of matches are necessarily the best measure of that. I would prefer a figure that takes into account the span of a player's career in years, and also the percentage of the games he could of possibly played in (given his nationality) that he actually played in during this time.

Thus I would like to see 5WI and 10WM and Wicket figures divided by the number of games before treating them the way the authors have.

Then I would like to see Years of 1st Class Career x % Test Possible Test Matches Played - the longevity index - treated in the same way as the other stats.

ian chappell had one of the best actions you'd ever see. only 20 wickets in 60 tests but he found it hard to get a bowl around Simmo (boy he loved to bowl - ask Tony Mann); Philpott; Stacky; Martin; Gleeson; Jenner and O'Keeffe.

His 176 first class wickets at mid 30s is probably a better indication of his usefulness.

Nice article. I think Shane Warne is top of the top in it. I think Grimmett is not better than O Reilly. At one ocassion Sir Don Bradman said that best bowler of his era is O Reilly might be of his better quality of bowling against England than Grimmett and also other factors.

Amazing! Don Bradman only faced one bowler who is leg spinner in top 15 leading wicket takers in leg spin including Armstrong that is Douglas Wright came in 1938, just before world war II. His overall bowling average is 39.11 in his whole career.

Lara faced six of them that are Warne, Kumble, Qadir, Kaneria, MacGill and Mushtaq. I think Kumble is no. 2 and then others. They all are more expensive as compare to off spinners.

Xara Khan I think you're being unfair. Of course Lara has played against more leading wicket takers. They play many more tests nowadays. I would've thought that obvious. Even then you're wrong. On that list are O'Reilly, Grimmett, Mailey and Wright. Thats 4 Bradman faced not one. I repeat; the old timers played fewer games so to have that many in that list puts the modern leggies to shame. Now look at the final list for overall effectiveness. Bradman faced 4 with Mailey just outside. Lara faced 5. So the comparison btwn the 2 is quite close except that Bradman's fc ave is almost double Lara's so he was twice as effective against oppostion of similar strength.
Remember too that the criteria excluded Fleetwod-Smith who was another fine bowler Bradman faced. So on reflection Bradman arguably encountered the better opposition though only by a small margin and yet outscored Lara by almost 2:1.

I am right that Sir Don Bradman faced only one bowler that is Wright in test cricket in leading 15 leg spinners. Please go and check the records. Lara faced six of them in test. This is also true.
Don Bradman faced only six bowlers who took 100 or more in test in which three came after World War II, one came just before it in 1938, one died during it and remaining one is all rounder that is Maurice Tate. For leading 50 wicket takers in test, he faced only one who came after world war II that is Bedser. For leading 150 wicket takers, he faced only seven including Willam Voce in ten grounds in two continents with half career test matches timeless.
Lara faced 40-50 bowlers in leading 150 wicket takers on 40-50 different grounds in five continents.
Besides these things I am not saying who is better I am just putting the facts and figures that all are reality.

Nice article. Shane is no. 1, no doubt.
It is very difficult to compare two batsmen of two different era specially if there is difference of 70 to 80 years like Don Bradman and Lara. Don Bradman runs per inning against England is 79.81 and Lara is 58.49. Is this justice that one is only taking pressure of England and another one is taking pressure of seven strong teams including England.
Lara runs per inning is 71.45 at home versus England which I think is more than any other test batsman including Bradman that is 71.33. How Bradman Lara ratio is 2:1. Give matches to Lara timeless then he will surely increase his runs per inning from 71.45 at home to how much, we do not know, may be 100 or more, beside other factors.
No doubt. Sir. Bradman is no. 1 of his own era but how we can say that he is all time greatest. As we have no criteria to judge it, except mathematical calculations. Bradman is one of the finest batsman no doubt about it but do not say his ratio with Lara is 2:1.

No doubt, Warne is no. 1 then Anil Kumble, O Reilly, Abdul Qadir and so on.
It is unfair that some one is written the ratio of Sir Don Bradman and Lara 2:1.
O Reilly, Grimmett, Mailey all are from Australia. How Sir Bradman faced them in test. Fleetwood Smith also belongs to Australia.

Yes this is right the only leg spinner faced by Sir Bradman is Douglas Wright in test cricket in leading 15 leg spinners in terms of wickets. For top 12 leading wicket takers of leg spin in test, Don Bradman had not faced anyone.
For leading 50 wicket takers of all time in test cricket, Don Bradman faced only one bowler. Sunil Gavaskar faced 15-20 or may be more.
Facing quality bowlers and scoring against them is very difficult in test cricket specially when batsman is playing on 40-50 different grounds in four to five different continents.
Sir Bradman, Lara, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richard all are legend batsmen of test cricket, no doubt about it.

they played fewer matches those days-so dont go by 50 wkts of leg-spinners,please
if Bradman had played as many tests as Lara or Border he would have scored 25000 runs-especially against Zim and Bangla desh-remember his figures against India in 47,and that was close to his retirement.
he was a brilliant player of spin-when the four SA googly bowlers toured Australia he was toying with them.There is this story at the end of a days play when Bradman had made 200 runs of a journalist commiserating with the SA skipper and that gentleman saying-"ah,but we saw great batting today,we are not sorry.And you know,our spinners have never bowled better,see what he did to them"

Yes Sir Bradman faced four bowlers of SA like Bruce Mitchell bowling average 51.11 for whole test career, Brown bowling average 63 in test career, Vincent slow left arm orthodox bowling average 31.32 in test career and Quintin McMillan bowling average 34.52 in test career. If they all were good bowlers why they lost all matches against Australia and why Sir Bradman faced 5 innings in 5 test matches and won series by 5 - 0.
Are you joking for 25000 runs even highest run gutter has not crossed 13000 runs in test. How you are taking assumption of 25000 runs even now Sir Bradman is not in leading 30 run makers in test.
Lara faced only 6 innings against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of his 232 innings in test. Please go and check the records it means only five innings in 200 innings.

That is 3 people now who have deliberately loaded the dice to support an unfair point. Bradman couldn't have faced the leading wicket takers bcos they played fewer tests in his day. That is the reason explaining your statistics gentlemen. Look at it this way. If Kapil Dev played in Bradman's day he would have played only 7 tests. He would've taken abt 25 wkts. Does that change your opinion of him gentleman? Would he be a lesser talent bcos of the limited test program back then?
I also know that Bradman didn't face O'Reilly, Grimmett and Mailey in tests. But he played them many times for his state. When they played they did so with international intensity. As an eg Bradman only averaged 63 when Grimmett was in the opposition. Infact Bradman faced the great leggies of his day more frequently than Lara so his task was harder. And since Bradman's ave was almost twice as much as Lara's I can say he outscored him 2:1.

No. 1 is Shane Warne and then others, we have not seen any other bowler like him.
I think comparing is useless for two different batsmen of two different times. Some one write Sir Don Bradman would have scored 25000 runs, if he is in this era. Test cricket has not seen any batsman who scored 15000 runs yet now, how 25000 is possible.
Don Bradman is leading runs maker no. 10 in his own country and overall no. 35 or near to it in test. Yes this is right at that days not too many cricket and also he lost cricket due to world war II. However he is finest batsman of his era but comparison with others is not possible because we cannot judge anyone on pure statistic basis.
He faced four googly bowlers of SA but if they were capable why they lost series to 5-0 and Sir Bradman faced them only in 5 innings in 5 test and won all matches.
Sir Bradman is legend of Cricket but comparing him with Lara is how possible. Lara is also finest batsman of all time with best of best record maker in test.

Dear Mike, yes you are right that Sir. Don average is almost twice than Lara but his runs per inning against England is 79.81 and Lara is 58.49 means ratio is 1 : 1.37 or you may say that ratio is almost .75 : 1. But he faced only one opponent and Lara faced seven strong opponent means 1 out of seven.
Sir Bradman combine batting average is 141 against India, SA and W. Indies.
Facing someone in test is another thing and in first class is another thing. Lara faced Warne, Macgill, Gellispe and Mcgrath at a time like turned match to win by scoring 153 not out. Facing anyone of them alone is something else and facing all of them together is another thing. Bowlers like Kapil Dev are excell. which you can recognize even he took 100 wickets in test. The best bowler in test which Bradman faced is Verity. If he is so good why his bowling average is almost 35 in Australia although his average is near to 25. Besides it, I am also saying that Sir Bradman is a legend batsman and best of his era.

Zeeshan and M. Omair: What are you failing to see? Here is how you work it out. Bradman averaged 99.94 in tests. Lara played 232 innings. If test cricket was as frequent in Bradman's day as it is today he would have scored 23186 runs. I arrive at this figure by the simple expedient of multiplying his average with the number of innings Lara played: Follow?
Have you also thought that SA lost 5-0 BCOS OF BRADMAN? They didn't have 4 googly bowlers though. They had a very good quartet of Bell, Quinn, Vintcent and McMillan. The 2 pace men averaged 27 and 39 v Australia. Bell's record is better than Waqar and Donald v Aus and Quinn's is superior to Pollock and Harmison. Infact if you take out the runs Bell conceded to Bradman his ave v Aus falls to 20!
So the SA had a good bowling side and much better than some of the rubbish Lara faced from BD, Eng, Zim, NZ and a few others.

Every one knows that only England team was the only opponent at that days. If you are saying he will score more than 20000 runs that is only assumption of yours own.
Comparing all those bowlers with these professional bowlers is impossible although Grimmet, O Reilly and others have comparison.
Please find below some fact
Matt over concrete pitches, half career timeless, absence of well known bowlers in other teams, only ten grounds with absence of Perth. Bowlers are armatures and beginners also, if they are so professional why they did not take 100 wickets even if they played only 60% matches as compare to him then in 30 matches they can easily take 100 or more wickets means not getting chance in team even for 30 matches, very few matches so pace is slow
Not master on rain affected pitches, never faced any opponent at their home ground except England. Runs per inning against England is 79.81 and then other all is 115.76
Beside these facts Sir Bradman is legend and finest one

Nice article, now we know about all leg spinners. I think no. 1 is Shane Warne. Facing these leg spinners is not an easy task.
Comparison of bowlers from 1925-1950 is useless. As how can we compare them with Lilee, Thompson, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and fast battery of W. Indies like Malcom Marshall, Garner, Holding and Robert. Then Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Mcgrath and all others. Obvious so all these bowlers are far better than those days bowlers.
Dear Mike if statistic is only criteria then Verity is better than Warne. I do not know why you are focusing that the bowlers of old days are too better although everyone knows that modern days bowlers are far better than period of 1925-1950. After world war II, some good bowlers came and then from decade of 70 too many bowlers came.
You mentioned Lara faced bowlers of England are not good. For your information 12-15 bowlers took 100 or more wicket in their careers

Xara. Bradman's ave v Eng was 90 not 79. Its true BL faced those 4 bowlers but rarely together. Gillespie was often injured and McGill understudied Warne. I can give you 11 names from Larwood and Tate to Bedser and Laker that DGB faced. Note that all of them would've ave btwn 21-29 if you took out their runs conceded to DGB. You also overate BL's competition. For a start Eng in DGB's time were strong. In BL's time they were weak. Also Aust state cricket offers better competition than alot of tests BL played. Even Warne said that. Note that Warne's ave in State cricket was 34! All of a sudden it makes Verity's record look good doesn't it?
Verity's ave in Aus (34)is historically good for a spinner. If you take out runs to DGB it falls to 29. His overall ave v Aus is 28. Better than Donald, Pollock and Waqar. Take out runs to DGB it falls to 24. Better than Akram.
Back to SA. Bell and Quinn's ave in Aus is on par with Donald and Pollock. With similar opposition DGB outscored BL 2:1.

Dear Mike, average is nothing, it is the impact of bowler on match that count like Kaneria average is 34.88 but he is far better than many mores like he turned match against W. Indies by taking wicket of Lara, Chandurpal and Sarwan in nine bowls, turned whole match and series was going to 2-0 it changed to 1-1. Another ocassion he turned match in twenty bowls taking three wickets against England in 2005 and match turned as only 198 runs required but they lost by 23 runs. That is quality.
The bowlers whom you are talking about have no impact or very less impact on game. 27 or 39 are nothing.
If you are going in this way then Verity average in first class is 14.90 and Warne is 26.11 it means he is almost twice of Warne in this sense.
It is not the way to count the impact. If you are going in this way then Kumble average is almost 30 it means in your sense what is his ranking. taking 619 wicket is important or statistic.
I think your only judgement is statistic which is not right.

Nice article. No. 1 is Shane Warne and then others.
Mr. Mike Bell had not taken even 50 wickets in test how can we say that he is a good bowler.
For professinal if Bradman is playing 52 then other one should also play 35-50 matches in those days. That days cricket is very easy that why Bradman average is 99.94. Is he faced fast battery of W. Indies, four bowlers at a time. Is he faced boweler like Lilee, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram (King of swing) and others.
According to you Pollock is better because his average is better than Lilee so he is better. No no this is not the way to judge bowlers. Kaneria bowling average is 35 or near it but see his impact in so many games. If we are going in this way then Verity bowling average is near to 15 and Warne is 26.11 in first class. It means that he is far better than Warne because he is twice of him.
Yes you are right those days not too many cricket but how Verity played 40 test from 1931-1938 it means lacking professionalism there.

Dear Mike Bradman runs per inning against England is 79.81 which I have mentioned. You always try to change the facts which I have mentioned. I am talking about runs per inning and you are saying that average is this and that.
Lara runs per inning would be better than Bradman if he would face bowlers like those days. He is far better than any test batsman.
Playing on 40-50 grounds with 50 bowlers took 100 or more in which 25-30 took 200 then 10-15 took 300 then 5-7 400 and then so on.
Bradman played only ten grounds with only two bowler took more than 100. If we will count all of six then three of them came after world war II, one just before it. So only two bowlers he faced.
Verity is not a professional cricket he is Army officer and died during world war II.
Suppose their are only one team then if Lara scored according to runs per inning theory against England 5030 runs then Bradman 6865 but Lara is facing England 1 out of 7 means he is better than Bradman and any others.

Dear Mike One reason is that you are not accepting the qualities of Lara. How Bradman faced better bowlers, he faced mostly very initial bowlers and you are saying that he faced better bowlers. Everyone knows that the cricket was on matt over concrete pitches with timeless matches with only one opponent that is England and other were on very initial stages. Presence of long distance fielding as well. Now cricket is too scientific and for your inforamtion even if Lara is facing only England with other initial teams he can easily maintained average more than 100 as his runs per inning against England is 71.45 is more at home as compare to Bradman runs per inning at home is 71.33. Bradman soored 2354 runs in 33 innings simple calculation 2354/33 = 71.33 but he faced timeless matches on matt over concrete pitches.
Please give these facility to Lara and then even when he was at 400 not out he had to declared due to days limit otherwise he could scored 600 or may be more runs. Lara is best

Dear Mike, for professionalism at least criteria for any bowler should be 100 wickets.
How Grimmet took more than 200 and O Reilly near to 150 because they have better caliber than others. Beside it how Verity took more than 100 easily and Maurice Tate also more than 100 easily. Even even Wright who came in 1938 took more than 100 wickets although his bowling average is almost 40. Almost 40 and 100 wickets means that he have caliber of professionalism. Yes this is also right that Verity is not professional cricketer, he is army officer and died in Italy in World war II.
Sir Bradman only faced two bowlers when he faced them they had joined 100 wickets club. Remaining four have joined club after his retirement. It never happened in test that any bowler had joined 200 wickets club when he faced them. These all are facts which you do want to realize. Your only focus is on statistic.
Is it enough for you or not that Sir Bradman is legend and best of his own era and finest one or not.

Zeeshan. Ave is important. You can only name 1 or 2 instances when Kaniera did well. Once against a WI team everyone thrashed. So what. Whereas Bell ave 27 v Aus. And if Bradman wasn't there he'd have ave 20 and SA would've won more tests.
Jehan. DGB played 52 tests over 20 yrs! If he played that long today he'd be close to 200. I'll repeat that if you don't have the opportunities you can't take the wkts. Doesn't mean you can't bowl. After all look at Proctor and VanDerBijl. Btwn they took 26 wkts. Are you telling me they can't bowl? Also Lara never faced 4 WI, Lillee or Imran at his best. But DGB faced Larwood, Tate, Voce, Bedser, Verity, Laker.
Xara. Look up DGB's stats v Eng here @ cricinfo. AVE v ENG = 90. Until you get your facts right I'll not respond to you. You can't say lara scored more runs/inns when DGB ave twice as much. And if he played against some of the weak teams BL did his ave would be even higher not lower.

Mr. Siddiqui. I do accept BL's quality. And how do you know that Bradman didn't face good or better bowlers? I've already shown that an average player in Bradman's day (the Sth African Bell) had a better record against Aus than a champion in Lara's day (Donald). You are wrong abt matting. It was phased out 1930/31. Besides it is a type of surface modern players don't experience so DGB had to be more versatile than the modern players to succeed on it. But I agree that matting produces alot of overated players like the Pakistani Fazal Mahmood.
Your point abt "Initial" teams doesn't make sense. Look at Eng. In DGB's day they were strong. In BL's day they are weak despite being an established country. And BL played alot of games against initial teams like Zim or BD or weak sides like NZ and Eng and average sides like Ind and Pakistan. DGB played more of his tests against a strong team whereas BL played more against weak teams. And yet DGB still outscored him.

mike
i completely agree with you-when I said 25000,you have shown it is 23k or thereabouts.let us stop this discussion-obviously people who have not read about or watched the old greats have a higher opinion of modern day cricketers.I am 62 yrs old.Uncovered pitches,quality of bats in those days,bowlers like Larwood,Tate and Bedser!!our friends think 100 test wkts is a must not realising you could only play 15 to 20 tests in 10 years those days.Grimmet's 216 wkts record stood for so long
cheers
Raghu

Thankyou Raghunath! At last someone who understands! The number of tests a man plays is limited by his opportunities just as much as his talent. It doesn't follow that a man who played few tests isn't a great player. It might just mean the test program wasn't as hectic as it is today. Barry Richards only played 4 tests. G. Pollock only 23. Proctor only 7 and Van Der Bijl none at all. Yet some here would have us think that none of them were great players based on the superficial fact they played so few tests. Some people don't understand that the test program in DGB's day was limited and alot of English players missed out bcos their counties didn't release them or they couldn't leave their jobs to play. Then of course there was the small matter of a world war...
I am 48 but youth shouldn't be an excuse for ignorance. Everyone is capable of reading history and I recommend the pleasurable and insightful passtime to some contributors here.

When raghunath and I wrote our leg spin article in two parts I thought that the stories and anecdotes section would generate a lot more of stories and anecdotes that readers would recall from their own earlier "insightful and pleasurable" reading and that the statistics piece would die a quick death. I am wrong......but I hope Mike will take the cue and move to the other piece and contribute some interesting tid bits and enthuse others!

Yes you are right that his average is too much. But Lara is something unmatch. He took so many records at a time that no one before him. Like hightest run gutter, hightest innings in test as well as in first class, +150 or more highest innings that are 19, still a record, two quadruple in first class, five times 1000 or more in one calender year.
G Pollock is one of the best but his career had not gone smoothly otherwise he is equivalent to Sobers and also same case Proctor.
The bowlers you are talking are not very good bowlers, bell etc and others.
Lara has not faced fast battery of W. Indies this is also right but he faced history best leg spinner Warne, histoy best off spinner Murlitharan, history best Indian bowler Kumble, history best left arm bowler Wasim Akram, leading wicket taker in fast bowling Mcgrath, probably history best S. African bowler Donald or Pollock. He played cricket on 45-50 different grounds with almost 50 bowlers took 100 or more including above bowlers.

"The best laid plans..." Giridhar. It looks like the unloved statistics piece became the longer living sibling of the 2. Not to worry. In fact you should be proud that it drew so many comments as it is a justification for its publication.
And can I help it if so many people decided to make comments that I thought needed responding? But I will hop over to the anecdotes article soon but will leave one here before going, though its not abt a leggie. Dainty Ironmonger achieved fame as being the oldest test debutant for Australia. A fine left arm medium pacer he spun the ball off 2 fingers sawn off at the knuckles. A timber worker in his young days it was said he lost his 1st finger in a cutting accident and his 2nd showing his boss how he lost the 1st. It might not be true but got me an admonishing look from the prudish librarian who thoroughly disapproved of my laughter.

Hi Folks,
It is fascinating that you had put in so much effort to get this.More than the rankings the logic you used for the ranking makes more fascinating reading.
My limited knowledge says most of the leggies were right arm bowlers.Who are the southpaw leggies?
Continue your good work.
Rangarajan

Why you are not going through for other spinners in same like. Please use your analysis on these also.

Murlitharan 770, Harbhagan 323, Gibbs 309
Underwood 297, Vettori 291, Bedi 266, Sobers 235, Saqlain 208 and many others
Very nice article that we know about leg spinners.
You can arrange data for seam bowlers as well.

Have a nice day to both of you and also for Mr. Mike. I am 32 years old and cricket is my love.

Some interesting comments their Jahan but most are purely subjective. I'd say Laker is history's best off spinner and O'Reilly is far superior to Warne (though I would agree that Akram is the best left armer). Once again you are confusing opportunity with greatness. Put it this way. If Laker was a modern player and Murali born to play in the 40s and 50s it would be Laker, not Murali with the most wkts. Remember too that when Lara faced SL he only had to deal with Murali. The rest of the attack was very average.
I can't take seriously anyone who thinks Larwood, Tate, Bedser, Voce, Laker, Verity or Grimmett aren't good bowlers. You are the only one who thinks that. And while I agree that Bell isn't a great that only puts the myth of Donald into perspective because Bell's record v Aus is actually better than Donald's. So there you have it. An average bowler in Bradman's day is better than a champion bowler that Lara faced.

Yes Jim Laker is excellent but when he started his cricket in 1946 Bradman had planned to retire and then in 1948 he retired. Same case is for Bedser after world war II. When he entered in cricket Bradman was going.
Warne is better or O Reilly, it is an argument, anyone may be better. Grimmett is also excellent bowler.
Maurice Tate was actually all rounder whose first bowling was good and then batting. There is decline is his bowling. You can confirm it from statistic. When Bradman joined cricket there is declining in his bowling. As he complete his first 100 wickets very quick just in 20 matches.
Bradman played cricket in only two countries. You may say that in two portions only. For all time greatest atleast we should have a batsman who played in all regions and that is Brian Lara. For playing only in one or two region does not mean that he is also good in other regions. How can we know that.
Even Verity is not professional cricket he is an army officer and then cricketer.

Yes Mr. Mike you are right that when Lara played Murli, no other bowler like him in his team. But how can we ignore the fact that 40-45% wickets of Sri Lanka is captured by him. His overs per match is 55. When some one asked him who is the best. He said Lara is the best. What about Vaas, with including him 70% wickets by both of them.
One more fact is that Lara played cricket in nine countries as compare to Bradman only two countries.
Lara is all time greatest as he scored runs in every corner of the cricketing world against all the best attacks. He single-handedly took the burden of carrying their batting for his entire career. He is also most destructive player of spin as well I have ever seen. If someone want to assess his achivements, he easily ranks at the very top like 501 in first class, 375 and 400 not out against England, former hightest runs gutter with 19 times, 150 or more and also 3 times 200 or plus against Australia, remarkable!
I think he is king of ring.

Good overview.Enlightening. Keep it up. I found in the list name of Ranji Horden I hadn't heard before.Some observations
1. 5W/I and 10W/I index-Higher value means Higher
effectiveness.I am not sure whether it needs to be added to get EI.Pl.explain methodology.
2.Is there a Batsman Effectiveness Index[BEI]?
We are not sure of the quality of wickets claimed-
of top batters or the tail? May be if we weed out
wickets of batters averaging If BEI is available for each of the wickets claimed indicated in the table, we can factor in this also in arriving at overall Final Composite Effectiveness Index[FCEI].Is it asking for too much?!Again a great batter of pace and swing
could be less effective against spin-off spin or leg spin or both!
3.A bowlers' wicket taking ability[5W/I or 10W/M ]gets reduced when he is bowling for a team having other contemporary great bowlers! e.g. Laker,Lock, Trueman, Statham, Tyson/Ramadhin& Velentine. The point is purely academic!

Zara. DGB played 10 tests v Bedser. He was then 40. So the advantage was with Bedser. Bedser only started taking wkts when DGB retired. Ironically at an age you say Tate was too old! Laker bowled enough to DGB to rate him the best bat he's seen; even at 40. Now to Tate. Look at his ave against DGB. It is 78. His ave against all other players in the same time was 29. Still good. 2 of those series were on batting paradises and Tate performed better in them than a youthful Larwood and on par with the great Grimmett. Both of whom had successes in front of them. Tate was still good. Also Eng didn't have just Tate but Larwood, Voce, Allen, Verity, Geary, White and Bowes and Farnes rising.
It is your opposition not the no. of countries you play in thats important.
Verity's occupation is unimportant. Besides he was an officer in the war, not during his cricket days.
Finally you must realise that BL faced alot of bowlers in decline such as Akram, Waqar and Pollock.

Yes Wanne, O Reilly, Kumble and others are great leg spinners.
Bradman never becomer highest runs gutter in test whereas Lara is former highest runs maker.
Bradman has one quadruple in first class, Lara has two.
Two triple centuries both have in test.
No quadruple in test, Lara has one.
No 500 runs in one inning in first class, Lara has one.
Only one time in calender year 1000 or more due to limited cricket, Lara five times due to cricket in nine countries.
Runs per innning 87.45 in two countries Lara 51.52 in nine countries.
At home runs per inning is 71.33 against England. In case of Lara it is 71.45.
Two highest score against England 334 and 304, Lara 400 not out and 375.
Runs per inning ratio against England stand 1 : 1.37 that is 58.49 : 79.81 but Lara faced England 1 out of seven.

For bell please see, bowling average is 32.64 with striking rate 69.6 with 48 wickets totally in 16 test means 3 wickets per test. He played only 5 matches against Australia, how can we judge him on this basis and compare him with Donald with 330 wickets.
Verity striking rate is 113.1 in Australia and my friend is saying he is ok in Australia. It means after 113 balls he is getting one wicket there. He still found a way to join 100 wickets club. From 1931-1938 means in this period he played 40 matches. It means near to six test matches per year. If he had a calibre to join 100 wkt club why not others. May be they have less focused on cricket or any other reason.
Playing against fast battery of W. Indies was very difficult but Gavaskar proved it with 13 centuries against them. Even in few centuries, all four bowlers were in attack.
Gavaskar scored more than 5000 runs in his first 52 test matches on 25-30 grounds with the help of 20 centuries and 22 half centuries.

Dear Mike, Bedser played 10 test matches against Bradman, that is right but his overall performance from 1946-1948 was with bowling average 32.06 in this period. His overall bowling career average was 24.89. He developed himself later on. Actually he was at initial stage in the period of 1946-1948.
Jim Laker bowling average uptill 1948 was 37.77. He played only three test in which Bradman played. He was bowling him at a very initial stage later on he developed himself. Even his best performance came in 1956.
Tate took 100 wicket with average of 21.43 in 20 test and then added further 55 wickets in it. 4055 - 2143 = 1912 / 55 = 34.76 averagae, means his overall performance was declining. Kindly go and check it from statistic. He played 39 test matches totally.
Due to experience, Bradman scored 1903 runs in the period of 1946-1948 in 23 innings. It means when he was facing Laker or Bedser, he had full potential whereas they were at initial level. Please go and check the records.

Dear Mike you are right Lara faced bowlers in declining reason is that he played 232 innings in 131 test matches.
One more thing is that he played only six innings against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Even when he was playing against Zimbabwe, bowling comprises of Streak, Blignaut and Price, not too bad. 6/232 means 3 innings in 116 innings.
What you rate striking rate of Verity in Australia, is 113 is good enough. Now you will say that it is due to timeless matches but taking one wicket after 113 balls is too much.
What about the bowling speed of bowlers, I think it is not as much speedy as the bowlers came after this period.
Very easy cricket during this period. I think in this period there is no concept of seam bowling. If so let me know the names of seamers in this period.
Very touch cricket starts after 1970 where batsmen had to face fast battery of W. Indies, Lilee, Thompson, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil Dev and many others.

Dear Mike, How you know that Sir. Bradman is great or not. This is the question you asked but my question is that how you know that how much is he great as according to you you are 48. Means 2009 - 48 = 1961. Your date of birth is 1961 and Bradman retired in 1948, just thirteen year before your date of birth. If I have not seen him to play, same case of yours too.
Jim Laker only played three test matches against him so do not count him. He took 19 wickets after 1955. At early stage in 1948, he was in building process.
If Bradman is too old to face Bedser and Jim Laker at age of 40, how he managed average more than 100 from 1946-1948, after world war II.
Tate took only 55 test wickets in his last 19 test matches which is even less than three wickets per test. It is not his ability but the reason is that Tate is in declining position as he took 100 wickets in his first 20 test means five wickets per test match. Total 155 wickets in 39 test.
Beside it, Sir Bradman is legend and finest one

Jahan and M.Omair. Why do you like Lara so much? I'm guessing you are Pakistanis but I may be wrong. I would've thought you'd be praising Imran as best allrounder. That is plausible (though I think Sobers just wins it with maybe Miller 3rd).
A few points. Comparing Eng in BL's day with Eng in DGB's day is like chalk and cheese. They were so weak in BL's day as to make the comparison useless. Whereas in DGB's day they were strong.
Also DGB's ave in 2 countries is his final ave of 99.94 not 87. I repeat it is the strength of your opponent not the no. of countries you've played in thats important. I wouldn't think much of a player who performed badly against the 1980s WI even though he regularly trounced NZ, Eng or SL for example.
And I do rate Lara the best bat I've seen. Mainly bcos he could sometimes bat in a way I imagine DGB did habitually. That is no task was ever to big for him and it seemed imposible to get him out.

Zeeshan. I rate Bell better than Donald based on your criteria. You selectively rate Verity's efforts in Aus so I compare Bell and Donald in Aus. They both played roughly the same no. of tests here and Bell is better. Infact much better when you take out the runs conceded to DGB. Now to Verity. Warne's SR in local cricket here is 74! That is against state not test sides. And Verity played against Bradman. Adjusted for the strength of opponents Verity is better here than Warne. Now Murali's SR here is 131 and ave is 75! So Verity's record here is better than Murali too.
40 tests were alot in the 30s. Now they play 4 times as many/yr. A modern equivalent would be a player having 160 tests! Not even Warne achieved that. If Warne played in the 30s he have only 36 tests. Verity wins again.
Gavaskar scored most of his hundreds v WI when they didn't have 4 pace bowlers like in 1970 or during the Packer yrs. Sunny's record V WI is therefore overated. He made runs when they were u/strength.

Zara. I have explained abt Tate. From the time DGB started tests Tate averaged 78 against him! Against all other batsmen he averaged 29! That is still a great record and not a decline. His figures look bad only because of DGB. Plus I also mentioned that he outbowled Larwood and on par with Grimmett in those series when he played against Australia. I also mentioned Eng had 9 other bowlers as well as Tate at the time.
When Bedser aand Laker played in 46 & 48 Aus had its best ever side. That is why their averages were high. When our side declined and the pitches got worse they became more successful. Those circumstances explain the difference. They didn't magically become more skilful. And DGB wasn't at full potential in 46-48. He was an old man and nowhere near as good as in his youth. Even Bradman admitted that.

M.Shariq. I posted earlier to Zeeshan S but I forgot to put my name & email address. So if you see a post from anonymous that is me. In that post I showed that Verity's record in Aus and against Aussie batsmen is better than Warne and much better than Murali. Do you now think Warne and Murali are overated? Also Verity ave v India is abt 18-20. Warne's ave v India is 47! Verity wins again. There were many fast bowlers before the 70s. I could give you a list but I'd run out of space, and some that you mentioned like Kapil and Hadlee weren't fast at all. Neither did Lara face the men you mentioned or if he did they were in decline.
I can tell you that seam and swing pre dated the 20th century. 2 famous exponents were Tom Richardson and George Hirst as an example.
Zeeshan Ahmed. I hope I have responded to many of your points in an earlier post. If not I'll address them again.
Thankyou to Giridhar and Raghunath for keeping the thread open as I'm enjoying this correspondence.

Dear Mike, you are right. Jahan Zada and me both are from Pakistan. He is from Buner, village in N.W.F.P (Sarhad). We both are in capital of Pakistan that is Karachi. I think you are from Austrailia or England.
We both are fan of Brian Lara. When we watched his inning of 153 not out, we were amazed how it is possible that one guy turned it single-handed.
He made 10-12 records that whenever he was playing we thought that any record was going to break. His achivement is too too much.
Even at one moment he was hightest run gutter, highest score in test and first class, two quadruple in first class, two triple centuries in test, one quadruple in test, +150 or more 19 times, highest runs in one over, five times 1000 or more in calender year, century before lunch, highest runs with the help of centuries that are 5889 runs. Highet runs with the help of 50 or plus score that is more than 9000 runs in test and many more.
Only complete man in history facing and proving all conditions.

Dear Mike, Tate played against Sir Bradman only from 29 Dec 1928- 22 Aug 1930. Sir Bradman is not the only batsman in team, there are eleven players in it. Even at the end of 1930, Bradman played only 10 test matches in whole career. Tate took 100 wickets in 20 test matches and then added further 55 in it just like Waqar Yunus he took 190 wickets quickly in his first 33 test matches and then added further 183 wickets in 54 test matches so his total become 373 wickets in 87 test.
Good performance means excll. bowler faced by Bradman and bad performance means Bradman dirsturbed him according to you.
Then in Dec 1936 Verity completed 100 wickets in test. It means he had not faced any bowler from 1931- Nov 1936 who had 100 wickets in test.
Mankad played only five test matches against him. His batting avr. is 105.72 durig 1946-1948 due to experience.
Tate, Verity, Wright, Jim Laker, Bedser and Mankad took 100 or more which he ever faced.
Beside these facts, Sir Bradman is legend.

Zeeshan S. I am from Australia. I live in Canberra. It is the capital city. It is our only modest claim to fame. I had a feeling that a number of people I've been corresponding to knew each other. Mainly bcos you shared the same admiration of Lara as well as some of the points you were making.
I have seen many innings from Lara that left me as amazed as the 2 of you were after seeing that innings of 153*. I have seen Richards and he was terrific. But BL is better in my opinion.
I am doing a little research on spin bowlers and their form in Australia. I would like to post it in a day or 2. One thing I am finding out though is that Australia is not a very kind place to spin bowlers and I think it would be fair to readjust our expectations of their form when playing in our conditions. I have enjoyed all of your contributions along with all the others kind enough to correspond with me. Hopefully I will see more of you on this and other threads.

Dear Mike If he is not in full potential how he managed 1903 runs in 23 innings from 1946-1948 with batting average more than 105. If he was not young but he had full experience.
Steve Waugh said that Murli is bowling Bradman, why he said it because he knows that the cricket of those days. Also at another ocassion why he said now we can compare Hayden to Bradman. I think you know about it. Those days Hayden was proving too much.
If countries are not problem then why Ponting average is 20.85 only against India in India whereas his overall batting average against them is 47.02. At home his average is 79.35 against them. It means if he had faced only India in his country, we can never know about his performance in India. Whenever you are playing in Eight to nine countries, your all output come easily. That is the point why I am saying that he played only in two countries.
Yes you are right I am from Pakistan.
However he is legend and finest one.

I am delighted to hear that Mike is going to do a study of Aussie bowlers.An interesting insight from our leg spin study is the strong presence of Aussie leggies right through from the early 1900s to MacGill and Warne in 2008. India and Pakistan too have a good presence right through the list. The English who have early representation fade out of the list completely with Wright in 1951. Interestingly we have no representation from New Zealand and just a couple from WI and Sri Lanka. SA who had 4 googly bowlers in the early 1900 have had none for nearly 80 years. This sociological aspect of leg spin bowling could be a separate study in itself and maybe we will do that someday!

Dear Mike, this is right whenever we will write name of Sir. Bradman in Cricket, It is in Golden words.
I love cricket too much even I can remember the figures easily. This quality I found none of others surronding me like Lara played how many matches, innings and even his centuries and many others players figures in my mind.
Sir Bradman concentration wa too strong thats why his average is 99.94 although there were batsmen like Trumper, Kippar and Archie Jackson as well.
Here in Pak, people do not know about Trumper and others but when ask them about him, they say mostly A man with 100 average. Amazing!
Trumper may be most elegant batsman that cricket ever seen but his records are not outstanding like Sir Bradman. Same case David Gower may be most elegant left arm batsman but his average is more than 40.
I think Ponting is no. 2 in Austrailia after Sir Bradman.

Dear Mike you are right that Gavaskar 13 centuries against W. Indies are due to so many reasons according to you.
Suppose if some one says that Bradman centuries are also due to so many reasons then.
This is the question which came in mind and put it into blog.
Who is the first legend of cricket? I think for the same the name of Sir. Grace is more suitable. After him then he came and captured it.
Victor Trumper is the name before him in Australia as the best but how can we compare 39 to 99. Although Victor is most elegant batsman of the world.
His batting average declined in body line series suppose if this series was against fast battery of W. Indies and they were planning for the same.
Then captain also changed to Lloyd.
Lack of master inning on rain affected pitches, suppose if he had to face Derek Underwood after rain then what happened?
One more thing is also that Lara faced in test all captains from 1987 to onward who won world cup in one day.
No doubt he is legend and finest on

Dear Mike, besides so many facts that at least we both agree that both Bradman and Lara are out of world. Suppose we can say that Bradman is Thomas Edison and he is Nikola Tesla of cricket, although these both were of same period means two geniuses in batting in different period.
O Reilly said that at one occasion it is not possible to compare Bradman to Allan Border and Chappell.
We cannot forget the runs of Lara 688 against Sri Lanka when Murli took 26 wickets in series and Lara scored 42% of his team alone. Lara scored 5420 runs in his last 51 test matches. It means that he was brilliant in his last period as well.
First we remembered him when he scored 277 against Australia, then 375 against England in test then 501 in first class in 1994. Then 213 and 153 not out against Australia, then his 178, 221 and 130 against Sri Lanka, 400 not out against England and again 226 runs against Australia, although he has so many records but we can recognize him in this manner also.

Dear Mike see some more facts about amazing Brian Lara
Lara is the first man who had scored seven centuries in eight first-class innings, the first one is the ex-record 375 against England and the last one is also the record 501 not out.
Lara has scored centuries against all test-playing nations. He achieved it when he scored century against Pakistan in 2005.
He has scored an 20% of his team runs but it is less than Bradman that is 23% and also George Headley 21%.
With 164 catches, He has become fourth all-time catch-taker of non-Wicketkeepers in 131 test matches.
In Wisden 100 best innings his 153 not out is after Sir Bradman 270 that is no. 2. Then at no. 10 all time great innings his 375 and then at no. 14 his 213 against Australia. This happened when he was in mid of his career that is in 2001. After it he played five more years if they will again published it, his some more innings will qualify easily. It means his three innings included easily in 100 best at 2001.

Shane Warne is no. 1 leg spinner and then others like Kumble and others.
Warne ability is almost equally distributed in all continents like his average in Australia is 25.71, in Europe 21.94, in America 39.64, in Asia 26.81 and Africa 24.17. This is not the case of Anil Kumble. He always had a problem in others countries otherwise he was better than Warne.
At home Abdul Qadir is more effective than Warne. Former captain of England Graham Gooch said that it is more difficult to face him in Pakistan as compare to Warne is England. Anil Kumble is also very effective bowler at home.
You can divide them according to continents and add all continents averages, give 20% to all continents. Like Warne average become 27.65 in this way. One new table is prepared in this manner. The player who played in three or four continents, added them according to three of four.

I am ten year old.
I like Shane Warne he was very good bowler, he turned matches quickly. His performances were always remarkable in Ashes series. I watched his clips at websites on internet as well.
Whenever I watched Anil Kumble he was always good specially at home.
Someone told me that Abdul Qadir was also very good and also Mushtaq Ahmed. Kaneria is very good but his average is too much. For the remaining bowlers, I do not know about them.

So many to respond to. But I will only respond to one in detail which will be Zara Khan in a little while. Just a few comments to others now.
Giridhar. To clarify. I am looking at the record of foreign spinners in Aus. I have a motley list and will compare ave and S/R. Maybe Econ/rate too. This is to show Aus pitches are unfair to spinners and we should account for that when reviewing performances. If you don't mind I'll use this thread.
M. Omair. DGB did ave 105 after the war. But all said he was a better player before it. His ave is due to a big series v India: 178.75. His ave v Eng was 84. He was trimmed by Bedser.
Zeeshan S. Yes they are all great innings. I rate BL as the pinnacle of modern players. I also rate Ponting no.2 for Aus.
X.Khan. Sunny is still a great player. He would still score many runs against WI pace battery. Also in DGB's day they didn't have armour and bodyline is outlawed so WI couldn't use it. Also Verity said DGB was pretty good on wet wkts.

Zara Khan. Statisticians often remove the outlier bcos it distorts figures. DGB is the ultimate outlier. Therefore I remove his runs from a bowler's ave. In the period you speak Tate's av is 34. Take out runs to DGB it falls to 29. Now compare Waqar. 1st half of his career av= 19. 2nd half av= 28. That is still good and similar to Tate's adjusted av. 28 is the career av of good bwlrs like Hughes and Mcdermot.
They play 4 times more cricket now. 100wkts then would be like 400wkts now. So 25wkts then = 100wkts now. And DGB played plenty of them. It doesn't matter if a player hasn't faced a bowler who has 100wkts anyway. For example look at Waqar again. Do you think he was harder to face when he had less than 100 wkts or more than 200? See the difference? A man with Next post abt spinners in Aus.

Dear Mike some more facts about Lara
In test, 82 fifty or fifty plus innings in 232 innings in which 80-99 scores are sixteen. Then 34 hundreds then nineteen 150 or 150 plus scores in which 175 or more are fifteen. From it, nine double hundreds, it is more than any test batsman except Sir Bradman then two triple hundreds and then one quadruple. He also has one quintuple hundred in first class.
Only batsman in history who has defined half centuries, centuries, double centuries, triple centuries and quadruple in test in his career and also only batsman who has defined half centuries, centuries, double centuries, triple centuries, quadruple centuries and quintuple century in his first class career.
Another record of him, double centuries against five different test playing teams.
He was also best against Austraiia, S. Africa and Sri Lanka means against three strongest attack, he was best one.
I think I have put too much knowdlege on blog about him.

Dear Mike, Don Bradman has played only nine test matches against him and according to you he disturbed him too much. Tate took his wicket five times only. Main thing is that how many runs he had given to him as there is no criteria which we can determine that each ball to him with runs scored by him in his over. You may doing it by simply multiypling 5 * 80.2 = 401 runs. If you are going in this manner then Bruce Mitchell also had average of 61.2 against him. Had he also disturbed him.
His wicket taking capability is five first like 20 * 5 = 100 then in last 19 not even 3 per match with bowling average 34.88. 55 / 19 = 2.89.
Verity played from 1931-1939 means 40 matches in eight years that is five per year.
Warne played from 1992 to 2007 means 145 matches in fifteen years that is 9.667. It means he played double times more than him not four times. 9.67 * 8 = 77 and also playing double cricket the players have injury risk as well.
So multiply 2 * 25 = 50 wickets not 100 wicket.

Dear Mike
Wally Hammond played 1927-1947 85 test matches it means 4.25 test matches per year although he lost cricket due to world war II. Suppose if there is no world war II then add six more years to him then it become 125-130 test matches in case of Hammond. It means your opinion about not too many cricket is not correct.
Graham Gooch had played 118 test matches from 1975-1995. In his career two breaks of two years came also. It means 5.9 test matches per year. 5.9 / 4.25 = 1.388 or 1.4. Even it is not double. There is no concept of four times. It is your own assumption.
Before world war II, if we count Hammond test matches it is 77 test matches in 12 years. It means 77 / 12 = 6.41. Even his figure is more than Gooch 5.91 and you are saying that those days not too many cricket.
Those days only focused on test cricket and even too many timeless matches so cricketer had great chance for them. In timeless matches there was only one focused saved your wicket and scored runs.

Dear Mike
Bradman played 42 fifty plus innings in which two innings are 80 plus to 99. Then 29 hundred plus in which 150 plus are 18 and two of them are 175plus to 199 then twelve are 200 plus and in which 300 plus are two with 6297 runs scored in 50plus innings.
Sunil Gavaskar (1971-1987) as he had also managed 42 (22 are fifty plus and 20 are hundred plus) fifty plus innings in his first 52 test matches with run scored 5007 at 27 grounds in four continents in which seven grounds are in India with 50plus 4205 runs scored.
Gavaskar lost his wicket 50 times against Derek Underwood, Imran Khan, Micheal Holding, Ian Botham, Malcom Marshall, (12+11+11+8+8=50)
Others like Wasim Akram, Hadlee, Lillee, Thomson, Joel Garner, John Snow, Hughes, Andy Robert, Bob Willis, Lance Gibbs and Abdul Qadir in his whole career.
All Bowlers had 200 or more wickets in test and played 50 test matches except Andy Robert 47 and John Snow 49.
It means he had played too tough cricket for fast bowling.

Dear Mike
Even Sir Vivian Richard never managed any double hundred at home in test and Sir Garry Sober never managed any double hundred at opponent’s home in test matches. Although both are the two greatest batsmen in history, no doubt about it.
Lara scored four double hundreds at home and five at opponent’s home, which is more than any test batsman except Sir. Bradman.
Vivian Richard scored seven times 150 or plus scores in test, Gary Sobers eleven times and Lara scored nineteen times 150 or plus. This is still a world record of him in test matches. He scored 4066 runs in these innings in his career.
Vivian Richard scored three double hundreds and Gary Sobers two double hundreds in test career.
Lara scored three double centuries against Australia in which two at their home grounds and two triple centuries against England in which one is quadruple, two against Sri Lanka. For Pakistan and Africa one each.
In this way he scored nine double hundreds against five test playing countries.

Dear Mike,
There should be criteria for at least 100 wickets for bowlers in test.
Wally Hammond found a way to play 85 test matches in his whole career during 1927-1947. If he could play 85, why not others only 30 matches.
30 / 85 = .35. It means ratio stood 1: 3. In think 30 matches are enough to arrange 100 wickets. It means 3.33 wickets per test.
Just like Kapil Dev 434 wickets in 131 test matches = 3.32. Only all-rounder in test who has completed 4000 or more runs plus 400 or more wickets in test.

Tate came in 1924 and completed his 100 wickets at the end of 1928. It means in less than or equal to four and half years, he completed it. If he could to it in this period, why not others for whole career.
Verity came in 1931 and completed his 100 wickets in 1936. It means in almost 5 and half years, he completed it.
Grimmett came in 1925 and completed his 100 wickets in the beginning of 1931. It means in almost six years, he completed it with age 33 at the start of career

Dear Zara and Mike, see some more facts
Reilly came in 1932 and completed his 100 wickets in the beginning of 1937. It means in almost five years, he completed it.
So many players completed 100 wickets in four to six years period then why not others.
Hammond(1927-1947)played cricket for twenty years, even if we reduced six years due to world war II, then for 14 years with 85 test matches. Why not others only 30 to 35 to complete 100 wickets. In this way if Hammond played 25 then others 10 only. If he 77 then others 31. I think 31 are enough to take 100 wickets.
Before war, how Hammond (from 1927 to 1939) played 77 test matches. It means that there is too much cricket. 77 / 12 = almost 13 in two years.
Gavaskar played 125 test matches in 16 years means 125 / 16 = 7.81 per year. Hammond for 77 / 12 = 6.41 per year before war. It means 7.81 / 6.41 = 1.21.
125 / 16 = almost 16 in two years
Even if we divide 125 / 85 = almost 1.5.
How you took assumption of four times.

Zara K. Over the same period as Hammond DGB only played 52 tests. Who do you think was the better player? See! Just bcos you play fewer games doesn't mean you're not better. It just means you have fewer opportunities. Same goes for the others you mention like Grimmett and Verity. They are exceptional players. It would be like comparing them to Border and Gavaskar or Kapil. Just bcos those 3 played more tests than Roberts (47) & Holding (60) it doesn't mean the last 2 mentioned weren't great as well. Similarly Larwood, Voce and O'Reilly were still great even though they all played fewer games than Verity and Grimmett.
All it means is that if Verity & Grimmett played today they'd have 4 times as many tests & wkts.
As for your point abt Tate we can also say the same abt today's bowlers. Why couldn't they take wkts in the same manner as Tate or Waqar for that matter?

Comments abt Verity got me thinking abt the record of spinners in Australia. Some think his av here of 34 and SR of 113 prove he was ineffective. On the contrary. Historically speaking his record in Australia is good for a spinner.
I randomly selected 26 spinners over cricket's history including all types from leggies to finger spinners and reviewed their records in Aus. I decided to leave out 2 famous names from India (Bedi and Chandra) bcos I thought their figures were distorted playing a 3rd string Aus side in 77/78. They being the years Packer players were excluded from the Aus team. The 26 are Laker, Lock, Murali, Qadir, Vogler, Gibbs, Verity, Kumble, Kaniera, Faulkner, Mushtaq, Freeman, White, Ramadhin, Valentine, Prasana, Bracewell, Underwood, Wright, Vettori, Surti, Rhodes, Illingworth, Titmus, Allen and Tayfield.
A bowler is rated against av, SR & economy (ER). Lets review their averages first up.

Of all the players I reviewed only 3 had avs below 30! Thats in 133 yrs of tests in Aus! It shows how difficult it is for an OS player to bowl spin here. I forgot to mention that I excluded Aussie spinners bcos the object of the exercise was to show how hard it is for a foreign spinner to succeed here.
It seems that an av btwn 30-35 is excellent for an OS spinner in Aus while 36-40 is still good. The 3 who av in the 20s were Laker, Rhodes and Tayfield. (DGB faced 2 of them though only Laker in tests). Those who av btwn 30-35 are White, Underwood, Prasana, Valentine, Gibbs, Mushtaq, Verity, Surti. DGB played against 2 of these. Av btwn 36-40 were Allen, Kaniera, Kumble, Titmus, Bracewell, Vettori. Btwn 41-50 saw Wright, Illingworth, Vogler & Ramadhin. Freeman & Faulkner av in the 50s. Qadir's av is 61. In last place were greats Lock and Murali averaging 75! So much for assessing the worth of a spinner on their form in Aus. It just shows that even the best will struggle here.
SR next.

Dear Mike,
Lara payed against 25-3o different captains against 9 teams with their different strategies.

In which Allan Border winner of 1987 world cup and also 32 test matches winner, Imran Khan winner of 1992 world cup and also 14 test matches, Ranatunga winner of 1996 world cup and also 12 test matches.
Steve Waugh winner of 1999 world cup and also 41 test matches, Ponting winner of 2003 and 2007 world cups and also 38 test matches.

Besides them, Cronje 27 test matches and Fleming 28 test matches winner are also the best captains.
Also Micheal Vaughan and Mark Taylor are winner of 26 test matches each and Ganguly 21 test matches.
We can not neglect Wasim with 12, Nasir Hussain and Jayasuria with 17 each. All of them are the leading captains in test history besides others.

As we both know that playing against the better captain is difficult due to his different strategies.

Dear Mike
Take example of Richard Hadlee, who came in 1973 and finished his career in 1990. In 17 years, he played 86 test matches. 86 / 17 = 5 per year.
Compare his ratio to Hammond ratio 6.41 which one is more.
He played in twenty years 85 matches and Hadlee played in 17 year 86 matches. Even then their no concept of twice. For twenty year then ratio is 4.2 for Hammond.
The main reason is that if someone wants to do something he find his own way to do it.
It means that those player who were not taking 100 wickets at that time, were not as serious as Verity and Tate.
Verity striking rate is 113 in Austraia and he still found a way to join 100 wickets club.

Zara K. Mitchell isn't an outlier. He may have scored those runs v Tate but failed against another bowler. DGB succeeded against ALL bowlers. So its fair to include Mitchell but not DGB. Therefore Tate's adjusted av is 29 and the fairer figure.
For Verity to play the same no. of tests as Warne he'd have to play 29 yrs! If he did he'd have 522 wkts. Also Verity was better against tough opponents. His record v Aus is much better than Warne's v Ind.
M. Omair. Av no of tests btwn 1927-47 = 7.9. Av no of tests btwn 1975-87= 26. That is 3.29 times as much. The difference would be even greater now. I hope that clarifies the matter.
Zeeshan. Use the above formula. If Underwood, Imran,Marshall,Lillee,Holding,Snow,Roberts,Thommo played in the 30s they'd have btwn 14-26 tests respectively. And you would then not think them good bowlers!
Take Thommo as an eg. He would've played 15 tests and got only 58 wkts at abt the same rate as Tate but fewer than Farnes and Bowes.

M. Omair. If Sunny played from 1930-47 he'd have faced Larwood, Tate, Geary, Voce, Allen, Farnes, Bowes, White, Verity, Peebles, Wright, Bedser, Laker, O'Reilly, Grimmett, Fleetwood Smith, Ironmonger, McCormick, Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Johnson, Toshack, Cowie, Pritchard, Amar Singh, Nissar, Mankad, Constantine, Griffith, Martindale and Vintcent.

I have a great oppurtunity due to Mr. S. Giridhar and Mr. V J Raghunath to learn about leg spinners of different ages.
Due to Mr. Mike, oppurtunity to learn more about Brian Lara and also Sir Bradman and many others.
I found both players amazing.
As no more argument with Mr. Mike. Athough I can put too much more knowledge about these matters but I think the blog owners may be not feeling well about it so I have decided to finish it.
Regarding leg spinners I think Warne is no. 1 and then no. 2 Anil Kumble becasue taking 600 or 700 wickets in test cricket is amazing.
Anil Kumble (1990 - 2008) played 18 years for bowling and took 619 wickets in 132 test matches.
132 / 18 = 7.33.
Now I will move on others topics to discuss on same blog or others.
Have a nice day both of you and also Mr. Mike and many thanks for giving me place in your blog for comments and also too Mr. Mike.
One more thing is that Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui and Zeeshan Ahmed are same person, both are me.

Zeeshan. I have enjoyed talking to the both of you! Hopefully we can have more talk on these blogs. I tried to post some information on the performance of spinners in Aus but it wasn't printed. Maybe this thread is the wrong place for it.
I might try and create a thread to discuss the topic and hopefully it'll get printed and draw some comments.
Thankyou again.

Many thanks for the oppurtunity to comments on your blog. It has enhanced our knowledge about leg spinners.
Yes the topic should be end. This is my last comments on this topic. I am Network Engineer.

Dear Mike if we consider the facts which you have mentioned but how can anyone neglect that Hammond played 85 test matches from 1927-1947. It means there was an oppurtunity to play those days also which is not twice or thrice.
Imran Khan also played cricket for 21 years and only played 88 test matches. Sobers also in twenty years only 93 test matches. They all played almost the same test matches or near to each other.
4.2 in case of Imran Khan and Wally Hammond and in case of Garry Sobers 4.65 test per year.
Like Abdul Qadir played 67 test matches in 13 years means 5.15 test per year.
There are so many examples of modern days cricket that players were getting 5 or 6 test matches per year only and they were also facing too much difficulties to put themselves at int. level.

Dear Mike, when I started on blog to comments I was thinking that it is easy task to convince you but after passage of time I realized you have also too much knowledge about cricket and it is not an easy task. Later on we both agree about Sir Bradman and Lara.
I spend too much time on cricinfo for the sake of further knowledge about cricket.
I enjoyed for all comments too in this blog, specially yours. In comments, I think your special point is potray things in a better manner.

Seeking records after records in cricket is my hobby beside watching movies specially on cinema.

M. Omair. For a start I don't think you're taking into account that Imran was really only had 13 yrs productive test cricket. Before that he was a journeyman. After the 87 series in the WI he only played a few games due to his age.
You concentrate on Hammond but with respect you're trying to make a generalisation out of a specific circumstance. I think Border has played most tests. Either he or Sunny or SRT. If we were to phrase your question is a modern circumstance we could ask if Border played 160 tests why can't everyone? Plainly not everyone can.
I'm struggling to think who played the 2nd greatest no of tests in Hammond's period but I think its Bradman with 52. Now DGB was clearly better than Hammond but Hammond played more tests. Then Grimmett is 3rd, I think, with 37. A remarkable fall away isn't it? And a truer indication that reflects the limited opportunities to play tests in the 30s and 40s.

Dear Mike here I want to clear one thing that only Hammond got a chance to play 85 test matches. We can compare it for his team only even not with same ratio.
Even we cannot apply it on legend Bradman 52, although he missed tour of five matches in Africa in 1935-36 and also one match in New Zealand in 1946.
Steve Waugh played 168 test matches which is two times more than Hammond. If Steve Waugh played 168 that did not mean that every one played 168. For 35% only it means only 60 matches. If one is playing 168 then why not other for 60 matches. I applied same formula on Hammond and nothing else.

Verity came in 1931 and completed 40 test matches in 1938. Allen came in 1930 and after getting three more test matches after world war II, his matches were only 25. It means only 22 matches he got before world war II and missed 15-20 test matches before it. After world war II, he missed again eight test matches. Larwood missed 15-20 test matches during his career.

Please do not mind.

Thankyou Zeeshan. You state your points convincingly. And you have a love and knowledge of cricket that I admire. I also enjoy the movies but have not been able to go to the cinema for quite a while. If I had to pick a favourite I think it would be "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" starring Jack Nicholson.

This is to my last one on this blog. This article enhanced too much our knowledge about leg spinners.
I thanks to both of you guys and Mr. Zeeshan, Mr. Mike and all others to make some thing interesting on blog. Without your permission we cannot do any thing on it. Due to all, so many knowledge has been transferred.
Here Mr. Zeeshan missed one ex-record of Brian Lara that is highest no. of fours in test match. He smashed near to 1500 fours in his test career.
We cannot apply Hammond 85 test to all others. Steve Waugh have played 168 test matches which is near to double to Hammond. 168 are highest no. of test matches, second one is Tendulkar 159 and third one Allan Border 156.

So many bowlers of England missed test matches like Allen missed 20-25 test matches as he came before Verity but at the end of career he played only 25 test matches.
Verity played 40 test matches. Voce came before Allen but at the end of his career he played only 27 test matches.
Nice day for all of you.

Dear Mike, many thanks to you also. I have also same interest in movies as well just like cricket. This guy Jack Nicholson is one of the best actor. I may find you on another blogs or same as well.
I am also fond of eating, for the same purpose there are 25-30 international franchises like Nandoo's, KFC, Subway, Costa and many others, here in Karachi. My purpose is do not eat too much at a time but tasty one in a limit.
Also more than 150 or more places for local restaurants. I traced the best food stuff in all these places in 10 years like Nandoo's steam chicken is the best one. Now I have my own list for best stuff and according to it, I am going to different places like best ice cream may be Hug and Daas here.
In my opinion, you never find or there is less chance of good food stuff in Five star Hotel, the reason is that there main focus is guests but in restaurant there main focus is food stuff.
Have a nice for you!

My last comments on this topic as no more for any one.
Specially thanks to both of you guys arrange such a nice article on leg spinners.
Thanks to all of guys who made it so interesting as there is one better way to learn that is debate, specially on blog.
Hammond 85 did not apply to others like Waugh 168 is more than his team mates.
During discussion we know that Verity striking rate is 113 in Australia.
His striking rate in New Zealand is 156 and in Africa is 119. He bowled total 4799 balls in these countries and took 41 wickets it means his striking rate became 117 in these two continents. His overall striking rate is 77.5. In England 67.8 and in India 42.9.

This is my last comments on it. Praise for both guys who arranged the nice article.
Thanks to all of you for such comments, now we have too much knowledge about the past as well as due to this article and also due to Mike, Zeeshan and other guys.
I think Shane Warne is no. 1 leg spinner with 708 wickets in test plus more than 3000 runs in batting. If we talk about Warne and Wasim Akram, I think they are more effective than others all rounder in one day cricket. The reason is simple that they are first complete bowlers and then additional batting.
When Wisden selected 100 best batsmen and bowlers in test in 2001 neither 100 best batsmen selectd in bowlers category nor 100 best them to batting

Wally Hammond might be no. 2 thse days played 85 test matches in twenty years.
He played in four continents Africa, America, Europe and Oceania.
He played against five teams Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies.
He played test cricket on twenty different grounds.

God help me, I put aside a whole afternoon to fiugre this out.