Warne is not a great spinner(as did not dominate peers as per Bradman theory)

[King Tendulkar]

Warne is not an all time great then and is certainly no were near list of greatest spinner ever. As in terms of stats he did not dominate his peers. In fact he has worse average and strike rate then murali. Thus not only did he not dominate his peers , he was surpassed by his peers. Also his average is not much better then other peer Kumble. I am sure that Bradman fans(with peer domination criteria) will agree that there is no way Warne can be considered greatest spinner ever. In fact taking in to account peer domination he would not make top 10 greatest spinner ever list Just imagine if Warne played in an era with only england as oppo, like in the 30s. He would have clear domination of his peers of England, as their spinners were useless in Warnes era! Then he would be a great. But Warne played in a competitive era, hence there were annoying subcontinent players to ruin his domination stats. Thus unfortunatley Warne cannot be considered an all time great. Poor Warne, shame he did not play in 30s when all you had to was dominate poms and you are numero uno!

[King Tendulkar]

In fact following peer domination theory through, Murali also has no clear domination over Warne or Kumble in stats terms. Thus in terms of peer domination they are both awful. That means they are not as good as spinners before who dominated their peers more!

[urbestfriend]

If a player clearly dominates other players of his era , he is great player. Converse is not true.

[Roshanrocks]

:regular_smile: KT what about akram, donald pollock akhtar mcgrath, what is your opinion about these bowlers?

[King Tendulkar]

:regular_smile: KT what about akram, donald pollock akhtar mcgrath, what is your opinion about these bowlers?

Well when you compare them to a legend like Lohmaan they are not even close. Those above did not dominate peers but had similar stats to cream of their era. No domination of peers at all as per Bradman formula. But Lohmann on the other hand monstered his peers and anyone since. There is Lohmann, then a massive gap, then the rest!

[urbestfriend]

Your lohmann theory is put to rest by mr SJS, what are you still ranting on mate?

[fineleg]

I had doubts on dsr's ability to discern spinners when he used to view Dartbhajan as a great offie. Now dsr has confirmed the doubt on his ability to rate spinners

[King Tendulkar]

This thread is about Warne. Just happened to mention Lohmann after a question

[King Tendulkar]

Stick to the facts guys. Answer the OP!!! Attack the post not the thread!:winky:

[Roshanrocks]

I had doubts on dsr's ability to discern spinners when he used to view Dartbhajan as a great offie. Now dsr has confirmed the doubt on his ability to rate spinners

who is dsr?

[Gunner_Mania]

Stick to the facts guys. Answer the OP!!! Attack the post not the thread!:winky:

:hmmm: The argument is not that Sachin is not great, the argument is that he is not the greatest. Warne by no stretch of imagination or any body's argument is the greatest, he is 'arguably one of the greats', just like Murali or Kumble, or the Indian spin quartet or Benaud.

[Bradman99]

You are a weird one, no doubt.

[Sooda]

^ LOLzers, cant agree more. What an epic fail thread. In response though Warne, Murali and Kumbles records are similarish and theres a gap between them and the rest which is why they are the 3 greatest of their era- and indeed possibily ever. It dosent make any one of them 'awful' :wall: they all 3 happen to be arguably the three greatest spinners ever, definitely 3 of the top 5... The likes of Headly, Hobbs, Hammond, Morris, Neil Harvey who were around in and/or around Bradmans time are all time greats. Theyre stats are not significantly better than each others- so they did not HAVE to have been utterly dominant. Just that Bradman being SO far ahead of them was considerably better. So, to say that Warne 'no were near list of greatest spinner ever' does not at ALL follow the same line of argument, hence this thread fails epically. His record is vastly superior to say Mushtaq Ahmed (who was very good but not great) obviously fellow 'greats' like Kumble and Murali are more comparable. And to argue whether Murali was better or not is a different matter completely but theres not much to choose between them..

[vvvslaxman]

Tamim is not better than Habibul Bashar would have been a great thread :giggle:

[King Tendulkar]

Seems like some do not understand the correlation between dominance of peers and competitivness of the era! If warne had played in an era like Bradman of no competitive teams other the England. Then Warne would have been a totally dominant spinner. And thus accorded title as greatest spinner ever! Bradman was dominant but played in uncompetitive era in comparison to modern times. Also Lohmann was totally dominant but seems like people are not willing to give him tag of greatest bowler ever. Which does not match the reasons for Bradman being accorded greatest ever! Selective use of rules to define greatness is being shown to different players. People need to start watching cricket instead of spending all their time on cricinfo stats and wisden

[b555]

People need to start watching cricket instead of spending all their time on cricinfo stats and wisden :hatsoff:

[urbestfriend]

Seems like some do not understand the correlation between dominance of peers and competitivness of the era! If warne had played in an era like Bradman of no competitive teams other the England. Then Warne would have been a totally dominant spinner. And thus accorded title as greatest spinner ever! Bradman was dominant but played in uncompetitive era in comparison to modern times. Also Lohmann was totally dominant but seems like people are not willing to give him tag of greatest bowler ever. Which does not match the reasons for Bradman being accorded greatest ever! Selective use of rules to define greatness is being shown to different players. People need to start watching cricket instead of spending all their time on cricinfo stats and wisden

How do you argue that Australian first class wasn't competitive back then? Bradman has maintained an avg of 95 which is far higher than his peers in first class cricket.

[King Tendulkar]

How do you argue that Australian first class wasn't competitive back then? Bradman has maintained an avg of 95 which is far higher than his peers in first class cricket.

Er what has aussie FC cricket got to do with anything?

[Sooda]

It kinda does as he faced people like Grimmet, O Reilly and pissibly Lindwall and Miller there- and if he carted them around...

Seems like some do not understand the correlation between dominance of peers and competitivness of the era! If warne had played in an era like Bradman of no competitive teams other the England. Then Warne would have been a totally dominant spinner. And thus accorded title as greatest spinner ever! Bradman was dominant but played in uncompetitive era in comparison to modern times. Also Lohmann was totally dominant but seems like people are not willing to give him tag of greatest bowler ever. Which does not match the reasons for Bradman being accorded greatest ever! Selective use of rules to define greatness is being shown to different players. People need to start watching cricket instead of spending all their time on cricinfo stats and wisden

Sorry man but I think a case in point here is yourself ! If that era was that uncompetitive why did none of Bradmans peers average even remotely as much as he did? Alot of them did very well indeed- as I mentioned in my last post. Guys from the 30's like Headly and Sutcliffe averaged 60+ yet no one can even begin to compare to Bradman. THAT is what dominance over peers means. Fine batsmen from this era average 50+ some as high as 55ish, but not one is clearly hugely ahead of the rest. Cricket is of a lower overall quality than the 90's, certainly bowling stds are and piches are easier to bat on. Warne, Murali and Kumble are streets ahead of someone like Mushtaq -that much is clear from their records. Had Murali and Kumble not been around Warne would have been undisputed numero uno- and you could have there pointed to 'dominance over peers'. The competitveness of lack thereof of the era notwithstanding.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --