According to this writer here at Cricinfo

Posted by Kamran Abbasi at 11:33 AM in Spinners

Qadir was the best of the lot

Call me a heretic, Shane Warne was a true great but Abdul Qadir was better. I say this for several reasons.

1. Warne was barely able to bowl a googly, Qadir had several.

2. Umpires have become much more sympathetic towards legspinners over the last decade or so. Qadir had some of the plumbest decisions turned down for no better reason than the ball "might" spin. That rarely happens now and it makes the batsman's approach less sure and stay more uncomfortable.

3. Qadir had to battle the madness of Pakistan's cricket system and if Imran Khan had not supported him he might have been lost. Warne had the smartest cricket board behind him.

4. Warne played for the premier team of his age. Qadir began when Pakistan were nowhere and ended with Pakistan battling for the top spot.

5. Qadir had to bowl at the world's strongest batting team (West Indies), with great success too. Warne never had to.

6. Warne usually bowled with the luxury of a big score behind his team. Qadir was more often bowling under the pressure of a low score.

7. Warne had always been part of a powerful bowling attack. For most of Qadir's career it was him and Imran and much cannon fodder.

8. Global cricket coverage made today's stars more prominent than even the stars of the 80s. Many of Qadir's dazzling performances were never seen in England and Australia, the countries that dominate cricket writing and coverage.

9. Scyld Berry, the incoming editor of Wisden Almanack: "It is impossible to believe that wrist-spin has ever been bowled better than Qadir did in his home city of Lahore in 1987-88, when he took 9 for 56 against England."

10. More from Scyld: "Graham Gooch, who faced him that day, said Qadir was even finer than Shane Warne, to whom he passed on the candle." Gooch faced both bowlers in their prime.

Thank you Shane but let's not forget Abdul the Googly.

This gentleman, like many others at rubbish info, operates on the principle of playing to the gallery - the likes of which had a field day during the Oval fiasco, rousing the worst prejudices of people and appealing to their baser instincts.

While there is certainly some truth in point number 2, if the writer had any amount of journalistic integrity and objectivity, he would have pointed out the many times Qadir benefited from "home umpiring" - when all too obliging umpires would raise their finger when it was clearly not out. The writer doesn't mention a word of it.

Qadir was a fine, fine bowler, and was responsible for sustaining the then vanishing art of leg spin - but most of the above arguments are so childish as to not merit a response.

quote:

Originally posted by Hey Jude...:
if the writer had any amount of journalistic integrity and objectivity, he would have pointed out the many times Qadir benefited from "home umpiring" - when all too obliging umpires would raise their finger when it was clearly not out.

Gawd yes. England in Pakistan '87 leaps to mind. Broad was given out caught behind to a ball which missed his bat by six inches!

With all the outcry over umpiring issues in this age of neutral umpires, things were so much worse during home "umpires" (I use quotes because some of them weren't umpires in any sense)

Pakistan were denied the series win in West Indies in 87/88 by blatant cheating by umpires - the guy actually admitted later on that he feared his house would get burned down if he didn't do what he had to do

There was a popular TV comedy show in Pakistan which sometimes used to show skits making fun of home umpires - things like having their hands tied with ropes behind their backs when home team is batting, etc. It was quite funny

Robin Hobbs was a better leg spiiner than Warne

1 Because I anm bored
2 Because I say so
3 Because of race and class bias against essex boys
4 Beasuse I write For Cricinfo

Quadir was much better than Warne. Also if Qudir was given the same amout of Tests versus Eng, the story would have been very different.

quote:

Originally posted by Honiyan:
Quadir was much better than Warne. Also if Qudir was given the same amout of Tests versus Eng, the story would have been very different.

Why don't other spinners have great records vs England?

Leg spinners?

Best ever leg spinner that I have seen is Mr Abdul Qadir. Shame he isn't ....... and have b..... hair.

Abdul is certainly no Warney but so what, who is?

Fact is Dickie rates him highly, Adbul is clearly an artist who plied his trade in the 80s and kept the art of spin alive (acknowlged by many including Warne who looks up to Qadir)

Plus statistics don't always tell the full story, sure his ain't the best but neither are Ranji's or Trumper's.

quote:

Quadir was much better than Warne. Also if Qudir was given the same amout of Tests versus Eng, the story would have been very different.

Just like if your old man had checked the use-by date on the packet before....

I thought O'Reilly and Grimmett were supposed to be the best ever leggies?

Warne has done it where it counts, out there on the pitch. He is certainly the best bowler of any style that the game has seen. You have to wonder how good he would have been with less pies, less cigarettes and less booze as well as less peripheral grief.

Maybe all that sort of sinful stuff kept his mind off the game which allowed him to create genius.

We just don't know.

True but i think a much fitter healthier Warne would have been even better.

Australia have had a great line of leggies:

Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud then a long pause and then Warne.

All five could well be better than Qadir.

quote:

Originally posted by daydreamings:
Australia have had a great line of leggies:

Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud then a long pause and then Warne.

All five could well be better than Qadir.

It is just about impossible to compare bowlers from different eras, or for that matter, batsmen as well.

It is when we are talking about comparing great players similar in stature. Like it is comparing the current cream of the crop. But at the same time it's easy to say Underwood was better than Giles regardless of the era difference.

Abassi is a massive one-eye for the most part anyway - his rationale here is incredibly juvenile.

Gary Sobers recently said that Gupte was the greatest leg spinner that he had ever seen so i suppose not every one agrees with the notion that was Warne was the greatest ever.

I personally didn't see A Qadir bowl in too many matches(no more than 20 ODIs) plus they played in a different era so it will be unfair for me to compare the two.

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:
Gary Sobers recently said that Gupte was the greatest leg spinner that he had ever seen so i suppose not every one agrees with the notion that was Warne was the greatest ever.

Yup.

The word great is subjective, and so is of course greatest ever. This is not physical science where one can have concrete measures.

It is almost impossible to come up with the greatest batsman / bowler for any given era, let alone all time.

Gupte's stats

quote:

Originally posted by Hey Jude...:

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:
Gary Sobers recently said that Gupte was the greatest leg spinner that he had ever seen so i suppose not every one agrees with the notion that was Warne was the greatest ever.

Yup.

The word great is subjective, and so is of course greatest ever. This is not physical science where one can have concrete measures.

It is almost impossible to come up with the greatest batsman / bowler for any given era, let alone all time.

Yes that's why i find it quite strange when people(this include professional commentators) come out and confidently say that oh ABC who played in the 1910s was better than XYZ who played in the 1970s....i try to totally ignore such comparisons.

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:

quote:

Originally posted by Hey Jude...:

quote:

Originally posted by fcxx:
Gary Sobers recently said that Gupte was the greatest leg spinner that he had ever seen so i suppose not every one agrees with the notion that was Warne was the greatest ever.

Yup.

The word great is subjective, and so is of course greatest ever. This is not physical science where one can have concrete measures.

It is almost impossible to come up with the greatest batsman / bowler for any given era, let alone all time.

Yes that's why i find it quite strange when people(this include professional commentators) come out and confidently say that oh ABC who played in the 1910s was better than XYZ who played in the 1970s....i try to totally ignore such comparisons.

Me too. It is pure stupidity. You see it going on in forums too. It is a total disregard for the sheer complexity of the game and the so many not measurable variables.

Some of the more humble and more astute cricketers though just say it is impossible to compare eras.

Personally, I find all these "my Dad is bigger than yours" comparisons boring and silly to the extreme. There is nothing in cricket which enables you to rank cricketers like that (the truly great ones, that is) and I think that is a good thing. It adds to its beauty.

LOL. Thats All I could say.