Spinners January 5, 2007

Qadir was the best of the lot

Kamran Abbasi puts forth ten reasons why Abdul Qadir was a greater spinner than Shane Warne
685

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.

Kamran Abbasi is an editor, writer and broadcaster. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • mehraj ud din(kashmir) on July 11, 2007, 11:44 GMT

    Warne was the part of the great team,every player contributed his due on the other side,Qadir established his team to greatness.

  • pete murder tone on June 13, 2007, 15:49 GMT

    warne is not necessarily the best, but neither is qadir. Qadir simply did not play enough nor have enough impact for any comparison to be valid...

    A few points in defense of warne tho:

    warne didnt come into a world champ side, but he helped turn it into one

    Warne was a force long before McGrath reached the top, he too was partnered by some weak attacks for a time

    While never dominating in India it was only in his last series there that he was fully fit...the other times he played there he was hampered, in 98 he was shot and shouldnt have played but he did his best without concern for his average

  • Hisham on February 7, 2007, 8:45 GMT

    Hey People, Give every1 a break. Tell ya what, you guys are compering 100 with 10. Did some1 notice another "0" is missing in comparision.

    Did you guys not notice that apart from only bad performance in India, Warne ruled the world, he simply did with his big leggies which were good enough to undo batter.

    Lets not discuss skills of batsman here, he has dismissed batters like Saeed Anwar, Azhar-ud-din, Sachin, Lara, Inzimam-ul-haq.

    He did it all over the world, Qadir well I am afraid it was support of Imran, Pakistani Dull wickets and Pakistani's high class one sided yet truly unfair, biased umpiring.

    Did you guys not notice Straus walking towards ball and ball spining infront of him, taking his leg. I reckon that was 4 FEET spin in England. I dont recall Qadir getting out BOB WILLIS (who hit him for 4 successive boundries in LORDS alone)

    Sorry Guys, No comparision at all. Let's be honest. Warne was something.

  • eddy on January 23, 2007, 1:02 GMT

    Utter nonsense. I saw Qadir playing in his hey days, he was only good in Pakistan. In fact, its only because of Imran that he played because Imran didn't like Iqbal Qasim. Imran supported Qadir, just like he supported another failure Mansoor Akthar and no one could have dared gone against Imran's decision. Shane Warne is world class, he is the Don Bradman of spin bowling

  • QFF on January 21, 2007, 9:53 GMT

    I do not agree with anyone who rates Qadir higher than Shane Warne... period... There is no comparison... who needs a googly when you can bowl with the variations Warne can... Agreed Qadir kept the art alive during the difficult periods, but he was no where close to Shane...

  • J O on January 19, 2007, 18:12 GMT

    Well lads, I have to say that Warne is better than Qadir! Warne had to play on flatter pitches and still mesmorized most batters. To have so many variations in your armoury and bowl them to perfection is real great. The flipper is the hardest of the lot and he bowls it very well. It just shows that he is a master of his game and will always be remembered as the greatest leg spinner ever!!!

  • ali on January 19, 2007, 3:23 GMT

    Andrew G- Salim Malik may have been banned for match fixing, but he happened to be an excellent cricketer. A stylish middle-order batsman, Malik made 5,768 runs in 103 Tests and 7,170 in 283 one-day internationals until his ban. Also, he was dismissed just once in five Tests by Warnie. So he knew what he was talking, when he said: "He is a negative bowler and tries to frustrate the batsman by bowling round the legs.". If you watch Warne's bowling you"ll see that's what he bowled continuously. Compare that to any other leg spinner and you"ll see what am talking about ... So if Murali is a chucker, then Warnie was a negative bowler.

    We are only discussing cricket here, but if you want to bring other stuff, let me just say:

    As far as match fixing is concerned, I believe Warne has also been involved (which he conveniently lied about as just giving weather and pitch reports - as if the TV commentators weren't doing their job :~)).

    Not to mention his diuertic lies. Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, attacked the leg spinner in his book Inside Dope. "The diuretic was a masking agent that could have hidden the possible use of steroids that would help the injury cure faster. He had returned to play almost twice as quickly as the experts had predicted," Pound wrote.

    But lets not discuss this ...

  • Tom Bonnington on January 17, 2007, 21:33 GMT

    OK, first I'd like to say I thought this article was joking when I read it. Your ignorance is unbelievable. Shane Warne is the greatest spinner ever, if not since O Reilly. Your point of Warne always bowling with a big score behind him. That is rubbish. What about the ashes 2005 where Warne took 40 wickets with an out of form team? Have you just conveniently blanked this out your memory? I will tell you why Qadir was worse. He bowled on dustbowls, he lacked control, he hardly spun the ball and most importantly his bowling average and trike rates are far worse than most of todays leg spinners. I would rate Mushy higher. Warne however spins it miles, feeds off pressure, bowls tight lines and knows exactly how much spin to impart and how to trouble the batsman.

    Overall this article is very bias and dont understand how you could possibly be serious. However maybe you just wanted people to read your blog. Next week I expect a "Sorry I was only joking" thread.

  • Andrew G on January 15, 2007, 1:02 GMT

    Hi Kamran,

    As this post blog seems to have morphed into a Warne v Murali debate, (plus racism in cricket), I would like to add a few thoughts and opinions.

    Warne v Murali Stats say Murali is the more prolific. I looked at Murali's stats when you remove Bangladesh & Zimababwe & they do drop - but are still better than Warnes. Murali does bowl up to 8 overs a match more than Warne - but his strike rate is still better. Murali does not perform well against Australia, Warne does not perform well against India. I think statistically Murali is better b\- but I believe Warne has a better quality of scalps.

    As for Murali the bowler, (non statistics), I believe Murali is not a cheat but chucks when bowling the doosra. What do I mean by not a cheat who does occasionally chucks? I believe his arm is so "rubberish" that he contorts in a way like a chuck. Murali strikes me as a bloke who is not a cheat. He is a fine citizen and role model to people around the world, and usually seems to have a happy disposition. I don't know what to make of him as I watch him bowl and think thats a chuck. I know biochemics have suggested/proven that there is a lot of elbow movement in ALL bowlers around the world - but very few look like they chuck! Lee & Ahktar are 2 players with apparantly the largest movement in their elbows - but they look fine to me. Does this mean I am a racist against Sri Lankans?

    I shudder to think what Sri Lankan cricket would be like when Murali retires. I respect the man, (Murali), but I am not convinced he doesn't occasionally chuck. I have a lot of mates who describe Murali as a chucker. Are any of my mates racist - no. Australia is a country full of blokes who like to sledge. Anyone remember a capable cricketer from NZ named Hadlee? In Australia we gave him a gobful. When the crowd yells out "no-ball" when Murali bowled - it is considered by most as HUMOUR! When Australia tour Sth Africa and England we are often taunted as being "convicts". I don't recall Gillespie having a dummy spit during the 2005 Ashes after being mercilessly carted by Pietersen & co returning to Fine Leg and being sledged about his haircut and ancestry, I remember him wearing a wry grin acknowledging the "mart alecs"in the crowd as just having a go.

    I don't personally go for sledging someones skin colour or religion, (and no one I do does). I believe Panesar got sledged for his religion early in a tour match - but was quickly "adopted" by Australians as a talented personality - and was cheered not jeered everytime he survived a ball when batting.

    Australians are parochial - even on State lines. Gilchrest was bagged when he made his test debut in Ian Healys GABBA. Healy was bagged at the WACA when he took Zoeherer's spot in the late 80s.

    Gladstone Small was a crowd favourite, the West Indies have always been made welcome, Ganguly's Indians last time they were here were admired for their cricket and character. (Having said that Agarkar was sledged by the crowd when he was in the middle of his procession of ducks).

    Is Australia full of perfect cricketers with perfectly behaved audiences? - I don't think so. But I believe we are a nation that loves sport respects good competition - (even if we lose - Ashes 2005), and warmly embrace unique personalities. Some touring players for not real fault of their own get under the crowds skin - I am thinking of Hadlee & Ranatunga in particular - but it is not racist. Anyone thinks that is ignorant of our culture. Take a look at how we feed upon each during our football season - State of Origin - QLD v NSW.

    Great players are well and truly respected no matter where they come from - sometimes ignorance of the hurtful nature of some sledging prevails - I am thinking of the "Kaffir" comments during the last South African tour. I believe if most people knew that it conjures feelings like the word "nigger" does in the USA people would stop using it. By the way I never use the word Nigger and none of my mates or anyone I know.

    The point I am getting at is that to argue against Murali and being white - is not racist. It is just opinion. I personally rate Mark Waugh a better batsman then Steve Waugh but statistics will never back it. Steve utilised his talents better. Maybe thats the difference between Qadir & Warne.

    As for Ali & his posts enough of the reference to Salim Malik unlike Murali he is pretty much a proven match fixer & someone who most people who follow cricket would not ant to hear his views. They are not valid. Also Murali has had the same opportunities in Australia, (last 2 days - pitch turning), and not delivered.

    I believe bowling in India in particular, is difficult for an Australian as the pitch conditions & the local batsman are expert players in those conditions. However, to the people who posted the comments about India being the ultimate test for spinners - I would suggest they look at touring spinners stats in Australia - as I believe that Australia play spinners as well as Indians - albeit under different conditions.

    Anyway look forward to more posts from you Kamran.

  • oz fan on tour on January 14, 2007, 21:55 GMT

    The following is a quote from Abdul Qadir made in december(google it if you dont believe me) Lahore: Legendary Pakistan leg spinner Abdul Qadir today paid rich tributes to Shane Warne on becoming the first bowler in Test cricket history to take 700 Test wickets.

    In an exclusive interview to Voice of America, Qadir said, “Shane Warne is the greatest bowler in the history of Test cricket and I fail to find words that can match or measure his success.”

    “He has been a remarkably talented, incredibly sharp learner and highly respectable individual who knew how to respect elders. I feel honoured that Warne learnt the great skills and finer aspects of leg-break bowling from me,” the 51-year-old leg spin maestro of the 1980s said.

    Qadir said world cricket was blessed that it had Warne and the Aussie magician should be remembered as the greatest leg-spin maestro in the history of cricket. — UNI

    Well i hope that clears up things!

  • mehraj ud din(kashmir) on July 11, 2007, 11:44 GMT

    Warne was the part of the great team,every player contributed his due on the other side,Qadir established his team to greatness.

  • pete murder tone on June 13, 2007, 15:49 GMT

    warne is not necessarily the best, but neither is qadir. Qadir simply did not play enough nor have enough impact for any comparison to be valid...

    A few points in defense of warne tho:

    warne didnt come into a world champ side, but he helped turn it into one

    Warne was a force long before McGrath reached the top, he too was partnered by some weak attacks for a time

    While never dominating in India it was only in his last series there that he was fully fit...the other times he played there he was hampered, in 98 he was shot and shouldnt have played but he did his best without concern for his average

  • Hisham on February 7, 2007, 8:45 GMT

    Hey People, Give every1 a break. Tell ya what, you guys are compering 100 with 10. Did some1 notice another "0" is missing in comparision.

    Did you guys not notice that apart from only bad performance in India, Warne ruled the world, he simply did with his big leggies which were good enough to undo batter.

    Lets not discuss skills of batsman here, he has dismissed batters like Saeed Anwar, Azhar-ud-din, Sachin, Lara, Inzimam-ul-haq.

    He did it all over the world, Qadir well I am afraid it was support of Imran, Pakistani Dull wickets and Pakistani's high class one sided yet truly unfair, biased umpiring.

    Did you guys not notice Straus walking towards ball and ball spining infront of him, taking his leg. I reckon that was 4 FEET spin in England. I dont recall Qadir getting out BOB WILLIS (who hit him for 4 successive boundries in LORDS alone)

    Sorry Guys, No comparision at all. Let's be honest. Warne was something.

  • eddy on January 23, 2007, 1:02 GMT

    Utter nonsense. I saw Qadir playing in his hey days, he was only good in Pakistan. In fact, its only because of Imran that he played because Imran didn't like Iqbal Qasim. Imran supported Qadir, just like he supported another failure Mansoor Akthar and no one could have dared gone against Imran's decision. Shane Warne is world class, he is the Don Bradman of spin bowling

  • QFF on January 21, 2007, 9:53 GMT

    I do not agree with anyone who rates Qadir higher than Shane Warne... period... There is no comparison... who needs a googly when you can bowl with the variations Warne can... Agreed Qadir kept the art alive during the difficult periods, but he was no where close to Shane...

  • J O on January 19, 2007, 18:12 GMT

    Well lads, I have to say that Warne is better than Qadir! Warne had to play on flatter pitches and still mesmorized most batters. To have so many variations in your armoury and bowl them to perfection is real great. The flipper is the hardest of the lot and he bowls it very well. It just shows that he is a master of his game and will always be remembered as the greatest leg spinner ever!!!

  • ali on January 19, 2007, 3:23 GMT

    Andrew G- Salim Malik may have been banned for match fixing, but he happened to be an excellent cricketer. A stylish middle-order batsman, Malik made 5,768 runs in 103 Tests and 7,170 in 283 one-day internationals until his ban. Also, he was dismissed just once in five Tests by Warnie. So he knew what he was talking, when he said: "He is a negative bowler and tries to frustrate the batsman by bowling round the legs.". If you watch Warne's bowling you"ll see that's what he bowled continuously. Compare that to any other leg spinner and you"ll see what am talking about ... So if Murali is a chucker, then Warnie was a negative bowler.

    We are only discussing cricket here, but if you want to bring other stuff, let me just say:

    As far as match fixing is concerned, I believe Warne has also been involved (which he conveniently lied about as just giving weather and pitch reports - as if the TV commentators weren't doing their job :~)).

    Not to mention his diuertic lies. Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, attacked the leg spinner in his book Inside Dope. "The diuretic was a masking agent that could have hidden the possible use of steroids that would help the injury cure faster. He had returned to play almost twice as quickly as the experts had predicted," Pound wrote.

    But lets not discuss this ...

  • Tom Bonnington on January 17, 2007, 21:33 GMT

    OK, first I'd like to say I thought this article was joking when I read it. Your ignorance is unbelievable. Shane Warne is the greatest spinner ever, if not since O Reilly. Your point of Warne always bowling with a big score behind him. That is rubbish. What about the ashes 2005 where Warne took 40 wickets with an out of form team? Have you just conveniently blanked this out your memory? I will tell you why Qadir was worse. He bowled on dustbowls, he lacked control, he hardly spun the ball and most importantly his bowling average and trike rates are far worse than most of todays leg spinners. I would rate Mushy higher. Warne however spins it miles, feeds off pressure, bowls tight lines and knows exactly how much spin to impart and how to trouble the batsman.

    Overall this article is very bias and dont understand how you could possibly be serious. However maybe you just wanted people to read your blog. Next week I expect a "Sorry I was only joking" thread.

  • Andrew G on January 15, 2007, 1:02 GMT

    Hi Kamran,

    As this post blog seems to have morphed into a Warne v Murali debate, (plus racism in cricket), I would like to add a few thoughts and opinions.

    Warne v Murali Stats say Murali is the more prolific. I looked at Murali's stats when you remove Bangladesh & Zimababwe & they do drop - but are still better than Warnes. Murali does bowl up to 8 overs a match more than Warne - but his strike rate is still better. Murali does not perform well against Australia, Warne does not perform well against India. I think statistically Murali is better b\- but I believe Warne has a better quality of scalps.

    As for Murali the bowler, (non statistics), I believe Murali is not a cheat but chucks when bowling the doosra. What do I mean by not a cheat who does occasionally chucks? I believe his arm is so "rubberish" that he contorts in a way like a chuck. Murali strikes me as a bloke who is not a cheat. He is a fine citizen and role model to people around the world, and usually seems to have a happy disposition. I don't know what to make of him as I watch him bowl and think thats a chuck. I know biochemics have suggested/proven that there is a lot of elbow movement in ALL bowlers around the world - but very few look like they chuck! Lee & Ahktar are 2 players with apparantly the largest movement in their elbows - but they look fine to me. Does this mean I am a racist against Sri Lankans?

    I shudder to think what Sri Lankan cricket would be like when Murali retires. I respect the man, (Murali), but I am not convinced he doesn't occasionally chuck. I have a lot of mates who describe Murali as a chucker. Are any of my mates racist - no. Australia is a country full of blokes who like to sledge. Anyone remember a capable cricketer from NZ named Hadlee? In Australia we gave him a gobful. When the crowd yells out "no-ball" when Murali bowled - it is considered by most as HUMOUR! When Australia tour Sth Africa and England we are often taunted as being "convicts". I don't recall Gillespie having a dummy spit during the 2005 Ashes after being mercilessly carted by Pietersen & co returning to Fine Leg and being sledged about his haircut and ancestry, I remember him wearing a wry grin acknowledging the "mart alecs"in the crowd as just having a go.

    I don't personally go for sledging someones skin colour or religion, (and no one I do does). I believe Panesar got sledged for his religion early in a tour match - but was quickly "adopted" by Australians as a talented personality - and was cheered not jeered everytime he survived a ball when batting.

    Australians are parochial - even on State lines. Gilchrest was bagged when he made his test debut in Ian Healys GABBA. Healy was bagged at the WACA when he took Zoeherer's spot in the late 80s.

    Gladstone Small was a crowd favourite, the West Indies have always been made welcome, Ganguly's Indians last time they were here were admired for their cricket and character. (Having said that Agarkar was sledged by the crowd when he was in the middle of his procession of ducks).

    Is Australia full of perfect cricketers with perfectly behaved audiences? - I don't think so. But I believe we are a nation that loves sport respects good competition - (even if we lose - Ashes 2005), and warmly embrace unique personalities. Some touring players for not real fault of their own get under the crowds skin - I am thinking of Hadlee & Ranatunga in particular - but it is not racist. Anyone thinks that is ignorant of our culture. Take a look at how we feed upon each during our football season - State of Origin - QLD v NSW.

    Great players are well and truly respected no matter where they come from - sometimes ignorance of the hurtful nature of some sledging prevails - I am thinking of the "Kaffir" comments during the last South African tour. I believe if most people knew that it conjures feelings like the word "nigger" does in the USA people would stop using it. By the way I never use the word Nigger and none of my mates or anyone I know.

    The point I am getting at is that to argue against Murali and being white - is not racist. It is just opinion. I personally rate Mark Waugh a better batsman then Steve Waugh but statistics will never back it. Steve utilised his talents better. Maybe thats the difference between Qadir & Warne.

    As for Ali & his posts enough of the reference to Salim Malik unlike Murali he is pretty much a proven match fixer & someone who most people who follow cricket would not ant to hear his views. They are not valid. Also Murali has had the same opportunities in Australia, (last 2 days - pitch turning), and not delivered.

    I believe bowling in India in particular, is difficult for an Australian as the pitch conditions & the local batsman are expert players in those conditions. However, to the people who posted the comments about India being the ultimate test for spinners - I would suggest they look at touring spinners stats in Australia - as I believe that Australia play spinners as well as Indians - albeit under different conditions.

    Anyway look forward to more posts from you Kamran.

  • oz fan on tour on January 14, 2007, 21:55 GMT

    The following is a quote from Abdul Qadir made in december(google it if you dont believe me) Lahore: Legendary Pakistan leg spinner Abdul Qadir today paid rich tributes to Shane Warne on becoming the first bowler in Test cricket history to take 700 Test wickets.

    In an exclusive interview to Voice of America, Qadir said, “Shane Warne is the greatest bowler in the history of Test cricket and I fail to find words that can match or measure his success.”

    “He has been a remarkably talented, incredibly sharp learner and highly respectable individual who knew how to respect elders. I feel honoured that Warne learnt the great skills and finer aspects of leg-break bowling from me,” the 51-year-old leg spin maestro of the 1980s said.

    Qadir said world cricket was blessed that it had Warne and the Aussie magician should be remembered as the greatest leg-spin maestro in the history of cricket. — UNI

    Well i hope that clears up things!

  • Phlipper on January 14, 2007, 12:16 GMT

    Just because you disagree with anothers opinion doesn't imply you are racist!!

    re: Bowling actions.. The umpire is there to make decisions (sometimes they get it wrong) mostly they get it right. Now the ICC took the power to make a decision out of the umpires hands - instead, someone on the sidelines of the game now decides to refer an decision to a panel who take weeks/months to make a decision - (should we wait two weeks for an LBW decision??) The player is looked at by an expert in biomechanics outside the game who pronounces the facts sanitized for the layman (i.e. muddied and simplified) then re-interpreted by all and sundry to mean whatever you want it to. Then the governing body says - its all too hard - fiddle the laws a bit - everyone happy - don't talk about it again or else people will get upset and go off and take their bat and ball and go home and we will look silly.

    It is an unfortunate thing that when you draw the guard dogs teeth - you can't complain about burgulars at the door.

    One day we may see a 'suspect' action come from ..say.. The Netherlands in the World Cup if they play against SL, who will be "commenting" then...?

  • ali on January 14, 2007, 5:23 GMT

    Derek- Read this article about Murali too http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/143132.html

    If you read my comments, I mentioned that John is same as "some" of the rude Aussie crowd (not ALL as you're implying). I am not making this up it has been reported on cricinfo as well on various newspapers about some of the Aussie crowd behavior during SA and SRI tour. SA even threatened to abandon the tour if this would continue. Even in the current English tour, one person yelled at Monty Paneser as hey you're not English, and I believe English board complained about this attitude (this was also in cricinfo). A couple of years back one English writer wrote of an incident when Aussie players were touring India. On getting of the train they kicked the benches where homeless people were sleeping and laughed at them. He asked Australian cricket to correct this racist behavior. Yet time and time again these examples of racist comments keep popping up. The new 15 degree ICC rule is there to clarify what is legitmate and what's not (its not a screen cover as you're implying). We also saw in the current SRI tour of NZ that once they lost, Martin Crowe mentioned that Murali's doosra needs to be monitored, and we saw what was SRI's reaction. Even Mr Chappell complained about Shohib's action recently only after losing a test (and not when the first two tests were drawn) and you can find talk of this here (Just look for Sanjay Manjekar talk show with Geoff Boycott).

    What can I say about Mr Hair, he guessed with authority that ball was tempered- he implied that Pak was cheating, but couldn't prove. It was not just a wrong decision, it cost Pak a match that they could have won had it continued.

    About Shane Warne's bowling, I quoted directly from Salim Malik. And you're more than welcome to see highlights of recent Ashes series or even one from two years back. You're going to find how much outside the leg stump Shane bowls, something that Qadir did not do. Enough said..

    I am not biased, but I have read enough on the media accusing sub-continent of cheating with umpires, wickets etc... but failing to admit what happens in their back door. We judge a good game based on its merits and not that someone is a chucker...

  • Derek on January 13, 2007, 10:39 GMT

    I have to protest against you Ali. I am Australian but not of Anglo heritage. I admire sub continent cricket and admire a lot of their cricketers. But SOME people like yourself constantly slander every Australian as a racist if we have the opinion that Murali is not legal. For your information, after Murali completed the ICC tests, they introduced a 'new' 15 degree rule to clarify the issue. This was a smoke screen as the ICC couldn't suddenly ban a player that they had allowed to play for so long. Plus it would have started a war with Sri Lankan officials. And at that time he was being hammered around Australian cricket grounds so the ICC didn't think he was going to be that record breaking anyway. If you ask any of the senior ICC people now, I bet most of them will tell you that it will be a blight on the game once Murali breaks all records and then virtually sets almost impossible records to break. And the report actually said that his doosra needed to be monitored. He bowls this almost 50% of the time now and in effect most of his wickets come from batsmen not being sure which way the ball is going to spin.

    I agree statistically Murali has the best spinning record of all time, but when Murali retires he won't be celebrated like Warne.

    And Yes Hair was wrong, but not because he is a racist or a cheat. But because he is overly stubborn and thinks too highly of himself. If everytime a decision goes against PAK or SRI (you never hear this type of accusation from Indian cricket supporters) everyone's a racist or a cheat.

    For your information Murali is a great person, with a wonderful passion for cricket, and smile that every cricket role model should have. But please don't slander Shane Warne and his bowling. If you suggest Murali is a great bowler, well his record suggests he is. But don't talk rubbish about Shane Warne. He DOESN'T bowl 4 or 5 bowls outside leg stump.

    It would be good if supporters of Pakistan and Sri Lankan cricket could take a leaf out of the Indian supporters who just have an immense respect for global cricket. Just as the Australians respect Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble, the Indians respect Lee, Waugh and Warne etc. Though they of course have opinions on who is better they respect Australians and our opinions on cricket.

  • ali on January 13, 2007, 5:19 GMT

    Just this much for John A- you are the same as some of your rude Aussie crowd that has been notorious for their prejudice against Murali and last SA team. Murali has been cleared by the biomechanics team and ICC. As you know they have recognized his body flaw- then why the hell keep repeating the word "chucker".

    And talk about neutral umpiring. We all know Darrel Hair - a cheat with the way he came up with ball tempering fiasco - he got what he deserved. I remember when Dave Constant (I believe that was the name of the English Umpire in 1982 Pak series) who was termed Man of the series even by English crowd in assisting English wins against Pakistan.

    Salim Malik once mentioned that Warne bowls negatively way outside the leg stump all the time. And if you happen to see his bowling, every 4-5 bowls are about a foot outside legstump. So much of his leg spin- Most of the players who he gets, they don't know how to play these.

    I see a lot of talk about how green Aussie pitches where Warne does not get enough spin. If you happen to read lately about Aussie pitches, Perth is no longer regarded a fast and bouncy pitch from Thommo and Lillee era. They predicted most of the pitches against the English team to turn with low bounce on 4th and 5th day making batting difficult, so Warnie did have some assistance from those so called green tracks.

  • John A on January 12, 2007, 14:58 GMT

    But once again we have people purporting that Murali is the *greatest spinner ever*. Yes he is shrewd, yes he can bowl but when it comes down to it its all on paper: Murali by the previous ICC rules was a chucker for all deliveries. Read the report pre 15degrees. Maybe it wasnt his fault, maybe it is: But i do recall a certain South African who was removed for chucking even though it was a body flaw that caused it. NZ are not a real force in cricket, nor could the same be said for SA or ENG. Recent series categorically prove this. A true challenge is India at home, Australia at home, and pretty well Australia away. Pakistan and South Africa at home are also quite difficult.

    I like how reza mentions *bouncy pitches* then says ENG and NZ, countries reknowned for low bounce tracks. But in those tours look how many wickets he has taken, vs the rest of his career haul. Enough said. The additional fact that the only challenger for wickets is Vaas means that his stats will be non reflective, his long spells in matches of over 50 overs far more regularly than warne mean that he also is liable to take more wickets.

    As for Darrel hair being a terrible umpire: why when dismissed was he rated the second best umpire in the world? Far more practical to dismiss is Aleem Dar....who wouldnt get a gurnsey umpiring my local sub district competition.

    As for Warnes failed drug test does anybody remember that the ACB did the test, and released the results. They could have done what many subcontinent sides have done before and ignored so as not to shoot themselves in the foot, but they were honest.

    Maybe people should pay Warne the due respect he deserves, it is not his fault that the rest of the world could not cope with his skills.

  • Reza on January 12, 2007, 12:02 GMT

    Murali Figures in bouncy pitches, SA,AUS,ENG,NZ 21matches 121wickets 24.26avrage 10five wkt hauls 5ten wkt in a match. These stats from statsguru reveals Murali takes 6wkts per match with an average of 24.26 (Better than warne 112/558/24.68/26/). Now still you beleive that murali is good only on subcontinent pitches & the likes of ZIM & BAN.

  • Andrew G on January 11, 2007, 23:28 GMT

    Hi Kamran,

    I have read a lot of your work and generally find it interesting reading.

    I am Australian - so there is an in-built bias in my perceptions towards Aussie players.

    I remember AQ in the 80s - always considered him a dangerous player (WHEN ON SONG). To me that is the difference between Warne & all post WWII leggies. Warne was almost ALWAYS bowling well - even with niggling injuries - even coming back form broken fingers or dislocated shoulders - playing on a pitch that mere mortals couldn't turn on.

    AQ could rip thru a side and make batsman look foolish & so I always respected and admired this man of mystery. But please Kamran - some perspective. Warne has had to compete with McGrath, Gillespie, Hughes, McDermott even Macgill for wickets. When someone like McGrath takes 8-24 it doesn't leave much room for improving your wicket tally.

    The Gooch comparison is really a bit weak when you consider that it had been long regarded that England was a Seamers paradise and not a place for leggies. With the "Ball of the Century" to Gatting, Warne has redifined leg spin viability in England.

    Warne definately could bowl the Googly - maybe his wasnt as good as AQ at that detail, but it had its place in Warnes master plan - remember pre shoulder reconstruction Warnes Googly was very good.

    Congratulations on getting 666 postings. I agree with some comments that comparisons are hard to make, I believe Warne is better than AQ but I could also argue a case that MacGill is better than Warne, (statistically in terms of strike rate, wickets per match & matches when macgill & warne were in tandem!). Also in terms of greatness Australian history of leg spin harks back to ORielly, Grimmet & Mailey - these guys would chew up & spit out most of the modern batsman of the day - they did their deeds on GreenTops!!!

    Just for the sake of arguement - you should of also noted that AQ's stats could of been a whole better if the Pakistani teams of the 80s fielded like Australia do & not like frightened school kids. (Maybe a biased memory but I do remember Pakistan as being historically the worst fielding side around). Just on the fielding I don't include Wicket Keepers who generally speaking were & are of a pretty good standard in Pakistan - its usually been the others!.

  • A J on January 11, 2007, 19:52 GMT

    who is quadir?

  • Ali Khan on January 11, 2007, 18:23 GMT

    Warne was far better than Qadir. Every bowler has his own set of variations so not using the googley often does not mean that Warne couldn't bowl one. Warne probably had more variations than any spinner I have ever seen. Here I give some reasons why I believe Warne is better than not only Qadir but probably every spinner that has played the game:

    1. For the most part of his career Warne played with the strongest fast bowling line up seen in recent times. Still he managaed to pile up 700 wickets.

    2. Warne has lasted more than any spinner and he remained in his prime throughout his career.

    3. Despite Stuart McGill's astronomical figures he was unable to push aside Warne.

    4. Warne made several comebacks, every time coming back stronger than before.

    5. Warne lost his flipper to a series of operations. For most bowlers it would have been curtain call. But Warne developed answered by developing more variations.

    6. Australia is not a spinner's paradise. Warne would have taken many more first innings scalps had he been in Sub-continent.

    Now compare this to Qadir who lasted for much lesser time, played almost all his cricket on spinner friendly pitches, did not have many great bowling partners to share wickets with, had limited variations,......

    It took one slipping accident to end Qadir's career and even at that time he was a mediocre bowler. I cannot understand how someone would rate him higher than Warne.

  • toopster on January 11, 2007, 14:40 GMT

    by the way, in case you didnt realise, i was being sarcastic

  • johnners on January 11, 2007, 14:39 GMT

    Qadir did well on home pitches and with friendly umpiring. away matches his record is awful. he's not seriously in the running for best spinner at least internationally. he had an interesting run up though.

    Warne had charisma, attitude, sound and aggressive temperament (though too much sledging for my liking, which undoubtedly bought him some wickets. fair point he rarely used a googly, perhaps rarely needed to, and I understand his injuries to shoulder and fingers were largely the reason for this. his skill was immense. his drug taking irrelevant, a diuretic makes you lose fluid, quite how that would aid his bowling I don't know!!!

    Murali is interesting, a real rival for Warne's title. a shadow will always hang over his action, and a much higher proportion of his wickets have been taken against minnow cricket nations. his persona is subdued which will always count against him rightly or wrongly in terms of public votes. but it has been a pleasure to watch all three bowlers playing in their pomp!

  • toopster on January 11, 2007, 14:37 GMT

    not only is qadir better than warne, akmal in his current form is the equivalent of gilchrist and sangakarra, razzaq all round form matches that of s.waugh and k.miller, rana is equal to mcgrath and aleem dar is as good as if not better than simon taufel

  • Derek on January 11, 2007, 14:06 GMT

    As much as the opinion of this blog that AQ was better than Warne is a joke, it's great to see the level in interest in discussing cricket. I never believe just STATs but when they are completely as one-sided as this there should be no debate. I loved AQ, but he could never buy a wicket away from Pakistan, so how he can even compare to the greatest wicket taker of all time. AQ might spin the ball more but that isn't how you define who was a better bowler.

    I might be Australian, but I like to think that I'm a cricket supporter more an Australian supporter. I say this because SOME of the fans of Asian cricket seem to have chips on their shoulder believing that every 'white' nation has this bias against them.

    I think M. Yousuf had a better 2006 than Ponting. I think the current fully fit Pakistan seam attack (Asif, Aktar, Gul) is better than the Australian seem attack. I think Sangakarra is today a better wicketkeeper batsman than Gilchrist etc etc. But saying all this AQ doesn't even come close to Warne, though AQ was a great bowler. In addition, I rate Warne ahead of Murali. This is open to opinion, which I don't mind, and if someone says Murali is better, then statistically I can't argue with that. But for me Murali isn't within the spirit of the laws of cricket originally written back in the day. I love his smile and he presents as a great role model of professional atheletes to kids, but his action is not within the spirit of the game. They developed the 15 degree rule so that Murali could bowl. The ICC couldn't wipe out a guy who had already done so much, and not be made to look like fools for allowing him to play as long as he had. In hindsight I don't think that they thought he was going to be as successful as he has become. They did however rule that his Doosra needs to be monitored. In the recent series against NZ he was unplayable, largely on non-spinner friendly wickets. The problem was that he was bowling the doosra almost every second ball, like Martin Crowe objected to. I watched it here on SKY in the UK live. The problem was that not only did he take wickets with the doosra but also the normal off spinner because the batmen never knew which way it was spinning. If he were to be banned from bowling the doosra he wouldn't have anywhere near the number of wickets he does have.

  • Personal Trainer on January 11, 2007, 3:43 GMT

    How can Murali be the best, He is a chucker?? You can't tell me the doosra doesn't the break the great constituional laws of cricket??

    Imagine how many scalps Warney coulda pulled if his hijinx off the field weren't Owwrsom!!

    The Diuretics were purely for water loss which results in better appearance better weight management!! Non a masking agent for steriods... Steroids wouldn't help you in cricket just ask Akhtar haha

  • guymed on January 11, 2007, 2:56 GMT

    Shane was more accurate and had far better control than Qadir. However even Warney was a big fan of Qadir and he visited him and thanked him. Guymed from NY

  • thebongoman on January 11, 2007, 1:03 GMT

    I see alot of issues here which don't relate to the subject. Asian, Anglo, who cares. True cricket fans shouold be able to see past these aspects and appreciate a cricketer for what he produces on the field. Sex scandals and alike have nothing to do with the way you bowl.

    This said I have been lucky enough to see both of these fantastic cricketers do what they do best. Abdul Qadir was mesmorising, although I did find his control lacking at times, as was his patience.

    Warney, for mine the better bowler but you are all entitled to your own opinions, made things happen through constant pressure, patience and brain power as much as his leg spinning skills. However, the one thing that puts Warne ahead of all comers is the ability to bowl that macth winning spell time after time, something most other bowlers lack.

    Murili has been bought up by many, personally I don't rate Murili in this category. For mine his action has been questioned too many times by too many people, basically he's a chucker who should have been forced out of the game long ago.

  • Rajesh singh on January 11, 2007, 0:30 GMT

    cool man this abbasi. But if warne was not greatest and Qadir was greatest then I was the best batsman in world and I never played cricket after school. hehehehehe.

    I dont understand why he has problem in calling the best the best. Infact Aussies are so good I would say , make two world cups in Wst Indies in 2007. Give one world cup to Australia during opening ceremony and ask them to please return to australia and spare them the trouble and other teams the agony of thrashing defeats. The for the other cup, rest of teams can compete.

    Man..... i am still laughing on the idea that qadir was best. Rajesh singh ( indiaI

  • Marty Armstrong on January 11, 2007, 0:05 GMT

    This blog is laughable - comments such as "Warne tested positive to banned substances on several occasions" for one are untrue and stated to merely discredit one of the greatest bowlers of our game. Warne tested positive once to a diuretic - and it seems to be easily forgotten by Pakistan fans that their own Akhtar and Asif tested positive mere months ago, before being 'cleared' by their own board. Never mind the conflict of interest eh, Pakistan Cricket Board?

    Furthermore, how Qadir can be compared to Warne is beyond comprehension. At times Qadir was unplayable, but the statistics do not back up the ramblings of Kamran. He took less wickets per game, for more runs per wicket, and one would assume that many of these were on the dustbowls at home.

    To answer the points:

    1. Warne rarely bowled googlies. As mentioned previously by Mikesta it would not have benefited his game greatly. And as also mentioned he could bowl one, I witnessed several in the 06/07 Ashes.

    2. Warne (and Murali) would demand better treatment of their LBW appeals for the simple fact they employ the flipper and doosra respectively - balls which not only stay straight but skid on - therefore when in-line with the stumps there is no doubt the ball will bounce over.

    3. The madness of a cricket board is no excuse - and the career of Warne was saved by an insistent Allan Border, not the board. Once the wickets began flowing, their attitudes obviously changed.

    4. Australia was not the premier side when Warne began - they became the premier side and have retained that ranking due to not only himself but countless class players that have taken the field for Australia over the past decade.

    5. The West Indies were not as adept at playing spin as they were pace. This is reverse-illustrated for Warne, whose worst average is against the Indians.

    6. Whether or not the big score theory is true, I could not say. I merely point you to the second innings of the 06/07 Adelaide Ashes Test, where Warne bowled Australia to victory when the chips were down, one of many such occasions.

    7. You forget Sarfraz during the early eighties, and Akram in the late eightes. Along with Imran Khan and Qadir they would have formed a quality three-pronged attack. The Australian attack has not always been powerful - the early days of Warne's career was with McDermott, Reiffel et al - players who were great servants of Australia and quality players, but definitely not at the level of McGrath. Furthermore, if Warne's fellow bowlers were so powerful, how did he take so many wickets?

    8. Many of Qadir's dazzling displays were never seen overseas, true - but the statistics can speak for him there. Unplayable at times, expensive at others. Although comparing a spinner to a paceman is odd, his stats portray a Brett Lee or Shoaib Akhtar - brilliantly unplayble one minute, four runs the next.

    9. Scyld Berry - also the man who denounced the treatment of Darryl Hair. Pretty unlikely you're going to say anything about Scyld there now Kamran, isn't it? Furthermore, one innings doesn't make you the best, a career does. Brian Lara holds the world record score, but Bradman is still the benchmark.

    10. See 9 - if the stats were better, perhaps this statement by Gooch would ring true. I'd imagine his countryman Gatting would agree - I think you were grasping at straws to fill out ten points of reference.

    Qadir took 3.5 wickets per match, Warne 4.9. Qadir's average was 32.80, Warne 25.41. Qadir's strike rate was 72.56, Warne 57.49

    Qadir had a marginally better 10-for per test average (.07 to .06), a better best bowling performance (innings: 9/56 to 8/71) (match: 13/101 to 12/128) which all point to the view that Qadir was brilliant on his day but woeful on others.

    I question whether or not you bothered to look at any facts before forming an opinion on someone who you no doubt hold in the highest regard. For the record I am an Australian (if it wasn't obvious!) and I believe the Murali will deservedly take his place as the greatest wicket taker ever. I find it unfair to rate players from different eras, but I hope Murali can carry on to take 1000 Test match wickets. Comments throught the blog such as racists and 'yobbos' directed towards Australians simply reflect poorly on those who make them.

  • anser azim on January 10, 2007, 23:03 GMT

    For those who are writing about performance enhancing drugs and Shane's achievements, is not right and ridiculous. These substances may help Sammy Sosa, Mark Mcguire and Barry Bonds to hit more home runs but definitely not to a spinner. I doubt it. Bottom line is both, AQ and SW were greats of their time. However SW's memorable heroics on the field are fresher and he might get more votes than AQ on this subject. anser azim, Chicago

  • Nishant on January 10, 2007, 22:54 GMT

    Though I agree to some of the comments, I have contradictory views against some of them.

    1. Warne was barely able to bowl a googly, Qadir had several. It doesn't matter how many googly one can bowl. It matters how many wickets you take and how many matches you win.

    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. Are we talking about better bowling or better fighting spirit??? 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. You know the saying 'It is easy to reach the top and much more difficult to stay on top!' Warne helped the Aussies stay on top and should get credit for that. 5. Qadir had to bowl at the world's strongest batting team (West Indies), with great success too. Warne never had to. So what! Every era has some great batsmen. And to counter this, I would say today's pitches are lot more batting friendly than of the yester years. Wouldn't that make Warne a better bowler? 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. Valid point. 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. Read your point again please. You are actually saying that Warne is better because he had to share the number of wickets in an inning with bowlers like McDermott, McGrath, Lee. 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. I tend to agree but media also adds pressure on Warne's performance.

    I agree to the extent that Qadir was a great bowler, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he was better than Warne!!

  • lakshman on January 10, 2007, 22:04 GMT

    yeah i'm sorry, but you are sadly mistaken i mean its rather easy to go on about qadir in front of a largely indian and pakistan audience, but honestly, if the entire cricket-watching populace was reading this, you would be shunned from the world. i mean you are entitled to your view, i'm not even australian, but honestly this has to be the biggest lot of biased rubbish i've read ina while.

  • kabiraj on January 10, 2007, 16:20 GMT

    Qadir was the greatest during his peak time, uncomparable to anyone and he was virtually unplayable....however, this peak of his was very short lived to disallow him to be crowned as all time best! Unlike Qadir, Warne had been mostly consistent thruout his long career and lot more succesful in terms of his match winning performances. Bottomline is, they are players from different eras and so, not quite comparable.

  • sumeet on January 10, 2007, 15:43 GMT

    OH YEAH YEAH YEAH!!! Qadir was such a precious talent! Thats why he was pushed into a forced retirement at the top of his bowling career after a 16 year old lad on debut whacked Qadir to all parts of the ground allthroughout a series played IN Pakistan in light conditions that would put Delhi fog to shame! The lad of course was Sachin Tendulkar.Shall we vote Qadir to be the best spin bowler of the millenium?

    Mr. Abbassi has been infected by the narcissistic and dictatorial setup prevailing in Pakistan Cricket board and the government which come up with posters saying 'We are the best'.

  • Z.A RAJA on January 10, 2007, 14:07 GMT

    There is no doubt that you can't compare two players of different times.however its easire to say that if Qadir was a master legspinner of his time then warne is definitely best leggy of his age.

  • Mikesta on January 10, 2007, 13:44 GMT

    The more that I read Cricket commentary on the Internet the more I believe that too many Sub-Continental fans have 'chips on their's shoulders' / an inferiority complex. The subject of this post is definitely an example. However there quite a few very decent posts by some Indian's and Pakistani's so Kudos to them!

    I am an Australian supporter though not of Australian Decent (my blood is Croatian). I am a big fan of the team and especially of leg-spin and Shane Warne. I'd be one of the first Australian's to say that the Australian cricket fraternity (as well as the other 'whites') exaggerate the greatness of it's players at the expense of those from outside.

    Being a massive Shane Warne fan I am a little ashamed that I keep on hearing that he is 'The greatest Bowler ever'.

    For the Record Best Bowler Ever = S.F Barnes

    He is far ahead of Warne, Murali, McGrath, Lillee, Holding Marshall etc. Imagine being able to swerve from off to leg then turn the ball back from leg to off at 100-110 km per hour. He could also bowl the reverse (i.e offbreaks) the same way with the same action and if conditions were poor he was an effective swing/seam bowler of the medium-fast variety.

    Best Slow Leg Spinner(s) Clarrie Grimmett and Shane Warne are very close.

    Best Slow Spinner: very close between Grimmett, Warne and Murali but Murali probably just has it.

    Best Spinner: Tiger O'Rielly IF you don't count S.F Barnes.

    I am sorry but Qadir was a very good leggy but he can't match Warne. I find it laughable that in an article about Danish Kaneria (who I rate highly)a month or so ago, named something like 'Time to Soar' the Pakistani 'Journalist' was critising Kaneria for not having an effective STRAIGHT ball, admonishing him for not having a great flipper, Top Spinner or Slider, saying the Googly wasn't Good enough!!!! But suddenly Warne isn't good enough because he hasn't got a good googly?!?! Completely Ridiculous. Obviously the writer of the article is clueless about legspin and anyone who argues differently needs to visit a brain clinic.

    Shane Warne bowls a MIDDLE-LEG or LEG STUMP LINE. Having a googly is useless compared to having a straight ball in this situation. Additionally The threat of the Warne flipper (and later occasionally the Slider) stopped batsmen from simply stepping back, waiting for the turn on the back foot and playing it from there. This is his Genius. Kaneria and many other 'traditional' leggies (Qadir, Mushtaq, MacGill)are MIDDLE-OFF or OFF stump Line bowlers. It is no coincidence that these players have good googlies.

    As other poster put it, when you compare leg spin deliveries Warne is definitely the best. In his pomp he bowled not only the best leg spinners ever, but some of the best balls of all time that even the little Sri-Lankian genius cannot match. The amount of Spin swerve he generated, the dip then sharp quick turn was unplayable and was often so good that batsmen simply missed them.

    Now about 'Biased' umpires. The last tour of Australia by Pakistan I felt sorry for them. However Australian's get just as many shockers outside. I have lost count of how many plumb LBW's Shane Warne has been denied, and he was denied a handful even in this Ashes series just past. The thing is Australian batsmen given a reprieve tend to get big scores whilst opposing batsmen that have LBW shouts against them turned down tend to get out soon after anyway. BTW the worse offender in denying Australia excellent LBW shouts is the Disgraceful "La-Di-Dar" as a call him. Off with the fairies he is.....

  • Shiv Raj on January 10, 2007, 10:35 GMT

    i belive todays cricket changed. still i belive 70s,80s,& mid 90s cricket. if u look back every batsman bowler try bat till last the ball. shane warne sucess against england nz westindies mostly. he cant operate in asian countries. he mostly got his wicket when batsman under pressure.

  • Sufyan on January 10, 2007, 9:16 GMT

    warne is the greatest legspinner in the history of cricket qadir was good but not better than warne well in terms of modern days neutral umpiring AUSTRALIA always have biased "NEUTRAL" umpires i cant forget the last VB series which pakistan played in AUSTRALIA and a test series when wasim akram was captain of pakistan team . . . watch the video and see the umpiring of these "NEUTRAL" umpires . .

  • azazel on January 10, 2007, 9:15 GMT

    Murali is the best ever bowler. Period! Mr. Abbasi's comparison is hilarious - but even those who recognize Warne as the best, are wrong. Despite all the controversies Murali has still achieved more than Warnie!

  • Dil_Dil_Pakistan on January 10, 2007, 7:56 GMT

    Well, it is not fair to say that Qadir was the best of the lot. Furthermore, reasoning provided by Kamran to support his argument is not strong enough to conclude that Qadir was best of the lot. It's very disappointing to read comments by an experienced and well reputed journalist. How can you compare someone who belongs to two different decades? It would be fair if you compare Shane Warne with someone of the same decade. It makes sense if you are comparing Wasim and McGrath. Even if you are comparing Warne and Qadir, then why to compare them on the basis of conditions which are totally out of control of any player. This is the same comment made by Michael Holding when Muhammad Yousaf surpassed the record of Vivid Richard. He also judged both of them on the basis of conditions which were obviously different at time of Vivid Richard. Without a doubt, he was the master in his field but to judge ones capability on conditions is baseless. I felt he was not happy because record of his country men was broken. Similar kind of hypocrisy was felt while reading your comments.

  • MFK on January 10, 2007, 5:24 GMT

    Aaron "To be honest I'd never heard of Qadir before, but now I'll see if I can find some footage and read some more articles. Definately sounds like something to enjoy." Ask Warne about it...Warne learned a lot from him. Still I do not agree with Abbasi that Qadir is better than Warne. I agree completely that for Qadir not to achieve what Warne did, some of the above factors can be taken as reasons...but to say that Qadir was better...NO WAY. I have seen Warne bowl, and I have seen Qadir bowl, both at their prime. Warne used his 'brains' while it seemed like Qadir had very little of it. Have u seen Murali bowl? I would say that Murali is better than Warne. As for Kaneria...Shahid Afridi can spin it better!!! In short bowlers like Warne, Murali and even Kumble to a certain extent, have great cricketing minds and that is what they used to get those wickets. In Pakistan, I have never seen a captain who could make better use of the players. I have always been of the view that for a captain it is necessary to have a high IQ. Pakis are plain dumb.

  • bertha on January 10, 2007, 4:45 GMT

    Ok people I think its coming to a point that we need to understand that any point there will be 100% agreeing on one bowler as the greatest,For Most of the Asians its Murali.For most of the others its Warne.In between u get a few who are thinking in different.It cud just be for some chaep publicity some times.

    Fact is that these two are great bowlers and their ststistics may not ever be matched.There will be 1000 arguments from each side saying why he is great and why others not.

    So people let try not to devalue any player by bringing up crapy arguments.Lets except the fact that these 2 are the greatest bowlers world will ever see.

  • Syed M. Hasan on January 10, 2007, 4:26 GMT

    I respect Shane n' everything but, lets not forget has been tested positive for banned substances on a number different occasions. That would have helped him take more wickets.

  • Alex David on January 10, 2007, 3:17 GMT

    #1-Yeah Warnie did have a weak googly but so what if you bowl a lot of different googlies you might as well be an offspinner, Did Qadir have a flipper, slider, zooter and all of Warnie's other varieties - don't think so #2-Two words - Aleem Dar. Never gave Warnoe a break #3-Warnie had to battle himself, his texting antics, his mum and diuretics plus his hairloss #4-How many more wickets could Warne have got without McGrath, Dizzy, Kasper, Flemo, Merv, McDermott, Clark et al all competing with him for the ball? 5#-Err the Windies apart from Lloyd, Richards and Gomes were woeful at playing spin, he should have ripped through them. The real test was how Qadir would have bowled to the Indian batting lineup of Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman & Ganguly of 2001 #6-Warne had to bowl on doctored greentop pitches and teams batting 1st just to avoid batting against him on the 4th and 5th days - he still got them out

    NO CONTEST. WARNIE IS THE KING

  • Personal Trainer on January 10, 2007, 1:43 GMT

    Warney is tops mate, you guys say racism but i think not thats a token response to losing out.. Warne is a legend on end off the feild did Quadir ever have a 3 way, Warnes stats on and off the field speak for themselves !! Hate the game not the player !!

  • dini on January 10, 2007, 1:00 GMT

    there's no point discussing hypothetical scenario's relating to murali and warne. They both admit the greatness of each other. So should we.

  • Dini on January 10, 2007, 0:22 GMT

    I'm sure if warne had done what murali did at trent bridge in '06, it would be heralded as one of the best bowling spells ever!!is it not known that warne's 'ball of the century' to gatting was admitted by warne as being a fluke. try telling that to an aussie!!!!!!

    we must remember the context of which both bowlers bowl in. Warne comes on with magrath coming off a couple maidens and lee making the batsman duck for cover. murali comes on with the batsman on 40, and well-set as well as the thousand hours of video-footage of him still fresh in their minds!!!

  • bazza on January 10, 2007, 0:01 GMT

    Nearly 700 posts! This has to be a record, so I guess this makes Kamran the best Juornalist? Those bloggers who keep touting career statics simply have no understanding of what makes a cricketer or any team player GREAT. You simply cannot compare bowlers stats except those achieved in similar conditions at the same time in the same countries. For example Warne's 26 average in Australia is amazing given the number of matches he has played on non spinning wickets. ( In comparison Murali and Qadir have apalling stats in Australia, both over 60.) However that in itself doesn't make Warne better as he has more experience on those wickets. Murali averages 20 in Sri Lanka, a better statistic. (Warne averages 21 in Sri Lanka, Warne also matches Murali's and Qadir's stats in Pakistan.) So on the stats it is self evident that Warne is a more adaptable bowler than the other two, he can virtually match it with them in their own backyard whilst as they are hopelessly lost in Australia. From this I think it is self evident that Warne would probably have better stats than Murali if he was Sri Lankan and played most of his tests in Sri Lanka,likewise better than Kumble if he were Indian and played most of his tests in India so as to fully understood the nuances of each test venue. Being Australian he has had a much harder job to take wickets economically at home on Australian pitches. However, again, none of this is why Warne a better bowler than other good spinners and this is not the reason why the vast majority of observers, including the 100 experts who chose Wisdens five cricketers of the century, agree Warne is the greatest bowler of all time. The bowlers, collective task in a team is to take 20 wickets for less runs than thier own batter's have accumulated inside the time available in a match - quite simple. How many runs they concede per wicket is not relevent provided it is less than the opposition. To illustrate this point more clearly think about what Murali's or any other modern bowler's stats would like, playing in Australia if Australia had the opportunity to bat twice in every match they have played over the past decade, instead of winning most inside the time alloted, often with only one completed innings. Might have a few more wickets in the bag but the career averages would be a lot less rosy. Back to the point of greatness. Warne's acclaimed status has been earned over 15 years by his unparalled ability to win matches! The last brilliant example, Aus v's England Adelaide 2006. That is what makes Warne the greatest. Who cares what runs per wicket he concedes? Australia reinvented the art of test cricket to ensure that 90% of tests end in a result rather than a tedious draw, where batters waste time compiling runs for personal glory and bowlers plie their trade to dry up runs rather than risk being hit to attack the batter and take a wicket for their TEAM. How proud would you be as an Indian, Pakistani, Englishman if YOUR country had achieved this and, at the same time, by taking risks for the TEAM you had wone 90% of the tests played? Then ask yourself how would I rate Shane Warne, the most successful bowler and the most attacking in that TEAM whch has broken all records for success? I think you will then understand why Warne is the greatest bowler. Simply he has contributed more to achieve more test vistories for his TEAM and nation than any other bowler in test history. As to who is technically the best spin bowler ever, probably Murali, although he is not a leg spinner which was the topic of the article. Grest to watch and admire and will probably get his 1000 test wickets. I bet he would trade 900 of them for Sri Lanka to have achieved the record that the Australian TEAM has enjoyed whilstWarne was in it. Murali is a team player and a modest man i am sure he, along with Warne, enjoy helping their team to victory much more than personal statistics.

  • KC on January 9, 2007, 23:12 GMT

    Andrew Johnson you r not just an intelactually challanged but also physically challanged person who didnt have control over what your fingers were typing, if you claim that you can bowl a googli and than compare it to abdul's than obviously you shouldnt even be responding to this comment, and by the way bouncy wickets and favorable umpires always = 700+ wickets and plus shane warne tested positive for banned substance (if you have lost your mind and you dont remember it then i will remind you it)and was banned for a year. which means he is a cheat and not a true athleet

  • Amit Parikh on January 9, 2007, 22:39 GMT

    To compare players from two differnt eras is pretty difficult, especially with so many things changing in cricket over the past decade or so.

    I think the bottom line is that Warney has done more, home and away, than Qadir ever has. Also, one thing to consider is the amount of matches being played as compared to the time Qadir played. These days, players have to be in even better fitness and should have the mental fortitude to consistently perform day in and day out. I think the burnout faced by many international sides is well documented. Some may say this may have made Warne's job easier, due to the lack of batting application due to the burnout, but bowlers are just as vulnerable as well as batsmen, and that is another testament to Warne's dilligence as a player.

    Overall, there is no comparison, Warne is simply the best spin bowler we have ever seen, and will probably ever know

  • tempdb on January 9, 2007, 22:24 GMT

    Who all are you to decide who is best?? It's individual's opinion. To me, Shane Warne is one of the greatest. Abdul Qadir comes far below that him.

  • Paul Lavis on January 9, 2007, 21:55 GMT

    As an aussie yobbo i think some will be surprised to see that we do acknowledge the greatness of Qadir. As a youngster watching him bowl over here in 83-4 it was simply spellbinding when he got it right. They both had the ability to keep you watching as every ball looked like taking a wicket - a trait only a handfull in history can claim. Unlike Warne though there was the one every over or three that let the pressure cooker off, unlike Warney does. At his best I would put him above Shane, but in terms of a team building pressure and winning tests year after year there can be no real comparison. As has been said - they are the best of each era by a long way and really no more need be said. To see Qadir bowling for Carlton in the Melbourne District comp at age 41 (or whatever he was a couple of years ago) and tearing it apart was testament to his greatness. Both are a long way in front of Murali - I hope no Sri Lankans are reading! Cheers.

  • Raza on January 9, 2007, 21:47 GMT

    If we compare apple to apple, you can't match the characteristic of both bowler, Qadir himself was great bowler in his time so do with Warne, the only thing which makes a difference is Qadir was the innovation of different variety of spin bowling and Shane came after him he just follow those innovation that Qadir already discover in his time period, Qadir did not get many oppurtunities compare to Warne in term of County cricket exposure, Test Cricket in year etc,in order recognized himself as champ googly bowler but there is not doubt on Qadir capability and he was one of the best spinner for Pakistan Cricket history. However I myself Cannot ignore Warne to get 700 wicket in an internation cricket, this is really a big achievement.

    Thx Raza

  • Rudi on January 9, 2007, 21:20 GMT

    All those babbling about the neutral umpiring in contemporary cricket need go no further then ACB's employee of the year, year after year, one Mr. Rudi Koertzen...The manner and the number of times he screws each and every team over whenever they play Australia is unbelieveable and renders the notion of unbiased neutral umpiring a huge joke...The series ending tally in which Rudi umpires, rather performs for Australia is invariably 20 to 1 in favor of Aus, if not more lop sided...Brett Lee and Shane Warne owe atleast half of their wickets to Rudi...

  • anser azim on January 9, 2007, 20:58 GMT

    I think its useless to compare the two greats of their era. People who have seen AQ and SW bowling and bringing success to Pakistani/Australian teams will feel bad about this. The only thing that I know of is that both were nightmares for batsmen of their era and both need applause.

  • L.Sharma on January 9, 2007, 20:17 GMT

    Not a very intelligible assessment of Warne Vs Qadir. Forget about every thing else, biased or parochial- one cannot forget plus 700 wickets achieved by Warne. Let us not extol the virtues of past batsmen and their ability to handle spin. Do you think the best of the lot in the present world cannot handle spin. Qadir was good but the statistics and the conditions portray different. May be in the past Qadir got away with the doubtful deciasions in his favour which today's third eye observation does not give you as much latitude. Let us appreciate what we are seeing and let us not invoke 100 years of cricket records. Let the history be the judge.

  • Seshadri on January 9, 2007, 20:06 GMT

    Hey, I just wanted to say one thing. Everyone keeps shouting about how Warne did really badly against India. So what? Who says India are the best players of spin?

    Let me explain: India are the best players of Warne, no question. That doesn't necessarily mean they play all spinners well. Tendulkar dominated Warne, but look at the other spinners who have dominated Tendulkar - Ashley Giles, Grant Flower, Paul Harris ... Anybody who saw the respect Tendulkar was giving to Paul Harris in the last Test would have been shocked. He also played really defensively against the other left armers/offies.

    Just because Paul Harris took 4 wickets against India on debut does that make him the world's best spinner? Kenyan spinners have also taken wickets against India. Are they the best in the world?

    Every player has a favourite opponent. The reasons for this are different; sometimes you get really fired up playing against them, sometimes their style of play just happens to suit you. Similarly everyone has a least favourite opponent against whom things just don't gell. So what? It just so happened that Warne never managed to play too well against India (though he has several 4-wicket hauls). Similarly India beat Australia at home but then lost to South Africa in the next series.

    Sri Lanka are also regarded as good players of spin and Warne's record against them is very good. So you really can't say Warne is not a great bowler just because his record against India is not great. Look at the overall record and the correct picture emerges.

  • Farooq S on January 9, 2007, 19:41 GMT

    Very bad comparison! I do not agree with you on this at all! Sorry, Kamran!

  • Abdus on January 9, 2007, 18:52 GMT

    Being in the best side and then perform like the best is another thing and being in the weaker side and then perform like the best is a great achievement as did Qadir.

    I am a great Fan of Shane Warne because I have been seeing his bowling for many years, but unfortunately I haven’t seen Abdul Qadir’s bowling in his prime.

    I have just seen Abdul Qadir just once, few years ago when he was playing for the Pakistan veterans team. He still was unplayable, I was really surprised to see him spinning so much, I have never seen any spinner spinning that much with googlies as well.

    Nowadays, Australia is the best team in the world; I think current Australia is better then past Strongest West Indies. But its not just due to Shane Warne, AUS can win even without Shane Warne,

    Stuart MacGill is also very good leg spinner. If he was in the AUS instead of Shane then he might be more successful than Shane.

    But Shane Warne is the best leg spinner of his time and Abdul Qadir was the best of his time.

    But

    Being in the best side and then perform like the best is another thing and being in the weaker side and then perform like the best is a great achievement as did Qadir.

  • Hamza Baig. on January 9, 2007, 18:30 GMT

    Hi, I am from Pakistan. I would like to say that it is completely a silly topic. It is totally a wastage of time. There is no comparison betweer the great Shane Warne and Abdul Qadir. I think it is a time to appreciate Warne's records and achievements instead of crtisizing him. It would really hurt Aussies and Warne himself that at the end of such amazing career, we are saying that he wasn't a great bowler and Abdul Qadir was better than Warne. Come on guys!

  • Irfan on January 9, 2007, 18:18 GMT

    To all you guys i will only say 2 things. Abdul Qadir was not caught using performance enhancing drugs whereas Warne was and was punished for 12 months i guess. I think all his record before he was caught should be erased as if you are caught stealing you are a crook and should not be considered a class as you were caught cheating. One more thing watch him bowl and he makes you believe he deserve a wicket on every ball he bowls with excess appealing.Since he is a white guy he can get away with it and poor Murali had to face the the medical board to prove he has no problem with his action but it all comes down to is if you are not white you are the problem.

  • Jagdeep on January 9, 2007, 18:01 GMT

    Totally disagree. Shane Warne is without a doubt the best legspinner since Bill O'Reilly, if not the best leggie ever. The one thing Warne had that most other cricketers don't have is the ability to beat batsmen with his mind and not just his amazing ability. He had this tremendous ability to get into someone's mind. he took over 700 wickets for crying out loud. The reasons given above are crazy. It is like saying Bradman had an average of 99 but Ponting is better because Bradman played less matches.

  • Usamah Khan on January 9, 2007, 17:12 GMT

    We will truly never know because its two different eras. SO much to take under consideration. I do think Qadir may have been better. And to say that shane warne's googly is as good as Qadir is completely wrong! Warne may be able to get it once in a while on a tail ender, such as Hoggard, But he won't take a top order batsmen. He has a good variations, but not a great googly. Which makes him so phenominal that he does so much damage--and he doesn't e ven have a great googly!

  • Jamal Syed on January 9, 2007, 17:11 GMT

    You know, for some people past is always better than present. Qadir was a great bowler indeed, but I strongly beleive that Shane has an edge over him and how dare you say that Shane does not have a googly? Are you high on something? Shane has the full package and being a leg spinner myself in 80s, I can appreciate what he has to offer. Qadir was my idol when I used to bowl and I still believe is among the greatest of his trade, but the amount of turn that Shane has is amazing, and as Qadir himself said, Shane has the big heart to match his bid skill set.

  • Dilshad Abbas on January 9, 2007, 16:57 GMT

    I have read some of the comments posted, i have seen both Qadir and Warne ball, whilst Warne has taken more wickets and amused the lot of us, i would just like to say one thing in favour of Abdul Qadir, When Dickie Bird retired, whom may i add is the best umpire the world has ever seen, was asked who does he think the best wrist spinner was, without hesitation he picked Abdul Qadir. That comment from a man who devoted his entire life to cricket says it all for me.

  • Ram on January 9, 2007, 16:36 GMT

    To say that Qadir was the best or was better than Warne is an easy statement, but we can't decide until we see them both in action together. If anything, today's spinners have a harder job because most batsman in either version of the game look to attack them; Qadir played in a time when the aggression batsmen exhibhited to a spinner were considerably less; bats were not nearly as strong or well made; one-day scores weren't nearly as high nor were test scores, and the pitches weren't nearly all as batsmen friendly as they are today. Qadir, Kumble and Warne are the greatest leg spinners of history perhaps, but 200-odd wickets, nearly 550 and over 700 respectively, tell the story themselves. Stop the comparisons and honour the champions, each in their own right.

  • mk49 on January 9, 2007, 16:16 GMT

    Warne as great sure -- but he has one giant blemish in his career that takes that lustre off. His average against India (47+, I think) and his hammering by Sachin (or any of the others) at his best. Warne was treated like a club bowler by the Indians. Against a team that has traditionally treated other leg-spinners (including Qadir) with contempt, a performance like this brings Warne a notch below his current stratospheric status. Great, yes. The greatest of all time? Naah sez' the Indian fan. Now Malcolm Marshall - that's another story.....

  • GOHAR on January 9, 2007, 16:04 GMT

    i think these points are unnecessary. im pakistani, and shane warne spreads the art of sharing skills. a boards problems are out opf control of both men as bowlers, and i have never seen qadir bowl, so all i shall say is warne is a natural winner and champion spinner, we wish we were australian ot enjoy his talents even more!

  • paraa sakthivel on January 9, 2007, 15:49 GMT

    watch out for KAMRAN"S future blog "why yousuf youhana was better than sir.don bradman".. reasons 1. he was a pakistani,while bradman was a australian 2.yousuf has long beard to play with while bradman didnt have it 3.bradman didnt have to wear dos helmets and guards which yousuf had to 4.sorry dont have more stupid reasoning power

  • martin gillam on January 9, 2007, 15:25 GMT

    I cannot let this stupidity go without comment. If you were a captain and your life depended on the result, would you rather throw the ball to a leg spinner with a test average of 25.4 and a strike rate of 57.5 -- or one with an average of 32.8 and a strike rate of 72.5??? Warne owns the first set of figures, Qadir the latter. It is no contest. You destroy your own credibility by suggesting otherwise.

  • John McConnell on January 9, 2007, 15:15 GMT

    Kamran. Considering how important evidence is in your professional career, it's amazing how you ignored the evidence in comparing Qadir with Warne.

    I'm old enough to remember Qadir bowling. My, subjective, recollection is that he had a more interesting action than Warne, but bowled more loose balls. At the time, it was a joy--and surprise--to see such a skillful practitioner of leg spin as Qadir, and he definitely kept the art alive in test cricket.

    But on to the evidence. Warne's test career bowling average is notably better than Qadir's: 25.41 vs 32.80. Warne's average in Pakistan is not significantly different from Qadir's (28.0 vs 26.82), whereas Warne's average in Australia is strikingly better (26.39 vs 61.0). In home series, their averages are not significantly different: Warne 26.39 vs Qadir 26.82. Away from home the Warne vs Qadir comparison is: in England, 21.94 vs 40.76; in India 43.11 vs 69.16; in New Zealand 21.30 vs 52.10; in West Indies 39.64 vs 38.42; and overall 25.5 vs 47.58. Thus the statistics overwhelmingly support the case for Warne being the better bowler.

    Of course, in strict statistical terms the data are uninterpretable because the comparison is historical rather than contemporary. However, it's worth bearing in mind that--unlike Warne--Qadir played all his home tests in front of home umpires, and I think the overall stats for home vs away tests and tests in Pakistan are highly supportive of Warne's superiority.

  • sandeep on January 9, 2007, 15:09 GMT

    I will put it this way, I enjoyed watching Qadir run up to bowl and warne actually bowling

  • Bilal M Awan from Soon Valley KHUSHAB on January 9, 2007, 14:46 GMT

    Well many of the readers are against Kamrans comparison. i havent seen Qadir live that much to comapre as many others. but only thing i knw s that Warne at the initial stage of his career when he was in Pakistan, was after Qadir he went even Qadirs home with out any appointment(was afeature of that days newspaper) any one now why he did so? Mr.Warne(no doubt todays legend) knew it(better that any one else specialy people who posted their comments such rubbishly)that wat he was gonna gain from the Master who earned all the varities without any help(media, videos, ex legends, wide coverage etc.) In short words, there is no comparison between a teacher n his student. U can say many will be agree to that Warne was best student, most intelligent and a real hard worker which made him successfull player of the history.

  • Sohaib Masood on January 9, 2007, 14:27 GMT

    Let me tell u one thing...When Shane Warne came to Pakistan, he took some tips and techniques from Abdul Qadir. This means that Qadir had sumthing which inspired Warne. So it can be said that he learnt many things from Qadir. But it doesnt mean that Warne is not good..He is one of the greatest of his time and Qadir of his time. He played more tests and has more wickets while Qadir played much less...I am not supporting any1 here..Both are good and one of the best of their era.One thing ill mention is that rating Warne after Bradman is completely out of the question. There were far better players to be rated after Bradman.

  • rory on January 9, 2007, 14:26 GMT

    i have lucky enough to see both bowl live in the flesh.... both great bowlers... but warne just edges it... you forget apart from the west indias who else had good batman's during qadir's period? no one really, aus had not got going, england played him well in england but once in pakistan it was slightly underfair u did have one or two umpires with some quick fingers out there.. i remeber seing highlights of qadir's 9 -56 and their was 3 - 4 terrible lbw and catches given so dont start giving off above bad umpiring, asia as producted some interset umpires themselves over the years!!!

  • John M on January 9, 2007, 14:21 GMT

    It is disappointing that so many comments appear to reflect blind nationalism. Warne readily accepted Qadir's greatness as did Australians generally. Qadir (for his part) said that Warne's greatness lay in his 'heart'- he had incredible courage as a bowler. Even in a park cricket competition it is frightening to pick up the ball to bowl spin, knowing a minute error your action will lead to being pasted. Remember Johnny Watkins who could apparently make the ball talk in the nets, but could not hit the pitch in a test. There is not much doubt that Qadir would have prospered more if he had been Australian - see how well he did when he came at the age of 44 to play club cricket in Melbourne. But whether he would have had the strength of mind of Warne, we will never know.

  • aniruddha on January 9, 2007, 14:19 GMT

    I think it is a bit stupid to compare to crickters of different eras and that too by a sports journalist. I think greatness perhaps can be measured by the number of matches a player has won single handedly and i am sure we all agree that there is no comparision to warne there. Also warne has revived a dying art in the times of 20-20 cricket.... so all i can say is Qadir was great but u dont compare even a great with god

  • Hiran Liyanage on January 9, 2007, 14:15 GMT

    For those of you who question Murali's action and say laws were changed to suit him; clearly show their lack of knowledge. In a ICC study, it was found that even the bowlers with most classical action extend their elbows above the legal limit. This included 99% of bowlers.

    A list ranging from Glen Mc Grath to Brett Lee to Shaun Pollock...... The only bowler to bowl within the set legal limit was Sarwan of West Indies. Thus a rule change was necessary.

    So pls. don't show your ignorance on thses matters by stating, laws were changed for Murali.

    Also don't beleive everything you see. There's many optical illusions, and let the science decide and when it does let us be smart enough to change our opinion/s.

  • Gautam on January 9, 2007, 13:52 GMT

    Qadir or Warne good question....? Dont know the answer but know one thing for sure... Dont think of Darrell hair or a steve randall as a neutral umpire when they were unpiring in Australia....And just before some of you add the bias tag, this is a posting from India and not Pakistan.

  • Brendan Commins on January 9, 2007, 13:39 GMT

    What a ridiculous comparison. The googly is an overrated weapon against top class players but if Wrane needed to use it he did. This smacks of the kind of subcontinental one eyed rubbish we have been reading for some time now. Kamram Abbasi has a balanced outlook on life, he has a chip on both shoulders. No doubt, to him, Inzamam ul Haq is better than Viv Richards was and Shoaib Akhtar better than Dennis Lillee. By the way, why leave Murali out? Just because he has so many wickets against Zimbabawe and Bangla Desh and got most of the rest at home in Sri Lanka. The reality is that Warne is simply the greatest bowler the world has seen and the greatest matchwinner in the history of cricket. The Australian side is as great as it is to a large degree because of him.

  • VIVEK KHARE on January 9, 2007, 13:19 GMT

    Qadir better than Warne!!!! Dr.Kamran Abbasi i say subash gupte waz better then Qadir and Warne.If u think i say it becoz i m an Indian..u can ask the the greatest CRICKETER of all time Garfield St Auburn Sobers...

  • Satya Gorthy on January 9, 2007, 13:13 GMT

    According to Sunny, he posted below at January 6, 2007 12:58 AM

    ---------------------- As for Warne and Murali, one telling stat comes into mind. Murali has over 190 wickets vs Zim and Bangladesh. Warne has 11.

    ----------------------------

    Please get your stats right, especially when you are posting on cricinfo you may as well use the stats guru for that ;-)

    here is the countrywise breakdown for both murali and warne. wickets/matches.

    One thing is that, just because zimbabwe and b'desh are not good at playing spin that does not make most of English, Kiwi teams be good with handling spin. People need to accept the facts and do not take to too much bias. Warne's retirement is a big loss to cricket. he has been one helluva player. Same for Murali. I personally admire Murali more than any other spinner. By the way, I am not a SriLankan, just in case.

    Let Richie Benaud say whatever but playing offspinner is, heresay, relatively easier than playing a leg spinner. But not murali. Anyways, here are the stats --

    Aus/SL B'desh Eng NZ Ind Pak SA WI Zim Murali 55/11 50/6 93/13 69/12 67/15 79/14 104/15 70/10 87/14 Waren 59/13 11-Feb 195/36 103/20 43/14 90/15 130/24 65/19 6/1

    Bowling at old foe (english)with theirs tucked away (most of the times) is as bad or good as bowling to cricketing minnows...:-)

  • Rehan Dar on January 9, 2007, 13:07 GMT

    I can see where Kamran's comments are coming from. Most of the people babbling about Warne is better and Qadir is better have not seen Qadir bowl! Therefore acting stupid as it clearly suggests. But the greatest stupidity will be to compare two players of a different era. You can never do that - it is the biggest crimes of all! Qadir was the greatest in his era making leg spin a threat when nobody gave a rat's arse to legspin and fast bowling was candy to the eye. And I also agree to what Kamran points for example Warne did not have a googly (which means he was never accurate enough to bowl one for those who are of the weak mind) etc but Warne had other unique qualities.

    Finally, i have to repeat the comparison is void! Both were unique and legends in their own breath.

  • Arpan on January 9, 2007, 12:58 GMT

    Ridiculous post! Qadir averaged nearly 50 runs per wicket in test matches outside Pakistan. Maybe the umpiring was "more" sympathetic in Pakistan to his appealing?!! To even suggest he was in the same ballpark as Warne is crazy - its like comparing Basit Ali and Inzamam Ul Haq as batsman - one guy will be an alltime great, and one guy had a few good series!

  • Allan Taylor on January 9, 2007, 12:50 GMT

    Abdul Qadir was a great leg-spinner and he might have been better than Shane Warne but i have no right to say that. But to all those who are stating that Abbasis writing is biased should read Shane Warne's Autobiography where he states that he has alot of respect for Abdul Qadir and that Qadir taught him the googly. He also states that he was the best leg-spinner and that even in his forties Qadir could play for Pakistan

  • Platypus on January 9, 2007, 12:44 GMT

    What a wonderful range of responses. I would argue that only 2 players have sufficient statistics to stand out on that basis alone: Bradman and Sobers. All others - including Warne, Murali and Qadir - must be contextualised. Benaud's comments have always seemed compelling to me.

    Irrespective, the spectre of being "underachievers" will always hang over the Pakistan teams of the 70s and 80s. Their Spectacular players such as Imran, Wasim, Javed, Qadir, Mushtaq Mohammed, Zaheer ... Talented, arrogant. Who would say that Australia's Teams under border, Waugh and Ponting had more talent to draw upon? Yet Australia has dominated like no other team while Pakistan did not.

    Cricket is a team game. Warne has been the best player in the best ever team (emphasis on word team). Qadir was a good contributor to a team that pitifully failed to meet its potential.

    Imagine you were playing a game of cricket, and could select from all the players in history. Your life depends on the result. Now, which leg spinner would you pick?

  • Morgan on January 9, 2007, 12:43 GMT

    @james

    Sorry to say buddy but it was the great Australian leg-spinners of the early to mid 1990's that created deliveries such as the googly. Get your fact straight.

    p.s. West Indies teams of the 80's only won around 50% of their games so I don'y know if they really can be considered the greatest (certainly right up there though) but that is another story. They were also and have generally been quite poor against spin.

  • hamzah khan on January 9, 2007, 11:49 GMT

    well i can see where evry1s cumin frm but i dnt think we shud b saying qadir better than warne i mean qadir was good in hs days and warne was good in his days it dusnt matter bwt the google the stats speak 4 themselves but yeh credit 2 qadir 4 tippin warne and givin him tips but thas all good i mean nowadays you see wasim akram givin tips 2 irfan pathan cricket is a gentlemans game and leeve it at tht insted of arguin over hus best

  • Eddie on January 9, 2007, 11:13 GMT

    What a laugh! Qadir barely took a wicket outside of Pakistan, where dodgy umpires like Shakoor Rana gave him whatever he wanted. Also take a look at his record in Australia.

  • shehzad on January 9, 2007, 10:36 GMT

    This is a silly debate, they were both great players in different era, while Abdul Qadir was pioneer of googly to leg spinner's arsenal, shane warn has master the art and refined the skills.

  • Punter on January 9, 2007, 10:35 GMT

    Oh c,mon..plz stop comparing Players of different era..and if u do so Please provide atleast some valid points. warne never bowled googly..haha what a shame for the author to write such comments..if u want evidence go and watch shane's videos on youtube or google and then write such comments..Quadir may be a legend but how many matches he won for pakistan..in this batsman dominated era where even tests are played like odi's warne singlehandedly won many matches for aussies. coming to the next point matches played those days were very less when compared to the burden and work load that players needs to take up these days..quadir might be a legend but please dont compare him with warne or murli or anyone else.When u wanna pick one best legspinner it should be warne and still if u insists then am sorry there is no point to discuss

  • dini on January 9, 2007, 10:29 GMT

    warne has been a brilliant bowler, the way he got peterson out in the 2005 ashes series was superb. it's just stupid not to acknowledge him for the great that he is, however, as a lankan it aggrieves me to think that a lot of people are still either disillusioned or ignorant about the facts regarding murali. I would like to add the point that if you want to talk about warne's mental toughness in never appearing to be beaten,are you getting confused with the fact that in warne's mind, he never is,has there ever been a ball bowled by warne in which he doesn't think he's been denied a wicket.for those who wish to talk about his aura (which he undoubtably has), don't forget to talk about his arrogance (overappealing and co-ercing the umpire is a weapon that warne literally uses almost every over).

    Having said that it also cannot be denied that warne is a proven match-winner, and his self belief is something to be admired, a fact that certainly adds favour to his status as great.As for murali's mental toughness: imagine how off-putting it must be to get through your overs with 40 000 Australian's (who refuse to listen to reason and judge simply with their eye) booing every ball. with all that he still manages to be pinpoint accurate. if stats aren't the measure of how great someone is and personal character is, then murali's modesty and humbleness should count just as much as warne's arrogance and ego seem to in exemplifying his "greatness".

    For those that talk of murali's wickets against the lesser sides, is that murali's fault? for those that speak about warne having other world-class bowlers in his side, how many times on countless occasions has that helped warne in terms of maintaing pressure at one end?, you can also look at it this way, how many wicket's has warne been gifted by the good bowling of magrath, gilespie, and brett lee. common now fellas, let's not open a can of worms. however in saying all these things i'm trying to communicate the understanding that you can't have it one way in comparing warne and murali (forget AQ, bowlers cant be measured in different times equally or justly).

    I honestly believe that warne is a truly great bowler, forget whatever happened of the field, we're talking about his bowling, both warne and murali have different alluring attributes, however i dont think we should pronounce warne to be the "greatest ever" in that in doing so we might be underestimating the past and condemming the future (the immediate future being murali with his tally of wicket's).

    If one does wish to compare the two we can only do so fairly by making the comparison after murali is finished with cricket.

    my email is sinhalankan@hotmail.com for those who wish to argue,agree, or the opposite.

  • Arjuna on January 9, 2007, 10:01 GMT

    I find the comparison interesting. The other person to make a similar comment was Umpire Dickie Bird. In interviews with him on bowlers and batsmen of his time, he rated Qadir ahead of Warne, and Lillee as the best fast bowler of his time.

    As a fan of cricket (not a barracker), and a fan of Warnie I found it amusing, but I have not had the pleasures Dickie has had of observing both.

    It is sad we did not see Qadir play India in India more often. Not to compare with Warnie but for the pleasures of seeing a great spinner befuddle batsmen. The best sight in cricket for me.

  • Mark Batty on January 9, 2007, 9:41 GMT

    SF Barnes better than either of these two. Never needed to bowl the googly. Check his stats compared to Qadir and Warne and rethink!

  • PAUL on January 9, 2007, 8:46 GMT

    Better not to argue about this. because the greatest bowler is Murali. there is no argument about this.

  • Muhammad Rehan Ghazi on January 9, 2007, 8:41 GMT

    Well, its an interesting debate. But for me Shane Warne was really the greatest leg spinner ever. He was really much better than Adbul Qadir. In fact Qadir had much greater variety than Warnie. Abdul QAdir's greatest gift to the wonderful game of cricket was that he revived a dying art and Warne gave took that art to a new level altogther. Comparing two players of different ears is always not an easy job. But I am absolutely sure that Warne was better than Abdul Qadir. Well Done both Shane Warne and Abdul Qadir.

  • Jayaraman Krish on January 9, 2007, 8:11 GMT

    Hi Kamran, I completely disagree with your views. I have played league cricket and am a Legspinner. I adore Qadir. I love Warne. Both are great bowlers . Probably Qadir would have got more exposure in the current media world but then we can never come to a conclusion on who is great and should never compare with different eras. Warne has achieved something that no other bowler has achieved that of 700 Test Wickets . Skills of every bowler is different some may be great but would have not achieved in numbers. At the end it is statistics that matter and Warne scores all way to summit. Lets not compare and bring down the genius ability these two great men had. We can just enjoy all those clippings and hope we will get one more Qadir or one more Warne to come up in future.

  • Wajahat Rehman on January 9, 2007, 8:10 GMT

    Warne has the best record no question about that much better than Qadir. But to say that Warne has revived the art of leg spin is wrong. Abdul Qadir did that. Qadir had a very theatrical action – much more fun to see than Warne’s few steps & bowl. Also Warne played 145 tests in 15 years whereas Qadir played less than half 67 test in 13 years. This means that Warne got more opportunities during his peak which cannot be said about Qadir who got a lot less to bowl. We cannot compare them based on statistics only. Qadir was the best spin bowler of his generation whereas Warne is the best leg spinner of his generation but the title of best slow bowler of this generation should go to Murali who had to get wickets all alone for his team.

  • Syed Sharif Uddin Al Hussami on January 9, 2007, 7:53 GMT

    I do not agree in any way.The only greatness of Abdul Qadir , he re-introduced leg spin bowling.Qadir bowled leg spin that time when no one was aware of this bowling.Shane Warne bowled to leg spin playing sub-continent teams. Shane has much great record against great teams.He created trouble to world great batsmen.He has great record against us (pakistani) who knows very well about leg spin.OUr Inzamam and Yousuf had Zero record against him .

    Here it is statistics :

    matches Wkts Pakistan 15 90 Srilanka 13 59 India 14 43 England 36 195 South Africa 24 130 West Indies 19 65 Newzealand 20 103 Total Wickets 685 Out of 708 wickets 685 are against recognized team and only 23 wickets are against Zim,Bangladesh and etc.Now what can be other prove of his greatness.Even you would not find such stats in Murali case .Murali has got majority of wickets against zim,Bangladesh and those who doesn't know to play spin bowling.

  • atif Malik on January 9, 2007, 7:43 GMT

    i disagree- Shane is far better than abdul-

  • Samir V on January 9, 2007, 7:40 GMT

    West indians playing spin ??? Problem with us sub continent people is we can never have an unbiased opinion. The true worth of a spinner can be judged by their performance against India. The stats speak for themselves. Murali is number one,daylight is second, third and fourth, Warne is fifth and Qadir comes next. I'd say Warne was a better than Qadir, but not as much as the Australians would believe. Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St Qadir 16 213 39* 19.36 0 0 27 4/67 51.51 0 3 0 Warne 14 309 86 14.71 0 1 43 6/125 47.18 1 10 0 Murali 15 199 67 16.58 0 1 67 8/87 32.47 4 7 0

  • Shah Subuk Pasha on January 9, 2007, 7:09 GMT

    I personally think that we cant compare the two great leg spinners cuz both have been greats in their respectives ways and it would be unfair to either of them if we make it about a single person, both have been great icons of the game and have been the best in their times. As for as Qadir is concerned people have forgotten him and he never really got the fame or the publicity that he should have received but i guess thats how it was meant to be and Warne is a prehaps one of the greatest leg spinner of the modern world.

  • Salman Farooq on January 9, 2007, 7:04 GMT

    lol.....Abdul Qadir??? not even close to Warne, Warne is a complete cricketer. An excellent fielder, a world class bowler and a decent bat. Qadir was a good leggie but he doesnt even stand a chance against Stuart Mcgill....

  • Fixer on January 9, 2007, 6:33 GMT

    Oh wait! I've got another one. Venkatesh Prasad was a better bowler than Lillee (or Holding). Why?

    1. He bowled many slower balls (something I've never known DK to do). In fact he bowled slow legcutters and slow off cutters even with a new ball in a test match! (how good is that!!)

    2. He bowled to batsmen with better protective equipment

    3. The Indian cricket board is no less whimsical than the Pak board.

    4. Lillee had the likes of Thommo, Chappel brothers and Marsh in his team (one of the greatest teams of those times). Prasad was handicapped by a weak bowling attack and a batting lineup prone to collapse in any situation on any surface.

    We could go on and on... but let us face it there is a difference between wishful thinking and cold fact. Yes, Warne never bowled a particualrly good googly, but did he really need one? His googly has been good enough to get rid of tail enders and his leg-breaks, zooters, sliders, flippers and whatnot have been sufficient for some of the best batsmen in the world. Time to face if, Warne is the best ever spinner in the world (if not the best ever bowler).

  • Taps on January 9, 2007, 6:23 GMT

    Well lets examine all your points, which by the way are not mutually exclusive as we shall see.

    1.Agreed Warne does not have a googly, but his Flipper is more dangerous than Qadirs Googly.

    2. Umpiring biases have a way of cancelling out over the years. Plus this is so subjective that it cannot be proved, i am inclined to believe that this is not a big differentiating factor, maybe 20 wkts at the most, even if you re indeed right. They werent exactly blind earlier. (and do count the bias in favor of pakistan by the atrocious home umpires).

    3. The fact is Qadir was not lost, so thius point is irrelevant.

    4. True Warne played for a greater side and a better bowling attack that created pressure at the other end.

    5. Warne had to bowl to Sachin Tendulkar, Sidhu led Indian teams who are most definitely the best players of spin of their era and most certainly as good against spin as any of the west indians.

    6. This is point 4, you have unnecessarily restated it.

    7. Restated again for impact. Saying one this 5 times doesnt make it 5 different arguments.

    8. Number still dont lie, the gulf between 708 and "miniscule in comparision" is just too big sir.

    9. Ok so maybe Scyld berry believes Qadir was the best.

    10. Probably Gooch also believes Qadir is the best. This proves nothing. There are those including the great don who believe that Don Tallon was better than Adam Gilchrist and Alan Davidson was better than Wasim Akram, both ludicrous claims. (you get my point right!

  • atif on January 9, 2007, 6:12 GMT

    well i think the auther of this thing should consider eachand every aspect of both the legends, both the guyz are true heros of their countries, not only their countries but the cricket world, so we should appriciate our heros. i really agree the thing that how we can compare the legends of two different eras. the only thing in my opinion that in qadirs time media was not too forward that qadir could get the glory which he deserved. so lets not compare the greatness of our heros.

  • Fraz on January 9, 2007, 6:10 GMT

    I dont know whehter Warne is better or Qadir. But i know one thing for sure, Warne though being a genious and one the best, is certainly not the best. Simplest of the reasons is that cricket in 90s was less competitive in 80s and now in new century its almost reduced to a joke with Australia as only exception (who i always believe have not improved their cricket but maintained it while rest of the world degraded).

    I am no racist but the fact is that any player from Australia who is exceptional against England even once or twice (no matter how ordinary the British team is) and vice-verca automatically becomes "one of the greatest" just like Warne or Botham. There close matches also become the "greatest of all times".

  • sam on January 9, 2007, 6:08 GMT

    to ght..dude take out muralis record against the minnows and he still has a better strikerate and average than warne..i rest my case

  • Anil on January 9, 2007, 6:06 GMT

    Comparing Warne to Qadir.. ha ha.. Are there any "shocking" columns in store Mr. Abbasi?

    I remember when Qadir was bowling, he used to lick the balls so much that they lose their "red" color.

  • Kaushik on January 9, 2007, 5:55 GMT

    Abdul Qadir was a great bowler. Agreed. There have been discussions about Qadir bowling in an era when fast bowling dominated and that his feat was thus more superior compared to Warne. What I want bring to forefront is the technology. The modern day batsman can get umpteen number of footage of bowlers like Warne, Murali, Mcgrath etc. and find out how they operate. But even after all that Warne has accomplished what people can dream about. 700 Test wickets , 1000 international wickets is a no mean achievement. Home or abroad, sub-continental pitches or otherwise, Warne's feat is outstanding and its a shame for Cricket that such a comparison is being drawn at the first place, leave alone the argument of Abdul Qadir being a greater bowler. Nonsense !

  • Sumanth on January 9, 2007, 5:07 GMT

    Among bowlers who I've watched, very few bowlers looked like they were capable of taking a wicket off ANY delivery against ANY opposition at ANY venue. Marshall, Akram, McGrath, Ambrose, Qadir, Murali come to mind. And sorry, Warne doesn't.

  • ehsan on January 9, 2007, 4:56 GMT

    I believe Warne was a better bowler, but first we need to scrutinize our comparison methodology.

    1) We might not want to look at raw statistics; that is debatable as cricket has changed. The one thing that I usually look at is the performance of a player 'with respect to his contemporaries'. To rise above the contemporaries is a true sign of a genius, and on many occasions is the reason that the game changes from then on. From this perspective, Warne is a greater bowler. Other than Murali (who himself can be called as a legend), no one is within a 150 wickets of warne, and his average is amongst the top as well.

    2) If we go down the standard way and look at statistics, warne averages 25+ over 700 wickets; Qadir 32+ over 230 odd wickets. I don't see a point of debate here either.

    3) We might say 'talent'. I think it is good to compare that at the beginning of a career, but not at the end. The reason that we all like talent is that it gives us hope of a good performance. At the end of the day then, what good is talent if it didn't yield the results? In any case, I am in no position to say anything about the comparative talents of the two spinners.

    4) By the way, those were also the days when there were no third country umpires, resulting in many more biased decisions than now. Qadir's away average is 47+, and he played only 27 of his 67 matches away from home. Warne's statistics are almost identical both home and away. His 'away' stats are 363 wickets at 25.5, and he played more than half of his matches away from home.

  • krishna kumar on January 9, 2007, 4:51 GMT

    you always project your countrymen better than anybody.has he won matches for pakistan in australia,newzealand and westindies.but warne did .donot post anything you want.But warne has great success all over the world.Just tell how many contest did quadir won for pakistan single handedly.But warne did several times even ithis Ashes

  • R R Wijesuriya on January 9, 2007, 4:22 GMT

    Everyone will accept that Murali is the greatest among any bowler in the world. Go to "Records" and see. He taken 674 wkts only in 104 matches.No country so far given 5 test match series to SL,even after they got the test status in 1983.

  • joel on January 9, 2007, 4:22 GMT

    I saw Qadir bowl against Victoria in a tour match at the MCG in the 1980s. It was a game in which Graham Yallop scored a big double century. Watching Qadir was wonderful. He (like Warne) was as brilliant, entertaining leggie. The difference that I noted was in temprement. Qadir, like a lot of leggies I played with, had a fast bowlers' attitude and aggression. Unfortunately, he had the fast bowler's approach to, if things were not going his way, to try and get a wicket with every ball. That day against Yallop, for example, Qadir was sending down different ball after different ball after different ball, rather than sitting on his stock ball for a while and building up pressure -- and Yallop took him to the cleaners. Every spinner gets collared, I know this, because I was a very ordinary lower grade spinner myself, but the thing that sets Warne apart is his temprement. He, like Qadir, had a fast bowler's mentality and temprement, but, unlike Qadir, didn't try to bowl a wicket ball every ball -- but build up pressure, ball after ball, over ater over, until something had to give. He could also, as we all know, pull an amazing wicket ball out of nowhere. Qadir, in many ways reminds me of MacGill (but was better than MacGill) -- great skills, fantastic bowler, but more of a traditional leggie. Warne was a leggie like no other. I love Qadir, he has a great reputation in Melbourne, where he dazzled us a few years ago in club cricket, and he flew the flag for spinners in an era of fast bowlers. On his day, he could win a Test match, but, due to his stronger temprement, Warne was more likely to win you a Test match than any other spinner, and just about any other bowler. Combine Qadir's skills and Warne's control and will to win and you might just have the perfect spinner.

  • nabbu on January 9, 2007, 4:16 GMT

    Its great to see such sort of comparisons thats is nothing to compare a legend with only a great of particular era is a wierd match any ways the article and the comparison was pointless but interesting see the number of comments it is getting over 600 that means Kamran your attempt is good enough , If i compare Warne with Qadir as the stats comparisons have been done earlier on by so many of the readers clearly proving that Warne is much superior than Qadir,no wonder Qadir has got more variety but to compare variety or expertise in googley is not the real test as the saying goes "Expert is the one who does the basics better" Being the leg break bowler Warne knew to do the basics much better than Qadir that is because of his leg breaks flight,line, length and drift they all tests the skills,technique and mettle of the batsmen for such a big period with some lethal flippers but Qadir was never such a huge threat for the opponents, even his departure did not make such an impact on the Pak team as Mushtaq was there to replace him but Warne's departure will certainly create a huge void in team Australia which was turned into a greatest team of all times by a bunch of players Waugh,Mcgrath,Gilchrist and few others but Warne in this class certainly enjoys a leading role.

  • Jim Wickham on January 9, 2007, 4:12 GMT

    Comparisons are odious. This one is also utterly pointless. If life were a game of cricket the author would be fined for time wasting.

  • Bertha on January 9, 2007, 4:12 GMT

    Well this is not so timely article I think so.Its true warne gets all the hyper media support and all.But lets admit it Warne is a great bowler.So not let just try to compare him now with someone and make him a lesser bowler.Its not a nice thing to do for a great bowler when he retires. But for prople who try to make him the greatest bowler ever its simply not the case.They try to make him the greatest bcos he is an aussie or white.Bradmen is recorded as the greatest as his stats can never be matched.But Shanes stat are not the grestest even among playesrs of his era.So people he is a great bowler.but not the greatest.

  • WG GRACE on January 9, 2007, 4:08 GMT

    Qadir was a wizard but warne is a legend - he redefined the sport. The only guys to trump Warney were India (he only made an impact in his last series there) and Lara - ditto for Abdul de Bull Bull Qadir, the Indians took him on too with success. Q won matches against England and the Windies - Warne won matches against all (led by the Poms) except the Indians and was more effective in the one days (W Cup, 1999) than Qadir. He also had a bowling avg of 25+ vs Q's avg of 30+. They were both great but Warne was greater. As Lara said, Warne was NOT the most difficult spin bowler he faced but he was the greatest and the most competitive because he won and or turned matches more regularly than any other - and there lies the rub.

  • Si Baker on January 9, 2007, 3:56 GMT

    Good God - what an absurd discussion! To suggest that someone with a Test bowling average of 25 (i.e. Warne) is the best spinner of all time is patently ridiculous; to trump that by claiming that Qadir - Test average 32 - was even better is to enter the realms of fantasy.

    Anyway, such discussions will be rendered utterly redundant once England have unleashed their new demon spin-bowling partnership of Monty Panesar and Adil Rashid...:-)

  • Rajesh on January 9, 2007, 3:41 GMT

    Well, it's universally known how difficult it is to even compare players of the same era let alone the ones who have played in different eras. I feel that this piece itself was unwarranted for, atleast at this time when Shane Warne has just retired. Stop comparing and pay due respect to everyone, be it Shane warne or Abdul Qadir ...... and most importantly, please don't take one man's moment away by brining in another at that time. Qadir had his time and now it's Warne's. So, let's just applaud his achievements. WE may never be able to say who was the best but 700 Test Wickets in no mean feat. Well done Shane .... and Abdul, you were superb too !

  • Rauf on January 9, 2007, 3:00 GMT

    In todays age of media hype and that to by you know who, no Asian cricketer can come close to a whiteman/women. Murli is the great player yet he has been declared controversal by many white umpires; it does not matter if he may have better statstics than Warne, yet Warne songs will be sung all the time. I beleive every Asian should start speaking his mind. In fact Asian should start their own cricket TV commentary station.

  • Sashi on January 9, 2007, 2:53 GMT

    Warne is certainly over-rated but then saying Qadir is better than him is like claiming Abid ali was better a fast bowler than Imran Khan

  • Cricky on January 9, 2007, 2:32 GMT

    I don't know why cricinfo entertains these stuffs. When Murali retires you will receive an article titled "Saqlain Mushtaq is better than Muralitharan"

  • paki on January 9, 2007, 2:30 GMT

    There is no point even arguing about this because the Aussies will always be as stubborn as they have been and call murali a cheater and AQ just not good enough. But on the other hand Kamran you have written a brilliant article based on the sheer number of comments you have received. The content doesn't even matter, but the hits on this page are mind blowing! keep the controversial topics coming!

  • Dean on January 9, 2007, 2:15 GMT

    To all the people who are arguing and saying that Warney is a better bowler cos he had to bowel with other bowlers who took away wickets from him, but has anyone thought that maybe it actually has helped him? I’m sure Murali would love a Mcgrath putting pressure on the other end tying the batsmen down and then the batsmen trying to break the shackles off the spinner and getting himself out? How many wickets has Warney got thanks to the help of the accuracy and the constant pressure of the likes of McGrath and Gillispie? 100’s? don’t take my word for it, Mr Benaud himself says it all the time when his commentating.

    Watching Sri lanka playing the other day, all the batsmen do now days is block / dead bat Murali and then go after the other bowlers who are not in the same class as say Ms Grath or Clarke, so to me, this makes Murali’s job even harder, but he still comes away with like 5 wicktes, every innings! So let’s give him some recognition. Not taking anything away from Warne, his a superstar, but lets not be narrow minded.

  • maxkhan on January 9, 2007, 2:07 GMT

    I agreed, but want to some of my own comments biggest thing in favour is warne is LBW law change some much. In the time of Qadir most of the time batsmen use their pads as they can't be given out if they use their pads to stop the ball pitching outside the stumps... now it is doesn't matter Umpire can give batsmen out if they think it is going to hit the stumps. Which make batsmen now to play the ball rather than just padding

  • ashaq on January 9, 2007, 1:54 GMT

    Shane Warne is not ev en the best legspinner off his era let alone in history.

    Over the last few seasons he had played at county level and the man has been trounced hands down by mushtaq ahmed. Warne is not even the best leg spinner at county level in fact the number one bowler period has been mushy.

  • Ron on January 9, 2007, 1:54 GMT

    Warne is far better than Qadir ever was. The reasons given by the Doctor for Qadir being better are pathetic and easily shot down. As for those who say that Murali is a great bowler all I would say is that Sri Lanka are very very lucky that the ICC is so gutless in dealing with the throwing debate, the guy is a blatant chucker and should have been banned years and years ago. It is a travesty that he will overtake Warne and become the highest test wicket taker of all time and he is a cheat.

  • Hamza on January 9, 2007, 1:45 GMT

    I think the best way to compare the two would be to analyze their performance against the best batsmen. I certainly dont know Qadirs performance but i think we all have seen Shanes against Sachin and Lara. and according to me it was certainly not satisfactory. I am not saying Qadir was good or anything because to be frank I dont know much about him, but I have seen Shane. and to me its not a pretty sign to see a player of his class (according to other people) taking wickets against only the weakest of players and teams.

  • Ganguly on January 9, 2007, 0:35 GMT

    Warne was ok and so was Quadir, but the greatest spinner of all time is M. He has the best ever average for a spinner. His is 21.pared with warnes mere 25. Warne was also a drug cheat and has tarnished the game of cricket with his unfit, overweight physiqe, sex tapes and sledging innocent people. Warne has ruined cricket. Muralitharan is the best.

  • Uddipan on January 8, 2007, 23:56 GMT

    Superfluous comparison.

    Qadir was smashed around by the Indian batsmen; so was Warne, and very badly. Let's remember Qadir was so dominated by the Indians that Imran (yeah, the same Imran) did not play him in Bangalore on a ripping turner. Re Warne, let's recall his "nightmares" statement.

    An Englishman's testimony re playing wrist-spinners is the same as taking an uneducated rustic's testimony about whether String theory is the ultimate binding theory; I.E. it's foolish to consider the thought.

    My humble opinion. Both were good. On their day. Against doubting and crease-bound batsmen. Period. As things happened, Warne found a number of bunnies. Qadir didn't.

  • Arjun on January 8, 2007, 23:52 GMT

    Stupid article to begin with. If I follow the authors' argument then I can make an argument that Tendulkar is the greatest when compared to Bradman just because of the fact that Tendulkar scored his runs against a variety of attacks whereas bradman was up against just a few good sides or a Sunil Gavaskar was a better test player than Viv Richards as all the top bowling talent were in his team. For heaven’s sake don’t argue that Viv faced Thommo, Lilee or Willis as they are not worthy enough when compared to the likes of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Roberts. According to me there is no if’s and but’s in sports or for that matter any profession. Also try not comparing players of different eras.

  • clive bradbury on January 8, 2007, 23:47 GMT

    Reasons why Kamran is a better writer than Shakespeare!

    Well, he certainly writes more fiction...

    'Prasanna was the greatest leg spinner of his era. So, it's not easy to compare players of different era.'

    Sorry Mahdu, but it is pretty hard to compare them, mainly because prasanna was an OFF spinner...

  • Stuart on January 8, 2007, 23:27 GMT

    Ah SM, you are completely wrong on the drug issue. Every sports person who tests positive for a banned substance is suspended for a period of time. It may be true that if the person reoffends, he or she may be banned for life, but certainly not on the first occasion. Warne received a 12 months ban, served it, and that is the end of the matter. SM should remember that, over a 17 year Test career, Warne underwent hundreds of drug tests, and was found positive, not for a performance enhancing drug, but for a diaretic that can be used as a masking agent, and only on one occasion. One would think that if Warne was a long term user of performance enhancing drugs, there would have been many more positive tests over such a long career. In any case, at least Warne was suspended by Australia's cricket authority and served out that suspension, which is more than can be said for Akhtar and Asif. SM claims the ACB(sic) set a precedent followed by Pakistan. Wrong. Warne was suspended and served that ban. Akhtar and Asif, who in fact did take performance enhancing drugs, were not, although I do agree that the ICC is completely spineless - mainly due to the fact that subcontinental countries now dominate the Council and refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by their teams.

  • cricket fan on January 8, 2007, 23:22 GMT

    agree with abbasi ! Qadir khan was a legend and he will always be

  • Stuart on January 8, 2007, 23:17 GMT

    Both these men were great bowlers, but to compare them is an exercise in futility. However, some of the claims made regarding Qadir are simply wrong. Talha, for example, implies that Qadir invented both the wrong 'un and the flipper, and this is absolute rubbish. Bosenquet, and English leg spinner who played during the first have of last century, is universally recognised as being the first bowler to bowl what was then called the Bosi, subsequently known as the googly or wrong 'un. The advent of the flipper is less clear, although it is accepted that the first bowler to perfect the delivery was Clarrie Grimmet. In my personal view, Warne is the better bowler on all wickets in all conditions. When the conditions suited, Qadir was virtually unplayable, but in all conditions, Warne is the better and more accurate bowler. The last word should go to Ritchie Benaud, a man that saw both players bowl on many, many occasions. He has said several times that Warne is the greatest spinner to ever play the game. That's good enough for me. Sorry, but I don't rate Murali. Put aside for a moment his appalling action, one wonders how many wickets Warne would have had if Australia played teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as often as Sri Lanka does. In my mind, when Murali gets the record, there will always be an asterisk by his name with a footnote: Throws the Ball.

  • Neil on January 8, 2007, 23:09 GMT

    Warne was nice to see him blowing at the Indians abd seeing him getting frustrated and nearly in tears ;-)!!! Great spinner? A great spinner against those teams that could not play spin.

    Do I expect Aussies to agree .. no way can't happen.

  • JK on January 8, 2007, 22:55 GMT

    who wud u rather watch..qadir or warne?..n e day warne..talk about intimidating the umpires is rubbish..he was a master spinner and an entertainer..

  • Mark on January 8, 2007, 22:50 GMT

    PS and on Murali, he can never rate as his action is not pure - anyone who sees him bowl the doosra must acknowledge that unless they are blind.

  • Avais on January 8, 2007, 22:49 GMT

    Kamran - I must say you have really got every one going great guns - when I came across the article link on Cricinfo I thought for the life of me - You have really done it this time! This article of yours probably attracted the most diverse attention out of all your previous ones! Your cunning plan has worked!

  • Mark on January 8, 2007, 22:48 GMT

    Instead of dragging this down into a racist debate, people should look at the stats. Warnes has a better bowling average than Qadir against all countries including India. The only argument then is are the batting teams better in Qadir's day than they are now.....answer - probably but hard to be too definite about that. E.g. WI and Eng are probably weaker, but maybe one could say that India and Pakistan have stronger batting line up than 20 years ago. Also remeber SA was not playing then, and one must rate many of thier batsmen of the last ten years very highly (Qadir never had to bowl in tests to Barry Richards or Graeme Pollock).

  • Glenn on January 8, 2007, 22:30 GMT

    In response to Kamrans comments I particularly agree with Arslan & Faisal. It is exceedingly difficult to draw direct comparisons between players of different era's due to the many variables inherrent in the game of cricket, and the way conditions change over time. But what we can do is assess players in the context of their playing era. Living in NZ I had little exposure to Abdul Qadir as I grew up, but I do recall the awe in which he was held by commentators of the time, and the way he was portrayed as the benchmark for all spin bowlers of his day. We can debate endlessly who was the best. And lets face it - statistics don't tell the whole story. Surely it is the respect of the opposition that is the best judge of a players ability. Both Warne and Qadir therefore stand out as two of the all-time greats. That is indisputable. As for Murali - yes, he is superb, but as good as Warne? Personally, I think not quite. But then I guess I will always place a leg spinner with control of flight & spin over an offie - just biased that way. (And for those of you trying to reduce this debate to a parochial level - grow up! A players ability is not dictated by his nationality!)

  • Michael C on January 8, 2007, 22:11 GMT

    (I have) sympathy for your perspective (and it is the constant dilemma of comparing players from even slightly different eras). Firstly, Allan Border demolished the Windies at the SCG!! Qadir may have struggled with umpires outside of Pakistan, but it was strongly felt that he got a good run at home. Warne has continued to succeed in an era of neutral umps. Anyway - I loved them both, and they both were fine, combative and cheeky competitors that we (Aussie yobbos??) admire and love. BTW - re Murali vs Warne - don't bother comparing and don't try to make it a racist thing (Asad at January 8, 2007 4:58 PM), both are great bowlers, both have had negative subtext to their careers. The main question, similar to Hadlee vs Roberts, Holding etc is that how many wickets would Hadlee have taken had he been part of a top class trio or quartet of pacemen? Reality for Murali, after Vaas opens, it's all about Murali - number of wickets is just a stat, it's not an absolute statement - so let's keep the fire burning for the greats of the distant past as well.

  • Talha on January 8, 2007, 22:08 GMT

    i agree with ur statement. Qadir was da bowler who introduced all da balls spinners can bowl! for instance googly is invention so is da flipper. so credit definetly goes to Qadir. But we shouldnt frgt dat shane warne has taken 708 wickets.its done!! i mean if qadir played 145 matches i know dat he could hav achieved more wickets dan dis! bt da fact is he didnt play as much matches as sane infact nt even close to da amnt of matches warne played. anyway gd comparison!

  • ABDU on January 8, 2007, 21:43 GMT

    Well,even if AbdulQadir was better or had more variety or a googly or whatever...this sure isnt the time to post such an article when a great bowlers just ended a great career!!

    Warne was a great bowler...AbdulQadir was as well..and debating about who's better...well this just isnt the right time!!

    Salutations to Warnie for showing us great legspin..with no disrespect to AbdulQadir!

  • Imran Mir on January 8, 2007, 21:24 GMT

    I hate to rain on everyone’s parade but who cares between Qadir and Warne, MURLI is the greatest spinner of all time. He is on pace to take 1000 wickets. He never gets respect from the Non-Asian Countries. Warne played with the like of Mcgrath and Lee, guys who got early wickets and gave Warne a chance to bowl to the middle to lower order. When the media hype around Shane Warne, who in the eyes of many can best be described as a “match-fixing (in 1994), wife-cheating (Constantly) and steroid masking agent taking (WC2003)”, he will be forgotten.

  • Doug on January 8, 2007, 21:08 GMT

    I've put this theory to the test by getting a T-shirt printed saying "Qadir Was Better Than Warne" and going for a swim in a crocodile-infested estuary. I've returned home without a scratch on me...

    which proves that not even a saltwater croc will swallow that.

    As an Englishman I've got to add that not only was Warne a better spinner than Abdul Qadir, but he'd trounce him in a pie-eating contest. :D

  • SM on January 8, 2007, 21:07 GMT

    Shane Warne may be a great leg spinner. But as in cycling, sprinting or ice skating, soccer or any other sport, a person who has consumed illegal substances to enhance his fitness levels is banned and his records are forever erased from the record books, not a suspension of one year and accepting some stupid excuse about coercion by his mother !!! I am not sure why Shane Warne is any different. Cricket is supposed to be a gentleman's sport and why does it condone such behaviour. Following the ACB's behaviour, the Pakistani Cricket board has let two of its cricketers off the hook and I am sure a lot of it was done because of the stupid precedent set by the ACB and the indirect agreement to this decision by the spineless ICC.

  • ithreece on January 8, 2007, 20:47 GMT

    It is true that AQ was more talented and skillful than Warne but had less control over his bowling. It was quite normal of him (AQ) to bowl a rank bad bowl every over or two. Shane warne on the other hand had the attitude and the body language that worked for him and he had much better control over his bowling although he didn't have that much of variety as Abdul Qadir. The one most striking feature of Shane Warne's character was that he could always bring the batsmen under pressure. This he could do by creating an atmosphere through his body language. Shane Warne was no doubt a master at making the best use of his cricketing and non-cricketing skills alike.

    Shane Warne could get the umpire to raise his fingure through excessive appealing while AQ had the advantage of home umpires during his times. Then there is a marked difference in the approach of the two bowlers towards the batsmen. AQ can easily be labelled as humble and friendly when one notices the level of sledgeing that we have today. Shane warne no doubt is a master in that art too. Warne was a more fierce and competitive cricketer than AQ and that is what makes him really great.

    If Abdu Qadir had the advantage of the dry spin tracks at home in Pakistan then Shane warne had the advantage of playing on the bouncy Australian tracks that are well suited for legspin bowling.

    The ultimate thing in any field that determines greatness is mind. Talent and skill comes second. For this reason I would rank Shane Warne higher than AQ. If this can't be the case then I am afraid Kamran Abbasi will one day declare Shahid Afridi a greater batsman than Lara.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on January 8, 2007, 20:43 GMT

    SUZZANA .... for your information this is not a beauty contest, we are comparing bowlers and their skills here and not looks.

    If looks could KILL then, Imran Khan has already killed two birds with one bouncer.

    Also, if looks could attract other players, then Chris Gayle was totally attracted to Michael Clarke ...... and that made Brett Lee very jealous. :-)

  • niazi on January 8, 2007, 20:35 GMT

    I'd like to take up the thread from Gooch's comment, which points to 'Baoo' Qadir's calibre. Normally, batsmen remember their later bowlers as better thasn their earlier. Like Bradman rated Bedser (whom he faced after WW2) as better than Maurice Tate, whom he faced as a young man. So for Gooch to rate Baoo ahead of Warne is very significant. I wonder what other batsmen who played against both think? Many point out that Warne has great fighting spirit, the look in his eye even when being plastered all over the place. I think on that count Baoo probably might even be ahead. He was always an attack bowler, even at the end of a long, long spell in which he'd been hoicked around. Qadir better than Warne? Maybe it's more relevant to talk about Clarrie Grimmett?

  • Alan on January 8, 2007, 20:31 GMT

    Oh please, how can anyone argue this?

    What the article has mostly done is outline reasons why they can't be compared, albeit inadvertantly. The nature of the pitches, the differences in repetoire, and teams, and whether or not umpires are more or less sympthetic towars the spinners. The fact remains both were great bowlers for different reasons, and we should celebrate both, and Murali, and, in fact, any other bowler that consistently and repeatedly sends batsmen on their way, as the great bowlers they are

    Arguing over this is frankly pointless

  • usman awan on January 8, 2007, 20:18 GMT

    if kamran had compared murli and shane or lee and shoaib it would have been better cuz comparing the two legends from different era is just foolish qadir was the best in his era and warne was in his but i still think QADIR IS THE BEST!!

  • p on January 8, 2007, 20:16 GMT

    1.Warney-1000 intl wkts without the googly.If he used googly,bouncer,yorker the total wkts taken might be 10 thousand. 2.Qadir bowled against the strongest team is nonsense.So, the wickets taken by WI pacers against the weakest teams should discredit them as good bowlers.

  • Prasad on January 8, 2007, 20:15 GMT

    Qadir is a wonder. He is way better than Warne. He showed miracles under Imrans captaincy.Even today no one can deliver a guggly like him. Only Indians played him well.

  • Digitally Mastered on January 8, 2007, 20:14 GMT

    The only think i can say is that i bet 90% of the people on this forum have never even seen most of the players of the past.

    No doubt SW in the best ever leg spinner of our era, but it is wise of it to compare players of different era. If so what would be the situation if SW went up against the DON or WC Grace. The are also considered the best of their time. While we are at it lets add Viv Rich and Gawasker?

  • KS on January 8, 2007, 20:07 GMT

    I wonder what if Shane wasnt born in or representing Australia....would he still be able to acheive this ?

  • priyankar on January 8, 2007, 19:49 GMT

    first of all, warne must be given due credit for not only making it to this great australian team but also for spearheading thier superb bowling attack for over a decade....the aussies were not at the top when warne came but he was one of the prime factors in making it no 1 ( man of the match in the '99 wc final & semi-final)......in todays cricket when technology can magnify your mistakes in front of batsmen, warne was a genius in his own right.........he played much of his cricket on the rock solid pitches of australia as compared to the dust bowls of the sub continent where qadir played....so in all fareness, warne was a better bowler ( better cricketer ) as compared to the great abdul qadir...........

  • Sameer Siddiqui on January 8, 2007, 19:49 GMT

    In my humble opinion, comparing two bowlers of different era is not fair. There are a lot of "What If's". Can Bradman and Tendulkar be compared? Like everything else in life cricket has evolved technology have played a greater role in getting the players(batsman and bowlers) prepared. The expectations of the fans have changed, back then the game was played with a lot of sportsmanship now its more commercial. Bottom line both the bowlers were very good. Shane's achievements in the record books stand him out as number 1.

  • Tahir, London on January 8, 2007, 19:46 GMT

    I think that, at the end of the day, the "greatness" of a bowler has to break down to his statistics and figures, which, whilst not all encompassing, are the only true way of comparing bowlers of different generations. Otherwise, it will be impossible to say one bowler was better than the other.

  • GD on January 8, 2007, 19:39 GMT

    Dear Asad, Is Murali a Leg Spinner..? Forget allthat is he a Legal Spinner..?

  • haz G on January 8, 2007, 19:35 GMT

    i believe that kamran is absolutely correct, considering the fact that todays pithces would suit a spinner now than back then warne has had it much eaiser! Qadir is a match winner but no doubt warney is to.Qadir brought pakistan to the top and he needs praise. well done to shane warne for taking 700 wickets

  • john mclite on January 8, 2007, 19:16 GMT

    Warne is no doubt the greater bowler, I mean you cannot argue with 700 wickets with a much better average than Qadir as well. However, I would agree that Qadir was the moe talented of the too, possessing much more variety in flight and delivery. As we all know though, talent is not enough.

  • Raman on January 8, 2007, 19:06 GMT

    Warne vs India 14 309 86 14.71 0 1 43 6/125 47.18

    Warnes Bowling average against India in 14 Tests is 47.18,this is very very bad and pathetic to say the least,he had not one,not two but 14 Tests against India and failed all the time,3 full series in India and one in Australia and 1 Test in 1992,this shows he isnt a Great bowler or a Alltime great,yes his record against NZL,Eng,SAF is great,but during his times these 3 teams never had a Batsmen that was compared with Inzi or Lara or Sachin or even Mark Waugh,so that can be considered a good achievement and not a great achievement,on the other hand Mcgrath had a good record all over the world against all countries,so he is a great bowler and not Warne. He gets psyched out the momen he faces team India and this shows in his body language,the slowness of his deliveries and his lack of verbal duels on or off the field,Greatness is measured only against odds and when he is faced with a team that isnt scared of him he gets scared and loses the plot. Moreoever he always had the luxury of a huge score behind him,despite that he flopped against India,so this is a black mark and is enough to brand him a chocker under pressure. Eng,NZL and SAF are teams that succumb to spin bowlers throuout their cricketing history and in Subcontinent as well,among the 3 only SAF managed to win in India(2-0 in 2000) so its no great achievement to floor them all the time as Warne did. If he was a champ atleast his average against India should be in mid 30s and not 47 plus. The funny thing is Indians are known to succumb even to spin when put under pressure,Saqlain,Tauseef,Iqbal Qasim,Murali,Phil Edmonds,Pat Pocock,Derek Underwood have all proved it.So Warne is a bully who no doubt has the magic to attract crowds and also the charisma,skill to run over teams,but only when the opponent is not confident and has a big score to defend. Ive remember in 1993 Ashes players like Gooch,Hick hit him for huge sixes and he being demoralised,infact Border had said that Warne wasnt even confident of playing that Test in which he bowled the Ball of Century,he was even protected in that ODI series that tour. I mean how many times has a average player like Kambli has hit 24 runs in one over like he did to Warne in 1994? His record against WINDIES,an average of 29 plus isnt that great considering the WINDIES team hasnt had too many class players. The only class player in their team was Lara against whom Warne was a failure,like how he failed against Sachin(whom i dont even consider that great compared to Richars or Lara or other former great batsmen) You could see Warnes palms sweating,he being very nervous,his deliveries very slow in the air,his grunts increasing under pressure,Great bowlers rarely look like Mortals under pressure.

    Warne is one of my favorites,but when pitted against the best in spin he doesnt raise to the challenge like Saqlain did in 1999 tour to India or so many other spinners did over the years. By wasting those 14 chances he got he has proved that without the Aussie and English media,without his captains Warne wouldnt have the fame he has today. Qadir isnt greater than Warne though,atleast Statistics wise

  • Ed on January 8, 2007, 19:04 GMT

    lol doc! Congrats on managing to get some comments posted on your blog entry. =)

    I believe Warne is the better bowler. He won more matches for Australia and singlehandedly kept the art alive (with due respect to Mushy & McGill). Cricket is a lesser game due to his absence.

    All your points do suggest one thing though ... even a modest legspinner can be a matchwinner in today's world if given the proper backing by the team & board. Hopefully Kaneria will revel in SA with Asif, Shoaib, Gul and/or Nazir in the attack. If he doesnt ... then perhaps Warne is indeed someone special (as if his record isnt proof enough) and should not be compared with any current or former legspinner. Only when someone BREAKS his record can we venture into this territory.

    GJ with the blog ... just don't agree with this entry.

  • Ian Booth on January 8, 2007, 19:04 GMT

    Who cares if the columnist is a medical doctor Jag? Anyone, from pauper on the street to Swiss banking millionaire has a right to have their say. And this columnist has done so, inviting the wrath of a short-sigted bigot. And learn how to spell Colin.

  • Raja on January 8, 2007, 18:59 GMT

    I think the best spinner in the world is PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board), no one but a hurricane can match their ability to spin thing around. They are the masters of this art.

  • azad ahmad on January 8, 2007, 18:44 GMT

    Abdul Qadir;ODI,s Record 104 5100 3454 132 5/44 5/44 26.16 4.06 38.63 4 2 Shane Warne:ODI,s Record 194 10642 7541 293 5/33 5/33 25.73 4.25 36.32 12 1

    Abdul Qadir;First class Record(excluding tests) 142 31910 14572 724 9/49 20.12 2.74 44.07 60 16 Shane Warne;First class Record(excluding tests) 141 31496 14975 561 26.69 2.85 56.14 27 1,

    Qadir,s first class record was much better and ODI,s record was equal to Shane and also his home average was equal to Warne,s in tests as well(26.82 to 26.39) Whereas out of pakistan,s 40 home test which qadir played at home they lost only 2(5%) and out of wasrn,s 69 home tests they lost 7(10.14%) But Warne,s away(inc. neutral) Average(24.61) was almost twice better than qadir,s 47.58 Which is i think most critical statistics of all ,and warne outscores qadir BY A LONG LONG WAY in this regard so he was certainly a better bowler overall at test level statistically, On the other hand Qadir although has a much better record in First Class Cricket,But he Was somehow not quite able to transform his full potential into results in Test Cricket.

  • Jarrar on January 8, 2007, 18:36 GMT

    Hi,

    In the “Golden greats of cricket (Bowlers) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Golden-Greats-Cricket-Bowlers-Present/dp/B00004CL3H) they did rated Qadir as one of the three top bowlers of all times. Note this video was produced when Warne bearly started his glorius career.

    There was one category where Qadir was leaps and bounds ahead of Warne and that honesty and had never taken money from bookies to leak “pitch reoprts” . If we put away Shane Warne’s adventures with bookies (Mr. John) and his confessions about taking money to provide “pitch reports” to bookies then I think there has never been a beter bowler ever to play cricket than Shane Warne. Not Qadir not any one.

    There are intengibles that effect a player’s performance, you did mention few of them like “variety that Qadir had”, “Weak team that Qadir played for”, “Qadir bowled at better bating line ups than Warne”, “Warne played in teams with better bowling ups than Qadir” etc. Some of which are true and others are just plain over-sights.

    Qadir had probabaly 5 different varieties of the googlies, but Shane Warne got 700 plus wickets comapre to Qadir’s at a far better average, strike rate and economy than that of Qadir’s. It was perhaps true that umpire’s did not know how to judge Googlies and leg-breaks of Qadir, but his durability wasn’t at par with that of Shane and he would have never been able to bag 700 wickets.

    Yes Qadir did play for a sub-standrad Paksitani team and when he left the team was batlling was the top spot, but I am sure that was not all due to Qadir alone there were other players likes of Wasim Akram, Waqar, Miandad and one Imran Khan too.

    As the cleche goes that “players from two different eras can not be compared” so I am not sure how would you compare them other than looking at their stats and Warne has far better stats than Qadir.

    Jarrar

  • India is the best on January 8, 2007, 18:16 GMT

    Absolutely ridiculous!! How can you even suggest that Qadir is a better bowler than Warne. When writing an article, please do not be as biased as you are being right now. It is your job to comment and analyse cricket without a bias so please stick to it in future

  • K.J. on January 8, 2007, 18:10 GMT

    Well said Asad.....With all due respect for Qadir and Warne,MURALI is the best spinner ever. period.

  • Sunny-Pak on January 8, 2007, 18:10 GMT

    Abdul Qadir was no doubt the player who revives the art of Spin Bowling, he's no doubt the creator of "Googly". But Shane Warne is the Best Spin Bowler.I agree that 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. Qadir did a lot of damages against Australia , England ans especially against West Indies. Warne is able to change a game in space of a few minutes.

  • beefyben on January 8, 2007, 17:52 GMT

    Hmmm. I suspect, for what it's worth, that Qadir may have been the match for Warne technically, but, temperamentally, it's hard to argue against the fat boy. Ultimately, though, it's a rather facile argument since the only real barometer of quality lies in career stats, and these cannot really, truly be compared and contrasted. I have a feeling that, Warne's superior cricketing brain would make him one of the foremost cricketers of any generation, not just this one. As the argument swings to its inevitable conclusion, I wonder what Australian fans will have to say when Murali sits proudly atop the bowling lists...

  • Ght on January 8, 2007, 17:52 GMT

    Murali is nowhere near as good as Warne is. And no, not because I think he chucks. Merely because Warne is a superior bowler. Murali has taken so many wickets (over 100) against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Warne didn't even take 20 against them. His wickets were actually against good teams. He was the ultimate competitor, a fantastic sportsman, and the most incredible spinner in history. He's just magical. If you go by statistics alone, Murali is better. But luckily I'm not a machine, I use my own eyes and mind, and Warne is superior. Oh, and saying Qadir is better than Warne because Warne can barely bowl a googly makes no sense whatsoever, and shows a total lack of understanding of the art of spin bowling.

  • Raj Rampersad on January 8, 2007, 17:52 GMT

    Qadir was better only if you were comparing him with another "flash in the pan" or "fly by night" bowler, because that was all he ever was. You should stop being so foolish and start looking at this more objectively, rather than from your very narrow minded perspective.

  • Murtaza on January 8, 2007, 17:50 GMT

    No COMPARISION! Had there SUQLAIN still playing he wud certainly a greatest spin baller of all time but pakistani cricket board.... u know that.

  • Majid Farhan on January 8, 2007, 17:40 GMT

    I don't agree with Kamran Abbasi here basically on the following counts though I agree that English/Aussies hardly recognise true talents of Asians, as in case of Murali: 1. Warne delivered for longer periods of time - 16-17 years, Qadir harldy could manage to play for even 10 years of International cricket. And Warne dominated most of those years. 2. The sight of Warne would intimidate any batsmen, it was like a fast bowlers attitude for a spinner...It made spin bowling look aggressive..Qadir could never do that. Warne's a ROCKSTAR !! 3. In my younger years, I have seen Qadir looking defeated when being plundered. Warne, as mentioned by someone, never looked defeated even if he was being hit. I have seen this in flesh and blood when he was being clobbered by Sachin in 1998. He always looked like he would get him and never did it show in his body language that he surrendered ( though he did tell later about Sachin Nightmares). 3. So what if Qadir had a bad board and petty politics to work with, Warne had a pretty much to deal with - Shoulder injuries, drugs ban, match fixing controversies, failed marriage and even team mates not wanting him in the team ( during the early stages of '99 WC)...And even though this might have happened because of him, he still managed to really really play well and not affect his game...That, my friend, cannot be done by normal players except geniuses. Warne's a genius in that aspect. 4. Warne was a match winner more number of times and at crucial situations and more consistently than Qadir...though Qadir was a matchwinner too but then most of the ODIs and Tests during his time were won by either Javed Miandad, Imran Khan and a young Wasim Akram !!! 5. I don't agree Warne had a better bowling team mates than Qadir ahd during his days...Any spinner would love to have the likes of Wasim Akram and Imran Khan by his side. 6. So what Warne didn't bowl many googlies like Qadir, he could spin and turn the ball even on the first day of the test in first session at times on pitches in Aus/SA/England where it's difficult. 7. And Finally, though Qadir might have helped keepign the art of legspin alive and passed on to Warne, it was Shane Warne who made legspin look cool and sexy, something which many kids want to emulate all across the cricket world.

    For me, though Abdul Qadir was a wonderful cricketer with a BIG HEART, I wouldn't agree he was better than SHANE WARNE. We might never see another Shane Warne in the cricketing world. And it's not only for his achievements but for his style, charisma, sledges and enthusiasm on the field of cricket.

  • Dr. Rashid Ali on January 8, 2007, 17:27 GMT

    Interesting Debate....However, I dont Think it is proper to make comparisons. Comparisons are only possible if both the spinners were playing in the same test match and against the same opposition etc etc. There are far too many variables, which are different for us to make meaningful comparisons. Just consider my self fortunate enough to have seen both the great leg spinners in action. Qadir and Warne have provided many a joyous delivery to behold. And if u are a statistician, then Warne is obviously BETTER. Qadir did have variety, but Warne many more wickets!!!!. Skill and mental toughness has to translate into results, and whoever does it better comes out on top. As is the case in the case of Warne.

    Dr. Rashid Ali

  • YTH on January 8, 2007, 17:20 GMT

    First of all Kamran should know that Abdul Kadir's average of taking wickets is in no way near Warne. Moreover by comparing two great cricketers (who were great in their own aspects) is demoralizing both of them, which doesn't seem to be good in any way.

  • Asad on January 8, 2007, 16:58 GMT

    well i haven't seen qadir bowled so i wouldn't say anything about your comparision. but what i would like to say is Muralli is FAR better bowler than WARNE. i think we are going to have to wait half a year or a year and Muralli will break warnes record. keeping in mind murralli played less matches compare to warne and has better record.

    as someone already mentioned When Muralli breaks the record ( Aus, eng, NZ, SA ) won't appreciate his work and would call him a cheater, chuccker and so on.

    we just gotta wait 6 months or so and murrali will break the records.

  • Suzzana on January 8, 2007, 16:38 GMT

    Not only was Shane Warne better than Abdul Qadir as a leg spinner, he was far better looking.

  • GD on January 8, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    Should've Could've Would've... That's why we have stats and stats suggest that Warne is by miles the best Leggie we've had... Now in the spin department he might get overhauled by the wristy (watch the pun) Murli,however in the books warne will still remain the best all round performer, and that means all types of pitches, conditions et al.... Murli as well though might be able to ride past in terms of the number of wickets, the conditions, situations, action and skeptisms regarding the same will never have him be seen in the same light as our Chubby Warnie... So Let stats suggest what they have to and leave could've wouldv'e should've for dreams... Warne's the greates Leggie / spinner ever and that's all what we need to know...

  • Yacoob Nakhuda on January 8, 2007, 16:27 GMT

    In a recent article in the Times written at the beginning of the Ashes, Mike Gatting had mentioned that Qadir had more variety, but he frequently used to bowl more bad balls per over unlike Warne.

    In my opinion in his latter years Qadir 'overdid' the googly to the extent that he looked like an off-spinner with a doosra sometimes! Imran used to like him, but Javed Miandad rarely included him in his team when captain, as he himself was such a good player of spin bowling that he treated them with disdain!

    In a recent interview with Sky last year when asked Qadir admitted that his bowling action was souped up just to intimidate the batsman; as Wilfred Rhodes( another great spinner of a bygone era) said: 'if the batsman thinks its spinning then it is ' and this is what Warne (with an action devoid of exaggeration)is good at ie psyching them out. I wonder whether Qadir was as good at sledging as Warne. Although Miandad sledged the Indian batsmen in their subcontinental lingo, I dont think he was that adept at English to help Qadir! unlike Ponting and co.

  • ME on January 8, 2007, 16:25 GMT

    Ah dont matter, Murali is better than Warne! PERIOD

  • o ahmad on January 8, 2007, 16:19 GMT

    well after reading a few comments i do agree with some and do not agree with a few. warne is the greatest spinner of all time and there is no doubt about. in terms of talent one cannot argue abdul qadir's abilities. he may have been more talented than warne but all depends on how you perform on the highest level. warne proved that day in and day out and all over the world. Qadir may been unlucky but so are so many talented people who dont even get a chance to pick up the bat and bowl. so i believe the greatness has to be proved and both of these guys have proved it but shane warne has been a greater bowler by a fair distance. thanx

  • fredfillis on January 8, 2007, 16:01 GMT

    Pointless debate. The original article is one opinion not a factual piece. It doesn't really matter anyway. Let's face it, if this were the 1950's, Murali would have been shamed out of the game like many others of that era. There would be no debate about who is the better because one would never have been.

    So, who is the better batsman? Bradman or Lara? Equally pointless. How can they be compared? And of course, our mates from Pakistan would say neither, it's Inzy or Javed or ???. And our mates from SL would say neither, it's Jayasuriya or Jayawardene.

    Meaningless rubbish. I once took 5 wickets in 6 balls. Does that make me a better bowler that Murali, Warne and Qadir? I guess it must by the standards argued here!

  • LegSpinnerFan on January 8, 2007, 15:56 GMT

    First of all it is difficult to compare people from two eras.. Quadir and Warne.. both are world class. But as the system and techniques evolve, the new era bowlers have advantage of already known and learning more I think Warne has better armorie than Quadir.. like, flipper, slider.. and all these varieties. most of which were either unknown or not experimented or not understood during Quadir's time.. So, I think not comparing both of these on the same scale is giving respect to skills of both of these players.

  • david on January 8, 2007, 15:46 GMT

    Warne is the best never mind he has gotten some lashes from Lara so to MURI.Against the West Indies has has never really perform,to the extent that he once had to send for his bowliong coach whilst on tour in the West Indies .That aside he is the best. Iam from Barbados in the West Indies ,we will be hosting the World Cup Finals.

  • Wilbert A Egipsy on January 8, 2007, 15:44 GMT

    Declaring Abdul Qadir a better bowler cuz he had a better repertoire (however untrue that statement maybe) than warne just highlights the hastiness with which this article was written. I suspect mr Abbassi ,that this article was written to probably take some of the sheen off the tributes paid to Mr. Warne and too be honest a bit biased based on the nationality of the author ( some of the comments above seem to be based on the same line as well) . I agree that Qadir in full flight was a remarkable sight and bowlers like Strang and kaneria owe alot to him but to compare him to Warne just as bowler to bowler is like saying manjrekar was a better batsman than Dhoni just cuz his technique is comaprably superior! This Article has aroused alot of comments though which is probably what Mr. Abbassi's goal was...

  • Travis on January 8, 2007, 15:34 GMT

    So Warne didn't use his googly as often after his shoulder surgery. Qadir only played in 67 tests. Warne 145. Warne has a better economy rate and a much better average. Warne spun all over the world with success bar India. Qadir only had success at home - Much like Murali but he on the sub-continent. Each had their own variations on their standard deliveries. Altered by Flight and amount of spin. Warne even varied how wide of the stumps he was to confuse batsmen. All variations of the 1 delivery. Ultimately this kind of debate is created by small minded journalists who can't accept that better players come along. Next we'll be debating who was better Bradman or Lara.... Get over yourselves. Rejoice that you produced players like Imran and Wasim. Oh and Inzamam hahaha

  • Nadeem on January 8, 2007, 15:22 GMT

    I think you must think positive and optimistic. Brain Lara is not a great player Tendulkar is not a great player Kallis, Dravid, Inzimam, Yousaf, Sanath, Arvinda and so on are not great players.

    If you think that these players are not great then you are right.

    If you think that these are great players then Warne bowled against them and got 707 wickets. Over 1000 wickets. with all trophies in bag.

    Are you joking, kidding, this is mind blowing. There is no comparision between warne and qadir.

    Both are different, one is classic leg spinner and other is match winner.

    I clearly think that warne is far better bowler than any body in world.

  • Colin Letford on January 8, 2007, 14:47 GMT

    Warne did have flippers and googlies before his shoulder operations.

  • Deepender on January 8, 2007, 14:40 GMT

    I have spent time with Abdul Qadir during his recent stint as a commentator on a television network in India where I was the marketing head, I've heard a lot from him about his cricket and his views, He is such a great bowler and human being, he is the first one to identify greatness and Im sure he rates Warne very highly, Beleive me Mr. Qadir would never like this comparison...Nor would Warne Im sure....Both are great in their own way, such topics dont do much good..

  • Carl on January 8, 2007, 14:37 GMT

    O and one more thing...If AQ kept leg spin alive...does that mean that there was no one else bowling leg spin at the time...This would explain pitches being tailor made for fast bowling outside of Pakistan. Currently almost every team has a spinner (barring probably SA) so almost alwasy atleast one venue is conducive to spin. And btw who says Qadir only bowled in fourth innings or after the 3rd day unlike Shane. Please get the facts right

  • Carl on January 8, 2007, 14:32 GMT

    Lets look at all the pro-warne comments:

    1. AQ had home umpires benfit...boohoo...yet what about away where the country in question had their home umpires...no wonder his avg was 40 something 2. Its not just Gatting who thinks he is the best...ask Viv Richards, actually speak to Warne 3. Have you noticed that Warnes strike rate and average got better with the # of tests he has played...AQ never played that many tests to mature or improve. 4. O ya what else...sub continent is conducive to spin...yah maybe off spin...You need speed and bounce more for a leg spinner who actually turns a ball...Ask Warne 5. Also playing in the subcontinent would invariably mean playing more with more subcontinental batsmen who are better players of spin. If he avg 50 some with India and his subcontinent average is about 31...how good was he with the rest of the world 6. Also Warne is an excellent wicket taker, please count the % of wickets that were tailenders (6 and down) 7. I agree with the LBW point. No its not an opinion just count the % of LBW to overall wickets taken by any spinner in this decade and compare it to the last. 8. If stats matter so much is Younis really better than V. Richards, S. Tendulkar, B. Lara (Averagewise). (Total wise) is K Dev the better allrounder than I Khan or Walsj better than Ambrose 9. Finally, Australians are just superb fielders (slip and all) and excellent intimidators to win decisions...Thats a good thing...maybe if AQ had this luxury his average would be better too. If you dont believe this look up the articles of last time Pak played Australia...as someone rightly posted earlier. The borderline decisions were like 19 to 5 in Australia's favour.

    All in all its alot of if buts and maybes...Just watch the videos...Qadir is a magician and Warne a truly great leg spinner who fulfilled his potential and was supported by a professional team and board

  • Dean on January 8, 2007, 14:24 GMT

    I am sure that Pete would appreciate that the likes of McGrath would have taken many wickets from the pressure created at the other end by Warne. The debate appears futile: Warne vs Qadir, as stated earlier, different era, different batsmen, different conditions (on and off). The reality is that we have been priviledged to see two great spinners.

  • Kumar on January 8, 2007, 14:01 GMT

    I have had the opportunity to see them both bowl, via videos...they are both champions in their own time. I am gald someone had the gumption to say what Kamran said. And i must agree with him, nothing against Warne. We have to keep in mind that Warne played in a n era when the opposition had at most ONE good player of spin. They rest are/were mediocre. Back when Abdul played you have the entire batting lineup capabale of giving the best spinners thunping and we need to take this into account when we compare. Now-a-days you have a handful of batters that relish an opportunity against spin. I have had the opportunity to speak to players that played against him and with him, when he played you had and english line with the likes of Gower, Boycott, Randhall, etc...India, Gavaskar, Amarnath, Vishwanath, etc The West indies, Kallicharran, Viv, Greeidege, Haynes, Lloyd, Gomes, NO to mention Australia, The Chappell boys, Ian & Greg, Border, Hughes,

    Who do you have these days, in the test teams now, there is at most 2 capable of playing spin very well, WI, Lara, Chanders, Sarwan...India most of them but yet they go downa agaisnt Warne(not much to say) Except that my 2 favorites gave him NIGHT mares, Laxman and Dravid. England now have Peterson, NZ you have Fleming...Pakistan Inzi and one or 2 others.

    The bottom line is before we compare we must do it based on certain criteria...and we have to face up to it..he came in an era when the quality of batsmen agaisnt spin is not much to speak of. Not his fault. SO havign better head gear and bats do not matter. Having state of the art mechanical equipment and you are not a mehcnaic doesn;t mean u can fix a car.

    Kamra thanks for pointing out what you have.

  • TK on January 8, 2007, 13:45 GMT

    Anyone who thinks biasm is a word knows nothing (Andrew Johnson)

  • Ashhad on January 8, 2007, 13:34 GMT

    A rediculous comparison (the boxing equivalant of Ali v Tyson) but at least its got people talking about cricket. Kamran Abbassi generally talks nonesense anyway - but thats just my opinion.

    I would say that Warne is standing on the shoulders of a giant.

    Well done to Warne for some fantastic entertainment over the years but without Qadir the art of leg spin would have been lost.

  • Usman on January 8, 2007, 13:22 GMT

    Warne is over rated; he has been very lucky to play against hopless players of spin. Even i could have got them.

  • Colin Letford on January 8, 2007, 13:01 GMT

    You article is a disagrace.

    Warne is the greatest bowler ever, bar none.

  • Reza on January 8, 2007, 12:59 GMT

    I don't agree with this article, Shane has performed way better than Abdul Qadir. To become the best, you have to perform against the best. The best batsmen against spin bowling is the indians. So lets check the stats of both against the indians.

    Qadir 16matche 27wickets 51.51average Warne 14matches 43wickets 47.18average

    both have very poor average but warne has got some decent wickets at 3 wickets per test where qadir has worst figures to mentioned. In contrast Warne is better than Qadir. But we cant admit that Warne is the Best Spinner ever. Warne never post a threat to the indians at home or away, he got hammered by them in both version of the game. According to many(People without Bias)the best is the Evergreen Muralitharan. He's figures are just unparallel. He's the bradman of bowling. His figures against indians are good & he has troubled them many times in SL(2001) & in Ind(2005). 15matches 67wickets 32.87average 8/87 his best figures & 7/37 in a one day game.

    It's very unfare to say that he's a chucker. He's being twice cleared by the worlds governing body. But still idiots call him a chucker, i think people are jealous about his achievements. So finally the verdict

    Warne is way better than Qadir Murali is better than Warne & certainly the greatest bowler ever.

  • Bazza on January 8, 2007, 12:58 GMT

    Wow what a hornets nest! I must admit I had never considered Qadir much of a bowler. let me explain why. Being an avid Australian cricket fan, married to an equally avid Pakistani fan I have watched both him and Warne in ALL of the matches they have played against Australia and Pakistn respectively. I havn't seen Qadir playing against any other country. He played that cricket when Australia was an ordinary team not the champion outfit of today. In Australia he was belted for an average of 61 and with best bowling of 5/166. At home he was considerably tighter averaging a tad under 27 with best bowling of 7/142. Looking at these figures you can understand why I considered him a rather average bowler. I have also seen all of Warnes gemse against Pakistan. In total he has taken around 90 wickets @ 6 per match. At home he averaged 21.5 with best bowling of 7/23. In Pakistan he averaged 28 with best bowling of 6/136. However, and this is the interesting feature, these two countries have played three tests at neutral venues a most rare feature and one which shoulf place all paticipants on equal footing almost unheard of in test cricket. On these occasions Warne has averaged 17 in two tests against P. in the UAR with best bowling of 7/94 and 9.6 in Sri Lanka with best figures of 5/74. Now what puzzles me is i would have expected most of the Packistani bloggers to have also seen those performances of Warnes and few others, having no great interest in watching Australia handing out yet another thrashing to some unfortunate unrelated country. On the basis of what Warne has done destroying the Packistani line up time after time after time averaging 6 wickets per match @ 20.1 how could you possibly not consider him the best bowler you have seen?????

  • Satya Gorthy on January 8, 2007, 12:45 GMT

    Bottom line is - Has Warne proved himself against the ultimate test for spin bowling? NO. He even had been good enough to admit (we could all see it, though) that Sachin gave him nightmares. At that time, Warne was at his peak. Also, if you look at the stats, Murali beats him by miles. I am aware that, I am pitting off-spinner against leg spinner. But both are wrist spinners. Another thing is, though non-cricketing one, Warne has been let off by a smart cricket association (ACB) for his match fixing deals & drug usage. Imagine him getting banned for life (for match fixing scandal), we would not be having a discussion here. Thanks.

  • Kamer Jameel on January 8, 2007, 12:43 GMT

    I think everybody is missing the point here. All Mr. Kamran is saying is that Qadir had more bowling skills than Warne. I'm sure if you ask Warne himself he might say he was inspired by Qadir to some degree. After all, Qadir made it "cool" to spin the bowl, when everybody was imitating Holding,Hadlee etc. But Qadir's trackrecord isnt as great as Warne so he will forever be remembered as a medieocre bowler. But a better spinner,turner of the ball who doesnt get more wickets, will not be regarded as aneffective bowler. Qadir was a pioneer, but he failed to take as many wickets as Warne, due to many reasons as Kamran already said. But all in all, always different to compare athletes from different eras.

  • Eastman on January 8, 2007, 12:32 GMT

    Shane Warne is a disgraced cricketer. Sportsmen who don’t have a clean record don’t deserve any respect at all. Now that he is retired, it ends a dark chapter in the world of cricket. Good riddance! Through out his career he persistently attacked the batsmen with variations of his spin. He was good at it no doubt but were banned drugs behind his extraordinary strength and endurance? Yes of course!

    His 700* wickets should appear with a asterisk (*) in the record books and in the explanation it should be mentioned that “It is debatable how many wickets Warne might actually have taken had he not been a cheat”

    Warne has been a cheat in his professional as well as in personal life. Qadir will always be the greatest leg spinner not only because he had more variations (as acknowledged by Mike Gatting) but primarily because he had a clean record.

  • Babar Ali on January 8, 2007, 12:07 GMT

    After reading this coloum i have just wasted my time. I can't see a single point containing wisdom in it. Readeres, may be writer has written these lines when he was not in his sences please xcuse him...

  • Syed Naumanuddin Hassan on January 8, 2007, 11:57 GMT

    Shane Warne was a big spinner of the cricket ball. Qadir was more innovative and shrewd. When Mohammad Yousuf breaks record, people try to take away his deserved credits by comparison with the Richard's era of greater quality. I think same school of thought must be applied to Shane Warne. The Australians dominated the last decade or so and the quality of batting was not that of the 70s or 80s. Shane warne had the luxury of bowling with efficient pace attack. Qadir along with others influenced Pakistan from downhill to reach zenith. No doubt that Shane Warne was truly a great but one must admit that the modern technology enhances the status of a player.

    Posted by: Shaun Corrigan at January 5, 2007 7:18 PM What 'Supplements' was Qadir using?

    Certainly non of those with which Warne was caught and banned!

  • roomi on January 8, 2007, 11:29 GMT

    Statistically Warne has no parallell and he is probably the most exciting player to watch aswell in the modern times and definitely qualifies to be a "great". Qadir was no doubt was the most exciting spinner of his time but like many other extremely talented exciting Pakistani players ( Wasim Raja, Basit Ali, Saeed Anwar, Qasim Umar...to name a few) was either never allowed to settle in the side and have a long career.He was and in and out of the side. Also until Imran Khan arrived on the scene as the captain- Pakistani's didnt seem to get many tests in a year and that also reflects in the statistics. Great players like Majid Khan and Asif Iqbal never even got to 5000 runs in test cricket. This fact compounded by politics of Pakistani boards made survival of players diificult who should have had a longer run ( Saeed Anwar, Amir Sohail, Aqib Javed, Basit ALi etc) in a more settled administration and perhaps enjoyed a longer and prolific career. ( and a chance to be "great") Qadir was a great talent and should have achieved more like other great talents like Saeed Anwar Basit Ali and Aqib Javed etc. Warne is a great bowler backed by a strong system and administration that has allowed him to fulfill his potential.

  • corporal on January 8, 2007, 11:25 GMT

    Average of 47 outside of Pakistan,

    How can anyone mount any argument whatsoever that Qadir was better then Warne considering Qadir's pathetic oversea's record.

    talk about bia's drivel, but well done to the Author, quite the tabloid shock writer it would seem.

  • Sohail on January 8, 2007, 10:57 GMT

    I guess Mr. Kamran Abbasi is running out of topics to write on. Having said that, it's remarkable that this entry prompted so many comments.

  • Manoj Kumar, Bangalore India on January 8, 2007, 10:52 GMT

    This article by Mr Abbassi should be read with a pinch of salt. I am proud of the achievements of my asian counterparts Indian, Pakistani or Sri Lankan. However, that does not mean that as an observer of the game, I am biased enough to put my blinkers on and accept this article. The article is not based on cricketing facts, just myths. #1 Shane Warne can't bowl a googly - so cant Kumble bowl genuine legspin - any more tales to tell? - so what? #2 Remember all those wickets that went Quadir's way due to benevolent home umpires in Pakistan? #3 Let us stick to on field issues - not excuses in the guise of alleged off field intrigues #5 There are two sides to this coin. Batsmen today are better equipped than the earlier generation. That said, the batsmen today have forgotten how to play test cricket given the deterioration in batting brought about by the one dayers. Fielding has improved tremendously in support of the modern day bowler. These things balance out. #6 One's ability to face psychological pressure matters in the cricket field. You must perform - period. This is more like an excuse. #4, #7 Imran Khan and who? What about Safraz Nawaz, Iqbal Quasim, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis or are they not great bowlers? Ofcourse, some truth is there for a couple of years in early-mid eighties when Imran didnt have a partner at the other end and yes, Quadir did the responsibility well in that time. #8 On the flip side, world has seen Warne throughout his career, ball by ball and analysed his effectiveness throughout against top batsmen of his era. He has come out trumps against almost all of them. #9 #10 Ok. That is an opinion not an indictment.

    All these said, I do not like Warne for his drugs, bookie connections, lying and sledging. These make him the greatest spinner who tarnished the gentlemans game. Unfortunately, that does not make him any less great.

  • vishal lakhanpal on January 8, 2007, 10:43 GMT

    I truly agree that qadir was better than warne. His googly was lethal. Whatever the supporting facts kamran has posted are very true. yes Qadir was a better spinner than warne. Look at warne records against india. Remember .." i have sachin nightmare ""......

  • rehan on January 8, 2007, 10:30 GMT

    hey, I got one word for you "Murali". By the time he is finished playing test cricket he may have 1000 test wickets. Cut this guy some slack fellas, i mean he plays for Sri Lanka (with all due respect) not exectly a cricketing power house. I say wait couple of years and then base your judgements on who is the greatest.

  • Nightwatchman on January 8, 2007, 10:25 GMT

    I have to question the wisdom behind starting such debates. There can never be comparisons between players from different eras. Secondly, these discussions turn into sledging matches. Mr Abbasi is a Qair fan, fine. But he has ended up with people ridiculing Qadir on his blog. It is no comfort that some Qadir fans have retaliated at Warne and his fans.

  • eddy on January 8, 2007, 10:10 GMT

    one of Kamran Abbasi's points was that qadir bowled at the fearsome WI team of the 70's/80s and did very well. Richards avg against Qadir was 31..Greenidge's was 31 and Richardsons 26. many people have mailed in saying that tendulkar murdered both warne and qadir. Tendukars avg against warne is 39!!!! and slightly better against qadir 41! hardly murder. Check this against the master of spin Lara...Avg 54.57 against warne!!!!and 44 against qadir. Oh and one more thing 'Bandu' suggested that lara was McGraths bunny!!true he dissmissed lara 15 times but lara's avg is still 41.50 against McGrath unlike tendulkers 22.16!!!

  • TDCW on January 8, 2007, 10:10 GMT

    Warney is one of the five cricketers of the century. He is the only specialist bowler too. I rest my case

  • farhan on January 8, 2007, 9:59 GMT

    I don't disagree with Kamran.May be he is a little bit in the side of Qadir.But what Andrew Johnson said is just rubbish and he is ignoring everybody else than Warne. You are not a good man to ignore the predisissors of legspin. Please show some respect to Qadir and of course to Kamran.

  • MOMI ABBAS on January 8, 2007, 9:53 GMT

    i agree with most of the points, but its true that we cant compare people from 2 different era, unless people like gooch, richards, n many famous players have voted qadir as a greatest spinner than shane warne, but he was not from england or australia like murali, who has better average than shane warne to get more wickets per match, n this year he gonna break shane warne record as well playing less matches than him, but end of the day he is also not from Eng or Aus, how come imran khan, viv richards, lara or tendulker can't be a cricketer of a century but shane warne can, only because he is white, dont think so.....

  • Khalid on January 8, 2007, 9:20 GMT

    I totally agree with you. I have seen Qadir and Shane bowling, i remember Qadir could bowl six different types of deliveries in an over. He used to 'bamboozle' the batsmen as the word was used by BBC and Australian commentators to describe the fate of batsmen struggling to read his deliveries. I think Qadir was the best right arm leg spinner ever in the cricket history. I remember he was solely responsible for giving australia a whitewash in a series in Pakistan, and almost won a series 3-0 in west indies (with players like Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Richardson, Logie etc) in 1987-88, but for some atrocious decisions by the west indian umpires.

  • Shehzad Ghani on January 8, 2007, 9:19 GMT

    JAVED A. KHAN: I am still baffled how the Aleem Dar incident was let go? I have seen Warney intimidate umpires umpteenth time to forcefully get decision but this was horrific... in his last test match! I will remember him as a bully more than a great bowler. Yuck.

    Altamush, even Stuey McGill spins more than Shane Warne. Could we have a comparison there? Had Warney not be a selector's favorite and McGill gotten his fair share, who knows....

  • Anand on January 8, 2007, 9:18 GMT

    Unlike Bradmans batting, I dont believe there is anyone who can claim to be the "best ever bowler". Every era produced its "best ever". Aussies would like to take this title for themselves by repeatedly proclaiming it, but that alas, is self deluding. Even 700 wickets is not enough, given the amount of cricket played these days against weaker opposition. On that scale Murali would soon be the "greatest ever". I have watched the game for 40 years and enjoyed them all. Underwood, Sobers, Bedi, Warne, Qadir, Murali the lot. Spinners are what makes cricket interesting. Otherwise its like watching a variation of major league baseball, one of the most boring games ever invented.

  • Chris Cradock on January 8, 2007, 9:13 GMT

    What a joke to say Qadir suffered because umpires were less sympathetic to leg spinners! Generally that may have been true, but Pakistan's umpires were exceptionally sympathetic to leg spinners provided, of course, they were Pakistani (to whit Qadir's 9-56 in the infamous 1987-88 series).

  • Balaji on January 8, 2007, 9:08 GMT

    Dear Abbasji,

    I quite agree with you that Abdul Qadir was one of the all time greats and master in the exponent of spin bowling. His artistry and originality is amazing. Shane Warne had the advantage of drawing on the precedence laid down by Abdul qadir. In his era Abdul Qadir was one of the best bowlers. But this should not discount Shane Warne's performance given his awful debut. He has come back strongly and raised to the occassions most of the time for Australia. He will go down in history as one of the greatest spinners of his era. In a nutshell both are great spinners in their own way and a comparison looks to be meaningless.

  • Shadster on January 8, 2007, 8:57 GMT

    Which is better - chocolate ice-cream or strawberry? We can argue over this until the cows come home. Same with who is better out of Qadir and Warne. Both champions. Fullstop. It is impossible to compare their skills and successes directly, however, if you compare the feats of both against their peers that played at the same time as them, you can see just how good each of them were. Compare Qadir to leg-spinners like Jimmy Higgs, "Dutchy" Holland, Peter Sleep, Tevor Hohns, Somachandra de Silva: Abdul was miles ahead of these guys in terms of skill. Compare Warne with some of his peers in legspin; Peter McIntyre, Ian Salisbury, Danish Kaneria, (chinamen Michael Bevan) - Shane is just as many miles ahead of these guys. The only difference is Stuart McGill. Qadir was streets ahead of the next best leg break bowler of his era - the difference between Warne and McGill is less pronounced. Therefore I would have to say that Qadir comes out in front of Warne - just! Also, it is BS that the cricket media keep saying that "Warne stopped the death of leg spin" What garbage. Leg spin bowling was closer to death when Qadir arrived than it was before Warne arrived.

  • Dale on January 8, 2007, 8:03 GMT

    Matthew Jacob your statistical interpretation, whilst well researched, is flawed. You can't say Qadir fared better than Warne against a particular opposition by simply looking at the number of tests played against an opposition and the number of 5 for's taken. How do you know Qadir didn't bowl 60 overs in each innings versus Warne's 15? If you bowl 60 overs you have a greater chance of taking more wickets. That's why strike rates would have been a more logical measure.

    Qadir needed to bowl more than Warne because Australia had more options than Pakistan did. It's the same reason why Murali takes so many wickets for Sri Lanka - because he bowls so many overs.

    To say that Qadir terrorised England more than Warne ever did shows a lack of cricketing knowledge. Warne beat the Poms in their own backyard like no one in history. He has more wickets in England than any other non Englishman - Id say that's pretty terrifying for the Brits.

    Sudakhar G - you say that Qadir was great because he once bowled 6 different googly's in an over....that makes him an offspin bowler doesn't it? :)

  • abhishek on January 8, 2007, 8:01 GMT

    i hve never seen Abdul bowl and cant really comment on his bowling. but the fact of comparing two players from different eras does not make sense. just like the fact that Don Bradman cannot be compared with players of this era as he had not faced the likes of modern bowlers with different bowls, better technique thus quicker pace and better accuracy. All i can say is that Shane Warne is a great great leg spinner. it does not matter wat his record was and who will break it. but the fact that he did his job for Australia and won them many matches and one of the main reasons for Australia's success.

  • Shan on January 8, 2007, 7:57 GMT

    10 Reasons why Kamran is a better writer than Shakespeare!

    1)Shakespeare was not a doctor, Kamran is.

    2)Shakespeare only wrote with a quill and ink. Kamran writes on a computer.

    3)Shakespeare only wrote in that boring, scrawled handwriting. Kamran had so many fonts to choose from, always showing versatility.

    4) Shakespeare's plays were only heard and seen in England. He became famous only after eh died. Kamran is read all over the world, even when he is still alive!!

    5)Shakespeare was ill educated and had no knowledge of computers. Kamran does all his writing on the computer and knows how to use email as well.

    6)Shakespeare's vocab was so poor that he had to invent words and phrases. Kamran's superior vocab allows to to use his vast trove of cliches and words to construct brilliant articles.

    7)Even his fellow Englishmen sometimes damned Shakespeare's plays, causing them to flop. Kamran, on the other hand has a loyan band of Pakistani suppporters who always support him, be it defending drug cheats or elevating Qadir to numero uno position.

    8)Shakespeare's works too too long to write because of excessive intellectual inputs and thought. Kamran's articles are short, pithy and sweet, without the burden of excessive and superfluous thought or intellectuality.

    9)Shakespeare was bald. Kamran is not (I think).

    10)Kamran is better than Shakespeare because I say to! So there!

  • Dale on January 8, 2007, 7:45 GMT

    Qadir was a very good bowler but Warne is an exceptional bowler. The arguments put forward by Kamran Abbasi, and in many of the posts, in Qadir's defence about batsmen being better in the 80's is pure rubbish. Cricket is a full time occupation for test cricketers now and so batsmen spend day after day refining their technique in the nets. This would logically make them better than their predecessors. A quick look at batsman averages shows that on stats alone the current era batsman is about 10% better than he was 20 years ago. Having said that I think they both bowled to batsman of comparitive ability so it's a moot point anyway.

    Warne never had a googly - he did but who cares anyway. If you get a wicket with a leg spinner, top spinner, off spinner or no spinner it's still a wicket.

    Raj, you've posted many times but your first post calling Australians Yobos (I think you mean yobbos) is below the belt - unless you would like me to call you a curry muncher which I assume is similarly derogatory to your nationality.

    At the end of the day I think every bowler has his day - a spell of bowling, an innings, a match or even a series where things just click. No doubt Qadir had his moments of brilliance but I suggest that Warne's prolonged moments of brilliance gives him undisputed claim to be a better bowler than Qadir.

  • Tirath on January 8, 2007, 7:41 GMT

    Well eventhough being an asian i completely disagree with you.I think leg spin is the toughest art of bowling that there is and the kind of control that Shane Warne had amazing...while playing Abdul Qadir you were bound to get a loosner anytime,but that was not the case with Warne...and about saying warne not having enough variety,I think u should do a reality check.I think you didnt need a google if u have a lethal top spinner and a leg break that turns a mile

  • Irfan on January 8, 2007, 7:30 GMT

    You got to be kidding me, Warney was the greatest ever, Look what indian batsman did to Qadir, Qadir was effective against those team that were not known for playing against spin, while shane warne is successful against every team, you might be right about the variety qadir posessed but Kaneria has a lot of variety but it doesnt make him better then warne, shane was a pure genious he played with batsmen's minds, Sheer masterclass.

  • KA on January 8, 2007, 7:28 GMT

    I have seen both Abdul qadir and Shoaib bowl and both were exceptionally good bowler. I think that its extremely difficult to chose whos better of the two. Both were superb.

  • Shuja on January 8, 2007, 7:28 GMT

    I...... dunt really dig this comparison. Its not fair to compare a player of the past with a player of today -not even batsmen and with that Ive had enuf with the comparisons everyone makes with batsmen of today with the bradmans and the Richards. If there were deadly pitches yesterday, there’s more pressure to perform today. I think there are players with exceptional qualities. I mean consider this. Is Lara better than Inzi? Yes but if u look at stats… on who’s team won more matches coz of the either of them.. Inzi will come up with bright numbers. Here is how I look at it.. Qadir was probably a pioneer of leg spin.. the guy who brought the art back in the early 80ies after it had silently faded away. But Warna made more use of it then Qadir. If you compare Warne with Murali.. Ive always said one thing ‘Murali is a better spinner than warne.. but warne is a spinner with a fast bowler’s attitude’.. he always has the hunger to take wickets.. In the end.. warne is the first player to take 700 wickets !! can Qadir or anyone else challenge that ???

  • Vinayak Anawalikar on January 8, 2007, 7:24 GMT

    I wish Kamran Abbasi had lent an air of romanticism to his article and ended it with a hypothetical question – If Abdul Qadir had played as many numbers of tests as Warne, would the world regard him as the best ever leg spinner?

    Instead he first makes a statement of fact (Qadir IS better than Warne because..) and goes on to list 10 most ludicrous reasons, that makes Kamran Abbasi look nothing short of a joker.

    I wonder whether the calendar on Kamran’s Laptop was set to 1st April the day he wrote this article – I wouldn’t be surprised if it was!

    Most of the comments seem to suggest that Qadir re-invented the dying art of leg spin. Qadir’s career started towards the end of Chandra’s. So this art wasn’t exactly dormant, was it? Yes Qadir was the lone torchbearer of this art in the 80s, but then so were Clarrie Grimmet, Bill O’Reily, Subhash Gupte, Richie Benaud and BS Chandrashekar during their respective eras.

    Forget Warne, take a look a Chandra’s career vis a vis Qadir’s:

    BS Chandrasekhar 58 15963 584 7199 242 29.74 8-79 16 2 65.9 2.70 IND Abdul Qadir 67 17126 608 7742 236 32.80 9-56 15 5 72.5 2.71 PAK

    Better wickets/match, better strike rate, better average, less matches, more wickets and know what stats don’t lie.

    Chandra played much before Qadir, so all the points that Abbasi makes to forward his case for Qadir, should stand against him while comparing Qadir with Chandra. (Mind you Chandra starred in many overseas victories for India too)

    And I haven’t talked about Subhash Gupte yet. Gary Sobers called him the greatest ever leg spinner (Read Sober’s autobiography). Sobers’ testimony would carry more credibility than Graham Gooch, don’t you think so?

    This is not to put down Qadir’s achievements - he was wonderful bowler and all respects to him. But to compare him with Warne seems going a bit over the top – even with the most myopic of patriotic vision.

  • Muhammad Uzair on January 8, 2007, 7:12 GMT

    Dear fellows, I think all of you are wasting your time here. I am a cricket statistician and I have links in PCB, therefore I hope that you all will accept the following. The difference between Warne and Abdul Qadir is same that is between Gilchrist and Afridi. We all know that Adam Gilchrist is very attacking batsman. If Adam Gilchrist stays on the wicket for an hour then we can expect that his team will win the match very easily. Moreover, he is also very consistent. He stays on the wicket for at least an hour in every third or fourth match. In other words, he bulldozes his opponents in every third or fourth match. On the other hand, Shahid Afridi is a very explosive batsman on his day but his record shows that he is very inconsistent. I analysed Shahid Afridi’s ODI innings with the help of a statistical tool and I found that Pakistan need almost sixty runs from him for a certain victory. In addition, all we know that he plays an inning of sixty runs after sixteen or seventeen innings. We can expect many sixes in his entertaining innings of sixty runs but we cannot say that he is better then Adam Gilchrist. Similarly, Abdul Qadir still possesses many verities in his bowling as I watch him on T.V playing against Indian seniors recently in Pakistan. His googly is still very difficult to understand. He is still a very entertaining leg spin bowler with his wonderful googly. However, I do not think that he could pressurise his opponents consistently during his international career. Although Warne do not have, verities like Abdul Qadir but he took wickets at the right time during most of his career. On the other hand, Abdul Qadir did this occasionally. In short, Abdul Qadir was skilful and entertaining bowler but we cannot say that he was a real match winner. On the other hand, Shane Warne was a match winner and world record holder as leg spinner and he helped Australia very much to win matches during most of his international career.

  • vinay on January 8, 2007, 6:38 GMT

    I do agree that Abdul Qudir was great spinner but when it comes to his comparision with Shane warne he is no where,he might not have bowled to best team like westindies of 1980's but he has bowled to many great batsman and had managed to get them out,his spinning ability is without parallel,his googly,flippers were just awsome.And someone has mentioned that Quadir had to fight with many other difficulties then i would say Shane warne has faced more than him he got involved in many controvarsies many scnadals yet he managed to keep his focussed on the cricket.It's ridiculous to compare Quadir with Warne,he is the best spinner this world could ever witness.

  • Mohamed Irshad on January 8, 2007, 6:12 GMT

    I would disagree given that the true testaments would be facts and figures - 700 vs 200 wickets should always give Warney the edge over who is a better leg spinner! Further, Shane Warne has learnt the art of leg spin in a country where the pitches barely support spin. And Abdul Qadir had pitches tailor made for him to learn how to spin!

  • shaiq on January 8, 2007, 6:02 GMT

    Thanks Kamran for atleast mentioning Qadir, when everyone is writing as Warne is the only le spinner in last 30 years. I beleive both were truely great. Qadir for its bowling skills, while Warne for its psycological touhness. People who mind this artice, please enjoy it---- We all appreciate Warne, but do not underestimate Qadir---"Qadir was a Warne---20 years ago---actucally above Warne, There was no Kumble, Mustaq or Murali to rival Qadir"! thanks again kamran.

  • Zuhair on January 8, 2007, 5:57 GMT

    One thing is for sure, this post is certainly very courageous!!

    Some points are nice and some aren’t too nice. Especially the topic of the essay is indeed just a bit too incorrect. Whom do we call a better bowler? One who can bowl one variety of the art to perfection? Or the one who bowls his regulation deliveries to perfection? I agree, Warne hardly ever bowled googlies. But, this is no shame!! Qadir had a bad bad flipper, almost every time he tried to bowl one, it ended as a long hop and he went for runs!! Alright, Qadir’s Googly was indeed the best!! He deceived a lot of batsmen with this delivery, but his l leg spinner was quite manageable. He could turn the bowl both ways and bi time, but there was definitely one thing lacking, that he used to bowl a bit too many loose deliveries at test match level. His stats speak for that.

    If all of us remember Mushtaq Ahmed the leggy from Pakistan only, he wasn’t a bad leg spinner either Rather, I personally believe that he had a batter disguised Googly than Qadir!! Ask Kristen, Hick, Nasser, Ganguly or Cullinan!! Even Sachin the great player of spin, failed to read his wrong un most of the times!! But, this ability of his doesn’t make him a batter bowler than Warne or even Qadir for that matter.

    Making Googly as abase to judge two leg spinners is indeed not the best of choices. Does anybody ever say that DAMIEN FLEMING was better than McGrath, Wasim Waqar or any great fast bowler? Just coz he had an outstanding away swinger. I bet no body could swing the ball like he did, when he was out swinging it!! But, it never mad him the best of all times, he wasn’t even the best of his times!! Excelling in one category of art is not the right measure to judge the better of the lot.

    Alright, you are right that the media hype has made players a bit bigger than they actually are. And there is no doubt on that.

    Moreover, Qadir’s record was even worse against India!! Warne is normally accused of having a poor record against India, but Qadir’s was even poorer. So now, can we make this a point to compare? We certainly can!!! Qadir averages 51 against India and could manage only 27 wickets in as many as 16 test matches!! Qadir’s strike rate is as bad as 72 balls per wkt against warnes 57!! This also tells a hell lot about the class of the two!! Even Mushi has almost the same average as Qadir’s and a better strike rate than him. And sdont forget he could bowl the Googly to perfection!! But nobody says, that Mushy was better than Qadir!!!

    Although, I do believe that many ( almost 150) of Warne’s wickets have been earned by unfair appealing and undue pressure on umpires. And it has been seen over the years, that umpires were becoming generous towards Warne!!

    I must say, that is even bigger an achievement considering the class of bowlers playing around Warne that he took so many wickets. With lees good bowlers in the team, one is expected to take more wickets, as in Muralitharan’s case, who takes the bulk of wickets for the srilankans!! But Warne has always had few good bowlers bowling around him, and among them, coming out with such a record is some achievement!!

    Warne was the best spinner ever, if not the best bowler.

    P.S. A comparison of Saqlain with Murali might be a better practice and more realistic

  • Tarun on January 8, 2007, 5:51 GMT

    Well, there are a few hits and few points. Lets aswk Sachin Tenbdulkar whos better? He has smacked bothe of these Gentlemen out of the boundary.

    No comments over partisan and a very ordinary biased Pakistani umpiries?

  • sanjeev on January 8, 2007, 5:34 GMT

    I'd like to address all the folks who claim that Warnie got his wickets on tracks not tailor made for spin. If that's the case he should have a bagful of wickets in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which is not the case. Also, having a other great bowlers in the team puts pressure on the batsman and helps other bowlers in the team get wickets. They feed off each other. One last point. Nobody has brought to attention the fact that Warnie got a lot of wickets due to some excellent slip fielding and general all round fielding skills of his team. Asian teams even now dont have the luxury of converting half chances. Also, Warnie got a lot wickets with his theatrics and by pressuring the umpire which for some reason or the other he always seems to get away with, while other bowlers need to be careful lest they get fined or banned or both. However, all said and done, I'd pay to watch Warnie bowl over all others...We will miss you Warnie...

  • Khurram on January 8, 2007, 5:33 GMT

    Well this comparison is absurd... there may be some points that the author mentioned in the comparison that are true, but warne will have 10 times more points that will prove he's better...so its just looking at it from one angle...

    anyhow i think im a better lep spinning bowler than both warne and qadir (as i can spin the ball more)....only if i got the chance to play for Pakistan, sigh!

  • John on January 8, 2007, 5:32 GMT

    I think Warne is the Greatest Bowler of this era. Only debate in my mind remains whether it is Murali or Warne that is the greatest. Though Murali looks statistically superior how ever facts are Warne bowled with another great bowler who took over 550 wickets. You must admit that if not for Mcgrath Warne would have had atleast another 250-300 of those wickets. (imagine that tally). When Warne came on to bowl it was usually 4 or 5 down so he where as Murali almost had all ten stading which explains his consistent big hauls. Despite all this Warne manages a strike rate of 57 compared to Murali's 54. Also Murali has bowled almost the same number of balls as Warne despite playin in fewer matches More than anythin else there hasnt been any other bowler who has changed the course of games regularly like warne has. So Qadir would have been really good and so too Murali and the rest but Warne is the true great

  • Waqas on January 8, 2007, 4:59 GMT

    well Mr Abbasi i agree with you.Qadir had more colors in his bowling than shane but i would say shane is also a smart and clever bowler.

  • Riaz Husain on January 8, 2007, 4:39 GMT

    The Warne worshippers need to answer the question would Warne - a leg spinner, who could also bowl a straight ball, calling it zooter/slider/abracadabra etc - get wickets if the batsman were not under any threat of being given lbw on the front foot.

    Every ball Warne bowled on a good length would have been played as a straight ball with the bat tucked in behind the pad, as was the way in Qadir's time, if it turned out to be a leg break it would harmlessly end up in the keepers glove. Any error in length by Warne, would be smashed away.

    I doubt he would have, under the old method of umpiring, which was the norm in Qadir's time, have been a regular selection for Australia and even if he was would have got 200 not 700 wickets at the end of his career.

    Warne was a great leg spinner who - given the lack of variety in his bowling repertoire - was lucky to be playing when he did.

    Qadir was much greater and Murali greater still.

  • Sami on January 8, 2007, 4:11 GMT

    As some1 said b4 me, comparing 2 bowlers from different eras dont make that much sense but U can compare Warne and Murali. Close competition but Murali is better than Warne. And 706 Test Wickets won't stay long as the world record! Murali is also great in ODI's where Warne quit ODI's coz he wasn't that good in ODI's....Simply Murali is better than Warne!

  • Baz on January 8, 2007, 3:51 GMT

    If you look Qadir's record against India his avg is more then Warney and he never get 5 wickets against India.

  • Hillary Clinton on January 8, 2007, 3:43 GMT

    why are we debating about something thats completely out of this world...both Warne and Qadir must be sipping some beer and the master must be very happy of his pupil warney.lol hey people vote for me in the next coming election in america...lov hillay

  • Faisal on January 8, 2007, 3:25 GMT

    Well, what i think is this - the difference lies in whether you are comparing spinners or bowlers. Qadir was a better spinner than Warne - no doubt about it. Only the most dim-witted or most ignorant of people will disagree with this. However, if you are comparing bowlers, now there is a difference, i think Warne is a better overall bowler than Qadir - smarter, better trained and then backed up by one of the best managements and teams. Qadir had a richer arsenal than Warne, he could turn the ball on dead pitches and almost at will bowl googlys. Warne, on the other hand is quicker and understands the pitch very fast. I have seen him bowl where he could not even turn the ball an inch and still performing by his accuracy, flight and field placement.

  • Prat on January 8, 2007, 3:15 GMT

    Just another couple of points -

    1. Please mention something regarding Qadir's flippers. Do they stack up against Warne's?

    2. Please mention Qadir's performance outside Pakistan. Say in England. Do they stack up with Warne. Qadir had a big advantage in bowling on helpful tracks, while Warne had to fight on bouncier pitches, which were much less of a turner.

    3. Regarding umpiring: Pakistani umpiring of 1980s is best forgotten. With such partisan umpiring, please dont say Qadir was "disadvantaged" by umpires.

    4. "Most of his(Qadir) performances were never seen in England and Australia..." Why? He played lots of matches there. Whose fault is it if he couldnt deliver the goods on English and Aussie pitches? Certainly not the media's.

    5. Qadir bowled against strong West Indies lineup. How did he fare? (I am asking because I am not too aware of Qadir's record against Windies). Warne too bowled against a lineup which was equally good (if not better) against spinners (though the same lineup was always found wanting against spinners). Honestly, you dont call a lineup consisting of Tendulkar, Azhar, Sidhu, Dravid and Ganguly (and in later years Laxman and Sehwag) as bunnies, esp against spinners. If I remember correctly, the great Windies lineup were troubled by Chandra, Bedi and Prasanna and Venkat.

    6. Agree with you on points 3 to 7 though

    Seems to me there are too many free variables for comparing bowlers in different eras.

  • Ramadi on January 8, 2007, 3:04 GMT

    Well, if that is the case Bhagawat Chandrashekar was the much better leg spin bowler as he prduced more match winning bowling performances against the then mighty WI and Eng in their own back yard.

  • Googlie on January 8, 2007, 2:59 GMT

    Comarisions are interesting. But let's please give Shane the credit that's due to him.

  • Mampoer on January 8, 2007, 2:56 GMT

    Warne is a great spin bowler. Make no bones about it, but I think the purpose of this blog is raise an issue: we forget the past so quickly. Yes, Warne took 700+ wickets and retired - great feat in the 15 years that he bowled. The accolades that were sent his way mention him as the greatest spin bowler of all time. I don't believe that this is an accolade that he deserves. He is one of the greats. Numbers don't tell the whole story. Warne never achieved success against the one nation that truly plays spin well - India. He never succeeded against the true test of spin. South African batsmen were piss poor at playing spin, so too were the English, the Kiwis, the Windies. The Pakis and the Lankans had moderate to fair success against Warne.

    But in recent years, I cannot believe that this era has lacked the quality batsmen of past eras - the mighty Viv Richards, the great Graeme Pollock, Len Hutton etc, etc; except for Sachin and Lara. The Aussies have had good batsmen - but not greats like the aforementioned and for that reason I think that we need to weigh up the 700+ wickets of Warne. This era has been known for big totals, quick run making - a batsmen's paradise. Bowlers are at a disadvantage. Also, the sheer number of tests a year give bowlers the chance to get bigger career totals than ever.

    My personal opinion of Warne - great on the field, poor off it. And his attitude left a lot to be desired. This Aussie team leaves me cold when it comes to affection, but I admire them.

  • The Don on January 8, 2007, 2:39 GMT

    Richie Benaud is arguably a better bowler than Abdul Qadir never mind Warney.

    And Warne had his 1 year ban, so theres no point of bringing in drugs.

  • Dean on January 8, 2007, 2:19 GMT

    I think some of you guys need to Get the FACTS right and look at things in a unbias point of view, I havnt seen Qadir bowel so I cant comment about him, but what I am very frustrated with is the Murali bashing on here by ignorant and bias cricket fans. Lets address some of these points

    1) Murali gets a lot of wickets vs Bang and Zim. Yes he does, but how can you hold this against him? You can only play against the opponents who you are given. Its not Murali’s fault Sri lanka play Bangladesh more then Australia, maybe if the ACB give Sri Lanka more games in Australia in REAL pitches not in cairns etc, it might help. One can also argue that English batsmen in the late 90’s was no better then Bang players against spin, where warney takes a LOT of his wickets.

    2) Muralis action: Lets start with who called Murali for the first time, Mr Darrel Hair. Who is if not the, one of the most controversial umpires of all time and lets face it after the whole email fiasco, he is a disgraced man with his own agendas. Moving on from that Murali has taken test after test and it is PROVEN that murali DOES NOT throw, maybe some of you should see him bowel with a hand brace on where it is IMPOSSIBLE to throw with a brace on. Murali can dislocate his shoulder when bowling and has rubber like wrists, one cannot crucify a man for that?

    3) Some of you guys want to call Murali a ‘cheat’ and say how great warney is, well for your information, if 15 degrees of flex is ‘so wrong’ (in ref to the doosara) what about taking banned substances. Does most of you know what diuretics do? They MASK the use of steroids. If you got caught with a diuretic, would you say you took it to cover steroids or that ‘your mum gave it to you’? and what about the whole information about giving ‘pitch and weather’ reports. Which is pretty hilarious (and well coverd up by the ACB might I had). If Big shot Indian bookies wanted pitch and weather reports, let me tell you they don’t need Warne and mark Waughs help to get them. And speaking of cheating, I’m sure Simone Warne might have a thing or two to say about cheating too.

    3) Someone said Murali is a one man team, not true, and some people have said “vass is prob the only other guy to sometimes chip in with wickets” when you take over 300 wickets in both forms of the game (vass – 313 test and 370 ODI wickets) you don’t just ‘chip in with wickets’. Then there is Jayasuriya (who has 284 ODI wickets) who also being a spinner takes wickets away from Murali one can argue.

    4) Murali has taken plenty of test wickets vs India and Pakistan who are the best players of spin in the world.

    At the end of the day, I am not a shane warne basher, im just stating the facts, Warney will always be the greatest LEG SPIN bowler in the world, and one of the best cricketers the world has ever seen. And Murali will also be one of the best bowelers the worlds ever seen. One cant compare which one is better because they both are magicians in their own art. Even if murali gets a 1000 wickets, that will not make him a ‘better’ bowler then Warne, but lets not have cheap pot shots at another super star of the game because of your bias and ignorance.

  • Tim on January 8, 2007, 2:18 GMT

    Hi

    As an Englishman who has suffered both Warne and Qadir taking us to pieces I think I can put forward a reasonably unbiased view. Simply although Qadir was a very good bowler, he was never anyway near Warne's level. Warne has a case for being the best bowler ever.

    First the stats..

    Qadir Tests 67 Wks 236 Best 9/56 Av 32.80 SR 72.56

    Warne Tests 145 Wks 708 Best 8/71 Av 25.41 SR 57.49

    In addition if you look at Qadirs stats outside Pakistan, where the unpiring could be a little shall we say favourable (Shakoor Rana anyone.., you could say he didn't travel well.

    Ability

    Qadir was wonderfully talented, and yes he probably did have the better googly. Warne however can bowl one, and all his other delivery's are probably superior.

    Environment

    I think the stuff about umpires being more favourable to legspinners nowadays is rubbish. There is no evidence for it and Qadir certainly had favourable umpires at home, see above. Warne certainly played for a strong team with good selectors but at the start of his career a case could be made that he was the player that put them over the top and made them the force they are today. Qadir never came close to making Pakistan a really top side.

    All in all I think you have to say the Warne was clearly the better bowler over his career.

  • Dipto on January 8, 2007, 2:17 GMT

    Very recently, I read in an article in Cricinfo that Jimmy Amarnath once joked that gavaskar and he would always shout out 'googles' whenever Qadir bowled a googly. Having a googly that is as readable loses its effect. Anyway, few would disagree that Warne has more variation and CONTROL than Qadir. In other words, Warne is more complete as a bowler than Qadir.

  • james on January 8, 2007, 2:14 GMT

    well ok lets be honest,yes he was a better bowler infact he was the one who invented legspin or googly.nd ya u got good reasons to call him better.shane warn has taken most of his wickets against the weak team of england where as abdul qadir had to face the best english and most feared westindies team ever.take a look at this http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/38973.html

  • Hussey on January 8, 2007, 1:42 GMT

    I quite agree with almost all the 10 points of you, Mr.Abbasi.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on January 8, 2007, 1:38 GMT

    Keshav

    You may add 4 more consecutive sixes in Tendulkar's innings from your side, but that is not the truth. In my post above, I did mention about Tendulkar hitting 2 sixes to Qadir he remained 53 not out, and the two sixes hit Qadir were in the death overs, BUT Pakistan still WON that match by 4 runs. It was a 20 over EXHIBITION match which is not an ODI.

    If you are impressed only by SIXES then we have Shahid Afridi. Remember Kanpur Massacre 45/100? Kumble (6x3), Balaji(6x3), Powar(6x3), Zaheer Khan (6x1). Remember how Harbhajan Singh lost his bowling skills after Afridi smashed him for 4 consecutive sixes (6x6, 20x4, 156 in 128 balls) in the 2nd test match in Faislabad on January 21, 2006?

    NOW TAKE A CHILL PILL AND RELAX. :-)

    Vinod Kambli hit 3 consecutive sixes and a 4, total 23 runs in Shane Warne's one over in Sharjah and that was an ODI.

    When Murali will break Shane Warne's record, Australians will not accept him and they will call him a CHUCKER. But they will ignore the fact that WARNEY was banned for DRUG TAKING. In any case Qadir was definitely a better bowler than Shane Warne.

  • Shabi on January 8, 2007, 1:36 GMT

    i think this comparison is totally irrelevent....Warney is,in my opinion, the greatest ever crickter to have walked the planet...The author of article has come up with really crap comparison and has twisted the facts and figures..probably he doesnt have a cricketing sense so let him alone

  • Myst on January 8, 2007, 1:32 GMT

    Those who say that Qadir could not be a better bowler than Warne as his bowling average is seven runs higher should be prepared to concede for the same reason that Warne is not as good a bowler as Muralitharan.

  • Pete on January 8, 2007, 1:19 GMT

    I cant believe this article has even been written! Warne has had to compete with arguably the best fast bowler ever (Mc Grath) for all his wickets, not to mention the other fantastic bowlers Australia have had in their arsenal over the years warnie has been playing! not only that but he has had to play most of his cricket in Australia etc, and not on the sub-continent which is obviously alot more spin friendly. Murali in my mind is second best spinner, but again has played 75% of his cricket on turning pitches and has always been Sri Lankas dominate bowler, making it easier for him to take wickets. he will finish above warnie on the record books, but is no where near the quality of shane warne.. i dont think anyone ever will be. the batsmen today may not look as classic technique wise but have a look at ricky Ponting and Rahul Dravid. they play these days, and have near the second and third best average ever in the history of the game after playing more than 30 tests. so to say warnie has had to bowl at worse batsmen is a silly thing to say. Warnie is the greatest ever, fullstop.

  • SBJT on January 8, 2007, 1:13 GMT

    Qadir was an oustanding bowler but I vididly remember him securing lbw decisions from Pakistani umpires to balls that pitched well outside leg stump meaning that batsmen had to play at everything or risk being shafted.

  • Eastman on January 8, 2007, 1:12 GMT

    Some Warne fans are suggesting that he was better because he lasted longer (15 years) and because he had 500 more wickets than Qadir. May be if Qadir also knew how to take diuretics, he could still be bowling today.

    As far as the argument of Qadir having the advantage of home umpires goes, who says the aussie umpires are not biased. The disgraced Darryl Hair having the distinction to be the first and only umpire to be kicked out of the elite panel is a living example of biased aussie umpires. It was not until 2002 that ICC started appointing both neutral umpires for tests. Before that australian players got plenty of help from their home umpires.

  • Jake on January 8, 2007, 0:48 GMT

    Qadir better than warne -lol you must be joking. The West Indies have always been poor players against spin. It was warne that changed spin bowling, especially wrist-spin, it was him who inspired bowlers to take up spin. He gave spin a reputation. Remember in those days the pitches were most suited to bowlers compared pitches today. Where batsman play on virtually flat decks. Warne was a genius - he played against the batsman in the world on various pitches and conditions. He played against the ICCXI. The Indians have always been excellent against spin, but warner poor average their, is only cause the Indians are pathetic against pace bowling, which meant if they were to score runs they had to come from the spinners. I mean after England, the Pakistanis are the worst to play against spin - it just doesnt make any sense for them to produce a decent spinner? I mean Kaneria come on?

  • John on January 8, 2007, 0:40 GMT

    Had Warne played against the Pakistani batting lineup of Zaheer, Miandad and Malik of the eighties, they would have chewed him up and spit him out for fun...Warne is lucky to had the likes of Basit Ali, Ijaz Ahmed, Aamir Sohail, Moin Khan and rest of the tailenders to contend with, rather then the classical and more skillful batsmen of the seventies and eighties...

  • Raj on January 8, 2007, 0:39 GMT

    For the nth time, stop believing that we perfected the art of legspinning. There were several more legspinners from Australia before Qadir like Grimmett, Mailey, and Benaud.

  • Raj on January 8, 2007, 0:34 GMT

    Regan P, you are using totally wrong information. Qadir had a horrible record against India - here are his stats: 16 matches 27 wickets Best of 4/67 Avg:51.51 There is a reason Shane Warne played 145 test matches, because he was good enough to keep picking wickets and he could not be dropped even when carrying an injury or recovering from one.

    And where did you get the notion that Abdul Qadir, B.S. Chadrasekhar and Mushtaq Ahmed turned the ball more than him - you seem to know nothing about these bowlers. Chandra was like Kumble and Oreilly, fast fast legspinners. He was as fast as Kumble and turned it about the same as him. Mushtaq's videos are on youtube, and he turns his googly more than his legspinner, which means he barely turns the legspinner unless he is bowling on a dustbowl. The only occasion where I saw him turn it big was on a dustbowl against Zimbabwe agaist Andy Flower. But then Shane could turn it a mile even on decent wickets. Qadir once again was famous for the loop, and the nous, and variety, not big turn. There is only McGill who trumps Warne on turn but to claim they turned it even anywhere close to Shane shows extreme ignorance of the what the they are talking about.

  • Keshav on January 8, 2007, 0:08 GMT

    One thing is common between Qadir and Warne. Both were destroyed by Tendulkar. Qadir had the ignominy of Tendulkar slapping him for 4 consecutive sixes when he was 16 years old. Qadir is a good bowler. But his record is also not exactly great against India. Infact it is worse if i recount. Topic is a futile exercise. Warne is touted as the greated bowler to ever to bowl. You are comparing Qadir to him. Let me tell you. Chandrasekar is better than Qadir.

  • John A on January 7, 2007, 23:52 GMT

    To compare the greats is a foolish endeavour to say the least, however there are some important little things to look at here.

    1) The reason that Qadir could bowl the variations of the googly was his higher arm action, allowing him to bowl more off to leg deliveries. 2)Qadir did not have to my knowledge the same ability to rip a legspinner like warne, on any pitch. 3) Warne took wickets on pitches DOCTORED to neutralise his ability to spin the ball: look no further than the 05 ashes, and check out all the statements by the groundsmen. This is in contrast to pakastani dustbowls which along with rancid umpiring(which continues with Aleem Dar(just ask damien martyn) allowed Qadir to take vast bags of wickets on his home grounds, we never really saw the same returns on foreign pitches. 4)Warne took his wickets with the competition of Glenn McGrath, Stuart MacGill and Gillespie(when he was in his prime), Now these are some great bowlers, with massive hauls of wickets, and Warne often missed out on getting wickets for this reason: Qadir did not have this problem as pointed out by Kamran: Imran and Qadid then rubbish.

    Finally i note the mention of Kumble as a legspinner, and i disagree throughly: To be a legspinner you need to be able to turn the ball: Kumbles arm action is nearly offspin, and the only type of spin he gets is the topspinner and the googly: hence he is an average topspinner(who once again performs on locations where the pitch is crumbling). Murali is a smart bowler, i will give him that credit. However that being said he is a cheat: Darrel Hair said it, was ignored, then the ICC confirmed it and allowed him to continue to play. They even changed the rules for him, which is dubious to say the least. Brian Lara rates warne higher than Murali: He open says that Murali you can hit off his line, but Warne, no matter if your on 1 or 100 he is always trying to work you out, containing you, mesmerising you to get you out.

    Either way, I feel Qadir deserves credit for continuing a dieing art, but will never be considered equal to warnes mastery and control of legspin.

    John A

  • Ian M on January 7, 2007, 23:31 GMT

    A difference of 7 runs between the averages of the two players and a discrepancy of almost 500 wickets should put an end to this debate. Greatness should be measured over a career, not by certain spells, where luck can be a contributing factor. Also, many of your arguments are questionable. You seem to base some of them on the fact that Warne played in a better team than Quadir, which therefore lessens his achievements (at least in comparison). This does not follow, however. One could also argue that, because Warne played in a far better team, he had fewer opportunities to take wickets, because he had Glenn McGrath and co. cleaning up at the other end too. Qadir, however, could wheel away and collect more than his fair share, because the other bowlers weren't taking wickets. Also, you argue that the West Indies team of Qadir's era were better than anything Warne has faced. Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Rahul Dravid, Jaques Kallis . . . the list of great batsmen Warne has had to battle goes on and on. Oh and finally, Warne bowled a superb googly until he decided to shelve it because of his shoulder problems. I suggest that your next player comparison is a little more realistic!

  • Regan P on January 7, 2007, 22:42 GMT

    Shane Warne and Abdul Qadir were 2 great spinners. Shane is great b'coz he lasted more years than Abdul Qadir. In terms of skill,I find it hard to pick between the two. One measure of a spinners effectiveness is his bowling stats aganist subcontinent teams. In this area, Shane Warne has a decent record aganist Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Aganist India, Shane's record is very ordinary.

    Abdul Qadir has a good record aganist all teams(Subcontinent and other teams). But he did not last as long as Shane did. Probably he has not as much desire as Shane.

    In terms of skill and talent, there were probabaly better leggies than Shane. But they could not do what Shane did in terms of consistency over 17 years of test cricket. For that single reason, Shane Warne has to rank higher than any other leggie.

    Talking purely in terms of talent I am sure many would agree with me that there were many leggies like Abdul Qadir, B.S. Chandrasekhar, Mushtaq Ahmed who had immense talent. They could turn the ball as much as Shane Warne did.

    Have fun!!! Great topic!!!

    Regan P

  • Phani on January 7, 2007, 22:37 GMT

    I had the fortune of witnessing both of them and must say equally mesmerised by both great bowlers. YES, I do agree Qadir had a great googly that Warne lacked but may be Warne never felt the necessity of acquiring one with all that success. No one can doubt Warne's work ethic. Also he has been a better batsman and a fielder. Well Lillee did not have a toe crushing yorker....

  • Kapz on January 7, 2007, 22:15 GMT

    This argument is totally uselesss. Abdul qadir was poor, todays modern greats out play these talents. Warne a man with 700+ wickets no match in comparison to Qadir. Murali 1000+ international "hardest bowler to face" says Flintoff. Qadir might have been good but Warne & Murali are on a different level

  • Bis Das on January 7, 2007, 22:05 GMT

    GK

    Can you post your Islamophobic and racist bile on some other website, like the Klu Klux Klan's for example? They have no place in a civilized discourse.

    While I myself have reservations about the wisdom of Mr. Abbassi's piece, he has a perfect right to express his opinion regarding Qadir and Warne (or anything else for that matter) without being subjected to inanely rabid abuse.

  • indiarox on January 7, 2007, 22:03 GMT

    warne is a better bowler compare the wickets warne the only bowler to take 700 wickets (for now) shane warne has got more 5 fers and more 4 fers than qadir but warne did play more matches but even if qadir played same number of matches warnie did he still wouldnt be better than qadir

  • Khalid Shahzad on January 7, 2007, 22:02 GMT

    I have been reading Kamran's comments for a while now and i do appreciate his knowledge of cricket. I have followed the careers of both Qadir and Warne and having been an ardent cricket lover for the better part of 20 years, i think i can shed a bit of light on this issue. Being a Pakistani myself and a passionate follower of my team, it would have been easy to take the side of Kamran. However it would have been a great injustice to the supreme skills of Shane Warne. There is simply no comparison here.Shane Warne is too great a bowler to be even compared to Abdul Qadir.Possessing a googly doesnt necessarily make one a great legspinner. Even i can bowl an effective googly! This in my opinion is an absurd comment. I saw nearly all of Qadir's Test matches and the amount of support he got from home umpires was simply unbelieavable.I felt ashamed then, and i still do,at the blatant incompetence ( to put it mildly)of home umpires, most of which were not even fit to stand in club cricket.He was a good bowler but by no means great. Getting heaps of wickets at a poor average on raging home doctored wickets at home doesnt make one a great bowler. Shane has brought such beauty to the game with his supreme skills. It was worth paying money to just see him bowl and i have been fortunate to see him live in Pakistan. I guess it would be sheer injustice to this supremely gifted bowler to even compare him that ordinary mortal, Abdul Qadir. My countrymen might not agree with me, but then the truth is always bitter, isnt it! Tnaks Warney for making this game so wonderful to watch and we will miss u. The game will be pooreer without u.

  • Ram Sharma on January 7, 2007, 21:54 GMT

    As an Indian I am dismayed by the bias displayed by some Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans in their responses. But it it is this blog which is mainly to blame for awakening such latent prejudices with its crude zenophobia.

    Guys - just because you are Indian doesn't make Kumble or Chandrashekar or Gupte the greatest ever leg spinner and Murali cheat. Just because you are Sri Lankan does not make Murali the greatest ever spinner and Warne a cheat. And just because you are Pakistani does not make the Indian spinners crap or Qadir the best.

    Learn to see beyond your national prejudices. The greatest wicket taker in history has just announced his retirement - can't we as cricket lovers simply pay homage to him and thank our lucky stars we were fortunate to see him play!

  • usman awan on January 7, 2007, 21:52 GMT

    i have read many of the comments i agree that shane is a world class spinner but qadir is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Maksood Chaiwalla on January 7, 2007, 21:47 GMT

    Here we are talking about the two greatest bowlers of their times. *Abdul Qadir who came at a time when the art of leg spin had almost diminished. He used to be a treat to watch. His run up, his approach to the crease, and that anticipation with every delivery he bowled. * Warne to me has successfully carried the becon which was ignited by Qadir and would rate him on even terns. Both had this urge of expecting a wicket of every delivery they bowled. Apart from bowling the conventional leg breaks Abdul Qadir used his googly and the straight ball to great effect. I have witnessed him dismiss Sunil Gavasker (who to me was a master technician of the game and the best player against spin bowling), with his googlys. Warne again to me stands on even terms in this aspect. Not until his shoulder operation he used to bowl the googly with good effect and later he developed his sliders and the flat, fast, big spinning leg break which has accounted for many of his 700+ test victims. Both Warne and Qadir had a big heart, fearless, lots of patience when the going gets tough, wait for the batsmen to make mistakes and their ability to kill the game at the slighest opportunity they got. Its not at all fair comparing these two greats. Both are responsible for creating a great deal of interest in the art of leg spin world wide. I have watched a lot of guys copyinge Abdul Qadir's and Warne's action. Both have contributed in their own ways a lot to the game. One should never forget that Warne himself considered Qadir as his hero and that the next breed of leg spinners will be greatly inspired by Warne.

  • Sudhakar G on January 7, 2007, 21:41 GMT

    Qadir was no doubt a great leg-spinner. I still remember Qadir bowling something like six different googlies in an over. It was outstanding stuff. While its extremely easy to compare the two greats - Qadir & Warne statiscally, its purely subjective when one tries to compare just the "art" of leg spin, without taking wickets into consideration. From an "art" point of view, I too feel that Qadir was lot more a classical legspinner. The other legspinner who promised greatness but never achieved anything close to Qadir or Warne is India's Laxman Sivaramakrishnan!!

  • Ray Harris on January 7, 2007, 21:36 GMT

    It would seem that Abdul Qadir begs to disagree with you! Here is what Dawn quotes him as saying to commemorate Warne's achievement in taking 700 wickets.

    "Shane Warne is the greatest bowler in cricket history and I don't have the words to describe his class and success. He has proved to be a remarkably talented and incredibly effective bowler against all oppositions."

  • JAYASOORYA on January 7, 2007, 21:31 GMT

    Personally, i do not think that Dr Abbasi is trying to belittle Warne. He may be doing it to create a little bit of sensational journalism, but i think it is needed.

    Sometimes, when we are overcome with sentimentality, we tend not to see the chinks in the armours of the champion who is making his last stand.

    It is necessary for everyone to know the history of legspinning art, which was perfected in South Asia.

    And Subhash Gupte, B.S chandrashekhar and Abdul Qadir were the torchbearers.

    No one is seeing Warne's achievements lightly, but his records will remain scarred by the doping incident.

    The drug tests were able to trace only a diuretic. And Dr Abbasi, being a doctor should be aware that diuretics are used to conceal the use of actual steroids.

    Need i say anything more?

    Let us celebrate Warne. He was a maverick.

  • Bis Dasgupta on January 7, 2007, 21:27 GMT

    Why don't we hear what Abdul Qadir himself has to say? Here he is talking to Voice of America after Warne took his 700th wicket.

    "Shane Warne is the greatest bowler in the history of Test cricket and I fail to find words that can match or measure his success."

    Qadir goes on:

    "I feel honoured that Warne learnt the great skills and finer aspects of leg-break bowling from me...".

    Perhaps this best describes the relationship between the two - the pupil who surpassed his master, which is always a desirable outcome for human developoment and evolution.

  • Bilsher on January 7, 2007, 21:24 GMT

    Abdul qadir revived the art of leg spin bowling which is confirmed by many former international cricketing legends. Many of you don't have the intelligence to understand in the context kamran abbasi has written the article. Qadir was great and had many varieties but perhaps less control and not a too great record abroad whereas warne with less varieties ended with envious record abroad and home. But having said that people must remember that batting quality was far better back in the 80s and so was global cricket coverage. Both are great legendary bowlers but i believe had warne had better control. India never really had a great leg spinner. India had fine off spinners venkatravan,prasanna and maninder, fine left arm spinner in bedi and fine leg spinner in chandrsekhar. But if you remember hariharan pakistan's great batsmen zaheer abbas and javed miandad cut india's famous four spinners venkatravan,prasanna, bedi and chandrsekhar to ribbons.

  • Anurudda on January 7, 2007, 21:11 GMT

    Dear Kmaran , You did not have to give 10 reasons to make a case of Qadir’s superiority over Warne though only ONE REASON would have sufficed………Warne was found guilty of supplying imformation to bookies and thanks to the cover up by the ACB( for over THREE YEARS the ACB hid the fact from the rest of the world) whereas Qadir did not indulge in "fixing" matches .Also Warne was found guilty of taking drugs . Talking of match fixing , I believe the excuse trotted out by ACB that Warne and Mark Waugh merely provided a pitch report is a red herring . Why would anyone pay to get a pitch report when its given FREE before the start of the match .Therefore , Warne is guilty of match fixing and should have been banned for life , which was the punishment meted out to Salim Malik , Azhar and Hansie Cronje . If there are any aussies out there who want to confirm the above pl.refer the country site of Australia on cricinfo (http://content-sl.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/273491.html ) The following was copied from the above link “ 1995-Mark Waugh and Warne were fined by the then ACB, now Cricket Australia, after admitting they supplied match information to an Indian bookmaker. The ACB covered up the scandal, but the media exposed it three years later “ Do any of the skeptics need any more proof of Warne’s guilt ? Kamran , You are correct in saying Qadir was the better than Warne, but the best of them all is I believe our own Mutthiah Muralidaran .

  • Raman on January 7, 2007, 21:05 GMT

    Sounds like a case of sour grapes. The article doesnt do justice to either of the greats. They were both stalwarts in their own respects. Comparing the two is pointless. Just forget the chest-thumping Kamran and learn to enjoy good cricket!

  • Sunny on January 7, 2007, 20:58 GMT

    "Sure", Qadir is much much better than Warne. Infact, thats probably why a panel of cricket experts from around the world rated "Qadir" as one of five Wisden Cricketers of the Century.

    Look out for more blogs from Kamran Abbasi in the very near future:

    - Kamran Akmal shadows Gilchrist in terms of glovework/explosive batting,

    - Mohammad Sami is the best pace bowler of them all (far better then Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall, the lot),

    - Imran Farhat should be giving fielding tips to Jonty Rhodes, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds, etc

    - and finally, Inzamam is the best runner between wickets the cricketing world has ever seen.

    How's that Mr Abbasi? These ought to get you some more hits on your blog. Your welcome.

    P.S. No disrespect to Abdul Qadir.

  • Atif on January 7, 2007, 20:47 GMT

    I agree with you Kamran... Qadir was the best the world has ever produced. All his peers and best batsmen of his era agreed with your view. If he had played for Australia or even England, we would have heard more about him... but I guess, it is high time we give the man the tribute that he deserves....

  • Hariharan on January 7, 2007, 19:35 GMT

    Dear Mr. Abbasi, First and foremost anybody and everybody can write and say anything. And to me that is what you have done. Your analysis doest not hold good from any angle. You may get praises only from poor Pakis. Not even one knowledgable cricket fan would vote for Abdul Qadir. As far as the spin department is concerned there has been only one true nation and that is Great India. Being an Indian I am proud to say that. You are saying about googly. Yes, my brother in his college days was a good googly bowler. So does this make him a better bowler. If he was soooo gooood then why is he nowhere in the records. Yes, Warne bowls a lot of leg breaks. But the spin in the ball (degree) is what accounts for the dismissals. He had brains to test the batsmen. He was well rewarded for his persistence. If he was not that good you would not have heard about him for 14 years. So quit comparing your no good bowler to someone who has shown to the world what the spin can achieve. I can tell you for a fact that Murali and Kumble are equally good and these three have in a long way kept the art of spin bowling alive and not your Abdul Qadir.

  • Jamal on January 7, 2007, 19:16 GMT

    Kamran I agree to some extent. Although you are by no means trying to belittle Warne's achievements but this is how most of the readers would see it. Qadir did revive the dieing but Warne greatness can also be seen from the fact that the 2000's have been the time of the batsmen. Never in the history of the game have so many batsmen averaged over 50! Qadir's era was one dominated by bowlers and I can only recall Miandad, Gavasker and Border averaging over 50. Saying one was a better bowler than the other, well Qadir did have variations in his googly.

  • john on January 7, 2007, 18:56 GMT

    One thing that Warne and Qadir have in common they are both immensley dislikeable, I saw both in prime,Qadir was a bad tempered prima donna and Warne a bully. That said as much as it pains me as an Englishman to say it, SK Warne is the greatest bowler to ever play the game. The debate is totally illogical as Qadir probably wouldnt scrape in top 50 cricketers of last century.Can I also reiterate what others have said Murali is a chucker and doesnt deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Quadir never mind Warne.

  • Farooq Dar on January 7, 2007, 18:39 GMT

    Kamran fantastic comparison,but may i add few moredifferences between these 2 great bowlers of course tipping the balance in favour of Abdul Qadir-Qadir could throw 6 different bowels in an over at will than warne could-Qadir used the crease more intelligently and effectively than warne has done-Qadir had a better flight in his deliveries than warne-these are not just my own observations but statements from test playing cricketers i have met and who played qadir-Derek randall made a hundred against pakistan but confessed he did not have a clue where the ball would pitch(personal meeting at a cricket dinner).lastly-if you read the autobiography of the most famous and respected umpire of his time Mr.Harold Bird(Dickie)you will find his reasons of placing Abdul Qadir above shane warne.People probably do not realise that Abdul Qadir had a short career (Injuries +PCB)so he did not have time to mature & learn like warne did.So if you are comparing few years of spin bowling as compared to shanes almost 16 or so,then it speaks of itself.

  • Hammad on January 7, 2007, 18:24 GMT

    I would agree on the fact but given the amount of cricket played today and Qadir being deprived of that maybe that factor has eluded him from being a great ...

  • Nightwatchman on January 7, 2007, 18:13 GMT

    No Kamran no. I have been a stauch Pak supporter for more than 30 yrs and I do not agree with you. Qadir, for all the plaudits he won and all the skill he possessed, did not acheive half the successes Warne did. ON PAPER, he was a great bowler but did he transform that into results? The answer is no. You can count on fingers (perhaps on one hand) the number of good spells he bowled outside Pakistan. The 7-for he got at Oval in '82? Even then he failed in the 2nd innings, unable to convert a huge 1st innings lead into a victory. What else? Imran Khan, his biggest admirer had to DROP him on Indian tour of 87...on a spinner's wicket where Tauseef and Iqbal Qasim bowled Pak to a famous victory. I have always felt Qadir's talent were over-romanticised, perhaps because he was reviving a dead art. Talent and skill counts but you have to tabsfrom these into results. Enough has been said above about their respective varities. I will just add that Warne was very accurate compared to Qadir who had the tendency to bowl one or two very ordinary delivery every over. PS: We could have done without all the childish comments posted by some Aussies and Asian fans.

  • Ronnie on January 7, 2007, 18:00 GMT

    Its amazing how so many people are willing to debate over something which is totally baseless. I say this because two great bowlers of different era's simply cannot be compared.

  • Rishi on January 7, 2007, 17:16 GMT

    This has probably been mentioned more than once in the 382 comments before this one, but possessing a better googly doesn't mean being a better bowler. Venkatesh Prasad had a better slower ball than anyone else, but he isn't counted as one of even India's better bowlers. You still need to make the best use of your armory. Also, if Warne had the additional cushion of a great attack, then others would have also pouched wickets, (as did McGrath). There are only twenty wickets you can get in a test match, and it wasn't like Warney opened the bowling either. And on Warne being in a better side, I suppose there would be competition to stay there, and at times he has had to give way to MacGill, he has also had to overcome various injuries and bans to keep his place.

    As for the last two arguments, I have opinions too, and they don't agree with what any Scyld Berry or Graham Gooch have to say. And I'm sure I'm not in a one-member club either.

    Your post doesn't provide reasons as to why Qadir was a better bowler; it merely speculates as to why he achieved less than he could have.

  • Ajay on January 7, 2007, 17:09 GMT

    What is the point of this statement? History will still remember Warne as among the greatest ever whereas Abdul Qadir, for all his skill will only be consigned to the ranks of being decent. For that matter based on his record, Anil Kumble is also a better leg spinner than Abdul Qadir.

  • John Malkowich on January 7, 2007, 17:05 GMT

    The author makes several mistakes in the comparison 1. In pointing out Qadir's googlies he misses Warne's flippers

    2. Warne played most of his test matches outside the subcontinent. Qadir's bowling average outside home is 47.58. Huh ?

    3. Both Qadir and Warne got thrashed by India. So there is not point involving India into the comparison.

    4. Qadir had one 5 wicket haul againt West Indies and played 7 of their 10 tests at home. I wouldn't call it great sucess.

    5.Yes, Warne had the luxury of a great team. But that might work both ways. He had to share his spoils with good bowlers like Glenn McGrath, Gillespie etc. In our current generation we have two greats, Murali and Warne, both playing for very different teams. Murali has achieved probably more after playing a lone hand with little support from his team bowlers. Warne on the other hand has had some pressure building help from his bowlers but this also results in some wickets stolen. So it works both ways.

    6. Bringing the Pakistan cricket system into the comparison is a poor self-insulting idea.

    6. Bringing umpires into the comparison is controversial and cannot be proven either ways.

    Qadir was great, so is Warne and so is Murali and so were the likes of Bedi, Benaud, Grimmett. Comparison across generations is foolish and a website filling tactic.

  • Damon on January 7, 2007, 16:47 GMT

    They will worship in the same Church but Warnie will be seated in a Pew just ahead Qadir!

  • Alagu on January 7, 2007, 16:43 GMT

    I totally agree with the author.. I am a big fan of Sachin Tendulkar.. When he first came in to the India's tour to Pakistan in 1989, I thought Sachin was just too much of hype and the way he got out in the first match supported my view.. Then came an unofficial one dayer in which he hit some huge sixes of Abdul Qadir, who used to be my favorite Paki bowler at that time.. From that point on I became a fan of Sachin.. I am also a big fan of Shane; but Qadir was more special!

  • Imran Butt on January 7, 2007, 16:31 GMT

    Kamran mentioned about Graham Gooch, which is correct but also he forgets to mention Salim Malik who was interviewed some years ago (bearing in mind Salim Malik is considered by many as one of the best ever Pakistani batsman to play Warne and other spinners with authority) reiterated this fact very vividly. He was asked about his effectiveness against Warne and to respond to that question he quipped “I have played great spinners in Pakistan domestic, and one of the most prominent among them was A.Qadir. So when you have got the opportunity to play against “Master” so should face no problems to face the mortals (Here he subtly referred mortal to Warne) after that” Not very surprising when in 1994 and on wards Malik always negated Warne’s effect to perfection. No disgrace to Warne but when it comes to the best of the best batsmen of spin then you have to heed their points, modern batsmen how good they are I think it is evident in the recent round table conferences and in last year’s Champions Trophy as well, that when the pitches becomes bouncier and conducive more seam movement how skilful the modern great batsmen are (Not to forget that in Champions Trophy 2006 in India any of the world batsman who participated in that tournament failed to register a single century) we have all seen it perfectly. One quick jab to those who are keep murmuring that Qadir’s away record was awe full and he got the assistance from the local umpires then we should not forget the behaviour of so called competent umpires as well over the years, when Pakistan was denied for a well deserved victory over Aussies in Hobart in 1999 and later on the conduct of D.Hair of Australia, to named a few in a long list of “good neutral” non Asian umpires. Everyone should have the moral courage to admit this fact that prejudice do prevail in every Test playing nation and its not confined to Asian nations only. Long live the great legend of leg spin of Pakistan, Abdul Qadir, which I will term him (Like many philosophers do refer Aristotle in the same vein) the first master of leg spin in modern era and later on maybe Kumble and Warne can be termed as the second or third (the rankings can be shifted according to the concerned fans of relevant countries) masters following the great footsteps of A.Qadir.

  • Muhammad on January 7, 2007, 16:15 GMT

    Hello friends

    Qadir was no doubt a genius but Warne took it to new peaks...Warne is untouchable....we all know that...dudes the thing is writer wanted to trigger a huge debate and he succeeded :)

  • jarred on January 7, 2007, 15:53 GMT

    The comments have made for very interesting reading, especially the points made about comparing players from different eras and how it's just impossible to make objective, qualitative determinations as to who was/is better? The game has changed so much and Ian Chappell in particular [during Chanell 9's recent Ashes commentary, has made the point that the introduction of helmets has resulted in a lot more "front foot" play from batsmen; whereas they had to 'rock back' and play on the back foot to some of the nastier quicks of days gone by.

    I currently reside in Australia and having had the privilege of watching Shane Warne bowl for the first and only time last summer when South Africa toured was a real treat. There is so much that makes 'Warnie' an almost transcendental cricketer - maverick, magician of a bowler, hyper-competitor, an iron-will to win and a brilliant cricketing mind! Is he the greatest leg-spinner ever? Possibly. The arguement that Qadir's better because he had to play against better teams and batsmen with less support is flawed. There is an old adage in sports - "you can only beat what's infront of you". Warne could only ever bowl to those who were before him and the fact that the cream of the crop were on his side cannot be held against him. Ravi Shastri said that even as he was tonking Warnie around on his debut he could tell that he was going to be something special. He remarked that never once did he see Warnie's resolve wilt and that he just kept coming at him. That, to me defines Shane Keith Warne - attacking all the time, asking the batsmen questions with every ball, teasing them, taunting them, flirting with them and almost always, sending them on their way. There is romance in a Warne delivery - the 'flight' that enthralls, the 'drift' that fixates, the 'drop' that caresses and the 'kiss' that takes an edge and goes to hand. Is Warnie the greatest leg-spinner ever? In my humble opinion, it would be difficult to say otherwise.

    Is Warnie the best bowler ever though? This is where Australian hubris, bordering on arrogant self-absorption and short-sightedness takes on a whole new dimension. Just as it is spurious, in the face of Warne's record against Qadir's, to say that the latter is better than the former, one Muttiah Muralitharan stands steadfastly in the way of the Aussie bandwagon.

    That has always amazed me about Australians in the discussion about the best bowler of all time. They will innevitably point to the fact that Murali has collected quite a few of his wickets against weeker opponents [Warne himself has suggested as much]. As pointed out earlier, you can only beat what's infront of you and that fact should not count against you - just as it shouldn't when comparing Warne against Qadir, so it shouldn't when comparing Murali against Warne. In the face of this, the Aussie bandwagon will almost innevitably revert to the whole Murali's a 'cheater/chucker' fiasco. He has been cleared by the bio-mechanics lab at the University of Western Australia and in fact; it was research conducted during this fiasco that revealed most bowlers were bending their arms beyond the allowable limits and changes in the rules relating to allowable degrees.

    When Martin Crowe dredged up the non-issue once again when Murali was putting his kiwis through the mill recently, a member of the panel that investigated and cleared Murali remarked that Crowe-y was wrong - and that the true reason for Murali's 'elastic wrist' is because he happens to have a "double-jointed wrist like you wouldn't believe!"

    Whilst the purported illegality of Murali's action is constantly brought up to temper his genius and the accolades he so richly deserves; in their eagerness and hyperbole to annoit Shane Warne the greatest thing at all things cricket since 'The Don' himself, Australians conveniently 'forget' how he was banned for a year for using a banned substance. Let us not forget that the diuretic he purportedly took to reduce the puffiness of his appearance is one that is commonly used as a masking agent in connection with the use of anabolic steroids. His one year ban was pathetic at best and raises the question of whether drug-use is properly policed in cricket as it is in other sports.

    Shane Keith Warne - greatest leg-spinner of all time and phenomenal cricketer. In fact, that's how I will remember Warnie - a supreme cricketer and not just a bowler. His impact on the on his team-mates, opponents, fan base and the game itself - the drama he brought and the compulsive viewing he undoubtedly was. An amazing cricketer the likes of which will be close to irreplaceable and unlikely to be seen again soon.

    Best spinner and bowler of all time? In all likelihood it will be Murali by the time he finishes up. By then he would have far surpassed Warnie's number of wickets even after subtracting the wickets of supposedly 'weaker opposition' from that tally. Then, Australians will only be left with the most hollow of arguements, that the greatest bowler of all time is/was nothing but a chucker!

  • Arfat on January 7, 2007, 15:52 GMT

    Even after taking Kamran's arguments in to account. I think Warne is still a better bowler than Qadir.

    The change in the interpretation of lbws is perhaps the most significant in recent years and accounts for a large percentage of wickets picked up by both Warne and Murali. I remember a series between India and West Indies in the late 90's when Jimmy Adams scored an obcene amount of runs (largely with the aid of his pads - hence the term Paddams). I can't imagine that happening these days because the umpires are more likely to give lbws if you are padding a spinner.

    I do believe that it has made test cricket more exciting and helped produce more results.

  • S.Rajasekaran on January 7, 2007, 15:39 GMT

    By Watever has been said of QADIR above....one thing is for sure...u r comparing two gr8's of two different eras...this surely unfair..but for sure warne had some of easiest wickets than QADIR.....only because they dont know how to play spin..wat ever the case might be....both produced some greatest turning deliveries stunning batsmen....they have really given gr8 entertainment to all of us who have seen watching them

  • Rahul on January 7, 2007, 15:23 GMT

    Lets be honest all real cricket fans compare great players from different era's...it's what we do for fun! and yes there is a point to it. Is the only measure of bowling greatness how many wickets you take,come the end of your career? Qadir certainly was as at least as skillful and certainly more artful a spinner than Warne...definately more interesting to watch. Does that make him greater who knows?...but in terms of entertainment he was for me.

  • Humphrey Johnson on January 7, 2007, 15:18 GMT

    Qadir didn't do as much as Warney? Are you mad? The reason why legspin is still alive is because of Abdul Qadir!!! Check out what Mr. "I look down on everyone" Warne thinks about Abdul. He was Warnes hero!

  • naeem on January 7, 2007, 15:16 GMT

    I am fully agree with Mr. Kamran's analysis and would like to add without being biased that Warn took his most of the LBW's by influencing the umpires with the aggresive and renowned hostile aussies behavior and attitude. I still remember once Shane warn visited Abdul Qadir personally to have a tips and by doing that Warne himself gave a great respect to the legend of leg spinner Abdul Qadir. For Mr Juggle Abdul Qadir didn't took wickets in Pakistan due to umpires and you should better to say this for Kapil Dev whose name was Apeal dev when took 90% wickets for LBW while playing in India.

  • Big Max on January 7, 2007, 15:05 GMT

    Geez, this one has created a lot of feedback. Qadir was definitely the best spinner of the 80s, but as mentioned in many posts above, his record outside of Pakistan was not good. But let's look at pure stats. Warne's average was 25.4 and Qadir's 32.8. Warne took 4.9 wickets per Test and Qadir took 3.2 Warne's strike rate was 57 balls per wicket and Qadir's was 72. And Warne bowled only 4 overs per Test more than Qadir - 47 to 43 - to get such greater results. If Qadir had performed well overseas, then maybe there would be a comparison. But add this with the above stats, and the fact that nobody has been blowing Qadir's trumpet on the world stage for many years, suggests strongly that Mr. Kamran is only posting this type of blog to stoke controversy, or display overt patriotism. Imran was Pakistan's greatest bowler. Qadir was a great leg spinner who deserves to remembered as such. By the way Mr. Kamran...don't forget a one Richie Benaud. He took 248 wickets in 63 Tests, averaged 27 per wicket and 3.9 wickets per Test. Those stats are still better than Qadir's.....

  • The Don on January 7, 2007, 14:30 GMT

    Qadir couldn't buy a wicket in Australia. He lacked the imagination, variety and cunning to get wickets when conditions didn't suit him. The comparison is a joke.

    Warne is the king 700+ test wickets

    It's well known that Warne did not have a great googly. However, batsmen around the world commented on the fizzing sound as the ball approached. He could turn the ball square on non turning wickets. His slider, zooter, flipper, and vriations of leggy were better than Qadir. Watching Qadir bowl on Australian wickets showed his weaknesses. He couldn't get wickets in Australia. He needed turners where everything was in his favour. Warne was cunning. Qadir had nothing when conditions didn't suit him. He was a good bowler. Warne was a great bowler

    Warne was the first ever bowl to bowl flippers to dismiss batsmen... other bowlers only used it effectively against Tailenders

    remember back to Warnes 7/52 against the Windies at the G... bowled Richardson with a flipper.. and many others.. Cullinan etc. haha and Stewart

    Warne is voted #4 in the Wisden greatest cricketers of all time .. and this extract is accurate

    "Everyone wanted to be a fast man like Lillee and Thommo, Holding, Ambrose and Malcolm Marshall. Who could possibly have thought that leg-breaks would be trendy again? Then along came a thoroughly modern youth with an earring, dyed blond hair and bussing leggies, zooters and flippers, who went by the name of Shane Warne."

    Warney changed the game, he made leg spin cool, everyone wanted to bowl leg spin BECAUSE OF HIM, did Qadir do that? No

    Warne is a showman and has effected Cricket a lot, Qadir didn't as much as Warney, that is why Warne is a legend and Qadir is pretty good.

  • Imran Shirvanee on January 7, 2007, 14:27 GMT

    I would agree with many of Abbasi's points, and yes Qadir is decidedly the greatest leggy we have seen in our times, but one thing would go in Warne's favor, and that one thing would make him stand head and shoulder ahead of anybody in any field: mental toughness. Because, Qadir was a poor bowler had it not been for Imran's very supportive captaincy. Warne did not need a pampering captain to back him up all the times. So, I would say, both of them are the greatest bowlers of this era, not just leggies, and we can add a few more names to this list. Why take stupid sides?

  • Alex on January 7, 2007, 14:00 GMT

    It is perhaps easier for Mr. Abbasi to make the claim that Abdul Qadir was the better bowler based on his own nationality (as some Australians are arguing here), but he nevertheless has a point: head-to-head, and in this digital age, how would Qadir have measured up against Shane Warne? During their respective careers, both Qadir and Warne benefited from what amounts to corrupt umpiring, and their leg-spin techniques are far from dissimilar, but ultimately the demands placed on test cricketers were far fewer than they are today. Had Qadir played as many matches as Warne during his career, I firmly believe the stats would be far more in Qadir's favour.

    Both bowlers are legends of the game of cricket, but Warne was never a champion. Sure, he was able to do some absolutely magical things will the ball in play, but that doesn't amount to a class act, even though most Australians will tell you that taking wickets and winning is all that matters in the end. His attitude and his ability to cheat in the face of umpires and get away with it will always scar his legend for me. If only an umpire had taken the privilege of calmly remarking, "F*** off, Shane" during one of his unnecessary appeals; it would have done the game a world of good, and possibly given Warne a much-needed reality check.

  • Anshul Punetha on January 7, 2007, 13:41 GMT

    While I would not like to go into the debate as to who was better, I would like to make the point that even before Warne had bowled the "Ball of the Century", Qadir had bowled Mike Gatting in exactly similar fashion - I remember seeing this on ESPN, in a show where Sunil Gavaskar pointed this fact out. I would agree with the article on the point of Qadir's career getting not enough coverage by the media, but would it have been same for Warne had he been playing in those days is another matter.

  • SM on January 7, 2007, 13:18 GMT

    "Neither Warne nor Qadir is truly great! A leg-spinner has to prove his worth against Indian batsmen. And how well did these 2 guys do against India?" According to you logic, Shriram, are saying that Danish Kaneria was is way better than Warne and Qadir....since Danish has way better record vs India than Warne and Qadir......specially his 19 wickets in 3 tests in India during 04-05 series????

    I saw both Qadir and Warne play. I'd love to have both Warne and Qadir in my team. Only thing that made Qadir better bowler than Warne was that Qadir could bowl 7 different types of deliveries in one over.....Not only he could bowl leg break, googly, flipper, top spin, etc....he could bowl different varieties of these deliveries!!!

    Qadir and Kumble had to have a pitch to their liking to dominate the opposition but Warne took wickets even when pitch did not help him.

    I agree with most of the points Kamran mentioned but that still does not make Qadir better bowler than Warne. If I have to pick only one of the two to watch....I'd certainly pick Qadir just because his bag was full of tricks than Warne's ever was!

  • wakeup on January 7, 2007, 13:12 GMT

    The biggest question that needs to be asked here is why do the Indians, (mainly) Pakis, and some Sri Lankan’s always play the race card? You guys try to say us "whites" are racist etc but All I have seen from here is the "non-whites" being racist and writing silly stuff if anyone disagrees with you!! If you guys want to be taken more seriously then cut that silliness out!!

    And for the record I really dislike warne and was singing "nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah hell yeah good bye" when the test was over but him and Murali are the best that ever was in the spinning dept.

  • Steve on January 7, 2007, 13:05 GMT

    Allan Border, Michael Bevan, Bob Holland are spinners that all took 10 wickets in an innings against the West Indies. Not great players of spin were the Windies. Qadir was very exciting to watch, on his day was awesome, but he couldnt dry up the runs like Warne consistenly has done. Both great bowlers. Warne's stock ball was way more consistent than Qadir's which made his variety all the more effective.

  • Mohd Saleem on January 7, 2007, 13:00 GMT

    Dear Kamran. I dont know about the comparison between Warne & Qadir. But one thing is for sure: To become a great batsman one has to perform well against Australian bowling lineup. (Ex: Inzimam or Yusuf are not considered great batsmen becoz they performed below par against Australia) To become a great spin bowler one has to perform well against Indian Batting lineup. And here Warne fails miserably. Is he great? any comments.

  • pommy/yankee on January 7, 2007, 12:41 GMT

    hmm well i heard somewhere in the media that warne used to have videol clippings on qadir ..and he had extensively studied qadir in the begining of his career.. but i must say warne got better with time and hence beat his master...its like one of thoese Bruce Lee fights where he beats his MASTER.. auuzyy have to admit that warne is there bcz of qadir not bcz of Ian healy lol

  • Steve Howe on January 7, 2007, 12:34 GMT

    Warne and the googly: The greatest bowler in the history of cricket was Syd Barnes. Don Bradman, however, rated O'Reilly higher because, "Barnes never bowled the googly." When he heard that, Barnes considered a moment before replying, "True, I never bowled the googly. But then, I never needed to."

    What counts is not what sort of ball you bowl, but WHETHER YOU GET THE BATSMAN OUT.

    As for Ahmed's comment about Warne being a copier and Qadir an inventor - I've not read such rubbish snce I picked up the Da Vinci Code. Neither Warne nor Qadir invented leg-spin. They were each influenced by Benaud and Ramadhin; who were influenced by Wright and Hollies; who were influenced by O'Reilly and Grimmett; who were influenced by Mailey and Bosanquet........

  • Hindo on January 7, 2007, 12:31 GMT

    Look, I'm only reading this blog because of the inflamatory headline, but many posters' arguments are permeated by racism. This is both unfortunate and illogical. Qadir was the beneficiary of home-town umpires. Warne was not. This paranoid belief that the non-Asian countries are running the game and influencing results is based on NOTHING. Just take a look at the power relationships within the ICC. Then take a cold shower, look at the records, and stop deluding yourselves with nostalgia.

  • rogan on January 7, 2007, 12:21 GMT

    what does one have to do to get a comment on this blog? There are three things of interest here:

    1. Is it easier to take wickets in a champion team or a struggling team? Other good bowlers will steal your wickets, but will also apply pressure making it easier for you...

    2. Most of the so-called 'racist slurs' are from (apparently) sub-continental types with a chip on their shoulder about being 'Asian', rather than from arrogant Australian yobbos.

    3. Warne would have 1000 test wickets if he was 'Asian':

    - 100 more lbws - 100 more from being allowed to throw two balls an over (Murali) - 100 from not being suspended at all for drugs (Akhtar, Asif)

  • Aqif on January 7, 2007, 11:42 GMT

    @John Beamish. With the zillion comments in this blog on the qadir-warne issue, and none on yours about McGrath being better than imran or wasim proves a point. People have views about one of them, and the one you suggest is too childish to be taken seriously. Personally I think warne and qadir comparison cant and shouldnt be made. Warne is a true great. However, in the book of spin, Qadirs name will always come first.

  • Veer on January 7, 2007, 11:36 GMT

    Qadir was no inventor. How the hell is he an inventor? The only thing was he was chronogically ahead. There have been several leg-spinners ahead of Qadir. Australia themselves had Grimmet, Benaud, O'Reilly, and Arthur Mailey. India had Gupte and there was even Mushtaq Mohammad. How the hell is Qadir the inventor? Mr. Ahmed, you are building castles in the air if you think that Qadir invented leg-spin.

  • john m on January 7, 2007, 11:35 GMT

    Something from the stats guru. First Abdul's home and away record :

    overall 67 Matches 236 Wickets @32.80 home 40 Matches 168 Wickets @26.82 away 27 Matches 68 Wickets @47.58

    Now SKW's record :

    overall 145 Matches 708 Wickets @25.41 home 69 Matches 319 Wickets @26.39 away 73 Matches 362 Wickets @25.50

    Now there are many facets to what exactly makes up a champion sportsman. Clearly from the records alone you could not possibly put Qadir ahead of Warne. I am not even a Warne fan but I am one of the 'drunken boozing Aussie fans' that actually does appreciate cricketers from ALL over the planet. Even Warne has mentioned how great a thrill it was for him to meet and talk to Qadir. And we probably have Qadir to thank for keeping the leg-spinners art alive during the pace bowling era of the 80's but the hard truth is, there can be no question of who the true champion is. Qadir was a pretty average tourist, doubling his average away from his 'spin-friendly' wickets at home in Pakistan, whilst Warne had the equal, if not slightly better average for games played away from Australia. Had Warne played his home tests in Karachi, instead of the MCG and Perth, I wonder what his final tally would have been? People should forget about Warney's arrogance, his off-field shanagans and his on-field borishness. Despite these failings counting against his 'champion' tag, the hard truth is that he is the greatest spinner to play the game. Put Murili and Abdul on the pitches of Perth and Brisbane and Adelaide for half their careers and their stats would make interesting reading.

    John M

  • Ahmed on January 7, 2007, 11:01 GMT

    i liked to Read comments of Aussies, Warne was good and Qadir was the inventor... how better you may be but Mr. Warne you are a copier not inventor... And Aussies sorry Guys .... you are lossers...since you dont have the Courage to face Criticism.... rather you start to Critisize the Aurthor.. Come on lossers..Develop Courage...!

  • Simon on January 7, 2007, 10:57 GMT

    Abdul Qadir, now he WAS a bowling legend. Watch some of his footage (as from the comments I assume many have not), and he was clearly the best of all time.

    I can state, that spinner wise... Murali beats Warne hands down. Look at the stats.

  • toopster on January 7, 2007, 10:53 GMT

    those who believe that murali is better than warne should look at how the two performed vs the minnow test teams. Murali has around 170 wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (and he will play Bangladesh this year to fill his boots again). also Warne has had Mcgrath, Gillespie, Lee, McDermott, Macgill, Kasprowicz, Clark among others who have taken wickets away from him...while Vaas is the only other Lankan to get 100 test scalps

  • Altamush on January 7, 2007, 10:53 GMT

    Firstly Kamran, stop being such a wind-up merchant with your post. Secondly, just admitting that a player other than from a sub-continental team is the best at something, is not such a bad thing. I'm Indian and over the years I've enjoyed seeing the Indians taking Warne to the woodshed, but I can tell you, I was never completely positive it would turn out that way. And that is what it comes down to, Warne was a champion bowler, regardless what team and era he played for, period. Lastly, he is to my mind the biggest turner of the cricket ball, least for a leg spinner, just as Murali is for off-spinners, is it any wonder then that the two biggest "spinners" of the cricket ball are 1 & 2 on the all time list. You can moan about pitches, batsmen, whatever, but you cant argue with stats and with the sheer will of Warne's personality in contributing to his and Australia's sucess.

  • Bilail on January 7, 2007, 10:22 GMT

    Why hasn't anyone considered what the majority of players of the present and past say? That's what frustrates me so much about 'journalists' who watch bowlers and presume because they see them more than most that they know who is better. Appearances can be deceiving, so ask the men who face these fearsome bowlers from 22yards and take their word for it.

  • Omar on January 7, 2007, 10:18 GMT

    Warnie was the best bowler because he was a "gamebreaker". Everytime Aust couldn't a wicket the ball would get thrown to Warne and he'd get one. Warne could bowl tidily with a new ball, and had 13 or more different deliveries. Who cares if he couldn't bowl a wrong-un, he probably just underused it just like he underused his flipper towards the end of his career.

  • Conrad on January 7, 2007, 9:33 GMT

    Every generation has the right to proclaim it's greatest players but nobody can put the stamp of 'GREATEST OF ALL TIME' on anybody, period. Viv Richards was probably greater than Bradman on sheer ability. Sunny Gavaskar was the most stubborn batsman if you go by his hundreds against the Windies in their prime. Today Ricky Ponting demolishes just about every attack he comes by. Is Ponting greater than Richards and Gavaskar? Is Warne greater than Gupte and Qadir? Would Jesse Owens have run the 100M sprint faster if he had been chasing 9.79s instead of 10s? Does anyone want to get into an arguement with his grandpa over this? Shane Warne is the greatest legspinner of the current era. Qadir was the best in his time. Bradman was the greatest batsman of his time, Richards of his. To be the greatest of an era is as far as any sportsman can go because A PLAYER CAN ONLY COMPETE AGAINST THE PEERS OF HIS TIME. Shane Warne will never bowl to Viv Richards and Ricky Ponting will never be pitted against Subhash Gupte. Cross-generational debate just doesn't work in sports.

  • Hari on January 7, 2007, 9:25 GMT

    Kamran you may have a point but I can't agree with your timing. It is precious to come out and say Qadir was better than Warne especially now Warne has retired. You seem to be the trying to deflect attention from the exit of a true champion in Warne while thrusting your Pakistani compatriot into the limelight. It just reeks of poor form and you should have wrote this article a long time ago if it was what you truly felt.

  • Omar on January 7, 2007, 9:22 GMT

    Ya, I agree with u KAMRAN , ABDUL QADIR is the best of all time.No one has comparision with him. He is the best of all the time. QADIR da GOOGLY

  • superman on January 7, 2007, 8:57 GMT

    Wonderfully funny blog.Please follow up with why Kamran Akmal is better than Adam Gilchrist and Umar Gul is better than Glenn Mcgrath.Finally why Imran Farhat is better than Jonty Rhodes.

  • Salman on January 7, 2007, 8:37 GMT

    For me, Greatness = Skills X 2(Attidude). I have watched Qadir in his prime and as far as skill is concerned, he was much superior than Warne. I still remember a series against Sri Lanka where he literally toyed with the batsmen. And Sri Lankans have always been good players of spin. He definitly had greater variety than warne and had many good wins against top batsman of the world. He was nowhere compared to warne in terms of personality and attidude. Warne controls the game, he is a fighter, and a leader. He had an impact on cricket that no one had. So in terms of greatness no comparison.

  • Cricketvideosunplugged on January 7, 2007, 8:22 GMT

    Bold Comment, Kamran. But Warney has to be better in an era where Batsmen usually rule the game. Warne's intimidation was lethal and he got em out in the Mind first

    The problem is, most of us never saw Qadir bowl that much so the comparison becomes very weak

  • Shriram on January 7, 2007, 8:06 GMT

    Neither Warne nor Qadir is truly great! A leg-spinner has to prove his worth against Indian batsmen. And how well did these 2 guys do against India? Not much to talk about, right?! As for Akram vs. McGrath, no doubt in my mind that Akram is the much superior bowler. Akram had way too many more variations in his bowling armoury and wicket-taking weapons whereas McGrath depended on patience and his patented metronomic accuracy/control. And oh, did I forget the sledging! I'd like to believe that McGrath would be remembered for his rubbish behavior more than anything else. In fact, this Aussie team will only be grudgingly respected, never liked. Every single one of them...EXCEPT that perfect gentleman Gilchrist, the best wicket-keeper batsman in the history of cricket.

  • Nicholas Wood on January 7, 2007, 7:54 GMT

    Crazy arguement, which statistically cannot be proven so can only be won with reducing an entire career to management decisions or comparing batsmen of this time versus batsmen of another time.

    One can only bowl to the living of the period in which one plays and to take 700 wickets makes Warne the greatest leg spin bowler ever.

    There have been a lot of leggies over the years, some good, some average and some truly awful.

    I think that the word great is bandied around too easily, but Warne is undoubtedly a truly great bowler. To compare him with others is to split hairs since he wins hands down. Qadir was a fantastic bowler and for a period was the most devastating leggie in the world, but the greatest, sorry mate, cannot be proven.

    That is the beauty of cricket, stats tell the stories at the end of the day.

    Interesting to see how people said he was a defensive bowler. To a degree what he did was bowl leggie after leggie on a line of middle and leg. Simple simple stuff. If I could turn it 18 inches on that line, I would bowl it too because it is the hardest line to hit.

    What is interesting to see is how the respect for the slog sweep has changed as a legitimate shot in cricket in the last 10 years.

    It took international cricketers 10 years to work out that the highest percentage shot against that line is the slog sweep. To play it to long on is suicide and to sweep it behind square very difficult. The old agricultural cow corner slog sweep was the shot all those England players should have been playing just like Pietersen has done in the last two series. If people hadn't talked about playing in the V on TV so often, he might have been far less successful.

  • abdul rehman on January 7, 2007, 7:44 GMT

    Qadir was a totally different bowler compared to warney! Warney was always relying on curve, flight and turn...and Qadir usually bowled alot faster and mixed the deliveris up more! I agree with one comment that Warne had visited Qadir's house to meet him and learn more...my Dad used to work in the Sharjah stadium and Warne has mentioned it himself that he used to watch Qadir bowl to learn from him! However, Warne has the better record, statistically, which makes him better than Qadir. But again...they are different bowlers with different styles and shouldnt be compared...simply because they wouldnt have wanted to... Qadir was better than Hirwani, Gupte and all the other trash lot that bowled during the time that Qadir was playing!!

  • Musstanser Tinauli on January 7, 2007, 7:12 GMT

    I dont play the comparison game.

    I think Kamran intended two things by throwing this. 1. He wanted people to know that Qadir was there once and he was a great bowler, nowhere less than the great Warne 2. He wanted attention, which he did aswell.

    I'd like make just one more comment, some one up there said McGrath is a greater bowler than Wasim, thats something I cant take. Sorry! Nope. We were talking about how smart a cricketer is interms of winning and perorming, Wasim performed with the bat, with the ball and he lead the team very well. He stands the one of the best captins ever!

    Warne was great, Wasim was the best left arm fast bowler with an awesome unrepeatable action. Lets not play the comparison game. Cheers.

    PS: We dont want to go through the controversies warne has gone through, do we, but we regard him as a great spinner of the ball nothing else. PEACE!

  • petrer oz-kiwi on January 7, 2007, 7:06 GMT

    Abdul Qadir and Shayne Warne did not invent, or even re-invent, the art of leg-spin, neither did Bill O'Reilly or Clarrie Grimmet. Please look up Arthur Mailey, or Bosanquet - the inventor of the googlie-, or several South African. As for sledging, it goes back to W.G. Grace's times, if not earlier, so let's forget the hypocrisy that cricket is a gentleman's game. The Gentleman were the worst; e.g. W.G and Douglas Jardine and co.

  • Ahsan on January 7, 2007, 7:05 GMT

    I think you can't compare these two legends. We all know that warne is a great legspiner and you cant take away anything from him, but Qadir was one of a kind also. I saw him couple of years ago playing a club match on a cemented track. If anyone of you have played on cemented wicket you should already know that ball does nothing at all. It just skids away with no movement at all and the batsman can hit you through the line all day long. I saw him destroy the other batting side by taking 6 wickets for twenty odd runs while everyone else were strugling.

  • peter oz-kiwi on January 7, 2007, 6:58 GMT

    God. this has become deperessing. It's like "mine is bigger than yours" plus an enormous amount of national, racial. prejudice. It reminds me of when I was an under 10 kid. My team and its players were the greatest no matter now many times we lost or stuffed up. There is no real point in comparing players of different eras, despite their statistics. It only leads to judgements based on which performances have impreesed one the most, For instance, I still think of Jim Laker as the greatest off-spinner of all time, becuase of the impact his 19 wickets in the 1956 test had on me at the time - I changed from bowling very low standard leggies, to even lower standard offies. All the bowlers mentioned are great. Let's just enjoy their skills and records without petty prejudices.

  • Raza Zaidi on January 7, 2007, 6:49 GMT

    I believe that numbers do tell the truth most of the time. And the fact is that Warne's 708 wickets at 25 average is far superior than Qadir's 236 wickets at 33 avg. Warne also got 5+ wicket hauls more often on average than Qadir. Warne also did better with respect to longevity at the international level. I'd simply say that Warne is better.

  • Bhai on January 7, 2007, 6:49 GMT

    ... and afridi is better batsman than Don. Also Inzimam Ul Haq is far better fielder than Jonty Rhodes. Kamran Abbasi is the best cricket Journalist. Whatever man.

  • DR Hai on January 7, 2007, 6:42 GMT

    Kamran this is brilliant .. 300+ comments, half of which contain irate comments from visibly disturbed readers .. oooh the sacred warne has been desecrated by some pakistani punk who thinks Qadir is some medusa! .. most of the 300 posters played right into your hands Kamran .. this article was written to provoke and my word, has it ever! Stroke of genius my man .. the angriest comments seem to be from aussies whose God you have just bashed .. infact if you were in australia right now, you'd be lynched by the public! All credit to you for approving even the most abusive of posts .. I'll bet these posts made you smile the most :P :) Anyways on the topic, I think Warne for me is the greatest spinner to have played the game, but not necessarily the best. If that statement sounds contradictory, let me stress that by 'best' i'm talking variety and talent. I'm quite positive from what I recall Qadir had more of both those things though I can't state so for an absolute certainty since I only watched Qadir play for 3 years. But forget the 700 wickets, forget the deadly flipper or the viciously turning leg break .. for me what sets Warne apart, other than his statistical supremacy, is his ability to time and again take crucial wickets in pressure situations. People say Lara or Tendulkar are the best of our generation, I say it was Steve Waugh. Lara blew hot and cold, Tendulkar wilted when the stakes were high. Waugh didn't have Lara's grace or his big scoring ability nor did he have Tendulkar's average. What set him apart was that ability to come good when it mattered most, something that for me typifies true greatness. The same applies to Michael Bevan, who for me is the greatest ODI batsman ahead of Richards, Tendulkar and Jones, for the same reason. Coming back to Warne, a few of his bowling performances that exemplifies his resourcefulness under pressure: Semi final world cup 1996 against the windies, semi final WC 99 against S.Africa and again in the final against Pak (I *shudder* at that painful memory), against Sri Lanka in his first comeback test series after the drugs ban, in this ashes series 2nd test final day .. there are just so many more instances .. the monotonous regularity is quite astounding .. but is it just coincidence that Waugh, Bevan and Warne all happen to be aussie? I cheer on every team that provides even an inkling of a decent performance against ‘those’ aussies in the hope that Australia may be toppled .. I was ecstatic when India beat them in 2001, despite being a Pakistani .. but I grudgingly accept like everyone else that they are by far the best team in the world and for me the main reason for that is not the outstanding individual skill of most of their players or even the exceptional teamwork, it’s the fact that Australia is a pressure team extraordinaire` .. 2 of their finest pressure players, Warne and Langer have retired which might make them a bit vulnerable to collapse (a word not in the dicty for these aussies) but they still have Ponting who himself has played some fabulous innings on big occasions over the last few seasons. Till the rest of the world actually acquires this mental resolve and never-say-die attitude that typifies Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist and company, all the natural talent, variation and the googlies of this world won’t be enough to de-throne them as the world’s finest side. And I say this grudgingly. *sigh*

  • Tufail on January 7, 2007, 6:34 GMT

    Its not about how many records you break or how many wickets you take. Leg spin is an art that was brought into light by Qadir. Even though he did not have the opportunity to bowl in the cureent era he mesmerized people with the magic of his fingers. I think warne will also acknowledge the fact that Qadir was the magician and warne learned his magic and used it well.

  • M. Sathish Kumar on January 7, 2007, 6:18 GMT

    I think what kamran says is correct. In my opinion, Kaneria is a good prospect and has the potential to be quadir's replacement. Let us see how his career unfolds and what recognition he gets.

  • RH on January 7, 2007, 6:12 GMT

    It was Abdul Qadir & NOT Shane Warne who kept the wrist spinning alive. It is a shame that the caucasians hate to admit the facts.

  • Ahmad Raza on January 7, 2007, 6:08 GMT

    I can't believe so many people are wasting time commenting on this... Different players, different eras, different and very significant contributions. Right now is no time to compare b/w the two.

  • Madhu on January 7, 2007, 5:12 GMT

    Both Warne and Qadir have ordinary record against India, who are the best against spin bowling. Warne has more wickets, better average and strike rate than Qadir. On the other hand, Prasanna was the greatest leg spinner of his era. So, it's not easy to compare players of different era.

  • SIkander Rashid on January 7, 2007, 4:59 GMT

    Well, at the end of the day I say, "greatest happiness for the greatest number".

    Records are beleived to echo a player's performances and abilities and Warney is definitely the king at the moment.

  • mujtaba on January 7, 2007, 4:54 GMT

    dudes . when warne came to pakistan he went to see Abdul Qadir in his home town for tips.Does this ring any bells????

  • Haydn on January 7, 2007, 4:46 GMT

    As an Australian with a particularly soft spot for Pakistan, and the geo-political difficulties courageously faced by that nation, I immediately state that these are profoundly learned, insightful and illuminating comments of Dr Abbasi, master of medicine. But they fail to take into account just one factor, which I unfortunately view as determinative.

    Hair is what I speak of, both as it concerns the face and also the scalp (and particularly the scalp). I do not refer to the umpire, of course.

    We should all confine ourselves to our areas of expertise and competency. For this reason, much ink would not have been so wastefully spilt had the originator of this delightful (but over-extended) thread confined himself to the medical merits of hair transplants.

    Shane has sunk to new lows with his promotion of transplants and his vain attempt to capture the long-gone virility of his twenties. Abdul, of course, was more richly gifted in that field (I speak of hair, not necessarily virility), with his match-winning and crowd-pleasing coiffure.

    Hair is more relevant than one may first think, particularly when one dispassionately and scientifically anslyses the suggested possible deep-rooted psychiatric causes of excessive appealing (eg, unresolved internal conflict and frustration, possibly of a sexual nature). Had the initial comments focused on this, we would all have quite correctly concentrated on such key issues as ball-tampering, who turned his balls the most prodigiously and, of course, who had the bigger balls in the games that counted most.

  • WALEED on January 7, 2007, 4:44 GMT

    well .....if qadir was still playin then he might have got more wickts than warne .....but i think that if u compare bowlers who got more wickets then u should be comparing wasim n waqar with warne ...

  • stevelbw on January 7, 2007, 4:01 GMT

    Can't believe you haven't included Charlie Grimmett. His record is second to none.

    The best exponent of the googlie wash Mmd Mustaq, who bowled then continuously.

    You neglected one very important point, warne was an agressive wrist spinner, able to take 5 fors on the first day. He changed the way the game is played, Qadir never did this.

    Qadir had more googlies, warne had drift and fizz to the leg.

    your argument overall is irrelevant, they are all very good bowlers, perhaps their influence on cricket is a better measure of greatness

  • Shafiuddin Kazi on January 7, 2007, 3:51 GMT

    The best way to know how great a player is by finding out how many matches he has won and I bet no man can challenge Warne at that. Mr Author name me another player who has won more matches from hopeless situations than Warne has. The author says Australia have been the no 1 team for a large part of Warnes career but the reason why they are no 1 is Warne. It is widely said that Warne didnt bowl well in India but I would like to point out that Warne had lost a lot to his surgery and only in the last series did he get a decent chance to bowl at the Indians and he fared well though he missed out the Mumbai test (in which Michael Clarke ended with more than 5 wickets in an innings) otherwise the no of wickets against the Indians would have been a lot more. Now coming to the point of Asian and non Asian Mr Author Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, Sunil Gavaskar they are all great wherever you go and the commentators praise them if not more than but as much as they praise Warne, McGrath, Ponting etc. Qadir was great, Murali may collect more wickets he too is great but lets accept it Warne is the greatest.

  • Sree on January 7, 2007, 3:32 GMT

    Warne and Qadir both have one thing in common, they both got plastered by tendulkar. Back in 1989 India tour of Pakistan, Qadir had made some disparaging comments to a 17yr old batsman, and how long he would stay at the crease. After the plastering he got, he was dropped. :)

    and of course, everyone knows about warne and his nightmares :)... so I guess one is no greater than the other :).

  • Siva on January 7, 2007, 3:23 GMT

    Why, Kamran? Why did you even write this nonsense? I've always respected your views till now. But this article reeks of, I am sorry to say, bias and an obvious ignorance of statistical facts staring right at your face. Qadir's record in a less- batsman friendly era was good. Wareney's in this age 50+ average batsmen is phenomenal. And compare their oversees record and see how Qadir was the one who benefited from incompetent umpires in his country. I am disappointed with you.

  • varkey joseph on January 7, 2007, 3:10 GMT

    Murali is undoubtedbly the greastest spin bowler of all time. Murali has the better average, strike rate and economy and more 5 wicket hauls Murali -- the greatest bowler ever to walk the earth!!!!

    It is sad that most of the white umpires supported warne not murali.

  • Jag on January 7, 2007, 2:25 GMT

    I feel it's important that people leave race out of it in this debate..

  • saumil on January 7, 2007, 2:05 GMT

    I agree that Warne is the most over-rated bowler in the history of the game. God knows what would have happended if the spinners from other era had bowled against the current crop of ordinary batsmen around the world. Spinners like Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Gibbs, Underwood, Qadir are way ahead of Warne when it comes to abililty and talent. Warne was basically a negative bowler who benefited from ordinary batsmanship when he played. Secondly, How he got away with sledging and for bringing the game to disrepute the most, is beyond me.

  • Bilal Choudry on January 7, 2007, 1:42 GMT

    The difference between Warne and Qadir is similar to differences between Akram and Mcgrath. Consider this for most of his career Mcgrath could have bowled faster but he didnt. I remember his swinging the ball in mid 90's but he did use it. Reason is that he did want to go for that extra run that might result incase the bowl didnt swing. Same is with Warne infact this is the way aussies think. They are perfectionists, Pakistanis are different they might go for 6 an over just looking for that unplayable and unbelievabe amount of swing or speed or turn. The fact is that Warne didnt use his variations much and only cricket is the looser here. Qadir had a heart of a lion and you would see him throw everything at the batsman. This is the basic difference If aussies dont agree well then thats just the way it is. I would prefer watching a Waqar Younis than mcgrath any day of the week because I want to see someone taking chances. Qadir had everything in his armoury maybe warne did too. But one was afraid to use it other wasnt.

  • Ben on January 7, 2007, 1:26 GMT

    Warne is over rated. I mean just let ricky pointing and mike hussey face him. Warne will get hammered.

    P.S. Even Pieterson hammered him in the Ashes series.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on January 7, 2007, 1:13 GMT

    THOSE PEOPLE who are criticizing Kamran Abbassi and badmouthing against him and saying he made "a weird, stupid and the most ridiculous comparison between Shane Warne and Abdul Qadir", MUST go to Bob's World and write something in favour of Shane Warne. After all Bob Woolmer wrote a lot in praise of Shane Warne and for the last 17 days no one wrote a single post in Bob's blog :-). Whereas, here you have 300 plus posts in just 24 hours, isn't it interesting? And some guys have the audacity and cheekiness to call Kamran with names, racist slurs and rude comments towards him, as if he has committed a crime or a sin by comparing the two leg spinners?

    No one is forcing anyone to read this blog and there is no compulsion on your part to reply if you think this is all trash and rubbish and Kamran must be on dope when he wrote, and he is stupid and lost his credibility etc. PLEASE GO to Bob's World and favour Bobby and Warney and write a nice poem in his greatness and about his "legendary Zooter." OR a book that Shane Warne was not only a great bowler, but a "humble intimidator", who mastered the art of intimidating the umpires and getting decisions in his favour. During the recent Boxing Day match he made a vociferous appeal for an LBW like this ....... Haaaaaaaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaaa and then he stared in to umpire Alim Daar's eyes for a few seconds and said "HUH" !!!!! That was not the end he went on talking to the umpire about why he did not give the decision in his favour? Alim Daar was definitely seen under pressure. If it was Steve Bucknor, he would have given him a warning or reported it to the match referee. Thats why the Australians hate Steve Bucknor.

  • Anjan on January 7, 2007, 0:50 GMT

    I think Subhash Gupte and Chandra were far better than either of Warne or Qadir, and Kumble is right now. They were all vastly underrated. My English friend here feels that Ian Salisbury is the best legspinner. Both these opinions are completely unbiased and have nothing to do with our national affiliations.

  • Allistair on January 7, 2007, 0:11 GMT

    Well, whatever the comments, opinions and strength of feeling, I simply commend you Kamran for stirring up a proper vipers nest. Well done. 300+ comments on one topic is one hell of an effort.

  • Asim Shahzad on January 6, 2007, 23:28 GMT

    There is absolutely no comparison. Qadir took more than 80% of his wickets on doctored Pakistani wickets with the help of inept (not biased) Pakistani umpires. He failed miserably whenever he played outside Pakistan, be it India, England, Australia, New Zealand, or West Indies.

  • Abdul Waheed on January 6, 2007, 23:27 GMT

    You said it all and this can only be said by someone who has had the opportunity to witness both of these bowlers’ entire careers. Furthermore, this can come from someone who has studied the temperaments and attitudes of the players, individuals planning and running the cricket establishments and the mindset of the nations.

  • Hamad Saleem on January 6, 2007, 23:24 GMT

    Even though I am from Pakistan and have seen Qadir bowl (a wonderful bowler indeed), I feel it is extremely unfair on the part of Kamran to call him a better leg spinner than Warne. Shane Warne may not have had the best Googly, but he certainly had the best leg spin and flipper and the fact that he played more than 140 tests spanning more than a decade and a half, and on the way picking up a 'meager' 700 odd wickets is testimony of his greatness. These days every team with the help of technology and technical experts analyses the strengths and weaknesses of every bowler and batsmen. Based on these analyses, they come up with ways to counter the threat of the bowler’s weapons (may it be line and length, swing, the doosra, googly or leg spin). None of these has worked against Warne simply for the reason that he was the master of his art and kept improving all the time. The reason why I (and millions of other like myself) started enjoying watching spin bowling was because of Shane Warne. He has bamboozled batsmen from nearly all countries and his failures as a bowler have been close to non existent. He has risen to every occasion all across the world and his performances bear testimony to that fact. Just one unsuccessful tour to India does not make him any less a bowler. The fact that Warne played for the greatest team of his era whereas Qadir didn’t has absolutely no justification. Qadir may have had a big role in making Pakistan one of the best teams of his times, but it is no hidden secret that getting to the top isn’t as difficult as staying there is. Once Australia reached the top of the cricketing world by beating the West Indies they have never looked back. It has been more than a decade since they’ve been there and no one has ever come close to replacing them as the premier team in the world. In fact the gap between the best and the rest has only grown wider. Just the fact that Australia hasn’t even played a single day’s cricket after Warne’s retirement and there is already talk of whether Australia will be able to survive his absence says a lot about what Shane Warne was to the Australian team and cricket in general. Granted that the media has played its part in enhancing Warne’s image as a spinner, but it would be nothing short of foolish to call it as undeserved praise or bias from the English or Aussie media. In the latter half of his career Warne has bowled in an era where pitches and conditions [including neutral umpires] have favored batsmen. Just take a look at some of the batting averages and the highly gloated figures do not do justice to some of the batting greats of the past who had to encounter tougher conditions and sometimes extremely biased umpiring [of which Qadir has been the beneficiary as well]. Warne's performance during the second half of his career on batting paradises and in the presence of neutral umpires have been as good if not better than those of his initial part of his career. Therefore keeping all these things in mind I believe it is fairly safe to say that Shane Warne is the greatest leg spinner to have played the game. Qadir may have revived the art of leg spin but Warne perfected it!

  • Fahim on January 6, 2007, 23:01 GMT

    Lets make myself clear: Warne's the best there is. Comparing players of different era is not fair. And its completely rubbish when some of you had said that modern batsmen are not equipped with as good technique as their predecessors. Qadir was a great bowler and everybody respects him but Warne is the greatest. Thats the end of that.

  • AmirTrax on January 6, 2007, 22:07 GMT

    Warne was more menacing than Qadir, no doubts on that. But neither Warne nor Qadir had the deception of Mushy. The Warne of mid-90's was unplayable because he could turn the ball a mile, but if deception with a googly is the criteria, then Mushy takes the cake, nearly 400 wickets in 4 county seasons should count for something.

  • Abu Bakar on January 6, 2007, 22:01 GMT

    Look one could even argue mushtaq ahmed was in this lot..if he wasnt a victim of pcb politics...but the question is IF...Qadir was undoubtedly the father of spin...he perfected the art...but he wasnt the most successfull..700 wickets is no childs play..The fact of the matter is you simply cannot compare a champion from one era to tht of another...i mean it wud be like saying whose better sunil gavaskar or tendulker...u simply cannot decide

  • Rext on January 6, 2007, 21:46 GMT

    What the hell's wrong with you people? If you can find this blog, you can surely find Cricinfo's StatsGuru! Spend ten minutes analysing Warne and Qadir's respective careers and save yourselves a lot of embarassment! Who was the best? Who cares? Who was the most successful? Warne, by any objective analysis! And how does Tokeer know Qadir and Imran didn't use drugs? In those days they weren't even tested for, so players could have used anything! Oh, and by the way that great Pakistani writer Kamran was better than Shakespeare!

  • Arsalan Khan on January 6, 2007, 21:39 GMT

    700 wickets are hell of a number, no argument who is great, who is better, who is smarter, who faced difficulties, no match of warne, oh man he got highest ever wickets, he is 1st man on earth to get this acheivement, Abdul Qadir was great bowler,Quadir is the greater artist of spin bowling, may be inventor of some good spin varities but cant compare him with warne, cant compare a man who is only 1 in this world with his records. Attitude is another unique aspect of warne to debate.

  • yusuf on January 6, 2007, 20:47 GMT

    i probably agree with that qadir could probably bowl better googly than warne (just like mushtaq) but warne certainly was a better leggie because he had flippers etc and his normal legspinners were better than qadir.

    i think qadir failed against indian batsmen and more badly than warne. there was an incidence when he was bowling against india in a test and the non striker was shouting googly everytime he tried to bowl one. so qadir's main weapon was exposed blatantly.

  • Fahad on January 6, 2007, 20:45 GMT

    That is one of the most strange cricketing articles i have ever read.A.Qadir was a great bolwer but S.Warne is the greatest leg-spinner ever.If Qadir handled the best batting line-up of his time then Warne countered Tendulkar,Lara,Inzamam,Kirsten,Dravid and Kallis in their primes.And that speaks for itself too besides a huge pile of 700 wickets.Qadir is no way near Warne.

  • Salman Ali on January 6, 2007, 20:44 GMT

    I completely agree with your views. I am shocked to see how some of you are struggling to accept that Qadir was much better than Warne. Is it only because Qadir was a Pakistani ? or an Asian? Its just that Warne's achievements were always blown out of proportions because he was white and of course an Aussie. People have come up with weird excuses in their comments to prove that Warne was better e.g. someone has had the nerves to comment about home upmiring? how sorry is that? how much more stupid can people become? Qadir was an absolute magician with the ball and if anyone wants to talk about unfair advantage how about Warne's drug abuse?? the minimum punishment for which is 2 years but Warne only got 1 year?? None of the white boys can explain why that happened!!! So if you look at it pragmatically Warnes last 150 wickets should not even be counted because technically he should not have been playing cricket during the last 2 years of his career. Warne was a mediocre bowler and much of his success was due to sledging by the fielder around the batsman and not his bowling skills. He was a controversial and least respected player amongst international cricketers. He admitted involvement in drugs abuse, match fixing, sex scandals etc. etc. If anything I would only consider him exceptionally lucky. Bear in mind that Murali will break his record in 2007-08, and btw Murali is an Asian tooo !!

  • Asanka on January 6, 2007, 20:42 GMT

    This is all bias comments. I would like to see how Kamran comment on Imran Khan and Waseem Ikram on the same context.

    The technical aspect of the game changed over the time. Both are true greate bowler in their time.

  • JAYASOORYA on January 6, 2007, 20:29 GMT

    It is interesting to read a different point of view among all the plaudits and flattery placed at Shane Warne's feet/ wrist.

    Allowe , if you don't mind the space i am going to take, to quote the greatest allrounder the world has seen, Sir Garry Sobers, on legspin bowling, especially on Warne.

    These are fragmnents from his autobiography:

    "...Glen Mcgrath, Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie, are rated the most potent in the world, and as a unit they are very effective but individually I believe I played against better. ...to me, (Subhash)Gupte was a better bowler than Shane Warne. One reason is that Gupte had a far greaster variety, and his disguised googly was far better than Warne's. Warne is a big spinner of the ball and not many turn it that far though another Australian, Stuart McGill, seems to be abvle to..." (G. Sobers,2002: p.257-258)

    Sir Garrygoes on to elaborate on the so-called "ball of the century" that dismissed Mike Gatting and states as only Sir Garry Sobers can, thus: "One ball doesn't make you king and this dismissal was as much Gatting's fault as it was Warne's ability." (G.Sobers, 2002: p.258)

    Sir Garry says why he thinks Subhas Gupte was greater than Warne:

    " Gupte was always on the spot, bowled a good googly and a good legbreak and had some of the best batsmen in the world confused. The Weekes, Worrells and Walcotts made runs against him but he also ghad them in trouble. Wickets in the West Indies were very good in those days, and spinners found them difficult, but Gupte came to the Carribbean and took 27 wickets in the 1952 series. He didn't play a lot of Test cricket but he took a lot of good wickets. He was so accurate, varied the flight and pushed it through, and he could bowl two different googlies. You had to watch him carefully to play him because of his wide variety.

    "Warne, by contrast is a lot flatter. He bowls the flipper well and as I've said, his googly has improved. As far as I am convcerned, great legbreak bowlers don't bowl round the wicket, which he did a lot in his early days..." (G. Sobers, 2002: p.259)

    i don't think he had seen much of Abdul Qadir as there are no remarks in the autobiography, but i think you have raised a relevant question amidst adulations being heaped on Shane Warne on his retirement.

    Had Subhash Gupte and Abdul Qadir been Austraians or British wouldn't their genius be seen/ praised in better light?

    Shane Warne, i think is part myth and part legend. Both, created by the market savvy media managers who found him to be a goose that laifd the golden egg.

    Shane Warne was perhaps a great spinner of his generation, but certainly not "the" greatest, and never the "greatest ever".

    Nevertheless, we celebrated him and we will celebrate him. He made cricket interesting.

  • Zeeshan on January 6, 2007, 20:07 GMT

    no i think it would be very unfair to say that qadir was better than warne, although theres no doubt about qadir being one of the best but he was the not the best! qadir did bowl do one to the finest batsmen, but same can be said about warne, qadir was in a week pakistan team give him that, but warne had always had to fight for his place in the australian team where no one really had a guaranteed spot. In short warne and qadir were both great great leg spinners two of the, its not very easy to compare both as they both played in different eras and again differnt opponents, it ld be best if we dont compare them at all!

  • Dr, Zeeshsan on January 6, 2007, 20:01 GMT

    Great Post. I had the privilege of watching Qadir at his prime and Warne. Warnes record in the asian subcontinent is shocking, in comparison.

  • Hasan on January 6, 2007, 19:50 GMT

    Well John... The numbers you have provided of Akram and McGrath don't really prove your point. Akram played 20 or so odd matches less and took less wickets. Yes. But as someone stated earlier, numbers alone don't tell the story. What Akram meant to his team, McGrath could never be of the same worth to his. I love McGrath but i'm sorry he could not be better in his wildest dreams if he were to be compared to Akram.

  • Rohan Goonewardene on January 6, 2007, 19:36 GMT

    Warne and Qadir were the finest exponents of leg spin in their respctive eras. No doubt about it. Shane Warne is perhaps the most intimidating spin bowler of all time. The reasons for this may be many. He belonged to one of the greatest teams ever, always had 3 very fine pace bowlers to back him up and usually had runs to play with...

    However, he did the job. Its difficult to say a guy with 236 wickets is greater than someone with 700 wickets.

    Shane Warne is a legend. Murali will probably be the best ever. He is as much a chucker as Warne i a doper(will his performances be discounted for taking performance enhancing drugs?). Warne was proved guilty Murali was proved innocent of chucking.

    If the argument is that Warne didnt have the opportunity to take wickets because he was part of a world beating side, then he should have a strike rate superior to murali. He doesnt!

    In 2006, Murali single handedly beat England in a test. Warne was part of a world beating side which lost to england. But no blame on him he was the shinning light of the series for australia.

    You cant put team success or failure to the individual.

    Qadir was awesome, Warne is a legend but Murali is simply the best bowler ever, day in day out!

  • Saad Anwar on January 6, 2007, 19:11 GMT

    No one can judge any bowler better than umpires in the field(as far as my point of view is concerned) and Dicky Bird (The Legendary Umpire) has preferred Abdul Qadir over Shane Warne in his biography when he was selecting Worlds Best Eleven(11). So I think that Abdul Qadir deserves more respect than Mr.Andrew Johnson has expressed in his views. There is no question about Shane Warne's ability and quality (stats are enough proof for this) but he only shaped the design of legspinners(and he did it splendidly) which Abdul Qadir left in his legacy.

  • Rajan on January 6, 2007, 18:59 GMT

    Warne is the greatest leggie ever. He operated with neutral umpires. His stats does all the talking. BTW, both B.S. Chandrashekhar and Subash Gupte had much better figures that Quadir did (higher wickets/per test ratio than Quadir). Gary Sobers held both Chandra and Gupte in extremely high regard. What is the highest ICC rating scores for these different spinners? I bet Warne has the highest score for leggies.

  • junaid on January 6, 2007, 18:16 GMT

    warnie 706 wickets that too against the likes of brian lara, sachin tendulkar, inzy, yousaf, kallis , vaughn and with neutral umpires and 236 for qadir i wonder howcome a comparison could be tailored

  • Dave on January 6, 2007, 18:11 GMT

    ??? Please!!! Says something that warne didn't need a wrong-un!

  • drew on January 6, 2007, 18:06 GMT

    can someone more informed than me explain what was the political brawling that apparently prevented saqlain musthaq from playing longer for pakistan?

  • Shabir on January 6, 2007, 18:02 GMT

    I think Kamran has gone a bit on the far side on this one. I am no great fan of Warne, but he did produce results. His team did well, he took wickets, and most of all, he was an effective bowler on all playing surfaces the world could produce for cricket, with all manner of umpires the world of cricket could present, and against all manner of opposition in any form of the game. Now that speaks on its own.

  • weirdo on January 6, 2007, 17:51 GMT

    The best spinner is Anil Kumble. he has done so much without spinning the ball, imagine what he would had done if his balls actually turned!!!!!!

  • rajest on January 6, 2007, 17:50 GMT

    shane warne is one of the greatest bowlers of all times, no doubt. i had always heard that abdul qadir was a better leg spinner. but we cannot compate them because they were in different eras and in the 80's they played a lot fewer tests than now. batsmen were better of that era but none of these spinner ever troubled indian batsmen. i mean nowadays a bowler like anil kumble can get wickets in 500s where he does not belong because he is not a leg spinner. batsmen are conned into giving wickets to bowler like anil because they think he is a leg spinner, but he only bowls medium pace with a googly after sometime.

  • Saad on January 6, 2007, 17:47 GMT

    Also, let's not forget most of Warne's wickets are against countries that are not traditionally good players of spin, i.e. England, Windies and to some extent Pakistan. His record against the Indians, particularly in India is nothing to write home about. I would rate Qadir the best and it’s about time folks in the white countries, stop the labeling Warne as somebody who revived lepspin, when Qadir had quite conspicuously and ably done so some decade and a half before Warne.

  • QUTBUDDIN HAIDERY FROM DUBAI. on January 6, 2007, 17:39 GMT

    Agree: Qadir was one of the greatest bowlers of his time, but he cud not survive for a long period probably bcs he was not fit enough, physically or politically as the case may be. But Warne is miles ahead of him. Imagine if he had played that one whole year he lost to being banned, he wud have touched even 800 wkts. His biggest pressure point was his SMARTEST BOARD BEHIND HIM. Australian Boards is well known for kicking out a non performer faster than any other contemporary boards. That, in fact, made Warne's job more demanding than that of Qadir in his days, when as you mentioned, the Pakistan board had less choices. Your opinion is very much your own but I find myself among the lot disagreeing with you. Anyway it was an interesting point you raised as apparant by the million comments it attracted. Keep writing.....

  • Jack on January 6, 2007, 17:32 GMT

    Good Comparison and nice article.. But would have been better with a photo of Qadir. Who is he?

  • Kabir on January 6, 2007, 17:31 GMT

    Just one point .

    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.

    I find this quite hillarious, if anything the contrary is the truth - the bulk of Qadir's wickets were taken at home, with Pakistani umpires literally raising their fingers at even the slightest appeal by Imran or Qadir.

    And there's no better example of this that the Pak V Wi test in 89, where WI were dismissed for 53 -- if anyone has the match, look at each dismissal carefully and you will see how blatantly Qadir was benefiting from local umpires..

    Lets accept the reality .. Qadir might have been gifted, perhaps as gifted or even more so than Warne.. but he DID NOT have the same discipline, control over line and length, sheer competitiveness of Warne.

  • Ghalib Taimur on January 6, 2007, 17:20 GMT

    We can all speculate with ifs and buts but in the end 700 wickets is a stat that stands out.We can even speculate Kaneria will be a better bowler than Warne because he took his first 50 wickets faster than Warnie but i think give the great SK Warne the credit he deserves..

    p.s-Kamran you are becoming disappointing

  • Abid Nadeem on January 6, 2007, 17:10 GMT

    I would say this discussion is good only for discussion purposes. The points raised by Kamran have some weight but for it is still difficult to imagine Qadir was greater bowler than Warne. In fact, this makes me more sense that it is difficult to compare and any such ranking would be flawed. There are not the only spinners in the world. There were Richie Benud, Chandershaker and some others in the past. In the present era there are Anil Kumble, Mushtaq Ahmed, Danish Kaneria and MacGill. Each one of them have their plus point which makes the comparison difficult. The thing which goes in the favor of Abdul Qadir is that he started in an era when legspin was a forgotten art. To have legspinner in the team was considered a luxury than the weapon. Abdul did pioneer that trend and he could be particularly regarded as the pioneer of wicket taking spinners in ODI's (his performance in 1983 world cup). Warne on the other hand did inherit such tradition and by the time legspin art was more recognizeable among the umpires. However sheer logevity of his career, number of wickets, better strike rate and bowling average makes him the the greatest legspin bowler. Any comparison made remains on a 'what if' exercise.

  • Ashish on January 6, 2007, 16:54 GMT

    Cant really say Qair was better- points 4,5,6 & 7 dont make sense..a good bowler is a good bowler regardless of who he bowls against or which country he plays for...also remember, Qadir played many of his matches on Pakistani wickets, suited for his type of bowling, while Warne has toiled away on wickets that simply do not turn as much. Qadir's reliance on spinning wickets is brought by one fact- he averages 26.82 at home, and 47.58 abroad.

  • Abid Shah on January 6, 2007, 16:52 GMT

    I remember once Mushtaq Ahmed bowled kilometers outside leg stump and bowled the right handed batsmen around his legs hitting the off stump. All the commentator had to say was " Nice one, Bowled". The same kind of delivery to Gatting by Warney was dubbed as the "Ball of the century".

    Warney has always been and will be my favourite cricketer, but most of his wickets were against English team, who are spin bunnies. He was also helped by a strong Australian bowling and batting line up. In addition to that, he would put constant pressure on the umpires without being noticed.

    Needless to mention if wickets are to judge the best bowler then I believe Murlitharan will be the best ever.

    I have to agree with the writer. I know where he is coming from. The reason Abdul Qadir is branded better than Warney is because he transformed spin bowling at a time when cricket was dominated by fast bowlers.

  • Greg on January 6, 2007, 16:46 GMT

    Among all these comparisons, there is a big similarity between the two....Both were massacared by SAchin Tendulkar every time they met.

  • Raja on January 6, 2007, 16:40 GMT

    Listen Faisal, i totally understand what you said; that it's not a good idea comparing two players of different era's but when you talk about the best of all time thats when you gota think about it and compare, right?

  • Adnan Farid on January 6, 2007, 16:36 GMT

    I dont think we can compare them. Qadir did have some success against the west indies in his time but Warne too has had alot of success against pakistan and srilanka so you cant compare them. The conditions today are far more in favor of the batmsen and warne has picked up 700 wickets in these conditions. Qadir was a great legspinner but I think warne is better. Ive played alot of cricket in pakistan and warne would have picked up alot more wickets if he had played more cricket in the subcontinent.

  • Pramod on January 6, 2007, 16:31 GMT

    Warney has had a greater influence on the game than any other spinner ever. The only blot in his illustrious career is his failure against India.

  • zaki on January 6, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    well i do agree with most of the things tht kamran have said. but no matter wht happens shane is outstanding. to get so many wickets is not easy. also as v can see now most of the pitches r batsmen favoured or the semers favoured pitces rathen than a spin favourable pitch.

  • krishna on January 6, 2007, 16:13 GMT

    i totally agree that abdul was a better leggie than warne.As of all the points noted abdul did not have the support of the press as shane has.So his work and skills were known only to the subcontininent plays and cricket enthusiasts.

  • s.venkat on January 6, 2007, 16:01 GMT

    If Qadir was superior why did he not last long and take 600+ wickets. That shows Warne can whack Qadir.

  • ak on January 6, 2007, 16:00 GMT

    read this: Cricket has Abdul Qadir to thank for keeping wrist-spin alive through the darkest years of the late 1970s and '80s. He did it with style, too. Blessed with a fast bowler's temperament and fire, he surrounded his craft with mystique, and after his retirement cultivated the long hair and looks of a rock star. 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. Graham Gooch, who faced him that day, said Qadir was even finer than Shane Warne, to whom he passed on the candle.

  • Sudhakar on January 6, 2007, 15:53 GMT

    As great a bowler Abdul Qadir was, he is not as great as Shane Warne. For statistics minded people, you cannot term a bowler who has 236 wickets in 67 matches GREATER than a bowler who has lasted a little over twice the number of the matches and taken a tad less 3 times the number of wickets Qadir has. And Warne was the greatest not just because the number of wickets he has taken, but for the number of matches he has turned from hopeless situation into victory - Adleaide 2006, was the most recent example. And the fact that he made a great comeback after his drug ban and bowled better than ever before, is just one indication of greatness.

    #1. Warne NEVER had a google?. You must be joking. And exactly HOW MANY kinds of googlies a bowler can bowl? #2. You can consider the umpire's decision making when you are saying a bowler is greater than the 'greatest'. Should you?

    #3. What else do you need on the field when you have the backing of a captain as great and powerful than Imran Khan? Who cares about the board anyway on the field?

    #4. In more sense than one, playing for a weaker team should bring the best out of a player. Sachin was the greatest in the 90s when India was a one-batsman wonder. However, when India has so many great batsmen in this century, Sachin is no longer the Sachin of old. In that regard, Warne should be complimented for holding his own amongst the other great bowlers he has bowled with.

    #5. Warne has in fact bowled to some of the greatest batsman of our era - Lara, Sachin, Kallis, Gary Kirsten, Jayasuriya..and he has come up trumps against them.

    $6. This is a valid point, though whenever he had bowl with a low score on board, Warne has delivered, especially in the second innings.

    #7. From when did Sarfraz Nawaz become cannon fodder.

    #8. Agreed that media coverage is more prevalent now. But how does that take a sheen out of Warne's greatness? Aren't the ex-players (many of them greats) part of this media? So, are you saying that these greats do not have a sense of what they are saying?

    #9. How can you hold a comment of a Wisden Almanack editor as a reason for saying that a bowler is greater than the greatest? This is absurd.

    #10. Gooch's comment can be valid. However, he was just talking about that one match in Lahore and not the 700 odd wickets over 140 matches.

    Your last statement should read, 'Thank you Abdul, but Warne, you are the greatest', not 'Thank you Shane but let's not forget Abdul the Googly.'

  • Mark Bradshaw on January 6, 2007, 15:42 GMT

    As someone who cannot stand Shane Warne (drugs, Indian bookies, sledging), I must still disagree with Kamran Abbasi. I saw Qadir bowl in both the '82 and '87 series in England, and while he was certainly a fine bowler, he was not in the same league as Warne. I reckon Qadir was about as good as Mushtaq Ahmed.

  • AHMED on January 6, 2007, 15:30 GMT

    PPLLL ....KOOOL DOWN...MR kamran has just said that for some reasons he think that qadir was better than warne n for some he is better n for some hes not ...so just give out ur comments ,comparing both of them .

  • Swami on January 6, 2007, 15:11 GMT

    I had the opportunity of watching Qadir live in Chennai in 1987 when Srikkanth murdered him on way to a century on opening day. He was a good spinner and an eccentric man. I doubt if he had a method to his madness, and such eccentric madness tends to be attractive in short periods of time. Thats why he conjures up images of spectacular performances but statistics dont bear out his effectiveness over long periods of time. The art of bowling is a combination of physical, psychological, and technical skills, and Warne has shown better mastery of these skills than most if not all bowlers who have ever played the game. People point out his record against India , but then check out Lillee's record against Pakistan for example. You cant have spectacular results against everyone, every where all the time. Warney is simply the best leg spinner who has ever played the game ( never mind no one can precisely explain what a zooter or a slider are ) and possibly the best bowler.

  • pat on January 6, 2007, 14:55 GMT

    Terry Jenner is Warne's mentor, has been for more than 15 years......Qadir helped him out once. Based on this, Terry Jenner must the greatest spinner the world has ever seen, about a million times over. See the flaw in this argument anyone?

  • zam on January 6, 2007, 14:39 GMT

    Being a legspinner and have played in the same time and at the same city, lahore, i have watched both abdul qadir and shane very closly. This is not the right time to compare because to pay a tribute to a going legend should not be like that. Qadir had more varieties than shane but the spin,and the nip is the main asset for shane which no other leg spinner has yet. I remember when shane warne came to pakistan first time and Sadiq Mohammad praised a lot about him and he mentioned about qadir that he bowls with all his arms and legs and look at shane how simple is his action and how good is the result. The other thing is Danish is a mixture of Qadir and kumble, so see the result....Crciket world might get another warne may be in next century..thanks

  • Andrew on January 6, 2007, 14:37 GMT

    Speaking as someone who earns his living as a sports journalist, it concerns me that some people bring their own bias and predjudice into this debate about comparsions between Warne and Qadir.

    Raj, you clearly have a problem with anyone who is a "white" as you call it. This is not about the skills of Warne or Qadir, I think. Your remarks smacks of racism.

    You seem to have a complete disregard for the Australian public's, or "yobbos" as you call them, love ofcricket, who I shal;l remind you break attendance records at test matches when most other countries only get a fraction of the crowd through the gates. To suggest Australians don't appreciate the brilliance of a say, Lara or Tendulkar, is laughable.

    Why should India be Warne's only measure of success? They haven't been the second best team in the world during his career. Considering their test record outside the sub-continent in the past 20 years, your criteria might suggest they are one of the worst teams in the world during that period.

    How also does Warne's recoord against South Africa not count? They have been the second most succesful team in the world during Warne's entire playing career.

    Does that mean Murali's a more mediocre bowler because so many of his test wickets have come against Bangladesh and India, and on home wickets? He has struggled against Australia, especially in Australia.

    I think Qadir's test record outside Pakistan, especially away from the sub-continent, was very poor - it was about 50!

    However, I still think Qadir was an amazing bowler, who like Warne, revived the art of legspin bowling. Warne went one step further - he revolutionised the way cricket is played on so many levels.

    And as many people on his blog site have pointed out, why does Warne need a googly if he has half a dozen or so varities of legspinners, an unheard of zooter, a ripper of a flipper and unerring accuracy? I mean Bishen Bedi once defended Anil Kumble over his lack of a big leg break. He said if he keeps hitting the stumps or hitting them on the pads for an lbw because he bowls so straight with the best topspinners in the world, why does he have to turn the ball?

  • bandu on January 6, 2007, 13:51 GMT

    The facts you missed. 1. Qadir played against teams which are far better than Pakistan at his time. 2. Warne played against teams which are far inferior to Australia, and there were not great batsmen played against him. Ofcourse, Lara was there, but he was the bunny of McGrath. 3. Warne has statistical greatness, but no real greatness. 4. For mu knowledge Qadir never took performance enhancement drugs, never cheated and never was the "king of sledgers"

  • Saad Warraich on January 6, 2007, 13:48 GMT

    Qadir was good, the best of his times, but i donmt think theres any comparison. After all 700 plus wickets is no joke. Warne is a great and theres no doubt. If u want a comparison, make it between Murali and Warne,and i tell u what: Murali is way better. I think Murali is the best of all spinners of all times...

  • Saad Shafqat on January 6, 2007, 13:41 GMT

    Qadir versus Warne is a dilemma. Dilemmas by definition are unanswerable, but they sustain interest, often forever. Kamran makes some excellent points in favor of Qadir. I would humbly submit that one way to approach the comparison is through the experiment of placing Qadir in the modern Australian team and imagining how he would have performed. The outcome of this experiment, at least in my mind, is that Warne would still have done better than Qadir. But you also then need to do the complementary experiment, i.e. placing Warne in the Pakistan team of the 1980s. The outcome of this particular experiment is Qadir emerging better than Warne. By a distance. Which experiment do you go with? No one can say. The dilemma persists. (That's why it's a dilemma.)

  • SHEEJE on January 6, 2007, 13:40 GMT

    well well.. i have read all the comments, if u compare Warne with Saqlain Mushtaq as a bowler, i am sure most of you would agree with me that Saqlain was much better but PCB stopped him to do much better..... But as this is the comparison between two leg spinners, both are great heros of their time. When it was Qadirs' era, he was on the top.. this is Warne era, now he is on the top.

  • patrick on January 6, 2007, 13:38 GMT

    its really difficult for me to see how one can compare two different eras...For example.. Ponting cant be compared with the Don.. Ponting has played more test matches the Bradman..and new equipment(helmets,bats etc)have really changed the balance..things are now little more in favour of the batsman

  • Steve on January 6, 2007, 13:32 GMT

    Perhaps we should ask Mike Gatting, or Shakoor Rana? Both played a role in the success of Qadir. Can the statisticians credit an umpire with an 'assist' as we now see with runouts? Qadir was a very good bowler, but to compare him to Warne is ridiculous. You need to consider achievements and longevity as a benchmark also. Only one winner there.

  • Mohammad Ali Dada on January 6, 2007, 13:28 GMT

    Now I am a massive Pakistan fan so I am very very biased. But not in my wildest dream would I ever dare to suggest that Qadir was a better bowler than Warne. There is no comparison whatsoever. Yes Qadir was brilliant but no, sorry, no room for what Qadir might have done. Warne has done it so he is a better bowler in my book.

  • jayanth on January 6, 2007, 13:13 GMT

    well, S.Fleming plays a better on-drive than Lara, so does that make him a better batsman? Atapattu might have more strokes in the book than Javed Miandad but everyone knows who the better batsman is. Doesnt Miandad's street smartness, audacity, out-thinking bowlers mean anything? Skills are not the measure Kamran, its how well you utilise them. Mr. Abbasi, you must have expected such hateful tirade and something tells me that your intention was also precisely that.

  • Nick Schneider on January 6, 2007, 13:07 GMT

    My top legspinner of all time is M. Atherton.

  • A PAKISTANI on January 6, 2007, 13:05 GMT

    My comments are to all AUSTRALIANS.

    Shane Warne is a kind of Bowler, who is not able to get as many wickets with his spin, but he gets more wickets using WRONG LANGUAGE with the Batsmen.

  • atta subhan on January 6, 2007, 13:03 GMT

    we can compare saqlain VS Muralithran but we cant compare warn and Qadir nor we should. Can now we peoples start comparing Saqlain vs Murali rather then wasting time on warn and qadir. now lets start with my words that saqlain is better bowler then Murali if he has been playing regularly he might have way past 700 mile stone before warne.

  • Dan on January 6, 2007, 13:03 GMT

    I think you are missing the point. The point is that nobody should care. To compare Warne, and Murali, and Qadir... it's just a waste of time and space. It achieves nothing. Kamran, you are doing your job so keep at it, but stop writing drivel like this and do your job better. Everyone else, get back to doing something productive, the world is waiting for you.

  • Bob Williams on January 6, 2007, 12:57 GMT

    Test Career Bowling - Most Wickets

    Based on all matches up to and including Test # 1826: Australia v England at Sydney, 5th Test, 02/01/2007

    Name Mat Balls M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ Team

    SK Warne 145 40705 1761 17995 708 25.41 8-71 37 10 57.4 2.65 AUS

    BS Chandrasekhar 58 15963 584 7199 242 29.74 8-79 16 2 65.9 2.70 IND

    Abdul Qadir 67 17126 608 7742 236 32.80 9-56 15 5 72.5 2.71 PAK

    Que?

    The record speaks for itself. More tests, more wickets, better average. And Chandra didn't do too badly either.

    Warne by a mile

  • dr.faisal on January 6, 2007, 12:49 GMT

    Kamran is right.The above points which Kamran gave in favour of Qadir is apt and appropriate.Again,Qadir was not blessed with the 3rd eye for the stumpings.Qadir turned the ball muchmore than warne and his googlies and flippers were much,much,more dangerous than warne.Qadir is the true spin wizard.

  • Fredda on January 6, 2007, 12:47 GMT

    Warney was never the same after surgery, how does his stats pre-surgery compare post ?

  • clive bradbury on January 6, 2007, 12:42 GMT

    There is a very easy way to settle this argument in your mind - select a spinner for an 'all-time great' test team. Do you choose a man who got all his wickets on friendly pitches at home, with even friendlier umpires, or a man who can take them anywhere on any pitch? 700 wickets speaks for itself.

  • Tokeer on January 6, 2007, 12:09 GMT

    In the current climate of cricket, there are many performance enhancers but the Qadir and Imran days, everything was as you saw and nothing to do with performance enhancers. Its has to be highlighted that Mr Warne did have a career which included drug and match fixing claims. Mr Qadir was 'black and white' and without the facilities being offered in the 2006 to the sportsman and he achieved amazing results . . . .

  • Mathew Kuncheria on January 6, 2007, 12:04 GMT

    Has anybody heard of Subash Gupte? He was the best.

  • arpit on January 6, 2007, 12:02 GMT

    whatever reasons you had are good but let me tell you for the sheer longevity of his career and the number of wickets that warne took he is a better bowler...anyways lets not get into it further because comparing qadir to warne is just like comparing sachin to sunny..not fair to any of the two greats

  • Andrew on January 6, 2007, 11:58 GMT

    Warne is the best spin bowler in the history of the game. He has taken most of his wickets in Australia on pitches that were often not condusive to spin. The write of this blog is on drugs as Qadir is not in the same league. Will be very sad to see Warne's record go to Murali as he is a chucker - I don't care what tests he has to show that he can't straighten his arm but I liken his action to flicking a yo-you out of the back of your hand. He will never be regarded as the best spin bowler even if he takes 1000 wickets

  • John Gill on January 6, 2007, 11:42 GMT

    I think that Warne took up the mantle from Qadir, however I think that Qadir was a greater master of the variety and artistry of lefg spin. If we look at both of these bowlers experiences bowling to the best batsmen of their times, I remember Qadir tying Viv Richards into knots and becalming him, not an easy thing to do!He could bowl a perfectly pitched googly first up. Warne on the other hand has done marvellously weel against most batsmen, but Lara and Tendulkar have also slain him. I have seen bothhand I think thatWarne had the better temperement, but Quadir is the greater artist.

  • bruce sheekey on January 6, 2007, 11:41 GMT

    When I first saw Kamran's headline that Abdul Qadir was better than Shane Warne I thought, "Oh, that's a typically bised view from a Pakistani".

    However, when I read through his reasons, I realised Kamran might have a point.

    Let me say that not all Aussies are blind to the abilities of others. Unfortunately, we might be the Americans of Cricket in our insensitivity to others, but it's not widespread.....at least I hope not yet!

    Is Abdul really better than Warne? I don't really know. Even in Australia, the more discerning Cricket followers wonder if Warne is better than the legends of the 1930s - Clarrie Grimmett & Bill O'Reilly - let alone a leg spinner from another country.

    Statistically, Warne is the best, but stats only act as a guide, & are not final by themselves.

    Warne's blindspot is his failures in India, while his overall record against India is poor. May I say respectfully that the indians play legspin better than anybody, & Warne failed the test against their great batsmen. Salim Malik of Pakistan also handled him quite well.

    Abdul may have had more variety, & perhaps even spun the ball more prodigiously, but Warne possessed wonderful control for a difficult art. His unerring control & accuracy set him apart from other leggies. And he out-thought most batsmen.

    I remember watching Abdul in Australia in 1983-84. He strugggled in a struggling team, taking 13 wickets in 5 tests for 40-odd runs per wicket.

    He bowled with great heart, skill & variety, but lacked control & support from other bowlers. Remember, Imran Khan only played the last 2 tests of this series because of injury, & didn't bowl at all.

    With all players, there are many facets that make up their profile. Abdul may have had more variety & spun the ball more, but Warne had supreme control of line & length, & bowled smarter.

    As for playing in a stronger team, well that's Warne's good luck. Besides, if Abdul often played in a weak team, then like M.Muralitharan & R.Hadlee, he should have taken more wickets considering there was less competition from team-mates to take wickets in each test.

    The argument will go on, but suffice to say, both Warne & Abdul are great legspinners. And we were blest to be presented with them both.

  • Pearson on January 6, 2007, 11:38 GMT

    Dear Writer.....All I can say that this is the height of stupidity. Most the reasons that you have presented above are groundless. I have seen Qadir bowling, he was superb but Warne is a legend and you cannot compare them. Warne has performed consistently for such a longer period of time and has got 708 wickets. It is not easy to get this many wickets when you are playing among the bowlers like McGrath, Gillespie and other Australian bowlers. Nobody can can near his status except Murlitaran. I am talking about facts man.

  • John C on January 6, 2007, 11:38 GMT

    Raj, it's a bit off the topic but I just have to make a response to your comment about Australians not respecting "foreigners". There is not a single Australian cricket fan that has anything but the highest respect for VVS Laxman. This man has made 3 - yes 3 triple century partnerships against the best attack in the world all within the period 2001-04. I would like to know any other player that has done that against Australia. Can any other blogger think of one ? Can't wait for him to come back down under next summer.

  • Jag on January 6, 2007, 11:36 GMT

    Khalid Zafar: I'm not sure why you wanted to know but the answer to your question, who was the mentor to Shane Warne is: Terry Jenner

  • zulfiqar ali on January 6, 2007, 11:11 GMT

    Skillwise qadir was a far batter bowler than warne . a true Artist .certain attributes do not have backing of statistics.like some people belives that ponsford was batter than sir don. so yes i watched both qadir and warne and i think in more areas qadir was batter than warne.

  • N.N on January 6, 2007, 11:11 GMT

    It is utterly stupid to go back into the past, pull out a historical figure and make an absurd comparison to someone part of this current generation. I'd say most of us viewers and participants of this blog do not know what Qadir achieved during his day, or at least how he did it. However, we CAN say that we know plenty more about Warnie mostly because we have grown up, watching him terrorise batsmen of all categories and countries. This still doesn't make much sense but all I mean to say is that they both excelled in their respective duties at the time that they were playing. It is mind boggling and pointless to claim that some players were less "fortunate" than others due to the riches and laurels of their country. Oh well. Can't win em all, can we?

  • Shehzad Ghani on January 6, 2007, 11:09 GMT

    Its all good and makes sense, but there's no denying that Qadir or any other Pakistani spinner has not done it over a good period of time and everywhere in the world. Qadir in fact has the highest tally for a Pakistani spinner: 237. Now compare that to 708!

  • Muhammad Waqar on January 6, 2007, 11:06 GMT

    I dont agree with you Mr. Kamran i think warne is the great bowler than the A.Q becuase he bowled to the batsmen who are ruthless when hitting the bowlers he bowled to the Great Brian Lara the best batsman the world has ever seen of course after Sir Don Bradman. Warne has the wickets to prove himslef great and they tell the story of the champion bowler.

  • Sefal Khan on January 6, 2007, 11:03 GMT

    Kamran - you have asked for it this time. Qadir 200 odd wickets - Warnie 700+ wickets - says it all. Regards

  • mubashar on January 6, 2007, 10:52 GMT

    well to be hoenst the reason of playing from a stronger team is pretty valid one,considering abdul qadir played from a low ranked side at that time and was such a grt success and had no peers to instruct or guide him,moreover no one knew the art of leg spin before abdul qadir realy mastered it,though people bowled good leg spin but even now when u talk of good leg spinners qadir is the name u alwaz think of..comparing them may not ba good idea as conditions r not the same...but yes the era in which qadir professed was a difficult one and his team too...

  • Andrew on January 6, 2007, 10:47 GMT

    I can see why this is called 'the mysterious world of Pakistan cricket'!!what a strange thing to say. it sparks debate I guess, but not within impartial cirles. Qadir was very good. his record was good if unremarkable. Underwood in the same era had significantly better figures. I am sure some of the reasons put forward go some way to explaining why his figures don't match up to Warne, but I think the main reason is that he was not as good as Warne. a harsh truth to some I guess, the bleeding obvious to others!still if it makes you feel better I guess you can continue trying to make a case for Qadir, futile as it obviously is.

  • Chris on January 6, 2007, 10:30 GMT

    People are flying off the handle a little bit here, Qadir played the game against different teams in different conditions in a different time and at the end of the day was a different kind of leg spinner. If you are going to compare Warne to Qadir you may as well try comparing McGrath to Malcolm Marshall!! Also, am I the only one who's getting sick of the racist nonsense that tends to get posted every now and then? To 'Safwan': Last time I saw a picture of Bishan Bedi he looked very Asian and was calling Murali a chucker, last time I saw a picture of myself I looked very white and I don't call Murali a chucker. To 'raj': Lay off the stereotypes, you'd be surprised about the high regard 'Asian' cricketers are held by the 'White' countries if you bothered to open your ears and your mind.

  • shakeel Bhatti on January 6, 2007, 10:28 GMT

    I agree with you that Abdul Qadir was better bowler than shane warne. beause of following resons. Qadir have more varity than warne warne never bowled to greats batsmans like ViV Richards Gavasker, Amernath, Javed Miandad, I watch almost fifty test matches in which warne played but i never saw he take a wicke on googly. he bowled just two type of balls leg break on the batsmans leg side or stright one. on the other hand Qadir bowled five different type of balls in a over,

  • ADEEL LOAN on January 6, 2007, 10:23 GMT

    Kamran Abbasi..a Pakistani..yup this was expected.. 1- qadir was able to bowl a googly.so you are saying that makes him a better bowler? what about those 708 test wickets 2-decisions going against you..well its all part of the game..it is nothing more than an excuse 3-madness of pakistan system is not warnie's problem mate..that is your headache. 4-Mr Abbasi you are sadly mistaken..when warrne made his debut australian team was strugglin..He took his side to a new level which qadir was unable to do..bowlers win you test matches..look at australia's record over the last decade..Warnie played a vital role in almost every single match 5-What are you trying to say..Mate, good bowlers just dont care who they are bowling too.Warne was unplayable. 6-Its a team game after all mate..everyone has to perform. 7-imran and qadir..well the aussies have Mcgrath and Warne only..They do bulk of the bowling.. 9- Mate i dont care what people say..i concentrate only on stats..and stats says "Warnie is the REAL DEAL" 10-Gooch faced both bowlers in their prime. excuze me?? that was just the beginning of warne's career/..that was not his prime mate.. this article is just a waste of time..i mean there is no comparison..qadir introduced the art of leg spin..Shane Warne mastered it.cheers

  • A.R.Zaidi on January 6, 2007, 10:23 GMT

    Kamran i persnally feel that Qadir was a better bowler than Warne. What Qadir did in lesser number of test matches(67!) needs to be appreciated. What would have been the number of his wickets, had he played 145 tests. I m follow ing cricket for 35 years. I have met Australian great cricket writers like Jim Maxwell who always praised Abdul Qadir. We were covering 1998 test series in Pakistan when Australians were here . It was when Shane Warne visited Qadir at his residence to pay regards in Lahore and get few tips. It was a great gesture shown by Shane which MUST be lauded. My comments are not meant to downgrade Shane,s achievements. He was a great bowler, a legend but Qadir was a legend too. Qadir was more aggressive a bowler than Shane, had more variety and Shane had edge over Qadir in playing mind games. I have seen Qadir bowling and have seen Shane bowling too particularly in SCG. Someone wrote above that Australian wickets were not favourable to spinners. I contradict this, i have been to Australian test venues on more than one ocassion. Wickets at Sydney, Hobart and Adelaide favour spinners. At SCG, wicket takes vicious turn after third day. I was lucky to be in ground when Warne bowled Basit Ali with a beauty on the last ball of the day in 1995 at SCG. I was again lucky to see Mushtaq Ahmed and Shane weaving their magic at Hobart same year. Qadir and Warne were both geniuses and we should not compare them but salute both of them. Dont forget that Dharampura Gymkhana cannot be matched with any Australian club from where Qadir started his career. We should not be unfair to Qadir nor we should be unfair to great Shane Warne. And while talking about controversial umpires, do we forget about Max-O-Connells and other Australian umpires who were known for biased decisions? In 1995 when we anded in Australia with Pakistan cricket team, press was already writing on poor umpiring by Ausatralian umpires which cost Springbks the series. So please the contributers, dont compare the umpires too, Australian umpires were notorious for biased decisions on their day too !

  • santosh on January 6, 2007, 10:20 GMT

    Abdul Qadir ad=nd shane warne are not comparable. Shane warne is one among the best 5 in this century. He did not needed a big score to back him up. He was equally effective when Aussies had posted a low total. Abdul Qadirwas nothing infront of Shane's greatness. Please have a comparision of records and then speak. SAying shane gets the leg before's easily than qadir shows disrespect to the old and current umpires and speaks of ignorance of cricket.

  • Aazir on January 6, 2007, 10:18 GMT

    Warne is a million times better than Qadir.Warne has 700 wickets and Qadir has 236.Enough said

  • Hidayat Khan on January 6, 2007, 10:05 GMT

    Oh Dear. You've lost all credibility, Mr.Abbasi. It's one thing havingan opinion, it's quite another justifyng it. You have failed on the latter. Those are mere excuses you have trotted out. No spinner in the history of the game (not even Murali) has demonstrated an uncanny ability to deliver in crunch situations as Warne has.

  • Doug on January 6, 2007, 10:03 GMT

    @Khalid Zafar: Who taught Michelangelo to sculpt? Who taught Titian to paint? Who taught Shakespeare to write? Who taught W G Grace to bat? Why the implication that the pupil is less than the mentor?

    Someone mentioned the lbw law earlier. The law was never changed to make the spinners' task harder - prior to 1935 the ball had to pitch in line, until the 1970s ball had to hit pad in line. Ramadhin wasn't legislated out of the game by a white conspiracy.

    And talking of white conspiracies, there's a whole list of white bowlers who either had to remodel their action or quit cricket. Ian Meckiff, Tony Lock and Geoff Cope are three to start with, and you can find more. Whereas when Murali throws on a regular basis, suddenly we're all about giving spinners 15 degrees of flexion. It's not *white* cricketers we bend over backwards to accommodate for fear of offending people!

    @Rajeev: Bosanquet (BJT, by the way), the inventor of the googly, was English! It was said of him "He is the worst length bowler in England, and yet he is the only bowler the Australians fear".

  • Zahid on January 6, 2007, 9:58 GMT

    I wonder if Kamran Abbasi decided to coincide this blog entry with Warne's retirement to enrage Aussie readers. I don't know if Andrew Johnson is Australian, but he's as pissed as anyone I've ever seen.

    So many people are saying here that you can't compare two great bowlers of different eras. Well, then I fail to understand who do critics compare Sir Don Bradman to. After all, he is regarded as the greatest cricketer EVER. Greatest compared to who... every other cricketer in the world, right? So drawing comparisons between Qadir and Warne is not wrong by any means.

    Warne is usually credited as the one who revived a dying art... WRONG!! It was Qadir who did it. Warne merely carried the torch forward. And Warne has himself on numerous occasions regarded Qadir as one of his inspirations.

    I fully agree with Mr. Abbasi !!

  • Faraaz on January 6, 2007, 9:53 GMT

    Well although I agree Abdul Qadir is one of the best leg spinners ever and is horribly underrated and has underacheived..but I simiply cannot agree with the statement that Qadir is better than Warne..I like Qadir much more than Warne, I would love to believe it but as much as I dislike Shane Warne, I cannot deny the fact that he is probably the greatest spinner ever to have played the game. Simple. Agree Qadir is underrated and had a lot of factors going against him. Agree the media for certain reasons never gave him the limelight, but they do that for most Pakistani players anyways dont they?? But that does not make him better than Warne. Yes Warne has always been smashed all over the park in India even by the likes of Nayan Mongia but what he has acheived all over the world overshadow that.

  • Riaz Husain on January 6, 2007, 9:43 GMT

    Most of the bile put out on the comments by 'Warneistas' is simply cricketing ignorance. There is also an anti Pakistan bias coming through.

    The umpiring stance (not bias) of the two eras is absolutely key. Were Warne operating in the same era as Qadir ie with the same umpiring stance (remember pushing forward with the bat tucked in behind the pad was allowed then, isn't now - to refresh your memories try and get hold of a video of a Kepler Wessels batting who exemplified this point in ludicrous proportions) he would have ended up with 200 not 700 wickets, assuming he would have been a regular selection for Australia in the first place. Take lbw out of it and a leg spinner, any leg spinner, is a veritable 'buffet' bowler.

    I do not for a moment agree with the umpiring stance of Qadir's time. The present one is correct. Had Qadir being operating in the same time period as Warne and Murali the bowlers would have probably lined in the order 3rd Warne, 2nd Qadir, 1st Murali.

  • Usman on January 6, 2007, 9:30 GMT

    Kamran, Being a Pakistani, I love Abdul Qadir, but honestly you must be smoking a lot better stuff than me my friend. Warne is the best leg spinner that ever lived. Your list is biased and irrelevant. Compare the stats alone because at the end of the day, that is all that matters. Mindsets and batting strenght do not make a difference.

  • Rex on January 6, 2007, 9:17 GMT

    warne is the best simple as that who the hell is qadir

  • Tom on January 6, 2007, 8:58 GMT

    It's unfair to compare players across generations. That said, your heretical comments seem to stem from a biased support to players from your country rather than looking at the big picture. Qadir was probably the best leggie that played for Pakistan. That's very much it. Arguments such as Warne not being to able googlies or Qadir having only Imran for support hardly hold (Btw, if there was a bowler that bowled with minimum support from the other end, it was Kapil Dev, Imran had Afeez and Akram and others as well). Warne was one of the main reasons Australia has won (and not just drawn) matches abroad and at home. None of the other leggies, either earlier or during his tenure have shown the kind of control that Warne did. And, it was Warne who bowled Australia to victory in the 1999 1-day world cup as well, on seamer friendly wickets.

    While Pakistan have demonstrated talent, they have hardly been anywhere close to world beaters.

    Australia rose to the number 1 team in the world only during Warne's tenure, and have been at the top for a long time now.

    It is trivial to see why the world rates The Don as the game's best batsman. Pretty much the same reasoning seems to hold when arguing that Warne was the best leggie.

  • Shaun AUS on January 6, 2007, 8:53 GMT

    Did suppliments help warne get more wickets? He was banned for a year. Total disgrace....

  • Shantan Lingala on January 6, 2007, 8:28 GMT

    Kamran,Tell me one thing! Did you think of this outrageous topic just to get some posts on your article? If you so, then you really succeeded. Most of the points mentioned by you are "excuses" why Qadir didn't achieve as much as Warne. Either way, both Warne & Qadir failed miserably against the best players of legspin - India. England's 1987 tour - probably Qadir's most productive - saw some of the worst umpiring Test Cricket had ever seen. And who was the beneficiary? Abdul Qadir, of course!

    No way mate! No sane person can claim that Warne is second to any spinner. If you really suggest that, then you're ending up doing a great disservice to Qadir... because people will inevitably try to pull Qadir down to show that Warne was greater!

  • Khalid Zafar on January 6, 2007, 8:26 GMT

    I just wanted to know one thing, Who was the mentor of Shane Warne....?

  • Rajeev on January 6, 2007, 8:26 GMT

    For some reason, a lot of people seem posting comments seem to think that Qadir invented leg-spin. Australia has a far, far better tradition of leg-spin than any other Test-playing country. Starting with GJ Bosanquet, who invented and perfected the googly, through Clarie Grimmet, Bill O' Reilly, Arthur Mailey, Richie Benaud, Bob Holland, Peter Philpott, and Terry Jenner, Australia have had a long assembly line of good and great leg-spinners , whom us sub-continental people are unaware of. Bosanquet spun off legions of googly bowlers with his invention of the googly, and at a point there were as many as 4 South African googly bowlers plying their trade at the same time (known as the SA googly quartret of 1900s), Subsequent to Bosanquet was the great Clarie Grimmett, who picked up 240 odd wickets after starting his Test career at the ripe Husseyesque age of 31 in a carreer that continued till he was 44. Grimmett was a prodigious turner of the ball and was partnered by the great Bill' O Reilly (nicknamed Tiger), who was a Kumble style legspinner, nominated by Bradman to be the best bowler he had faced. Now that is saying something. Richie Benaud, before he became the venerable septugenarian presence in the commentatry box, was an impeccable legspinner of the 50s and 60s. Somewhere in between, there was the renonwned Arthur Mailey , known as the the millionaire, nicknamed so for his tendency to buy his wickets with guile and massive turn - Mailey has the best figures by an Australian in Test cricket in a single innings, so he must have been upto some good. Then there the assorted twirlers Terry Jenner (SW's coach), Bod Holland and Peter Philpott who all had their occasional moments while serving to add up the numbers. To add to an impressive CV of the Australian legpin foundation are the follwing facts: the flipper was invented by Grimmett, the googly by GJ Bosanquet and the backspinners and the sliders are all of Austrailan origin too.

    So, Anyone who claims that AQ invented leg-spin or discovered it is obviously ignorant and distorting facts.

    Also, going through some of the reasons, they were nowhere conclusive. To contest some, your claim of Warne not having a googly is plain wrong. Warne had a googly. Hell, I have a googly - it's not so hard to bowl a googly. He used it sparingly because batsmen fell like nine pins to his other variations and he he didn't need to. The googly is useful only when well disguised and Warne's slider was harder to pick than his googly and it made more sense to bowl it. AQ's second googly, and was bowled using the fingers, was the harder one to pick and didn't spin back a whole lot ; it went straight if anything and Warne's slider was an able challenger to that. Given Warne's use of rpping legspinners and his legstump line, a slider which skidded from leg/middle stump was more effective than a googly would have been.

    Conveniently, no mention is made of the fact that Warne drifted and spun the ball so much more than AQ despite AQ playing on dustbowls at home. Warne ripped the ball across even on Austrailan pitches, and could control the amount of turn and the line and length of the ball so much better. And to the question of his googly, his googly was the where AQ's flipper was.

    Warne did speak to AQ when he was on an A tour; so would have AQ if he had been an aspiring spinner. Warne coached with Terry Jenner for 13 years, taking advice from him repeately - this doesn't make TJ a better bowler than Warne.

    And of course, there is the small matter of extremely biased Pakistani umpires. There is a youtube video of AQ getting Gatting lbw (leg-before-wide would have been appropriate) which shows this better than any series of descriptions from me can.

    AQ was a quite a sight and had his moments, and carried the torch manfully in the dark era of spin bowling that was the 80s, but it would be a rather big folly to say he superseded Shane Warne. There were aspects of his bowling like the rhythmical run up and the biomechanical completeness of this action and the loop that were quite a treat to watch. As a lg-spinner, I am not going to deny that, but Warne was more successful, more devastating, scarier, gave it one heck of a rip and got going when the going got tough. He was the person that made every club side and international side scurrying off to unearth a leg-spinner.

    It is alright to have personal preferences, because AQ brought personal joy to you and other Pakistanis than Warne would have brought to you as a neutral observer, but let us not try to cross the border between preference and fact. AQ is a fine bowler who deserves to be respected for the legacy that he left and treated with a dignity deserving a former great of the game. Let us not have to beliitle their achievements in your quest to feel vicarious pleasure through national pride.

  • Abid Ashar on January 6, 2007, 8:24 GMT

    Both are legends of their era. Credit has to be given to Qadir for reviving the art of leg spin/googly bowling and to Warne for carrying the torch further. I will like to have the statistics regarding % of top order dismissal. To sum it up, it is a debate of who is better bowler. To me there is no doubt as to the greatest spinner of all time - Muralitharan.

  • Debmalya Mukherjee on January 6, 2007, 8:11 GMT

    Qadir's bowling average against India was 51.51 and only 27 wickets from 16 tests! There should'nt be any comparison whatsoever. Kumble is better than Qadir.

  • GK on January 6, 2007, 7:47 GMT

    Qadir averaged 61 runs per wicket in Australia, 41 runs per wicket in England, 52 runs per wicket in New Zealand, and a touch under 70 runs per wicket while playing in India. While Qadir was a good bowler in his own right, he was not even as good as India's Subhash "Fergie" Gupte. Comparing him with a genius like Warne is nothing short of blasphemy. Kamran,please remember that at Cricinfo, your audience is a very knowledgable crowd and not some pseudo-jihadi you can shag around in the dirty streets of Multan.

  • Chand Pasha on January 6, 2007, 7:42 GMT

    I do not agree with Kamran. Warne's figures against pakistan are note worthy. Googly is just 5% of total art of the spin.

    And just look at the statistics ... when the sample is 140 tests there is less chance of error.

    Bottom line Warne is best of all spinners.

  • Asif Ahmed on January 6, 2007, 6:56 GMT

    It is totally uncalled for to even make that comparison. What complete nonsense.

    Qadir had the benefit of Pakistani umpires in all of his tests at home on turning wickets. He had very little success abroad.

    There is no single bowler, with the exception of Murali, who can be compared to Warne. This discussion is really a waste of time.

    What's next--that Mansoor Akhtar was a better batsman than Ricky Ponting???

  • Sheev on January 6, 2007, 6:46 GMT

    No disrespact towards Qadir/Warne, in my opinion in spin department i think Chandrasekhar/Bedi/Prasnna were best. during that time there were great batsmen.......and present time only few are best batsmen.

  • Jim Toseland on January 6, 2007, 6:45 GMT

    It always was nonsensical trying to compare great players of different eras, is now, and ever shall be. I was fortunate enough to see Qadir in England around '82 - he was just a delight to watch. I don't believe anyone could ever have more mastery of flight, control, and spin than he did then. let's all be grateful for witnessing great players whenever, wherever they play.

  • Johnno#1 on January 6, 2007, 6:44 GMT

    Shane Warne: One of Five Wisden Cricketers of the Century (Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Richards, Warne) even before all the records tumbled. Qadir wouldn't rate a mention. Nuff said.

  • Andrew Mac on January 6, 2007, 6:19 GMT

    I saw Qadir bowl in Australia. He was very disappointing. I have seen Murali bowl too and not been overly impressed. A lot of his wickets have been taken against Bangla Desh and Zimbabwe who shouldn't have test status.The only spinner from overseas that has impressed me when bowling in Australia in recent times was Kumble in the last series India playd here. He doesn't spin the ball much but his control almost rivals Warne. As a Pom who migrated to Australia in his teens I have to say Warne has caused me more anguish than any other player. His brilliance over such a long period of time has been astonishing.He has taken wickets everywhere, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, South Africa. The only place he hasn't dominated is Inda and to a lesser extent the West Indies. Just like there has never been another Bradman I doubt whether there will ever be another bowler that matches Shane Warne.

  • Shwet on January 6, 2007, 6:17 GMT

    This article has taken parochial romanticism to its highest.For the life of me i could not comprehend the need Mr. Abbasi felt to downgrade a great cricketer like Warne. Yes! this is plain downgrading someone who is probably the greatest exponent of a dificult art.I have seen both Warne and Qadir in their Prime. While Qadir was Cannon Fodder for most Indian batsmen , Warne still enjoyed his moments. More than that who can forget the great bamboozling legbreak spinning crazily as if caught in a whirlpool. It was this wizardry which made Warne great this single weapon was too much for ordinary mortals to handle.He is the man who romanticised spin bowling. If Shakespeare gave birth to literature's ingenuinity, Warne was cricket's greatest Doyen in the nineties.

  • Johnno#1 on January 6, 2007, 6:15 GMT

    Australia have been partly successful due to Warne. Like many have already said, you can't compare quality players of different eras, and both were great leggies in their own right. Different conditions, quality of opposition and all these 'what ifs' do affect success. Although i didn't see Qadir, it seems he kept the art of leg -spin going, like Warne has for Australia and world cricket. Warne was Australia's best spinner since Benaud, and revived a long lost art in australian cricket, if not world cricket where fast bowlers were the go. Warne with the more matches and consistency indicate to me he was the better of the two, but bowlers from different eras are hard to compare.

  • Matt Smith on January 6, 2007, 6:11 GMT

    Hahaha that just makes me laugh.... I might be a one eyed Aussie but you simply cant compare between different eras. But really.. Qadir seemingly could not bowl outside Pakistan and like Warne struggled against India. But when it boils down, they were both fantastic but you are pulling a long straw to suggest that Qadir is better then Warne.... simply cant compare.

    In my opinion though Warne might not have had the greatest variety but how does being able to bowl 58 different varieties of spin make you a better bowler. If I could bowl 250 different devliveries it doesnt make me the greatest ever.

    What I think stands Warne apart from every other slow bowler is his ability stand up to be counted when it was really needed.... its all nice to take 9-50 in a dead rubber or whatever but its the key wickets that count- the moments that swing a test match or a match like the 99 World Cup Semi. It is getting the best batsmen out and making that breakthrough.... and simply Warne is in a class of his own in that regard, but again that is my own opinion.

    As for those calling Murali the greatest- if only the rules didnt have to be continually altered to keep his action legal then he'd be in the picture. Whether he chucks or not, and so the ICC (The pathetic organistation that it now is) has ruled he doesnt, he is incomparable as well. The biggest difference between Warne & Murali is the bowling attacks... throughout his career Murali has been the one superstar in the bowling (Perhaps when Vaas was at his peak you could argue) lineup whereas Warne has shared his wickets with numerous other great bowlers. If Warne had of been the mainstay of the attack by himself I believe he would have well over a 1000 wickets by now. Both are great bowlers but how do you honestly compare their achievements.

    But in the washup you simply cant compare players from different eras. It is hard enough to compare players from different countries. So I dont think trying to write down the brilliance of SK Warne is what should be done- we should all celebrate and admire what he has given the game. And for me, he is the best spinner ever and maybe even the greatest bowler, but it is all within the eye of the beholder!

  • Sanjay on January 6, 2007, 6:09 GMT

    Lets accept the fact, Qadir was one of the most ill tempered players in the world, and this pleasure of having this player is enjoyed by Pakistan. He was a bowler but even we can't compare him with a middle school level bowler.. He was horrible, Warne is a very neat bowler has got all the qualities of a GREAT.....

  • Syed M. Hasan on January 6, 2007, 6:04 GMT

    The only real fair way to decide which one was the better is to work out the math. Take the amounts of games warne played (145), multiply that by the amounts of wickets Qadir took (236) n divide that number by the amounts of games he played (67). Your anwer is about 511. That means that even if Qadir played the same amounts of games as Warne, he would have still taken about 200 less wickets. Warne has taken 708 wickets. I don't really care if they played in defferent eras n what not, n that warne pressured umpires in to rasing their pointer finger. I just don't care. I've worked out the stats, n they show that warne was a much better bowler then Qadir. Enough said i think.

  • Craig on January 6, 2007, 5:59 GMT

    The comparison of Abdul Qadir with Warne is laughable - one was a mini while the just retired one was a Rolls Royce.

    As to those who are claiming that Murali is and will be greater than Warne, the fact that this possibility is being allowed to happen is one of the great travesties ever foisted upon cricket or sport in general.

    Fact is Murali's doosra is illegal and yet he is still allowed to play and take wickets with that delivery. He has been cleared with the rest of his action after an appropriate bending of the rules to accomodate him.

    A lot of the posters claim an anti Asian bias against Murali but it seems pretty clear that Murali would not be playing cricket today if he was English, South African, New Zealand and Australian. He just would have ended up like Ian Meckiff, the Australian bowler who burst onto the scene with tremendous figures and was later barred due to a suspect action. Murali should have been banned a long time ago.

    Also before I am accused of anti Asian or other bias let me just state that Imran Khan was probably the greatest allrounder after Sir Garfield Sobers and that Wasim Akram and Malcolm Marshall were probably the greatest fast bowlers that ever played, with Dennis Lillie, Glen McGrath and Sir Richard Hadlee way up there.

    Murali - the greatest chucker that ever played the game. Warne - The greatest spinner I have seen play the game.

  • Jibran Baig on January 6, 2007, 5:58 GMT

    This arguement is a total waste of web space, first of all it is not right to compare two players from a different era. One thing I do feel bad about is that Qadir is always forgotten when they say that Shane Warne saved the dying art of leg spin. However, the circumstances were absolutely different for both players to play in. You do try to present it that Qadir had it really bad but leaving out Pakistan's odi record in his days; they were a pretty good Test team, in fact much much better than the one we had in the recent times. They are players of two different eras, batsmen were different, pitches were different, the amount of cricket was different. Qadir was one of the best leg spin bowlers world has seen but nothing should be taken away from Shane Warne. I don't agree with people when they go as far as saying that he is the greatest cricketer ever but he is one of best for sure. It is not the skill that he had, it was his brain that was something else. It is like you yourself shot down the ideas of people saying that M. Yousuf is a better batsman than Javed Miandad, but than agains Javed has a great brain on his shoulder which makes him better.

  • Jonathan Dex on January 6, 2007, 5:11 GMT

    I've had the privilege of watching the two bowl and I must say Warne is the superior bowler. Qadir had problems against the left handers since he couldn't turn the leg-break half as much as Warne and he didn't didn't dip it either.

    What Qadir had was a superior googly, of which he had several, but, like Danish Kaneria, he bowled with a too high arm action and could not turn the leggie as much as his googly.

    The Australians did not have too much trouble playing Qadir since they stacked their sides with left handers who swept Qadir at every opportunity. One has to look past the 'nostalgia' and 'nationalism' to see that Qadir's and Pakistan's record against admittedly average Australian sides were not good.

  • Suhaib Jalis Ahmed on January 6, 2007, 4:52 GMT

    Reading this latest blog is a good reason not to read future blogs. Abdul Qadir was a great bowler, but Warne's career is the pinnacle of legspin.

    Fine.... there wasnt much media coverage of Qadir's feats, but even so, Shane Warne mesmerized batsmen for 140 odd tests.

  • Steve G on January 6, 2007, 4:44 GMT

    Let's keep the comparison between two bowlers and not include Murali who has never "bowled" a single delivery.

  • Morgan on January 6, 2007, 4:33 GMT

    How can it be said that Qadir is a better bowler? What rubbish. There are many reasons this is so:

    *Even if Warne often bowled with a huge score behind him, he did as often bowl teams out when there seemed to be no chance of anything happening (Adelaide, WC 1999 semi, WC 1996 semi, Ashes 2005 the list goes on).

    *Warne had so many variations and such control that it didn't matter if he did not have a great wrong'un (he did before his shoulder operation and even after this still bowled some rippers).

    *The West Indians, however great, were weak against spin so that doesn't prove much.

    *Warne played a huge majority of his matches in Australia where wickets are not suited to spin as much as the dustbowls of the subcontinent.

    *Warne played in the 'golden age' of batting (that particular point also highlights that McGrath should be considered the best pace bowler of all).

    *The fact that Warne kept up such a consistency over 140+ matches and cameback from so many things (shoulder and finger operations that caused him to have to change his action) is testament to his greatness.

    *Thompson was faster than Lillee and Lee faster than McGrath. That does not make them greater fast bowlers. MacGill spins the ball more than Warne, that does not make him better. Brad Hogg has perhaps the best wrong'un in world cricket, but does not make him the best bowler or even one of the best bowlers (he often does not even make his state side for first class matches).

    There are more points but if I continued to go on I would merely be droning. The point is that to say such a thing is ridiculous. Warne is the greatest leg-spinner, greatest spinner and possibly greatest bowler of them all. Don't sulley his name by sprouting rubbish such as this.

  • John Beamish on January 6, 2007, 4:24 GMT

    Well, Hassan, old chap I was only going by numbers:

    Akram: 104 22627 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.65 20 25 5

    McGrath: 124 29248 12186 563 8/24 10/27 21.64 2.49 51.95 28 29 3

    McGrath bowling average of 21.64 vs. 23.62

    And besides I am English and can't abide McGrath but the facts remain.

  • Ram on January 6, 2007, 4:18 GMT

    Please for heavens sake. This argument is absolutely lame. Warne is the best bowler the world has ever seen

  • Muhammad Umair FROM ATTOCK - PAKISTAN on January 6, 2007, 4:04 GMT

    TO:::::::::: Posted by: Andrew Johnson at January 5, 2007 1:30 PM

    Andrew Johnson! Shane Warne can bowl googly. But there was no need to mention here that HOW WELL WARNE DELIVERED THE GOOGLY TO HOGGARD. If you see the 2005 PAK v ENG series’ last wicket of the third test, that Kaneria bowled to HOGGARD then you will find that Kaneria’s googly was very much better than Warne.

    TO:::::::: Posted by: T G at January 5, 2007 1:35 PM

    It might have been a good thing, if you write here your brother’s name and his first class record in order to ensure us that your brother was a better batsman than Mohammad Yousuf and no one give him a chance.

  • Omar B on January 6, 2007, 3:59 GMT

    Dr Abbasi you've certainly received a great response by irritating a lot of Warnie fans. Well done !!! Try something logical next time.

  • timmy on January 6, 2007, 3:55 GMT

    I totally disagree with everything you say. Comparing players from different era's is rubbish because from the way Shane Warne bowled he would have done equally well back in Qadir's time. If shane warne cannot bowl the googly who cares! He has 708 wickets to his name. What he didn't have in special deliveries he made up with gamesmenship, unnering accuracy and working out the batsmen. I do not believe for a second Qadir did not figure out batsmen weaknesses and bowl to them! I think if you do that your a bit mad. Look at shane warne in almost all of Australias tight games. Early in his career he took 3/0 in 15 balls to steal an inevitable victory off Sri Lanka and 15 or so years later he can still do it! Takes 4/20 odd off about 25 overs straight and almost certainly ends any possibility of coming back in the ashes! He has had countless more. Look at the semi finals of the 96 and 99 world cups. He took Australia out of what seemed to be unwinabble positions i doubt Qadir had the accuracy of Shane Warne. Although Qadir had superior variations to the stock leg spinner, Shane Warnes biggest asset was his ability to use his stock ball as his biggest wicket taker. He continuously varied the amount of side and overspin on the ball and bamboozled batsmen for one and a half decades. There are many many reasons Shane Warne is a much superior bowler. His ability to turn a tight match in the space of a few overs is second to none. Even when he is being dominated he still thinks im gonna get this bloke out next ball. He never stops looking like he is going to take a wicket. As shown in the Adelaide test in 2006 against England. He bowled the best i have ever seen anyone bowl to have been rewarded with the unflattering figures of 1 for 100 in about 40 overs. There was always one ball of every over he caused the batsmen problems. This was one of hte reasons Ponting found it so hard to take the ball away from him. And there is a little matter shane warne has on his side! 707 wickets its just oh 150 wickets away from everyone else apart from Murali. Stats don't lie. Shane warne has been the best bowler ever. The best cricketer since bradman. And everyone who's seen him bowl can say i was around in the Shane Warne Era. I don't think too many ppl would tell there grandkids i was alive during the Qadir era would you? I think not! Someone will have to be very special to ever eclipse Shane Warne as the best bowler in cricketing history. He would have done well in every single era. I am sure he would have caused even bradman a problem or too.

  • Jag on January 6, 2007, 3:54 GMT

    They should get this list into new editions of the Tencyclopedia...it'll be studied in english classes everywhere as an example of irony and bathos. good work kamran.

  • David Furrows on January 6, 2007, 3:52 GMT

    Nice try, Kamran, nice try. In the days when I wrote for "The Cricketer Pakistan" I always set out to be thought-provoking. I dearly hope that that was your aim here.

    I would add a few other points.

    1. Qadir had more variety than Warne, but much less control of his stock ball, and so he struggled to tie batsmen down on good pitches.

    2. Qadir was, to say the least, psychologically erratic.

    3. Qadir had an additional element of novelty: he was the only top class leggie most batsmen had ever seen in the eighties. Warne's adversaries have generally already been exposed to Kaneria, Kumble, Mushtaq Ahmed and MacGill.

    4. Qadir at home had the runs of Miandad, Zaheer, Mudassar and Imran behind him.

    I loved watching both enormously. Both are heroes of mine, and I'm a grown man. But Warne was the greatest. When Qadir was on the wane (e.g. Australia 89-90) he had nothing to fall back on, whereas for the last two years Warne has still been a world-beater with little more than a range of leg-breaks. I would compare Qadir to MacGill, who I would put ahead of Benaud, Grimmett and O'Reilly as the second best of all time.

  • Sushobhan Chowdhury on January 6, 2007, 3:47 GMT

    I agree that Qadir was a better leg spinner and also an immensely good human being (although that's not the point of discussion). I generally agree with your views. I also must add that Warne had the support of much better fielders and more settled captains during his playing days.He also had support of Australian Cricket system. I feel Warne is over-rated.

  • Nick on January 6, 2007, 3:46 GMT

    I agree with Paul as well as I think Warne cannot be looked down upon for being in a successful team which was made successful by him and McGrath. If you need evidence of what Warne can do under pressure look at the 05 Ashes

  • King0fHearts on January 6, 2007, 3:38 GMT

    I agree to Kamran's comparison and also want to add one thing to it that Qadir brought back spin bowling into the game. At his time spinners were barely used to relax fast bowlers. Qadir and Saqlain Mushtaq were the people who brought new dimensions to Spin bowling and Cricket.

    Love Spinners

    Cheers

  • Azhar on January 6, 2007, 3:22 GMT

    I am sorry Mr. Abbasi, but you missed by a wide margin here. Abdul Qadir was a magical bowler who revived a lost art of bowling. But he was never the great match winner like Shane Warne. Qadir played his part in many famous wins for Pakistan, however could never really produce outside of Pakistan. A look at his statistics would show you that he took 5 wickets only 3 times outside Pakistan. And Pakistan did not win these games. He may have troubled the great West Indian teams of the 1980s, however he was never consistent enough. Maybe Qadir was the best spin bowler of the 1980s, however he truly cannot compete with Shane Warne. Warne may have bowled against depleated batting sides with the umpires being bullied to an extent, but he cannot be denied the label of the best leg spin bowler. I am disappointed about his positive drug tests, but that is another story....

    Style: Qadir Variety: Qadir Killer Instinct: Warne Match Winner: Warne + Qadir (on Pakistani pitches) Statistics: Warne

    Bottom Line: Shane Warne

  • Stupid points like the author on January 6, 2007, 3:18 GMT

    1) I can say KapilDev is better pace bowler than McGrath because he was gifted with far superior out swinger, he played against same WI, his banana swingers are feast to eyes, and he played in slow pitches with absolutely no suppport from other bowlers and pressure of low runs. But I am honest enough not to claim so.

    2) Even if (1) is wrong, Warne has a very good googly.

    3) West Indies was humbled by Hirwani, Yadav, Bedi , Patel (NZ). They were greatest batsmen particularly against speedsters.

    4) Quadir was well supported by Akram,Imran,Surfaz. So authors claim is wrong.

    7) Author forgot that Quadir played more than half of his matches in spin pitches. ( I know this is point number 5, but intentionally typed 7 to match with brain of the author)

    5)The quality of a spinner is not measured by googly alone.

    List how many times Warne thwarted Pak & Quadir thwarted Aus. This might be one way to finalize.

  • Reddy on January 6, 2007, 3:13 GMT

    Is there anyone in world other than PAKIS who even think there is a comparision between the two... Qadir is just a bowler. Maybe would make top 100 of all time... WARNE is a World Class Bowler. Top 5 in history..

    Lets not waste time on this. This article is posted to provoke people and get more ratings for cricinfo...

    Nice try cricinfo...

  • Matthew Jacob on January 6, 2007, 2:59 GMT

    Against New Zealand Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w

    Shane Warne 20 103 6/31 24.37 3 Abdul Qadir 9 26 6/160 36.15 2

    Against New Zealand Warne has better bowling average than Qadir. However, Warne has only 3 five wicket hauls against them. Qadir has 2 in less than half as many tests as Warne. Performance against New Zealand is not significant, because New Zealand did not possess the best of batting talents in either Warne or Qadir era. ADVANTAGE WARNE

    Against England Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w Shane Warne 36 195 8/71 23.25 11 Abdul Qadir 16 82 9/56 24.98 8

    Warne and Qadir have almost identical averages against England. Qadir, however, seems much more successful. He has 8 five wicket hauls from only 16 tests. Warne has only 11 from 36 tests. Therefore Qadir terrorized England more than Warne ever did. Also England had much stronger batting line up during Qadir time. ADVANTAGE QADIR

    Against India Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w Shane Warne 14 43 6/125 47.18 1 Abdul Qadir 16 27 4/67 51.51 0

    Warne obviously has better record against India. His average is slightly better. One can argue that Indian batting during Qadir time was less accomplished (Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Amarnath)than during Warne time (Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman). Qadir only bowled on sub continental pitches against India. Warne did not. ADVANTAGE WARNE

    Against West Indies Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w Shane Warne 19 65 7/52 29.95 3 Abdul Qadir 10 42 6/16 30.83 1

    Qadir bowled much better against West Indians. His averages, though slightly lower than Warne’s, were against very formidable West Indian sides (Richards, Haynes, Greenidge, Llyod, Kalicharan, Dujon, Richardson). Warne had only a few world class batsmen to counter in the West Indian sides. ADVANTAGE QADIR

    Against Sri Lanka Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w Shane Warne 13 59 5/43 25.54 5 Abdul Qadir 5 14 5/44 32.35 1

    Warne has better average against Sri Lanka. ADVANTAGE WARNE

    Against Australia Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w Abdul Qadir 11 45 7/142 35.86 3 Qadir performance against some good Australian sides has been below par.

    Against Pakistan Mat Wickets BB Bowling Average 5w Shane Warne 15 90 7/23 20.17 6 Warne performance against decent, but not exceptional, Pakistani sides has been above par.

    SUMMARY

    ADVANTAGE WARNE against New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka.

    ADVANTAGE QADIR against England, West Indies.

    Which bowler is better? Qadir obviously did much better against strong West Indian and English sides. West Indian side was as formidable, if not better, as the current Australian juggernaut. English side had the likes of Boycott, Gower, Gooch, and Gatting. Most of them were in their prime while facing Qadir.

    Warne obviously feasted on New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka. He has 205 wickets against these sides. Warne’s wicket tally is also impressive against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and other minnows. Therefore, total wicket tally should not be a criterion for greatness.

    Warner also had the following advantages in his career: 1. A strong Australian batting as compared to Pakistani line up. He could, therefore, experiment with his bowling. Qadir could not. 2. A strong and supportive bowling support throughout his career. They would tenderize the opposing batting before Warne ran his magic. 3. A committed and professional cricket board. 4. A superior fielding side to make difficult catches. Qadir never had such benefit.

    That Qadir mostly got wickets on subcontinent’s dusts bowls is unworthy of examination. Warne obviously fared better against India and Sri Lanka than Qadir did. Therefore the theory of subcontinent dust bowl pitch support to Qadir is disqualified.

    Thus arguments can be made for Qadir being a better bowler against better oppositions.

  • Omer Admani on January 6, 2007, 2:54 GMT

    I'll tell you a better question you could ask: Was Wasim better or Mcgrath?

  • Vivek on January 6, 2007, 2:52 GMT

    One cannot compare players from different era.

    1> I have no doubt that Qadir had more variations that Warne.

    2> What Warne has achieved that is simply great. You can't compare Qadir with Warne on that point.

    It's the same like Vinod Kambli having more strokes than Tendulkar. But when it comes to what Sachin has achieved, Kambli does not stand anywhere.

    3> Warne's record in Indian subcontinent is not at all good. But can we argue that he was not a good bowler on spin-friendly pitches?

    4> It is well known that apart from Asian players, players from other countries are not so good in playing good spin. And I do believe that helped Warne in taking so many wickets and gaining that 'aura'.

    There are so many factors in a players success. No doubt Warne got the benefit of playing for Australia at a time when he had great bowlers like McGrath at the other end. Very good Australian batting line which consistently scored heavily at brisk pace which created immense pressure on opposing teams.

    Umpiring was sub-standard even in Australia. If you see the India-Australia 76-77 series, I remember one Indian commentors remarks that Bob Simpson was given not out 22 times in a 5 test match series. Take that against series result of 3-2 in favor of Aussies.

    To my mind that was one of the hardest-fought series. Some of the matches were won by just 2 wickets, 16 runs or 45 runs or so by eaither team.

  • Omer Admani on January 6, 2007, 2:50 GMT

    I don't know about Qadir since I was too young then. A simple question though: Would you rather watch Warne or Murali bowl? I'd rather watch Warne any day.

  • Ano on January 6, 2007, 2:47 GMT

    As far as im concerned this whole discussion just soils Qadir's name. He was a good bowler, and we should leave it at that. Comparing him with warne is as ridiculous, and unfair, as comparing a good batsman with Bradman. All it does is make people think less of Qadir because this discussion is only going one way. Qadir was a good leg spin bowler whos main contribution was bringing the art of leg spin back into the public eye. Warne is arguably the best bowler of all time.

    It says a lot when Brian Lara, who is unquestionably the best player of spin in the modern age (and if there was one better it would be something to watch) calls Warne the greatest bowler he has ever seen. Seen mind you, not played, and this includes bowlers of all varieties from the Windies golden age and the rest of the world.

  • Neil on January 6, 2007, 2:22 GMT

    Well Kamran if you measure the success of your blog by number of replies then you really hit the jackpot with this little misinformed trifle. However if it is balance and historical perspective you seek then I'd suggest you have a chat to Gideon Haigh. It's just ridiculous and blatantly divisive to compare Qadir and Warne in such a manner. Maybe that's what you are trying to achieve? Certainly some of the replies indicate you've stirred up the old "Nasty horrible Austalia versus the rest of World" battle again. I just wish people would look at the facts and not let prejudices and inferiority complexes cloud their judgements. I am simply amazed at the anti-Australian sniping that goes on in some blogs. Like this little chestnut from Kirston "When the teams other than Australia, England and South Africa were beating the world there was only criticism and rule-changing; which has contributed to the change in status quo. In today's cricket world the Aussies can do no wrong and are the greatest ever at whatever they do". That sure has a lot to do with Warne and Qadir. See what sort of camaraderie you inspire Kamran. As for your 10 points they have all met with responses from other readers that they deserve. However, I can't let point 4 go without adding my 2 cents worth. You say "Warne played for the premier team of his age. Qadir began when Pakistan were nowhere and ended with Pakistan battling for the top spot". Did it ever occur to you that the reason why Australia have remained the "premier team of their era" for so long might have had a fair bit to do with Warne's presence. Certainly their record when he has been battling injury(1 trip each to India and West Indies) or absent (India in Australia last time)indicates that Australia very much come back to the pack. For the record I think that Qadir was a brilliant bowler; energetic,clever,mischievous and great to watch. While he didn't, as some have suggested, invent attacking leg spin (see Grimmet and O'Reilly for that) he certainly did invigorate a dying art and Shane Warne owes him a great debt. Qadir was without doubt the premier slow bowler of his era. Warne is quite simply the smartest-thinking bowler to have graced the game. To suggest that he is Qadir's lesser is an insult and one that, in present circumstances, only serves to diminish you as a writer.

  • slick on January 6, 2007, 2:03 GMT

    hey, what joke book did u get this from? QADIR BETTER THAN WARNE?? HAHAHAHA c'mon mate, please dont add anything else to ur blogs because your just making a fool of urslef.

    Warne is Warne - A LEGEND Qadir is Qadir - a spin bowler

  • rext on January 6, 2007, 1:55 GMT

    Always use facts as the foundation of opinion!! Facts: Shane Warne 4 or more wickets in an innings 59% of Tests played. Abdul Qadir 32.8%. Shane Warne 5 or more wickets in an innings 25.5% of Tests played. Abdul Qadir 22%. Abdul Qadir was a truly great bowler, Shane Warne a champion!! Wishing something were true does not make it so!!!

  • syd on January 6, 2007, 1:48 GMT

    MacGill, Kaneria and Mushtaq have a far better googly than Warne. Does that mean they are all better as well? Warne didn't need one.

  • Lipin on January 6, 2007, 1:46 GMT

    Ooooh its really crazy to say that Qadir is better than warne.I would like to quote one of the reason stated by columnist,QADIR BOWLED TO GREAT WESTINDIAN BATSMEN.But i think westindian batmen's greatest weekness was spin bowling,eventho they were gr8 batsmen they were never a gr8 player of spin bowling and moreover i think the columnist shud look back at the 1999 world cup final and c how warne ran thru the pakistani lineup.

  • Laury on January 6, 2007, 1:45 GMT

    absolute rubbish,

    1. wow Warne can't bowl a wrongun... that makes him less superior? haha ok... perhaps he doesn't need the wrongun? 2. If the ball pitches on middle.. and straightens [ie. slider or flipper] then surely it has to be out, and umps at that time would've known.. if the ball pitches on middle and turns and then hits the pads then no it shouldn't be out, and thats the same nowadays. 3. I dont really see how that makes him better 4. You could say there is more pressure playing for the best team and more fight to be in the team and stay in there... for Qadir he knew if he played not that well he would still make the team 5. Not many people really knew leg spin then and the Windies didn't really know what leg spin was, i think Indias current batting lineup play spin better 6. Warne bowls on first days a lot and does well! 7. You could say the other bowlers in Warnes team steal the wickets 8. And your point? 9. Wow i have an opinion too 10. I'm sure there are other batsmen who think otherwise

    Anyway Warne is in the top 5 Wisden thing isn't he? And also he is like Mohammad Ali and Michael Jordan... people who don't know much about the sport still know these men.. he has an aura around him that cannot be matched..

  • Dave S on January 6, 2007, 1:38 GMT

    Actually, Ashanif has hit the nail on the head. It's much better to enjoy the skills of who play rather than get upset at comparisons. Maybe the words spoken by each man about the other should be given the greatest weight. Cheers.

  • paul on January 6, 2007, 1:35 GMT

    qadir, was useless abroad, never could he bowl well to indians......amarnath and gavaskar used to yell out 'googles' as soon as Qadir bowled so called 'googly'. And u write about west indies.....so this means that Narendra hirwani, Alan border.. were also better bowlers than shane warne. no doubts Qadir had a better googly, so what.....Venktesh Prasad had a better slower delivery.....does it means he was better than Mcgrath. Even Kumble has a better flipper than Warne.......it doesn't proves anything.......after all Stats are always not damn lies.

  • hammad on January 6, 2007, 1:32 GMT

    phew, well ,posting an article at the time when warnes performance is at its peak, is highly questionable ?there is no doubt on the abilities of qadir,but warne is not less talented either,but one thing which makes huge difference is notice able,although many aussies wold not belive but this is true "abdul qadir in of tv shows mentions that i went australia and warne invited me and me tha how big fan he is of him,an dhe showed qadir his pictures whilst bowling googly,which warne said i learned most of my bowling by analysing the way you use to bowl.QADIR has 18 deliveries of diferent styles so QADIR IS TEH BEST ,

  • Abdul Rehmani on January 6, 2007, 1:31 GMT

    Let compare Warne With Qadir by looking at test match agaisnt England. It is the second test between Pakistan & England in 1977. Qadir playing his second test, venue Hydrabad, pitch is dreadful. Qadir picked up several wicket in first inning and english batsmen are mesmerized. Pakistan is all hyped up and English defeat is immanent. English batsmen are looking ever so fragile against leg spin. JM Brearley and G Boycott open inning 2nd time , first Wicket to fall at 180 or so. England lost only 2 wicket and comfortable drawn the test. If you offer similar score and playing conditions to Warne. 99 times out of 100 Warne will eat the opposition with in 2 sessions.

    Qadir had several varieties under his sleeve and I do not argue on that, Warne will bowl 90% of his deliveries leg spinners. Where as Qadir will bowl 4 different type of deliveries in one over.

    Qadir will become a nightmare to his Captain, Qadir will bowl at least a one loose bowl in every over, Warne will bowl loose bowl after many overs and captain will take him of the attack. Qadir does not like to be taken of the attack, he was always emotional on the field, often aggressive. He only offer respect to the Imran Khan, even Imran was some time intimidated by his on field antics. Qadir was not a team player, Warne is a team player, an exceptional fielder.

    Qadir was a very ordinary fielder. Qadir was fired from a tour in Australia and sent home even before the test series begin. Warne never faced any of such humiliation. Qadir was praised by Richie Benued and from there on his head was grown to the size and never went back to normal.

    To conclude a comparison between Warne & Qadir, Warne was coached to understand, it is not the variety that matters, it is the quality that matters. If your best bowl is a leg spinner, then bowl as many and more often. Qadir was never coached, there was no sole in Pakistan who can tell this lad a thing or two, he considered him self above the rest.

    Warne delivered the bowl almost 10~12K faster than Qadir & with lots of control and big big leg spinners, it was the most successful killer of all his deliveries. Warne bowl googlee to Tail enders, because he knew his googlee was not so cleaver nor disguised. Qadir will bowl half Googlee, Top Spinner, Leg Spinner, Full Toss, Low Toss and all. Looked very good from the commentary box, at times he was so expensive that the captain had to get him off and then he goes to dressing room and 12 man is on. He was a shocker in the field, once taken off the attack, captain had to watch him, he use to go Monkey.

    Warne is cleaver bowler, bowl to his strength and exploited the opposition weakness and got the rewards for his team, much better bowling average for a Lad who bowled lot more than Qadir. Australia owe Several years of great Cricket ratings to Warne, Pakistan does not. Abdul Qadir never delivered when the Pakistani team were relying heavily on him. However, he did revive the art of Leg Spin bowling in 70’s when it was almost forgotten and Warne is the fruit of it.

  • Andrew on January 6, 2007, 1:27 GMT

    Facts Abdul Qadir got over 35% of his wickets against the english Warne got 27.5% this stat shows Qadir got his wickets against the 'useless'legspin playin England Fact: Warne has a better average against India then Qadir, including playing India in India Cold hard facts However both were superb bowlers we should be appluading their geniuses they were both superb bowlers

  • Hasan on January 6, 2007, 1:25 GMT

    John Beamish has lost his mind... Did you actually for a second think that McGrath was better than Akram? That was the most idiotic comment i've read. However, Warne and Qadir cannot be compared. Warne is better hands down.

  • Shan on January 6, 2007, 1:14 GMT

    Qadir was a good bowler in Indian subcontinent pitches, specially in Pakistan where he used the two Paki umpires as two additional fielders. He, like Warne was spanked badly by the Indian batsman. Warne is the greatest! 700 test wickets?? are you out of your mind?? talking about googly? nobody can bowl a better flipper than Kumble does. As per match winning capasity Kumble is the best!

  • ashanif on January 6, 2007, 1:14 GMT

    I find it funny that people are getting so worked up over this. What I don't find funny, however, is the way some people are rubbishing Qadir or Warne in order to support their favourite bowler - in some cases with thinly disguised racial or nationalistic overtones (even hatred in some cases). That is truly sad, as both bowlers were great in their own right and will have a special place in cricketing folklore. The biggest irony of course is that the two had a lot of respect for each other.

    As to who is the best, I think that is not at all relevant and it was pretty silly of Kamran to even attempt the comparison. Those of us who have had the privilege of watching either or both should be thankful that we were able to witness two different masters at work and true cricket fans will pray that we get to see another one soon - though I suspect that we may have to wait a while.

    I will conclude with some quotes from an interview given by the Pakistani wizard himself to the Voice of America.

    “Shane Warne is the greatest bowler in cricket history and I don’t have the words to describe his class and success. He has proved to be a remarkably talented and incredibly effective bowler against all oppositions. I feel honoured in saying that Warne learnt some of the finer points of leg-break bowling from me.”

    “Shane Warne always respected me and those who respect their seniors are destined to achieve the greatest of landmarks.”

    Taking a leaf out of Qadir's book, we should all learn to respect these two great champions rather than attempt pointless comparisons and indulge in nationalistic/racial jingonism.

  • paul on January 6, 2007, 1:13 GMT

    worst article i have read on cricinfo, enough said

  • Dave S on January 6, 2007, 1:11 GMT

    One paradox about Warne....his Pura cup record against duds in other Aussie States is surprisingly moderate. He has had nothing like the success for Victoria as against other countries internationally, and one could maybe argue that if Warne actually had to bowl against the Pontings, Haydens, Langers, etc he would struggle! I mean Victoria as a side even have struggled to dismiss batsmen of the limited ability of Bichel, who always makes runs for Queensland at the tail end. I'm a parochial Victorian, but that is something that is very strange statistically.

    Maybe the 'Mystique' that Qadir may have sought to preserve by not playing county cricket worked well for him, although Shane playing in England has hardly enabled the Poms to play him any better.

  • Bernard Ranasinghe on January 6, 2007, 1:08 GMT

    In my view Kamran commits a big blunder in saying that in Qadir's era there were only two good bowlers in an otherwise ordinary Pakistani bowing attack(i.e. Qadir and Imran). How could someone like Kamran forget the fact that Akram was very much part of that team from 1984 onwards? And Qadir's fellow spinners Iqbal Qasim-a classic left arm leg spinner-and Tauseef Ahmed -very dangerous right arm off spinner- were world beaters in their own rights.On the contrary,in Qadir's time Pakistan had the most balanced and lethal bowling attack in the world.Their opening bowlers were left arm, right arm combination who went on to become all time greats.As I mentioned earlier,their spinners were so different from each other, comprising Qadir (right arm leg spinner ,googly and everything else),Iqbal Quasim (Left armer)and Tauseef Ahmed ( right arm offie).Is Kamran trying to say that Pakistan became the best team (along with West Indies)in the 80's on the back of just two bowlers? Their bowling attack was better than West Indian bowling attack which was rather one dimensional because they always relied only on right arm bowlers.(albeit extremely fast and dangerous)

  • Dave S on January 6, 2007, 1:05 GMT

    I remember Qadir playing in Australia in '83-84, and he was definately an exciting player to watch, he had fizz, pizzazz and was an aggressive spin bowler, like a pioneer of modern leg-spin.

    Perhaps if he was able to play over 100 tests he would also have taken over 500 wickets, but i agree with many, it is too difficult to directly compare. Qadir had virtually finished by the time warne played in '91-92, and the best of Warne was evident only after a few tests. Indian batsmen always had the upper hand over Warnie, his average of mid 40's against them over a very long career is telling. But he dominated both home and away, against all other sides, and played against batsmen like Lara, Tendulkar, Yousuf, Inzamam, Dravid and Laxman. In the 80's you had Richards, Richardson, Greenidge, Haynes and Martin Crowe, Gower and Gooch, Australia only really had Border in Qadir's time. Yallop though in '83-84 showed his talent against Qadir in his prime, and maybe that can be a reference point as to where he ranks. Extremely good, inded one of the best, but on the totem pole, below S.K.Warne.

  • Qarni. S on January 6, 2007, 1:00 GMT

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=IiKTDH0ITyE

    Yes, Qair can Win ODI's.thru his batting. None other than, Off West Indian Great... Walsh. ...

    I really think Saqlian was the Best.

  • Vaqar Qureshi on January 6, 2007, 1:00 GMT

    Qadir better than Warne - Thats the funniest thinh I've ever heard! Seriously. You should do stand-up mate.

  • Sunny on January 6, 2007, 0:58 GMT

    Players from different eras should not be compared. The game has changed considerably over time. Would Bradman's average be the same if he had played at places other than Australia and England?

    Now if we want to make a comparison between Qadir and Warnie, they were equally hopeless against Sachin. So there!

    As for Warne and Murali, one telling stat comes into mind. Murali has over 190 wickets vs Zim and Bangladesh. Warne has 11.

  • Sean Hayward on January 6, 2007, 0:50 GMT

    I feel less of a man for having read that.

    So what if Qadir had more googlies, and better googlies. A truly great leg spinner can beat a batsman with whatever is in his repertoire. Just have another look at "The Gatting Ball".... "THE GATTING BALL!" I say.

    Cricket is a numbers game.... and the numbers point to SK Warne.

  • Waleed on January 6, 2007, 0:38 GMT

    This pro-aussie kid Andrew must have been smoking cabbage when he put those comments up. ok fine both are great, and warne is possibly better because of his ability to unsettle the batsman by his aura, even when he is not getting wickets. but thinking that qadir had no variety like flipper or topspinner is just rubbish haha. watch some old reels yo. warne is still the best spinner ever in my mind, but that can soon change depending how well murli does in the next year or so...not cus of his stats, just look at the clueless faces batsmen have when facing murli. priceless! and plz don't bring up a chucking issue cus that is just one ill-adivsed act of jealousy on non-asians part who cannot digest to see someone succeed like murli. nuff said.

  • Imran Ahmed on January 6, 2007, 0:36 GMT

    Tough to say but would there have been Qadir or a a Murali, or a Warne had there be no Grimmett, or Laker or Lock or Gibbs or Underwood (yes Mr. Umbrella himself who England needed for a rainy day) or Chandra, or Bedi, or Prassana, or Ventkat, or ....my oh my oh my...we forget a spinner far more durable and far more valuable than Warne...Anil Kumble. Champion both character wise and ability wise!

    112 tests 2000 runs 542 wickets at 28.56 4.84 wickets per test

    Warne:

    145 tests 3154 runs 708 wickets at 25.41 4.88 wickets per test

    and guess what, Kumble possibly is a more humble and better man and one worth praising.

    And I've not even mentioned Murali so far have I?

  • Mohammad Aftab Ahmed on January 6, 2007, 0:34 GMT

    This is a pointless and fruitless argument. Its an argument that can have no solution or end. Comparing players from different era's is ... well, impossible isn't it?

    Now, I'm a Pakistani, and a huge Qadir fan. But its just not fair to compare 2 great bowlers from different era's. And I have to give Warne his dues. If I were to play the devil's advocate, in my humble opinion, Warne wins hands down. Still, I believe it is impossible to compare. Unless they build a time machine, and Warne goes back in time and plays in the 70s and 80s; and Qadir flies to the future and plays todays batsmen.

    Playing the devil's advocate: Qadir had more googlies. But Warne had his flipper, as well as FAR better control on standard leg-spinners - simply becuase he could give the ball much more rip than Qadir. That is, Warne could vary the amount of rip and turn he got, with the same action. And therefore, had a greater variety/variation of leg spinners.

    Qadir had to bowl to history's greatest batsmen (the WI of the 70s & 80s). But attacking batsmen work in favor of a wrist-spin bowler because it makes the batsman takes more risks. Which makes sense why Warne took more wickets, since the 90s (and onwards) has seen Test cricket being played in a far more attacking fashion.

    Modern Global coverage also means batsmen can keep watching a bowler over and over to figure out his "tricks". When Warne bowled, the world watched. And we all know why Qadir refused to play County Cricket even though he was offered to play there numerous times - to maintain the "mystique". Take for example, Mushtaq Ahmed - great bowler at County level, but not the same anymore at international level. Why? Becuase he lost that "mystique" while Warne always maintained it despite having played years of County cricket himself.

    The quality of umpiring is a matter of opinion. As is any other former player's, umpire's, or spectator's; who might have watched both players in their prime. Just like what you and I are saying is nothing more than opinion.

    In the end, this discussion has not bearing. Because it has no legs to stand on. I'm not saying Qadir was better than Warne. Nor vice versa. Cerntainly, numbers say Warne was better. But Qadir played in an age of negative and defensive batting (except the WI's and Pakistan I would say), which meant less chances to take wickets.

    So anyone saying for SURE, that one of these players was better - is simply WRONG. Which includes you Kamran. No one's right.

    Unless, perhaps someone's got a time machine on thier hands?

  • Ghazanfar on January 6, 2007, 0:15 GMT

    One thing is for sure that we should respect Qadir.......

    TRUST ME IF THERE WAS NO QADIR THEN THERE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN A WARNE!

  • Daniel Ashford on January 5, 2007, 23:41 GMT

    ok ill answer these claims 1 by one as you have put them

    1. The fact that qadir used the googly puts him behind in my book. Warne could bowl the googly but his 6 or 7 legspin variations were enough 700 odd times.

    2. Thats not a point of fact, its an opinion so not valid

    3. Agreed, but I still dont see how that makes him better, just because he had a bad board doesnt make him a better bowler. More concentration would be required granted.

    4. When Warne started, Australia were NOT the premier team. He started in 1992, Pakistan, West Indies and arguably India were ahead of them. Pakistan and WI by miles.

    5. Indias early 2000s line-up was as good a quality as any. His record didnt stand up but India are notoriously good players of spin. The West Indies are notoriously bad.

    6.Bullshit, Pakistan wasnt that bad, you make it sound like he was playing for Canada

    7. 1 good point out of 7, not bad

    8. Global coverage also means the world has seen Warnes trickery over and over. I doubt Qadir wouldve been secure enough with his talent to actually physically show the world his repotoire as Warne has numerous times.

    9. Id be interested to find out whether Mr. Berry said that before or after Warnes 8/71 against England, or 7/52 vs WI. Id go with what Mr. Benaud over Mr. Berry anyway, no disrespect intended and im sure none recieved

    10. Scyld Berry obviously loves Abdul Qadir, and let Graham Gooch speak for himself. I doubt any English captains Warne bowled to would say anything bar "Warne is the best bowler I faced, period." Him or McGrath anyway hey Athers?

  • Anuj on January 5, 2007, 23:32 GMT

    Share Warne is many folds better than Qadir. Qadir was blasted out of cricket by Tendulkar on the other hand Warne demolished many cricketing careers. I would rate Stuart McGill better than Qadir. Share is well on the top of the chart with no distant second even.

  • Binu on January 5, 2007, 23:24 GMT

    One thing most people forget about warne is that he was a failure against India, the best players of spin bowling. It will be a nightmare for him, all his life. He is great , yes but not the best. But I rate him better than Quadir though. And yes Prasanna was better than murali. Ask Ian Chappel.

  • Ravi on January 5, 2007, 23:22 GMT

    While I agree Qadir was a very fine bowler indeed, and I DO credit him for reviving the dying art of wrist spin, I'm not sure I agree with some of the points posted here by the author. "Qadir had to bowl to WIndies, Warne didnt have to"... that actually gives the benefit to Warne, since WIndies (specially in the 80's) were very poor players of spin. Even Hirwani managed 16 wkts against them on his debut, and he wasnt even good enough to cement his place in the Indian team over the following years. "Umpires being more sympathetic to leggies".. umm.. and what about the game of cricket becoming more and more batsman oriented over the years. Bowlers have never had it harder than they have it now. Also consider that Warne has played most of his games on pitches NOT suited for spin, and yet has 700+ wkts. "Warne cant bow googly"... its a myth that has led to many a batsmen's downfall.. see an example just a few posts below... :-). He CAN bowl the wrong one, just doesnt decide to, or has to, that often. "Warne had always been part of a powerful bowling attack".. umm for the better part of his carreer, Warne and McGrath were the main spearheads of the Aussie attack. Take them out of the equation, and even India managed to spoil Steve Waugh's farewell party.

    Having said that, I must also add that I have derived immense joy out of watching Qadir bowl. A great bowler, yes.. better than Warne.. umm, not really... :-)

  • Andrew on January 5, 2007, 23:20 GMT

    How did Sarfraz and Iqbal Qasim feel about being labelled as cannon fodder? I suppose similarly to Lara and Tendulkar to being written of as mortals. Oh yes with regards to point 9, we all thought that Qadir's 9/56 was a great performance, but try looking at the bigger picture. Scyld Berry may have once said that Qadir was better. So what! Plenty of legends of the game will disagree. Whay don't you quote them too!

  • Ghalib Imtiyaz on January 5, 2007, 23:13 GMT

    Mushtaq Ahmed is by far the best leg spinner to have played county cricket and his performances are much better than Warne in County but due to internal politics he is not allowed to play test cricket.

    Stuart McGill's test wickets came very cheaply against bangladesh and he averaged 50 against India in 2004 series and Warne averages poorly against Indians as well. Neutral umpires dont make any difference these days. When warne was out against Panesar, Aleem Dar denied him the wicket. Hoggard and Panesar both had Hayden and Symonds out cheaply but both were denied their wickets. Otherwise the outcome of MCG test would have been a draw. Had the umpiring been neutral, we would have had a much better test series and few draws in this concluded Ashes series. Also kaneria is a fine bowler, much better than Warne in his 20's however he does not have a hayden in 1st slip or Australian fielders and umpires to back him up. Kaneria would be denied 100 legitimate test wickets whereas Warne wouldnt be. I think everytim e i saw kaneria play in Australia he was denied few genuine wickets in each innings and the same thing happened to Monty as well. Kaneria turns the ball better and he outfoxed Kevin Peterson through his gate by a superb googly whereas Warne can never bowl peterson through the gate. Abdul Qadir is the true legend of legspin and had he received the media coverage and most importantly the salary warne was paid, he would have been equally as good if not better than warne. Its all about poor umpiring decisions and pitching in the rough and better fielding that gave Warne 300 extra wickets. Murali has a far weaker bowling side and yet he will outperform Warne soon. Still Warne is the best bowler Australia has ever produced.

  • Joy Dasgupta on January 5, 2007, 23:10 GMT

    Dear Mr. Abbasi,

    Either you don't have a clue and have never watcher Warne bowl or you were on dope when you wrote this. Qadir is not even a shade on Warne. The comparison and your article don't make any sense and nor do they merit the attention they are getting.

    Joy

  • Andrew on January 5, 2007, 23:02 GMT

    What rubbish! I mean Qadir certainly was a great bowler and a matchwinner, but these comments must be based on anti-Warne sentiment rather than reality. Warne was simply the best of the best. He didn't need several googlies. He had many other deliveries and his guile to do the job. What he didn't have was home pitches prepared for him or non-neutral umpires officiation in home tests. Even his statistics(although they never tell the full story), were far superior. Some people love to focus on things like Warne's record against India. Well....Qadir's is worse. That counts for little. So what if India are better equipped at handling legspinners. They're supposed to be. That's what theyre' brought up on. Both men were great. Warne was greater.

  • Imran Butt on January 5, 2007, 22:53 GMT

    My God what an astounding point you have made Kamran…well done. To be honest I always think like that as well. When nowadays I look on media and other fields as well this thing vividly conjure the fact that media exposure and PR is the biggest factor contributing the myths and hypes of modern day’s individuals. For example when I hear that Amitabh Bachchan is the greatest actor of Millennium (As allegedly eked out in BBC’s website some years ago) I do wonder some times what about Dilip Kumar, Prithvi Raj Kapoor, Balraj Sahni etc and many other names which I can include here but can’t cause of relevance of my comments on cricket. For instance Amitabh himself professed in the early nineties (and I think he still persists with his thoughts) that in his professional life Dilip Kumar is his biggest and only inspiration. And now look who got more exposure from the media via PR Dilip sahib or Amitabh. In the same vein I think when it comes to Qadir and Warne comparison, an incident is striking to my memories of 1994 Australian tour of Pakistan. By that time though Warne was still on the fringes of stardom, even went to search Qadir’s home at Lahore to get some tips from him about the leg spin bowling, and I still remember till this day the innings of 237 of Malik at Rawalpindi when Malik and other Pakistani batsmen reduced Warne to a laughing stock and out of frustrations or deliberations (maybe) Warne was desperate to get his art back on trap from the very great Qadir himself. That’s more then enough to illustrate how great Qadir was and still be no matter how much the hailers of rising sun kind of media do shower its hollow praise for Warne today and with the emergence of some new talented player they might forget Warne as well, as it happened to countless legends of the past. Comparisons to me are not justified because every individual has to cope with its environment and paraphernalia of that age. What the intention of Kamran is here in this blog is to don’t carry away in the praise of someone and almost tagged him the de facto or sublime god of some art and talent, which he might have possess but also considers the past exponents of that same art as well which to me serves as one of the prime sources of leads which every individual almost carries and take it to another level, same like an ancient mankind from the stone ages to this digital age learn the skills and civilization in a step by step process. In the end I must say its futile to say who is better and who is not but we should need to admit as a thinking and learning individuals the light of art and knowledge travels and transmits from one generation to another and every individual who brought any particular art or knowledge to some different level from the previous one, which I have no doubt about Warne as well, should be praised and no doubt the past masters of the same art and skills should also be respected and revered (In the context of this debate Qadir I mean).

  • Kapil on January 5, 2007, 22:47 GMT

    By that token, Prasanna was better than Murli.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on January 5, 2007, 22:41 GMT

    In describing any achievement or success, we tend to use the help of numbers instead of words. As there is a general belief that words can be false, misleading and deceptive etc., whereas, numbers are hard, unequivocal and concrete. Its true to a great extent, yet the numbers cannot measure the attributes, character, caliber, class and quality of anything and it is hard to describe it only in numbers. Therefore, we need the help of words, adjectives, metaphors in defining and describing quality and excellence.

    If numbers alone can talk about a bowler's superiority then right now Shane Warne is at the top. Murali is number two and there is every likelihood that Murali will not only break Shane Warne's record but may go beyond where no bowler could possibly reach that target in the near future. Therefore, measuring his success or his achievement with the help of numbers alone won't be any doubt in calling him the number one bowler. But, the point is, how many people apart from the Sri Lankans would rate Murali as the best bowler in the world? Especially, since he was twice sent for correcting his bowling action and even today Martin Crowe has appealed to the authorities to take a look at his "doosra" which appears very dodgy and dubious.

    When Murali will break Shane Warne's record in terms of numbers and when the Sri Lankans would call him as the greatest ever etc., then the OZ supporters will start moaning and groaning like they are doing now when Abdul Qadir is being compared here with Shane Warne by saying its rubbish and crap and blady blah. Then they will come up with this same theory that statistics alone doesn't mean anything and numbers don't matter, it is the class that is more important and they will try to describe Shane Warne's class with the help of words. The day is not far away!

    If one can rate a player only with the help of numbers then how about this: "Danish Kaneria took 132 wickets in 28 matches, whereas Shane Warne took 125 in 28 matches." How do you make comparisons here? And Danish Kaneria is the ONLY leggy in the world who unsettled the Indians on their own soil. Bangalore Test match is a proof of that, yet no one rates him along Shane Warne or Murali. On a more similar note, Yousuf broke Viv Richards record last year, yet there are so many who consider Viv Richards as King Richards and call him the best and all time great. Then we say, we simply cannot compare apples with oranges.

    When asked, how do you rate Shane Warne? Abdul Qadir himself replied: "There is no rating - he is simply one of the greatest bowlers ever. His record speaks for itself. The best thing about him, what sets him apart, is his heart and bravery." Abdul Qadir went on adding a few more praises for Shane Warne. But, that is Abdul Qadir's humility and his greatness and it doesn't mean we take away Abdul Qadir's class and his caliber as a quality leg spinner.

    He is so much different from Shane Warne, not only in terms of the variety that he used to produce, but his action was so magical and the man was very charismatic. His dangerous diabolical bowling action was for show only, it was to create a physical aura, it gave the batsman a feeling of uneasiness and discomfort, as to who and what is this coming in to bowl? He used to work on their minds even before delivering the ball.

    It is true that umpires today are much more sympathetic towards the leg spinners in their decision making than their predecessors ever were. And Shane Warne succeeded more than any bowler in the art of appealing for an LBW. He has actually intimidated the umpires and compelled them to give the border line decisions in his favour. That is also a reason that he got more wickets. Another reason is, the English players play leg spin so badly that at times that any spin bowler would succeed against them. To say that several domestic batsmen in the subcontinent would play leg spin better than some of the English batsmen of today won't be wrong.

    I remember seeing an ODI in Sharjah where Vinod Kambli smashed three sixes in a row and a four, total 23 runs of Shane Warne's over. When Tendulkar first came to Pakistan, in Peshawar he scored his first fifty and he smashed Abdul Qadir for 2 sixes. The point is the sub-continent players play the spinners better than the Englishmen or the men from Caribbean. And Warne's biggest victims are from the Ashes series. Whereas, Abdul Qadir's victims were all time greats like Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting, Ian Bothom and likes. They were terrorized and tormented by Abdul Qadir. Its a shame that his career did not last long enough due to the usual politics and his short tempered behaviour.

    It is wrong to say that Qadir's achievements are only at home. At the Oval England all other spinners, John Emburey, Phil Edmonds and Tauseef Ahmed bowled 162.3 overs between them for only three wickets. Whereas; Qadir bowled 97.4 overs for ten wickets. In Caribbean too he mesmerized the greats like Viv Richards and all, he was simply unplayable. Remember what Sir Viv Richards talked about Abdul Qadir? I would like Kamran Abbasi to find that quote and write it here. That speaks in volumes about how effective and how creative Abdul Qadir was at home and abroad.

    I would definitely rate Abdul Qadir as a far superior leggy than Shane Warne.

  • Sid on January 5, 2007, 22:36 GMT

    I have to disagree with Mr. Abbasi here. True, Abdul Quadir was a great. But, honestly, practically, statistically, etc ... not the greatest. There are others better than him (even without Murali and Warne). He did keep the art of leg spin alive ... but just kept it alive. Warne pumped life into that art - Warne made it glamorous in many ways ... not necessarily good ways (remember the incident where he displayed his "spinning finger" to the crowd?). No other bowler can revive belief his kind of bowling with one ball like Warne did when he bowled Mike Gatting with his very first Test delivery in England. I believe that more youngsters have taken up leg spin after watching Warne than Quadir. Again, it is true that Warne had more media coverage than Quadir but Quadir lacked Warne's flair which made leg spin popular/cool and so probably wouldn't have attracted media attention anyway. I have grown up watching Warne, Murali, Kumble and Saqlain and I truly believe that the former two are in a league of their own. Here is how the list should go for all time greatest spinners: Murali (No offence Warnie, but he is still better than you) Warne All the others - Saqlain (for his skill and trickery), Kumble (for his grit, determination and pace maybe) and Quadir somewhere close to the top with Laker, Bedi, etc

    I also disagree that Quadir had better batsmen to bowl against. Warne has had some pretty good batsmen to bowl to as well (Lara, Tendulkar, Chanderpaul, Kallis, Jayasuriya, Alec Stewart, Inzy, Mohammad Yousuf, Dravid, etc). And, if good batsmen haven't looked good against him then it’s because of his master class in belittling batsmen, no matter how good they are. Besides, from what I read in previous comments, Quadir had some umpiring decisions to help him out, so that takes care of that.

  • Mawali on January 5, 2007, 22:34 GMT

    I am sorry but this one ain't gonna win you the Pulitzer! Listen, 2 bowlers of a different era, different playing conditions, and different set of rules. Abdul Qadir was a bold pioneer who mastered the art of spin. Shane Warne is a geniues at the art of spin. Comparing the two is simply not justified. Today we ought to be saluting Shane Warne for his glorious career that reached the pinnacle for a spin bowler, in specific and a cricketer in general.

  • Woody Venkat on January 5, 2007, 22:26 GMT

    Qadir was the magician his bag of tricks were unbeleivable howver talent doesn't mean a thing when he is up against the greatest cricket brain the game has ever seen one Mr S K Warne.

    And this is coming from a patriotic Indian who has lived in Sydney his whole life.

  • Ali on January 5, 2007, 22:20 GMT

    Kamran......Look at these statistics:

    Abdul Qadir's Highest Rating -- 710 Shane Warne's Highest Rating -- 905

    Abdul Qadir has taken 708 wickets Shane Warne has taken 236 wickets

    Warne is Legend. Don't put your head in sand...come out and accept the fact.

  • Shahz on January 5, 2007, 22:15 GMT

    Warne's record is so strong that it would win any argument you could come up with. He won the games for over a decade consistenly all over the world .. and that all matters .. not how fast you bowl, how many gogglies you bowl....how stylish you bat..

  • Muhammad on January 5, 2007, 22:14 GMT

    I like Qadir too but Warne is the best SPINNER (not only legspinner) of all time only if he wouldn't have averaged more than 47 against India.

  • Zubair Shahab on January 5, 2007, 22:08 GMT

    Can't compare bowlers of different eras... But Qadir did bring leg spin back to life when it was practically a lost art. And Warne did make it sexy again. As a Pakistani I say that hopefully Kaneria can take it to the next level. But they both played a part in the revival of legspin. Who's better, I think you should have kept that to yourself. You will never win an argument whilst comparing someone who has taken more wickets than any other person ever to lay a hand on a cricket ball with someone who averages over 30. At times, such as the 9 for against England, he may have been best, but great players are not determined by one good day, but on whether they can produce that one day again and again.

  • Anand Srinivasan on January 5, 2007, 22:06 GMT

    What next- Mohamamd Yousuf is a better batsman than Bradman? Or maybe Bradman was not good enough as he never faced Qadir?

  • Kandee on January 5, 2007, 22:05 GMT

    The best spinner in the world is Murali!!! Warne is the most over-rated bowler in the world.

  • SAM on January 5, 2007, 22:02 GMT

    Jason your comments make lot of sense .I dont have anything against warne.

    But people are hailing him as the greatest ever when he is not greatest among his own era Shane is greatest legspinner everyone has to agree but not best spinner or bowler either.

  • rajiv on January 5, 2007, 22:02 GMT

    dont be silly shane warne is the greatest of all time. even kumble is better then qadir. you should look at the facts. how many wickets have they taken. shane warne is top of top however murali will beat his record but no1 else in world cricket will. Warne has changed the game of cricket.

  • Jauhar on January 5, 2007, 21:57 GMT

    With Love to; Kamran, Writers Buddies & Salute to Shane Warne

    It's writer's own understanding of things. He has opened a discussion but it does not mean his verdict is ultimate. I do agree with some friends, it's never justified to compare the two stalwarts of different times. If you look at the history of Spin bowling at large, you will find number of good names. Skill or mastery in any aspect a comprehensive art is one thing and its utilization to produce results is altogether a different skill. Stat says that Warne was no doubt greatest of all times in his category. It's a useless comparison at the end.

    At the same times, it's not justified at all to link Qadir's success with Local umpires help. It's probably biasness at the same time. Umpiring before neutral era was a contradictory issue world over. Guest Teams used to have issues with local umpires. Buddies while bringing poor Pakistani umpiring in focus why forget in aggression that Australia had been one of the worse places in terms of umpiring for guest teams. I am not going to debate because it's an endless chapter. I admire structured system of advanced & developed country's but in the past they used to take help from umpires at the same level as other countries.

    I have really enjoyed the aggression & reaction of some of non Pakistani writers. While mentioning biasness, I have found them bias at the other end. Probably, for them no body could be great out of their own countries. For Warne’s greatness, regardless of characters & skills, it's enough for them that he was Australian. NO SECOND THOUGHT. I don't why, some of them While writing, altogether forget the ethics of expression. I would just say at the end debate is a debate; let it be a healthy activity. Respect the legends of all times.

    But Sweet Kamran! Though I often love your views: Warne is greatest - No comparison! Yes tomorrow, we might have some body better than Warne. Skill & Art has no end. The top is always vacant for strivers.

    Cheers!!

  • Prabu on January 5, 2007, 21:51 GMT

    Hmmm! Kamran, aren't you forgetting that Qadir took most of his wickets at home with home umpires? Seriously, didn't Imran call for neutral umpires because of the extremely biased umpiring in Pakistan causing a lot of trouble?

  • Jason on January 5, 2007, 21:38 GMT

    Murali is a great example. Fielding, Run support, greatest team and controlling board.. No one can argue that umpires are nice to Murali. Who cares about the 9-56. That may well have been the best spin spell, but it doesn't make him a better bowler overall. Warne gets those LBW's because of Warne. He was the once who chanced that. It doesn't matter to me that Warne has that run support, when Australia doesn't score runs Warne gets the wickets. He gets wickets when he has too. Is anyone doubting he would be successful on another team? Mcgrath is another reason why Warne is great. There is a school of thought, the Richard Hadlee thought, which basically is that if you bowl on a bad team, the greater your achievements look and the more wickets you get. This cannot be the case for Warne.

    Warne is clearly better, there cannot be any doubt.

    San's point above about Warne and India is worth noting that Qadir wasn't great against India either.

    And Murali is a better bowler than Warne, Warne is on record saying Murali will end up with over 1000 test wickets. Warne would probably admit Murali is better.

    The stats and everything say Warne is better than Qadir, and its correct.

  • imran nawaz on January 5, 2007, 21:34 GMT

    I agree with Kamran because shane warne did not play against batsmen with great techniques and he rarely did well against India while Qadir bowled successfully against the "great West Indies" team

  • Nomaan on January 5, 2007, 21:34 GMT

    Hey calm down everyone.Shane Warne has gone on record saying,"The great pakistan leg spinner Abdul Qadir is my teacher and my sole inspiration".He himself said that he had a cupboard full of video footage of Abdul Qadir in his house. Here I need to men tion a small incident.Once Warne went to meet Abdul Qadir along with a friend of his.As Warne was speaking to Qadir,his friend took out a cigeratte and was about to light it.Warne immediately said,"No boy.Don't you smoke right now because Abdul Is sitting over here." So when the man himself accepts him as his teacher and guru,what else do u want?so please.....silence.....

  • sam on January 5, 2007, 21:23 GMT

    I dont quite agree with the author but i can say qadir was as good as warne, warne never had success against india even in australia let alone in india majority of his wickets were again england and NZ who are not that good playing spin murali is far better bowler than warne he has taken wickets everywhere he played even without any support he single handedly carried the team , the aussies will always says about his action, he has been cleared by ICC so no one should complain about it and he is better bowler period. warne had mcgrath along side without mcgrath his effectiveness would be far less mcgrath is the most underrated great bowler of all time

  • Haider on January 5, 2007, 21:23 GMT

    Forget about the comparison they are both great bowlers in their own time and in their own right, but anyone talking about Qadir getting his wickets through home umpires is utter rubbish. Just look at any home series played in Australia 80% of the wrong decisions handed out by the umps are always in favour of Australia and that is no co-incidence. I remember the last series Pakistan played in Australia the so called wrong decisions handed out by umpires were 5 in favour of Pak compared to 19 in favour of Aus and don;t bs if u dont agree watch the footage from the whole series u will know and this is the case every year so I am sure Shane got his fair share of help at home too.

  • Sam on January 5, 2007, 21:17 GMT

    Absolute rubbish. Come on, the real reason is the one you haven't mentioned: He is from Pakistan and so are you. More cricinfo home-bias.

  • Arny on January 5, 2007, 21:07 GMT

    No doubt, Warne is/was good . He made spin bowling sexy. Qadir was an ok bowler , pretty helpless away from pakistan. Their comparision is pointless, Warne is far ahead. But as far the best spinner of all time is concerned, It is Muralithrn. Look at his record , it is mind boggling. He even has success against India in India where Warne has been an outright failure.

  • Sachal on January 5, 2007, 21:00 GMT

    your article is provocative, if u measure records, the wickets, the matches won etc, warne is easily the best leg spinner to adorn the cricket fields. i do think however qadir was the pioneer of spin bowling at a time when bhagwat chadrashekar of india was bowing out and spinners were being thought of as a luxury in cricket so qadir deserves a mention in that regard, and as a pakistani im proud of that, but nah he wasnt better than warne and probably even qadir wouldnt say that, nor would his main mentor imran khan. but we live in a democracy (even if its a military style democracy...lol) and everyone is entitled to his opinion. cheers and happy new yr to all

  • apr on January 5, 2007, 20:52 GMT

    ooo thats a big claim. perhaps a qadir a better technical bowler, but warnes psychological intimidation of batsmen creates a whole new level of bowling.

  • Jon O on January 5, 2007, 20:51 GMT

    Warne and Qadir are very good but they were no Ian Salisbury

  • Rajesh on January 5, 2007, 20:49 GMT

    Warne is the best bowler of the modern era. Murali is the best chucker. Qadir was good with a exciting action and deceptive googly. Went for a lot of runs and picked wickets on the way. Comparing him to Warne is laughable.

  • Akshay on January 5, 2007, 20:47 GMT

    With all due respects, I for one do not agree with single point of Kamran and belives Shane warne is not only the best leg spineer but also one of all time great sportspersons and here are the reasons why 1)Googly or no Googly great players and sportspersons are judged by the attitude and they raise their hand when team needs it most. If skill was the only criteria of judging player's greatness, players of likes of Salim Durani, Carl hooper and Daryll Cullinan would be first to make their claims. 2)Umpures oops! rewind back to Pakistan-England 1986-87 home series and in general all the home series of pakistan in 80's. I believe umpires were rather too sympethatic of Qadir than of Warne. 3)Warne has to battle far more adversiaries in his carrer than Qadir. Shoulder injury, finger injury, Drugs ban everytime he has come out stronger than ever even in the fag end of his carrer not the least in his last series with his arch rivals. 4)Warne did not played for the premier team, infact he and Mcgrath made a reasonable good team into Premier team, same cannot be said of Qadir even though he played alongside the likes of Imran, Javed and Akram all legends in true sense. 5)Warne never had to bowl at anything superior (although Indians might disagree)because he believed he was superior and he had in him all the time to prove that. Such a killer atitude he possesed that most of the teams got shivered before they even faced a ball from Warnie. 6)Low or high scores can never be an excuse for under-performance of bowler infact some of the best performance of Warne had come when the chips were down and team fighting to defend low scores example being '99 WC Semifinal, 92-93 Srilanka test and many more in his illustrious carrer. For Qadir it could be counted on fingers. 7)Well if Akram, Waqar and Imaran are cannon fodders then Lee, Gillespie and Mcgrath are grey hay. 8)Agreed with 8th point that subcontinent performances often do not get enough light by western media but then real challenge of spin bowling is also in the Western countries like Aussie and Eng where the pitches and conditions are more suited to swing and seam bowling. Going by that it is just fair that Warne has got more limelight than Qadir. 9)Wonder what Mike Gatting has to say about the delievery of the century, and oh yes Gatting also faced both Qadir and Warne.

  • Zhivan on January 5, 2007, 20:46 GMT

    O'Reilly/Grimmett > all other legspinners

    Barnes > all other bowlers

  • Riaz Husain on January 5, 2007, 20:43 GMT

    Very true indeed. The career statistics would have looked very different indeed for Qadir had he the benefit of the current view taken by umpires.

    In Qadir's day if he beat a batsman either on the front foot or because of bowling a flipper he was very unlikely to get a decision in his favour. Front foot - because front foot lbw's were not often given in those days and as for the missed flipper the umpire did not assume that the ball would continue in its line unless enough distance was travelled after pitching. These days the umpire assumes a ball maintains its line unless he has seen evidence to the contrary. For example a straight full toss which would have pitched before hitting the stumps were it not intercepted by the pads will get a favourable decision today. In Qadir's day the umpire would give not out as he would regard the ball, particularly in Qadir's case to have gone anywhere after pitching.A flipper was denied on the same logic unless it had travelled a significant distance after pitching.

    The point about umpiring view is important, not just because of denied decisions which should have gone in favour but how it allowed batsmen to play Qadir.

    Warne obviously a great leg spinner. Qadir the magician.

    PS Regarding the Sunil Gavaskar / Mohinder Amarnath episode of shouting googly. Was this done from the non strikers end? If so that must be regarded as dodgy practice to say the least. The simple retort to that would or should have been a ring of close fielders shouting googly to every ball just as Qadir bowled. The Gavasker / Amarnath ploy would then have immediately failed.

  • Carlos on January 5, 2007, 20:34 GMT

    Utter rubbish this is. Please, just give Warne his credit and move on.

  • Aditya on January 5, 2007, 20:25 GMT

    I don't know which one is better Kamran, but I know this: Sachin smashed both of them out of the park...lol! So by that standard there isn't much to choose between them.

  • O on January 5, 2007, 20:24 GMT

    i was too young to watch Abdul Qadir live, all i can go by is what i see in the highlights now. I have however watched Warne alot, i had, yes had, alot of respect for him until the 2nd Ashes test when he stoop to bowling around the wicket to Kevin Peterson, if Shane is such a wizard he doesnt need to bowl negative, now some of you may say its a "strategy", BS becuase he bolwed around the wicket for 2 sessions to him. With all this, i would still rate Shane Warne higher due to the fact that i have watched Shane Warne bowl alot and some deliveries are turtly unplayeable.

  • Qasim on January 5, 2007, 20:19 GMT

    I think it is uesless comparing 2 players of different eras. However i do not blame the author of this article, I think this mistake was made when Warne was labelled as the "best ever". That automatically implies a comparison.

    So while we're at it, I think Qadir had more variety, and perhaps an environment less conducive to results but neither of those make him a better bowler. Whatever Warne had going for him, he made sure he took the oppourtunities and obtained results. I think Qadir deserves the credit for really instilling life back into leg spin bowling. And in that I believe Warne owes a lot to Qadir. But still, that doesn't make Qadir a better bowler.

    To those who mentioned that Pakistani wickets were conducive to Qadir don't know what they are talking about. Unlike an off-spinner, leg spinners benefit tremendously from pace and bounce in wickets. Dry dusty wickets are not ideal for leg spinners, green hard ones are.

    Oh and one more thing to add to the handicap that Qadir had: beyond terrible Pakistani fielding!

    In the end, comparison's are subjective. Warne shouldn't be labelled as the best leg spinner ever, but as the highest wicket-taker ever. "Best" is very subjective.

  • Azim Khan on January 5, 2007, 20:14 GMT

    first of all.. most aussies will not accept that somebody has better players than them no matter what you say... BUT in this case i don't think qadir was better than warne.. moreover, this is a time to celebrate warne's career not to put him down by comparing him to players of 2 decades ago..

  • Vikas on January 5, 2007, 20:11 GMT

    First of all, Qadir had the most friendly umpires in Pakistan where even a meter between bat and ball was given out and anything hitting the pad was an automatic lbw. I think it is a Paki tendency to always prop a Pakistani name as the best. If the world says Lara and Sachin are best, suddenly we find Imran saying Inzi is better than both of them etc etc. I think you guys have a severe inferiority complex. Grow up !!!

  • Euceph Ahmed on January 5, 2007, 20:04 GMT

    “Cricket is blessed that a fine bowler like Shane Warne played the game and he should be remembered as the greatest leg-spinning maestro of all times.” ABDUL QADIR, DECEMBER 27, 2006. Reported in several newspapers around the world.

    Kamran, does that sum it up for you?

  • Justin on January 5, 2007, 19:39 GMT

    Your history is poor Abbasi, very poor. Australia in 91/92 were a weak team barely winning anything. It's Warne and McGrath who have... turned Australia from a middling team to one of the greatest teams ever. And - as for 'barely being able to bowl a googly'? I guess this is some form of April's Fool joke, in January.

    I won't even reply to anybody who says that Murali is a 'better bowler on figures alone'. As that makes a statastician grin his teeth.

  • sankar venkatarman on January 5, 2007, 19:34 GMT

    #7 actually shouts out that warne is the BEST bowler there ever was. In Qadir's team, if anyone was to take any wickets, it would've been him but warne had to compete with the likes of McGrath to get wickets...the same actually goes with murali too...he's like the only guy who takes wickets in SL (maybe vass a few). Shane rules (BTW, murali n qadir are both greats too)

  • Waqqas on January 5, 2007, 19:32 GMT

    Interesting...all the 'whites' think you're talking rubbish. Most of the pakistanis agree.

    Is this a cricket debate or a race one?

  • Shaun Corrigan on January 5, 2007, 19:18 GMT

    What 'Supplements' was Qadir using?

  • tallha on January 5, 2007, 19:12 GMT

    i say wid ashes and so many tests played by australia.. warne is no true great.. but murali is.. as they (srilankans) never play more than 2 test series and yet murali with almost 50 innings short of what warne has played has almost got as many wickets as warne has..and has more to come..

    so murali and qadir should be considered true gr8

  • Will Critchlow on January 5, 2007, 19:06 GMT

    What you say may have some value. But Murali is a better bowler than Warne in terms of figures etc. Warne is considered a great as much because of his character, his inventiveness and fight, his pantomime expression mixed with the ability to create serious, severe tension. Warne is more memorable than any other post-war cricketer, and he has had a vast impact on the game at all levels in all countries.

    So Qadir may be a better bowler, I cannot know having never seen him. Murali is a slightly better bowler in my opinion. But Warne is a greater sporting figure than any other spin bowler.

    Sharp choice of topic - I enjoyed the article.

  • Naren on January 5, 2007, 19:06 GMT

    It is ridiculous to say Qadir was better than Warne. Warne has proved time and again with match winning performances. Look at Qadir's record against India Average of 51. It is no good than Shane. Shane was never 100% fit whenever he toured India. Look agains pakistan he has such a great average. What good if you can bowl a googly if you cannot land all your leg break deliveries as Warne could. Nobody had turned the ball as big as warne. Above all think of the comical bowling action that Qadir had. Shane is great that he can be role model for young bowlers as they can follow his easy action.

  • Vidya on January 5, 2007, 19:04 GMT

    I totally agree Qadir was an excellent leg spinner for Pakistan. But you just cannot compare two cricketers who belonged to two different generations. The standard of pitches have greatly improved, easier on bastmen. We also need to keep in consideration about their performances overseas. But again as I said, very hard to compare two players from different generations. We also should not forget the media and technology. I have never seen Abdul Qadir play but i have been fortunate to witness Warne's career. So i would say Warne is the greatest Cricketer ever produced. But thats my opinion and I guess each person is entitled for his own opinion on things Facts apart.

  • Sami Syed from Toronto on January 5, 2007, 18:33 GMT

    Mr. Kamran Abbasi - A JOB WELL DONE! The reason being is because you have opened a can of worms. You have opened up a debate to which there is no answer. You have picked a topic to which you might get acclaimed and persecuted. To that I say well done to stir up a debate.

    My contribution to the debate will be minimal as I was too young for Abdul Qadir's time to compare him to Warne. To Warney, well done! He is a great bowler and I am sure Abdul Qadir was as well.

    THE ONLY FACT here is that as we had a debate earlier with no real answer about Mohammad Yousuf's comparision to the oldies, similarly there will be no real answer in this comparison either. THERE ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES TO CONSIDER BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT CRICKETING ERAS.

    Enough said. Sami Syed from Toronto

  • Sophianic on January 5, 2007, 18:32 GMT

    Just make No sense. Ridiculous to say the least.

  • Cricketfan on January 5, 2007, 18:31 GMT

    I think it is sad that world cricket is so biased in favour of white caucasians, and that the English and Australian media rule the roost.

    Murali is undoubtedbly the greastest spin bowler of all time, but will probably never be recognised as such because of his Asian roots.

    It is sad but true.

    Out of Murali and Warne, who has the better average, strike rate and economy? Who has more 5 wicket hauls? Who will finish his career with more wickets? Just why is Warne hailed as the greatest bowler ever to walk the earth?

  • Lux Gurusamy on January 5, 2007, 18:27 GMT

    Apples and Oranges folks...apples and oranges...

    Luxman Gurusamy

  • Ananth on January 5, 2007, 18:21 GMT

    Hey Kamran,

    You forgot to add another point,

    Qadir almost always had Pakistanis as Umpires!!! So, that more than neutralizes all your other points. Warne is the best!!!

  • Daniyal on January 5, 2007, 18:17 GMT

    I am a Pakistani so I spent much of Warne's career comparing him to Qadir. While I enjoyed watching Qadir more and do strongly believe he was a great bowler I wouldn't say he was the best and neither would I give Warne that label. Both had their pros and cons one had his career cut short by injuries the other survived without any career ending blows.

    Its quite difficult to compare eras, as Kamran has discovered, equipment changes, rules change and techniques change. The biggest difference in the times the two bowled has to be (1) fitness and (2) umpiring. Honestly have we forgotten the age Qadir bowled in? Fitness was unheard of and players never threw themselves around to catch balls or stop boundaries. Warne definitely benefitted from improved fitness, better coaching, fielding and technology.

    Sure Qadir was benefitted by favourable umpiring in his land but come one stop bitching how old were you guys when he bowled umpires from other countries weren't saints they turned down several plumb appeals. Umpiring then was not held to the same high standards as it is today and he (Qadir) was probably robbed of more wickets than he was gifted by the men in white. Sure he had more variety but I think Warne's variations are more than comparable and hey all of us have a ball we love to bowl and one we could do without.

    End of the day Warne benefitted and made the most of all that was made available to him. He made use of technology to plan out how he was going to bowl out his victims. Qadir never. He stepped onto the pitch and plyed away. So who's better? the man with all the technology to back him up or the man who eyed it and did everything possible to psych out his opponents with some sufi mystic?

  • John Beamish on January 5, 2007, 18:17 GMT

    This article was written tongue-in-cheek to provoke. And has it ever succeeded! Let's give Abbasi a break and layoff the personal abuse.

  • Rafeeq on January 5, 2007, 18:15 GMT

    In my view Abdul Qadir was a great bowler of his time.The difference between Qadir and Shane Warne is that warne is supported by the other australian bowlers by bowling tight overs and warne got the wickets from other end.Whereas Qadir was not well complimented by the pakistani bowlers in his playing days.

  • Ramesh on January 5, 2007, 18:14 GMT

    Lets not disgrace cricket by comparing the LEGEND like Warne with PUPPETS like Qadir. PS: Sorry I had to use "PUPPET" for Qadir. He was a good bowler but, when you compare him to Warne, he is infact a PUPPET.

  • Jaffery on January 5, 2007, 18:13 GMT

    Just compare the Batsmen of that era to this era.Beside Tendulkar and Lara is there any good player of spin bowling outside Australia. And those two guys are not as good players of spin as Gavasker, Mohinder, Miandad, Gooch etc were.Ok Qadir benefitted from home umpiring but he also suffered from it outside. Just think Warne bowling in sub Continent getting no wicket in 6 test(Ask Lillie). Could he survive that period? Difficult to answer. Ask Getting, Gooch And Border. Getting, even though he was a controvertial figure and didnt like to be in Sub Continent, agreed that Qadir was a better bowler. If Statistical records is the criteria that Murali is going to become the greatest bowler ever.

  • mer on January 5, 2007, 18:10 GMT

    Completely insane article.All respects to Qadir but its just poor comparison.There were few ind spinners too who were better than Qadir namely Chandra,bishen,Gupte etc. Warne and murli are best, kumble and saqlain are next. In PAK i dont think there was any better spinner came then Saqlain, politics has killed his career. i am saddened to read such articles from you Kamran, complete waste of time, space and cricketing knowledge. mer

  • yasir hashmi on January 5, 2007, 17:59 GMT

    i think we cant compare bowlers of different era's.both of them were great.so i think we should praise them both.really cant compare them..& there is no such need for the comparison as well.both are legends.thats it.

  • Nav on January 5, 2007, 17:54 GMT

    How can someone compare Qadir & Warne. I think if u compare Warne & Murli that might make some sense.

  • Asif on January 5, 2007, 17:41 GMT

    1. Switch "Qadir" with "Warne", and substitute "googly" with any of the following: flipper, top-spinner, slider....

    2. I wish I could show you the videos of Gatting being 'dismissed' by Qadir in a test match video in Pakistan. That umpiring was slightly less biased than this article, but only slightly.

    3. Warne's start wasn't all that hot either. He needed a lot of support to continue his test career after that debut in India.

    4. How this matters in deciding who the better bowler is I don't know.

    5. West Indian's weren't the best at spin, even then. Warne too has had some tough players of spin to bowl against...think Tendulkar, Lara, Laxman, even Kambli and Sidhu.

    6. I agree, but that issue is more than offset by the fact that Warne bowled on far less spinner-friendly pitches than Qadir did.

    7. Agreed. But look at what Murali has done with whatever support he's had.

    8. Players today do get more media attention, but then again, with an average of 47 away from home, he didn't do much newsworthy stuff when he went abroad anyhow!

    9. If you want to point at a single performance as a yardstick, I would like to officially put forth the name of Jason Gillespie as being a better batsman than Steve Waugh.

    10. He faced Qadir on his finest day. It is no doubt he was impressed. The fact that you had to pick out the likes of Gooch as your support speaks volumes in itself.

    I like Warne, he's my favorite bowler. But I don't get miffed when people call Murali a better bowler...there might be truth to it. Even I think in some respects Murali is way ahead. But it is such blatant bias like this that saddens me. On a renowned site like CricInfo too!

  • Mathew on January 5, 2007, 17:38 GMT

    Good article written at bad time.

  • atta subhan on January 5, 2007, 17:32 GMT

    I 100% agreed with what Umar Siddiqui has wrote above replying to Kamran.Abbasi, Shane warne is all times great bowler in the world of leg spin department, though i heard that in his 1st tour of pakistan in eraly 90's he went to Qadir's home for learning about leg spin. But anyway we should give credit to warny he has been the king and name of fear for all the giants of present test cricket. He really has noched big names like lara, inzmam,tendulkar, quiet often. I will give him a credit and lots of apreiciations on behalf of pakistanis he really has done a dream job.

  • Owais Ahmad on January 5, 2007, 17:32 GMT

    I agree that Abdul Qadir is never given his due share of praise by English/Aussy writers because of the reasons you have mentioned. Not least among those is the attitude of umpires now and then, Imran always said that umpires never understood his bowling and hence so many plumb decusions never went his way. I can recall 1987 series in England when Botham and Gatting kept padding Qadir away and saved the match. I doubt it will happen now. Having said that, one should not put Qadir above Warne. Warne, along with Muralitharan, McGrath, Imran, Hadlee, Ambrose, Marshal, is truly among the greatest bowler of all time (I mean if not the greatest). His record, his genius etc.

  • Icki Iqbal on January 5, 2007, 17:30 GMT

    There is little doubt that Qadir had a fuller bag of tricks than Warne. He also played with a poorer fielding side than Warne has enjoyed.

    However there can be little doubt that Warne had more guile and was better at out-thinking batsmen.

    Coming to the present day, Dinesh Kaneria has a bigger bag of tricks and a better googly than Wanre but he lacks cunning and never seems to tou-think the batsmen.

    Icki

  • mahi on January 5, 2007, 17:29 GMT

    The only relevant questionmark against Warne, one worth pointing out might be the fact of his rather mediocre performances against Indian bastsmen, that too on pitches best suited to spin - Indian.

    Beyond that, have your heart re-programmed to see beyond P.a.k.i.s.t.a.n.

  • Venkat on January 5, 2007, 17:22 GMT

    Warnie is the best bowler. period !! Qadir is no match to him. The way he builds up pressure and chokes the batsmen, no other bowler could even do it. He is a genius...I have not seen Qadir spin the ball as much as warnie. look at the deliveries bowled to Gatting, Basit Ali, Chanderpaul, Strauss, Gibbs , Cullinan and u will know

  • Andy Nav on January 5, 2007, 17:20 GMT

    Some astute comments, No. 5 in particular. However Warne was almost certainly better, you don't get 700+ wickets out of nowhere!

    Also it's a bit difficult to take Andrew Johnson's comments seriously when he can't spell...

  • karthik on January 5, 2007, 17:12 GMT

    and what's the precise difference between a flipper and a zooter? don't be fooled by the media hype, laddie...

  • Manav K on January 5, 2007, 17:10 GMT

    For a batsman, not knowing how much the ball will spin is as bad as not knowing which way it will turn. Therein lies Warne's greatest strength. To be able to land 6 balls where he wanted and letting them spin only as much as he planned, isn't good enough? Damn.. Warney never needed the wrong 'un as much as some of the lesser mortals did.

  • karthik on January 5, 2007, 17:06 GMT

    i certainly think shane warne was a great legspinner, but some of the stuff said about him makes him seem way better than he actually was. he's hardly carried an attack on his own shoulders, nor has he consistently run through sides. he bowls beautiful deliveries, bowls with exceptional control, and is one of the most astute thinkers of the game; he's not the greatest bowler ever, though. calling him that each time he walks in to bowl, when mcgrath and co have made his job a lot easier, is a little demeaning to loads of top bowlers from every era of the game. and he's not decidedly the greatest legspinner either. o' reilly, grimmett, quadir, gupte, chandrasekhar, the south african quartet of the early 1900s, kumble... all of them merit some sort of place in a debate atleast. and as for the greatest bowler ever, the list is endless... spofforth, barnes, o' reilly, lindwall, laker, trueman, the west indians, lillee... and so on... shane warne has been a vastly overrated cricketer all his life, and i can't help but think that if he hadn't been an australian from an all conquering era, would he have been rated anywhere as highly?

  • Cricket Girl on January 5, 2007, 17:04 GMT

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

    This is like saying Shoaib Malik is a better batsman than Bradman because he played the cut shot better.

    The only objective measurement that can be used are the stats when comparing players. I think the debate should focus on Murli being the greatest spin bowler to ever grace the game.

  • Umar Siddiqui on January 5, 2007, 17:04 GMT

    I am a Pakistani fan but your analysis is making me laugh.

    Warne was 100 times better than Qadir for a number of reasons:

    1. Warne was a miserly bowler who not only took wickets but choked the batsmen and made run scoring difficult for them Qadir on the other hand was expensive and gave alot of easy runs. Also Warne was economical in an era where the batsmen were the most attacking (Imagine he choked those) while Qadir bowled in an era where most batsmen scored at a snail pace and he still got smashed around alot.

    2. Warne might not have a good googly but to the credit of the man, he still took three times more wickets than Qadir mainly depending on the legspinner and slider. Kaneria and Mushtaq have better googlies than Warne...So that make them superior to Warne ?...They can't touch Warne's feet.

    3. Warne spun the ball far more viciously than Qadir.

    4. Both were primarily legspinners. Who had the better legspinner ?...who could turn it more going away from the batsmen ?....Who got more control over the legspinner ?...Who got more wickets with his main expertise (legspinner)?...Warne !!

    5. Warne has been a matchwinner all over the world repeatedly and he is one main reason why Australia won everything which came to sight. Qadir didn't do much accept winning a few home series.

    6. Warne was feared by batsmen while I don't think Qadir ever was.

    7. Everytime Warne came onto bowl, it was exciting and enthralling. Qadir blew hot and cold.

    8. Now since Warne is retired, I am pretty sure that teams like South Africa, India and Pakistan think that they have a chance against Australia. When Qadir retired, I dont think it made much of a difference.

    9. Warne is more entertaining to watch with the pressure he builds on the batsmen. I am pretty sure many of us would pay to see him play. That cannot be said about Qadir.

    10. Last but not the least, looks at the stats man.....No comparison...

    The greatest bowler in history has retired. We should give credit where its due and not get biased via our typical desi mentality.

  • idrees on January 5, 2007, 17:00 GMT

    It is difficult to compare two players of differnt era. I think both were great players of their time. I havn't seen Abdul Qadir playing for pakistan, so can't comment. But Shane warne is great, even greater then Murli.

  • Sanjay Mahesh Tourani on January 5, 2007, 16:55 GMT

    O Dear o dear... Qadir was brilliant no doubt about it. But he will always be remembered as the 2nd greatest bowler of all time.PERIOD. Warne's combative abilities and mental toughness are second to none and the fact remains that he's outfoxing batsman in a batsman dominated era. SURELY NO COMPARISON-WARNE ALL THE WAY. QADIR a second-OR KUMBLE???

  • Yeshwanth on January 5, 2007, 16:54 GMT

    One thing, one can say with certainty is that both were thrashed by Sachin Tendulkar. But one must say that Abdul Qadir played in a different age--had he played the English team on the 1990's & beyond for 5-6 Tests every two years and the Sounth Africans who hardly see spin bowling, his records would have been stunning too.

  • Aftab Qureshi on January 5, 2007, 16:54 GMT

    Abdul Qadir may have been a better bowler but Shane Warne definitely has been a better package wnen you take into account the mind game, the stare into the eyes of his prey, the psychological pressure put on the batsmaen and, not least, the sledging. Also perhaps a factor in the final figures is the fact that Warne had the support of better catching fielders.

  • Vipul on January 5, 2007, 16:54 GMT

    also to add to my earlier comment Warne used to bowl googlies and flippers a lot more frequently until he had a shoulder operation which made him limit the use of those deliveries, especially the googly. but he never totally stopped bowling them. please get your facts right!

  • kazam on January 5, 2007, 16:53 GMT

    being the member of such a website it is really a shame to know about your grudge feelings about Shane Warne.there r some points for your kind information: 1- if Qadir had googly then what's about the flippers,zooters,sliders of Warne. 2- if Warne has the sympathies of the neutral umpires then Qadir had not played a single match on home soil under nuetral umpires. 3- During Qadirs tenure as a player there was no other good Leg-spinner available but what if Warne would have under performed there is also Stuart Mcgill.and their board is surely not mad and should have brought Mcgill. 4- what happened when AUSSIES got out for lower scores,he is the only spinner in the world to come so early in an inning to bowl for his team. pls. remember WC 96 SF, WC 99 SF & FINAL. WARNE's strike rate, average suggests that he is a better bowler than Qadir. Warne often comes in to bowl with 4,5 wickets down and also have to bowl in Australian conditions which suits fast bowlers more than Warne whereas Qadir played more tests on home soil such as Lahore and karachi. the foremost point which makes him a better bowler is his home and away record which is far superior to Qadir and even the great chucking master Murlithran

  • Vipul on January 5, 2007, 16:51 GMT

    cmon u cant be serious! surely u know more about cricket, Shane Warne is by far the better bowler, there are a million reasons why but i will give u just one:Warne the thinker - the man could outfox you,toy with you mentally and u add that with his natural leg spin abilities and he leaves other bowlers in cricket history let alone leg spinners miles behind

  • Shahid on January 5, 2007, 16:43 GMT

    I love Abdul Qadir, but there is really no comparison here. Only more and more mounting evidence that Kamran Abbasi is running out of logical and interesting things to write about. I hope to God for your patients sake you're a better doctor than a cricket journalist. Stick to your day job and leave the journalism to people who know what the hell they're talking about.

  • brian on January 5, 2007, 16:40 GMT

    It is 2 different eras, dont compare one to the other. In Qadir's time the ball had to pitch straight and go on straight to be lbw. certain big name teams couldnt play spin so rules were changed.It ruined Sonny Ramadhin's career.

    It is not fair to judge stats. batsmen could kick away anything and just play the loose deliveries. it was similar to the restriction on bouncers during West Indies hey days .

    Having said that Warne is a gr8 bowler and he mastered his art and his abilities . Having said thar I think murali is just one of a kind and i see him taking 1000 wickets soon.

  • siddharth poddar on January 5, 2007, 16:39 GMT

    kamran, your articles are normally good, but i'm sorry to say that this one borders on the ridiculous. it is absolutely stupid. you are right to say that qadir was underrated- absolutely. how the hell does that translate into him being better than warne? then why not say that kumble is the greatest ever- after all, he bowls it faster than anyone. furthermore,warne and qadir needed to extract massive turn to get wickets while kumble does not even need to do that.

    absolutely ridiculous, i must say.

    don't do these great bowlers a disservice- they're all great. warne is the best

  • eddy on January 5, 2007, 16:38 GMT

    i understand Kamran Abbasi's point but disagree. its true that until the last decade spin bowlers were'nt getting anywhere near bowlings elite 300 club(excluding Gibbs 309) next was Underwood with 297. so either cricket has changed dramatically i.e. attitudes towards giving spinners wickets or that Warne, Murali and Kumble are the best spinners ever. i used to believe that the greatest bowler i ever saw was M.Marshall, over the past 5 years i changed my mind. Warne perfected the hardest art in cricket, legspin. He and Lara are the greatest entertainers the game has seen, is it a coincendence that they are also the holders of the most runs and wickets in cricket???? eddy

  • Ravi on January 5, 2007, 16:37 GMT

    Ridiculous article. Why would you attempt to underwhelm the end of a great cricketing career. Is your next article going to list the pakistani bowlers better than mcgrath? Sensationalism is not just sad, it is getting annoying.

  • Ali on January 5, 2007, 16:37 GMT

    I think both are great bowler's. There is no reason to compare each other. The only thing i want to mention is that Warne got more wickets because modern batsmen have poor temprament because of so much one day cricket. Earlier batsmen have more temprament. If you look at warne record he got more wickets now as compared to before. I think its just a hipe. He is just a lucky bowler played in a strong team against poor teams. Since they get strong because of rest of teams loose players just like australia is loosing the playes right now one by one. Just one question why we consider him a great bowler when he got most of his wickets from england and south africa. We all know both these countries can't play spin. If he is truly a great bowler then australia shouldn't loose last ashes. They even won this one is because england played poorly their batsmen couldn't score runs, not Warne factor. So don't waste time. He is just luck one if that's the case he should top in oneday cricket too becasue he knew he can't so quit long time before. Number of wickets not a point of comparision.

  • EM on January 5, 2007, 16:34 GMT

    Heretic! There, I called you one.

  • Nick Brown on January 5, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    Whatever the Author feels is his own idea, so Luke and Leggie, how about you stop ranting. If you dont like what the Author has to write, then dont read it. Who is asking you to read it. Personally, Warni is a great spinner. I cant compare the two. But most of your points do make me wonder....

  • Jagannath on January 5, 2007, 16:30 GMT

    I think this blog has crossed the line of unbiased journalism.Agreed A.Qadir was very good.He did battle against a lousy board(its still the worst around) and very good batsmen.But Warne did (as many fans have correctly mentioned earlier) what nobody else has done.He has transcended the border of the home advantage and has performed like a champion in all conditions.He bowls with an aggression that only he can muster and sustain all through the match.The manner in which he outthinks and mentally disintegrates his batsmen makes many more of his deliveries unplayable.C'mon Mr.Abbasi,you gotta be joking.Qadir better than Warne?Its like saying Tauseef Ahmed was better than Murali.Are you kidding me?

  • Kirtson Thompson on January 5, 2007, 16:28 GMT

    Finally an opinion of substance on legspin! Qadir was and is the greatest, for all your reasons and more Kamran. When the teams other than Australia, England and South Africa were beating the world there was only criticism and rule-changing; which has contributed to the change in status quo. In today's cricket world the Aussies can do no wrong and are the greatest ever at whatever they do. Plain and simple: Warne is overrated, Qadir is the best leggy and in today's context, Muralitharan is exceptional.

  • MZM on January 5, 2007, 16:18 GMT

    There are no doubts that both players are the best at their places. They had different times, different places, differents environments or circumstaces. You better ask Umpire Dicky Bird who will give you the best answer. No matter what, Honestly A. Qadir has many edges over S. K. Warne. Unfortunately the Crocodiles of Pakistan Cricket Board played dirty politics to spoil magestic A. Qadir.

  • Wajid Jawaid on January 5, 2007, 16:18 GMT

    i wish u hadnt written that!

  • Jay on January 5, 2007, 16:15 GMT

    Qadir revived the art and was the only legspinner of his time who could dominate batting attacks. He is the pioneer of modern day legspin bowling and Warne ackowledges it. Being the saviour of a dying art and the pioneer of its new school in itself is compliment enough.

    We will never know who had the better physical skills (I believe Warne is the better spinner) but in terms of spine, zest and competitiveness, Qadir has the edge. He was the first spinner to bowl like a fast bowler, wanting a wicket every ball, staring down the pitch and even growing a goatie to look tough. Trust me, I saw him bowl, and he was never the one to lull the batsman into a false sense of security, hoping to induce an edge off a drive. Qadir aimed for the stumps, fizzed all sorts of deliveries down the pitch and followed up with stares, snide comments and smirks. Cricket does owe a little bit to Qadir, so let's give him that.

  • omar mirza on January 5, 2007, 16:12 GMT

    Just shut up Kamran. You dont know what you are talking about.

  • wade gibbons on January 5, 2007, 16:11 GMT

    In 30 years of closely following test cricket I have heard some utterly stupid comments, but to suggest that Adbul Qadir was a better legspin bowler than Shane Warne is complete parochial rubbish. Records do not lie, especially when considered over a long period of time. I would respectfully submit that that original comment of Qadir being better than Warne has come from either his brother, father or Rip Van Winkle who just awoke after 25 years of extremely deep slumber.

  • sameer on January 5, 2007, 16:11 GMT

    i am a bit disapponited with this blogg with the S.A series coming up and there is still much to talk about. however matching Shane warne to another other legspinner is diffivlut but not to Abdul Qadir. SHane warne is still better but Abdul Qadir did carry the legsoinners flag suring the 70' nad 80's. if it wasnt for him leggspinn wouldnt be what it is now. Bu Shane deserves all the credit he can get and rightly so.

  • Amyn Habib on January 5, 2007, 16:07 GMT

    Your analysis of Warne vs. Qadir suffers from the same flaw as most of your other commentaries. You ignore the facts, the actual record of their performances. While Qadir was a fine bowler, by any OBJECTIVE measure of bowling excellence, Warne is superior. I also agree with comments that it is difficult to compare players from two different periods.

  • kidal on January 5, 2007, 16:04 GMT

    Come on Kamran! Just look at the number of wickets they have taken. There is no comparison. Warne has also had to bowl to some of the best batsmen in the history of the game including Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Inzi and Yousuf. So point 5 does not hold. Qadir was and will always be unique and a great bowler. But Warne is definitely ahead. (I'm a Pakistani.

  • Paul on January 5, 2007, 16:04 GMT

    .... and Qadir had Pakistani umpires for half his matches. We all remember 1986/7.

    Qadir was a great bowler who should be applauded for keeping legspin alive. Warne, he is not.

  • Shan on January 5, 2007, 16:04 GMT

    Hahahaha! Wow we needed that bit of comedy Kamran! Qadir better than Warne? Of course...hahahahahaha! The guy whom Sachin Tendulkar hit for 4 sixes in the first over he faced, that too in Pakistan! The man who needed Pakistani umpires to take ever second wicket?

    No one denies that Qadir was a great legspin bowler. But better than Warne? Get some perspective. Of course that's asking too much from someone who supports drug cheats and calls himself a doctor. So all I can say is...well playes Kamran. You represent Pakistani ethos very well indeed!

  • ajaya on January 5, 2007, 16:02 GMT

    qadir was a great legspinner anil kumble is a great legspinner shane warne is the greatest legspinner

  • Tallat on January 5, 2007, 16:02 GMT

    Well... the reality is that Abdul Qadir kept it alive and Warne took it to new level. Both have their own greatness and weakness as well. But if you want to compare it would be nice if we comapre the Murali with Warne. And in that I think Murali has faar faar ahead than Warne in all respect. No doubt Warne is great bowler but Murali is ahead of him.

  • athar on January 5, 2007, 15:36 GMT

    Utter Nonsense! I am a Pakistani who loved A. Qadir but give everyone a break, have a big heart and give a credit to SK Warne that he deserves - a best ever spin bowler and a finest cricketer of his time.

  • ID on January 5, 2007, 15:34 GMT

    I am sorry but Abdul Qadir's bowling average outside of Pakistan (i.e without the benefit of Pakistani umpires) is 47.58.

    Enough said.

    That needs to be reiterated.

    This original blog is the most biased piece of journalistic writing I've ever seen.

  • Luke on January 5, 2007, 15:30 GMT

    Absolute rubbish. Umpires? Abdul Qadir had the benefit of some of the dodgiest home umpires in the entire history of world cricket!

    Googlies? Who cares? Warne has a decent googly, just not an amazing one. What about his other variations that do everything except take the batsmen's pads off for him?

    Warne is, THE best legspinner the world has ever seen, to take so many wickets, at such a great average in the batsmans era is INCOMPARABLE.

  • Ali Abbas on January 5, 2007, 15:24 GMT

    Kamran, seriously dude, where do you come up with these ideas. It is absolutely absurd to compare Qadir with Warne. Is this all you have left to write about? It is highly unfair for both of these high class athletes to have compared with eachother. You tried to churn the same rhetoric when you tried to compare Imran with Inzimam. Warne is the best, he is a legend. You are naive to say that Qadir was better than him. Although I regard Qadir as a great leg spinner and I also believe he actually invented the art. But that doesnt bring him nowhere near Warne. I bet you will create more haters than lovers for poor Qadir by this.

  • Leggie on January 5, 2007, 15:19 GMT

    I won't compare the two as if we are engaged in some batle of right and wrong.

    As a young Aussie leg spinner in the pre-Warne era, I idolised Abdul Qadir. He was my favourite cricketer and he was always on my mind when I spent those countless hours in the nets.

    After Abdul Qadir disappeared, I have loved every minute of Shane Warne's bowling and wished I was 15 years younger, so I could bowl here in Australia in an age when leg spin might receive more 'love' than it did in the 80's.

    The point is that Shane Warne + Abdul Qadir is not a zero sum game. Few enough of us really appreciate the greatness of both bowlers that we should each of us have big smiles on our faces that we were fortunate enough that we saw and learned from both their styles.

  • Buster on January 5, 2007, 15:16 GMT

    Rubbish!

  • Jag on January 5, 2007, 14:55 GMT

    You can make arguments for anything.

    The guy that wrote this was also defending shoaib and asif last week. And he's supposedly a medical professional. His credibility was shot then and is a farce now. who is he? and why are we putting up with him!?

  • Stewart Swift on January 5, 2007, 14:55 GMT

    Never have I read such biased rot in all my life!

    Its like saying Martha Grace was a better bowler than Dennis Lillee because she started bowling overarm!!

  • Geoff Taylor on January 5, 2007, 14:53 GMT

    Just remember that the great West Indian side which Qadir played against were absolutley useless against spin bowling just ask Bob Holland and Hirwarni, hell even Allan Border's part time tweakers were enough to destroy the might of the West Indies. That's why the Australian selectors wanted Warne in the team so much in the beginning. Granted Qadir kept leg spin alive but Warnie took it to an entire new level and entirely changed the pace-dominated bowling attacks that were around before his time. The fact that Qadir was one of the only two decent bowlers in the team meant his record should have been better than Warne's.

    Also bar Sydney most Australian pitches are not conductive to spin bowling unlike some of the Pakistani dust bowls. Whislt you also mentioned that Qadir had a turbulent relationship with the Pakistan cricket system Warne's entire life was front page news!!! How he managed to go through the the very public breakdown of his marriage and at the same time still put in that heroic, gargantuan and simply brilliant performance in 2005's Ashes series boggles the mind as much as his deliveries.

    Saying Qadir is better than Warne is like saying Boycott was better than Bradman.

  • Farrukh on January 5, 2007, 14:51 GMT

    Bowlers from different times cannot be compared. The conditions, umpires, cricket has changed Abdul Qadir was a very a great bowler. But at the end of the day the stats matter. And Warne simply tops it all.

    If there has to be a comparison, then it should be between Shane Warne & Murali.

  • Nick on January 5, 2007, 14:48 GMT

    Personally, I think we should consider how many of Shane Warne's wickets were gained by unsporting behaviour, backed by an aggressive and often over-aggressive team. My estimate is that about 150 of those famous 700 wickets were gained by tactics that damaged the game, and were little short of cheating. As for the umpiring issue - the last decade has seen an obvious dilution in quality, with umpires lacking the strength or support to stand up for the rules of the game. Warne benefited from both trends. For my money Murali is the better and more dangerous bowler - and a far superior sportsman.

  • safwan on January 5, 2007, 14:48 GMT

    these comparisons are so difficult to make....i cannot compare warne to A.Q simply because i never saw Abdul Qadir bowl!!!! of what i hav watched of warne has left me in awe....he is a fantastic bolwer, mayber A.q was even better but its not for me to judge. some people may argue murali is the best ever, he is an offspinner though and even if warne is the best ever leg spinner he is not the best ever spinner of all time, this distintion should go to murali!unfortunately his career has been tainted by countless chucking accusations from the "whites" of this game,Abdul Qadir's brilliance might not have been exposed to the cricketing world because of his origin and skin colour!!!

  • Kartik on January 5, 2007, 14:40 GMT

    Comparing bowlers from two different eras is an exercise in futility. Because if you swap both bowlers, you can never know if they would have performed better or worse.

  • Imran on January 5, 2007, 14:38 GMT

    Its simply a mattaer of Opinion for some Qadir was the bettwe bowler and for some it's Warne, they both were great Bowlers without a doubt, but we cannot know for certainty who was the better of the two due to the fact that they played in different times.

  • Md Khaled Mahmud on January 5, 2007, 14:37 GMT

    I think warne is like tendulker and qadir like viv richards in batting terms. One is statistically great the other is brutally great!!!

  • Umair on January 5, 2007, 14:32 GMT

    I am a cricket enthusiast but i seriously am laughing at his comparison

    u just cant compare legends of yester years to legends of today

  • Paul G on January 5, 2007, 14:27 GMT

    Qadir a better bowler than Warne? I doubt it but each for their own. Did Qadir play in a successful team which won series after series including World Cups and away series. Did Qadir ever play for a side which won a series in Australia. Qadir might have had multiple googlies but cricket is a team game and a tick in the win column for mine is the most important thing. Kamran, like a number of folks from the subcontinent, seems obsessed with secondary measurements like bowling averages and variations and seems to forget the main objective is to win. Who had a better career - Qadir with all his variations or Warne playing in winning teams? It's a no brainer for me!

  • John Beamish on January 5, 2007, 14:26 GMT

    Alas the proof of the pudding is in etc.. Warne--loathsome, chubby and Australian he might be--has taken more wickets than Qadir. And for the same reason I'll risk the wrath of the entire Pakistan population by saying that McGrath--loathsome, annoying and Australian he might be--is a better bowler than Wasim Akram or Imran Khan.

  • Karthik on January 5, 2007, 14:25 GMT

    Are u deliberately creating a contrevorsy?

    Nice joke..make a better one next time

  • James on January 5, 2007, 14:24 GMT

    Trying to compare great players from different eras is just about impossible. Would Qadir have taken the wickets Warne did had he played in the current Australian side? Probably. Would Warne have had Qadir's influence on the Pakistan side? Probably. Who was better? Does it matter?

    Warne has just finished a fantastic career in which he has made a massive contribution to not only to the Australian side but to the whole of world cricket. Right now we should be thanking a great player for all he has done, rather than debating whether other players are better.

    Frankly, I find an article posted at this time complaining that Warne is second best somewhat insulting to a great career.

  • Ralph on January 5, 2007, 14:18 GMT

    "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."

    Maybe so, but Qadir also benefited enormously from some partisan home umpiring - and that's putting it mildly. I recall a video that was posted on one blog here showing the most shocking lbw decision being given against Mike Gatting. That was not an isolated incident.

    Other than that, very fair points, though I agree with Aaron that Qadir didn't have a flipper, and thus your first point is a bit weak: also, variety itself does not make a great bowler.

  • Mudassir on January 5, 2007, 14:15 GMT

    kool comments but can't go any thing wrong against ausies these days.... this is a fact that in todays cricket even umpires are under pressure when they are in an australia's match..... u might have seen alot of wrong decisions against opponents even by great umpires....

  • Faisal on January 5, 2007, 14:09 GMT

    Qadir was the inventor of what Warne continued as a leg spinner.I think a great era of leg spin bowling is ended now.The only difference between them was that Qadir belongs to the the system who never utilize him till the end and never appreciates his efforts but Warne belonged to CA who knows how to utilize their best players and let them play for years, the best example is worldcup 2003 where Warne was banned for 1 year but he got selected again,came back and ended his career successfully.

  • Hassan on January 5, 2007, 14:08 GMT

    I agree with some of Kamran's analysis two great bowlers from different decades. Qadir was the lone wrist spin bowler in the time when fast bowler dominated the world of cricket. Qadir kept this art alive, furhter more to this.....In shane's own words he visited Qadir at Lahore to learn more about this great art.

    Both of them are part of the same family....spin bowling. which they have kept alive to benefit cricket world wide.

  • Chacha Koora Kirkit on January 5, 2007, 14:07 GMT

    Qadir was perhaps more talent but Warne is/was scientific. i.e. the same difference between Australia and Pakistan cricket teams. During the Wasim/ Waqar era Pakistan had the best side on paper but they suffered humiliating defeats against the Australians.

    As can be said of Shoaib and Lee. Shoaib is better bowler but Lee will be more effective and have an illustrious career.

  • Jungle on January 5, 2007, 14:06 GMT

    I am sorry but Abdul Qadir's bowling average outside of Pakistan (i.e without the benefit of Pakisatni umpires) is 47.58.

    Enough said.

  • Arvind on January 5, 2007, 14:06 GMT

    Dr. Abbasi There is no fair comparison even when you want to compare two players who played in same era, e.g. who is better between Botham and Imran.

    You are saying that Qadir was better than Shane, maybe, but an Indian may claim that Gupte was better, the WestIndians too wil agree. The only objectivity we know come through numbers and thats where Shane has exceeded everyone. Lets not draw comparisons and bring the champions of different era down to the level of ordinary players.

  • Anawar Ul Hassan on January 5, 2007, 13:55 GMT

    I agree with some of Kamran's analysis two great bowlers from different decades. Qadir was the lone wrist spin bowler in the time when fast bowler dominated the world of cricket. Qadir kept this art alive, furhter more to this.....In shane's own words he visited Qadir at Lahore to learn more about this great art.

    Shane did benefit from the global coverage...both bowler were & are great but for me I will vote will go to Great Qadir (The Bul Bul).

  • Aaron on January 5, 2007, 13:54 GMT

    Did Qadir have a flipper?

    "Warne had the smartest cricket board behind him." Are you forgetting that Warne went 1/150 in his debut and if it wasn't for Alan Border Warne would have been lost?

    To be honest I'd never heard of Qadir before, but now I'll see if I can find some footage and read some more articles. Definately sounds like something to enjoy. Thanks Kamran.

  • Mohamed on January 5, 2007, 13:54 GMT

    Kamran I believe your view is very biased. You should make a comparison between their statistics and see who really stands out. another point although warne migth not be the greatest googly bowler, he has alot of other variasions. warne is definatly the greateswt leg spin bowler.

  • Ahmad Akhtar Hayat on January 5, 2007, 13:49 GMT

    One other thing that goes for Qadir is the mindset and the ability of present day batsmen that have dropped to such low levels that even a comparison with the batsmen of 80s and early ninties has become impossible. South Africa, Srilanka, New Zealand and England do not have even one world class batsman. Pakistan and West-Indies one each and India and Australia perhaps two each. So eight test playing nations have produced six good batsmen in the past decade. That makes Shane Warne's job a lot more easier than Qadir's.

  • Danny on January 5, 2007, 13:49 GMT

    I remember watching Qadir and loved the way he went about his cricket. My brothers and I used to imitate his bouncing, angled run to the wicket trying to bowl all the varieties that he delivered. He was one of the reasons that I grew to love cricket.

    Saying all this I thought I would look at his figures via the statsguru as I couldn't remember his average offhand and one very noticeable thing occurred to me. Qadir took the majority of his wickets at home in Pakistan and his away record is fairly unflattering. The one thing that Warne has over Abdul Qadir is that Warne has performed consistently well in almost every country over a long period of time in various conditions which is the mark of a champion bowler. Yes Qadir had a larger armoury but I would have to say that Warne used his repetoire better as he was able to stop the batsmen scoring more regularly than Qadir and hence was able to build pressure until he could bowl/frustrate the batsmen out.

  • Doug on January 5, 2007, 13:48 GMT

    Those aren't reasons why Qadir was better than Warne, they're excuses for why he achieved less. All except point 1, to which Warne might reply (as did the great S F Barnes) "I never needed one".

    For me Qadir's memory, great performer though he was, will be forever tainted by association with some of the most conspicuous home-town umpiring ever. Warne had neutral umpires.

  • Asim on January 5, 2007, 13:47 GMT

    It is the weirdiest and funniest comaprison. Qadir was not 10 percent as good as Warne, a true legend. I think I should stop here otherwise, such naive and non cricketing comparisons may lead us no where. Warne played coz of his superfluous skills and Qadir only coz of Imran's rigid likings..

  • Ibad on January 5, 2007, 13:44 GMT

    In response tp Paul's comments: Right that the cricket gear has improved a lot, but that is not only for the batsmen, it is true for teh close-in fielders as well. Now look at what warney has as close-in fielders and what Qadir used to have.

  • Imran on January 5, 2007, 13:40 GMT

    I agree with Kamran. It is often easy to forget the wizardry of Qadir when Warne is constantly breaking records in todays game. At a time when fast bowlers were the weapons of mass destruction, Qadir proved that cunning and skillful spin bowling could take out batsmen also. He made spin bowling cool, kids in the streets would twirl their wrists to emulate him. For that purpose he is a giant in his own right.

  • Arslan Shaukat on January 5, 2007, 13:39 GMT

    Agree with u on some arguments, but disagree on others. Qadir possessing a variety of googlies does not make him a better leg spinner than Warne. Mushy, also possessed a great googly and so does Kaneria, but none of these two come anywhere near Warne when compared in stature. It is not how much variety u have in your bowling arsenal, but rather what u do with those deliveries in the context of getting batsmen out, which really matters.

    Warne's greatness lies in his ability to out duel and outthink batsmen by wearing them out, step by step in the process. I have read Lara declaring that Warne never troubled him as a leg spinner, but it was Warne's perseverance and fighting spirit which made him such a great bowler. According to Lara, even when he was dominating Warne, a look at Warne's eyes would never suggest even a hint of defeat. Warne still believed that he is going to get Lara out eventually. Warne never backed off a fight, a duel. He always believed that ultimately, he is going to win the battle. For me, this ability of Warne to keep coming back and refusing to give up is what makes him greater than his peers.

    All in all, in my opinion, Warne has been far more efficient and effective in the context of dominating and getting batsmen out, than Qadir ever was, with inferior natural talent. This is a tribute to Warne’s iron-willed character, his mental strength and dogged resistance.

  • Sridhar on January 5, 2007, 13:38 GMT

    It is interesting to note that Sambit Bal writes on the same site that "Mohinder Amarnath once recounted to me with relish how he and Sunil Gavaskar used to shout out "googles" every time Abdul Qadir tried to bowl a googly" Having said that, Shane Warne too has fared poorly against Indians. But you will have to tip the scale in favour of Warne for having done outstandingly well for more than 140 tests..700 plus wickets is no mean feat.

  • Faisal on January 5, 2007, 13:38 GMT

    I don't think comparing players of different eras is a good idea. Like comparing Murali to Shane makes more sense then to Qadir. There are lots of parameters that changes with the time so i think they are both champions of their era.

  • Yousuf on January 5, 2007, 13:36 GMT

    I've been debating this point of view for some time now but it has been ignored as 'sour grapes from a bitter Pakistani'. Qadir was a far more menacing bowler than Warne, his amazing control over the devices of flight and spin was nothing short of mesmerising.

  • T G on January 5, 2007, 13:35 GMT

    And my brother was a better batsman than Yousuf Youhana just that nobody's gave him a chance to play for India!

    There's no place for what-ifs and maybe's in this world.

    Warnie is the best! Period.

    PS: So what if he didn't have a googly. His stock deliveries were hard enough for most to handle.

  • Adil Arif on January 5, 2007, 13:32 GMT

    Yes, I agree with all but one thing that you didn't mentioned is that, warne bowled in the era where batsman are not well equipped with their techniques, i mean most of the batsman are unlike Viv Richard, Clive Llyod and so on, there fore it was easy for warne to get them, but on contrary it was very tough for Abdul Qadir, that is why i will give Qadir full marks. WELL DONE ABDUL QADIR. Thanks Adil.

  • Andrew Johnson on January 5, 2007, 13:30 GMT

    Let us hope one thing: The author of this fasard was drunk or atleast under the influence of a very powerful mind-altering drug at the time of relese. I can not for the life of me belive that anybody could be so dim-witted as to claim such an obsurdity. Shane Warne couldnt bowl a googley? I hate to rain on your parade but lets look to the 3rd test of the ashes in adelaide. The following is an exact copy of the online commentry deleivered by the un-biased good people at cricinfo: 57.5 Warne to Hoggard, OUT, lovely, lovely bowling. A big, flighted googly, 18 inches wide of off stump and it's too much for Hoggard to resist ... he shapes to drive and the ball snorts back and into his stumps, aided by a big inside edge. The height did for Hoggard there ... his eyes lit up as he saw it arcing towards him. "C'mon!" cries a grinning Warne, pumping his fist and sending Hoggard on his way with a raised index finger which screams 'You're out' MJ Hoggard b Warne 4. As an ametur bowler playing in a average suburban senior cricket side (the clubs 3rd 11) I do not begin to claim for a second that i am even a respectable leg-spinner (infact i dont even bowl legspinners in matchs such is my incompitence). However, occasionally I like to bowl some "warney's" in the nets at training for a bit of fun. Whilst bowling my slow, loopy,offen inaccurate leg cutters I occasionally throw in a googley. Therin lies my point! I CAN BOWL A GOOGLEY. Now, certinly if i can bowl a googley surley shane warne can (as he has proved on countless occasions). It is interesting to note however, I (like abdul qadir) am incapeable of bowling a slider, flipper, zooter or any of the other delieverys shane warne has utilised effectivly throughout his illustrious career. To the author of these ridiculous lies i say this: Stop wasting people time with lies about wrong 'un's and the like. We all know shane warne can bowl a damm good wrong un' and your making a fool of yourself. Quit being an envious sod and apreciate Warne's supreme skill. last of all I would like to make a point that our intelectually challenged author "forgot" to point out. Qadir played the vast majority of his cricket on raging turner sub continental pitch's. Shane warne has not had that privilidge. My suggestion for you would be to properly research your facts before coming out with such crap. I have a deep, deep sympathy for you as any viewer of this page who knew the first thing about cricket is probably in the midst of a belly laugh at your sheer ignorence and biasm.

  • raj on January 5, 2007, 13:24 GMT

    Agree with you. But I dont think Aussie Yobos will agree. They are blind to feats of "foreigners". Some of your points dont make much difference though. #3 - I cant see how this makes a difference once you enter the playing field #5 - is very devious. WI succumbed to even Hirwani. Enough Said :-). Success in Spin Bowling should be measured by success against India. In any case, Shane Warne fails that test. Records against WI shouldnt count as a measure of greatness as far as spin bowling is concerened. By the same token, ofcourse, Warne's "Feats" against ENgland, SA, NZ etc dont really deserve accolades. But try telling that to Aussies and English men... I agree with 1,2,8 & 9. Graham Gooch - well his testimony can hardly be taken as the final word. But then, if an Englishman, despite being an Englishman, says that an Asian is actually better than a White, then we must believe that he was really impressed by the Asian otherwise he wouldnt have admitted it. So, in that sense, it is an important testimony to consider.

  • Waqas on January 5, 2007, 13:18 GMT

    i do agee with you. But now since somtimes glamour and media enhances can enhance the image of anything to anywhere, however, it is a fact that Warne has spun the entire cricket through its demolishing spells over the past few years

  • Paul on January 5, 2007, 13:13 GMT

    I agree with much of what you've said Kamran-except for one great thing you ignore. Over the time since Qadir required, helmets, pitches, bats, just to name a few important aspects, have improved, tipping the balance of power far more towards batsman in the era Warne has bowled, than the one Qadir did, so Warne's acheivements must be given some degree of greater weighting on that basis. The only true measure of who's greater would be if we could get Qadir to play against today's batsmen in today's conditions and see how he did-unfortunately we'll never get to do that.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Paul on January 5, 2007, 13:13 GMT

    I agree with much of what you've said Kamran-except for one great thing you ignore. Over the time since Qadir required, helmets, pitches, bats, just to name a few important aspects, have improved, tipping the balance of power far more towards batsman in the era Warne has bowled, than the one Qadir did, so Warne's acheivements must be given some degree of greater weighting on that basis. The only true measure of who's greater would be if we could get Qadir to play against today's batsmen in today's conditions and see how he did-unfortunately we'll never get to do that.

  • Waqas on January 5, 2007, 13:18 GMT

    i do agee with you. But now since somtimes glamour and media enhances can enhance the image of anything to anywhere, however, it is a fact that Warne has spun the entire cricket through its demolishing spells over the past few years

  • raj on January 5, 2007, 13:24 GMT

    Agree with you. But I dont think Aussie Yobos will agree. They are blind to feats of "foreigners". Some of your points dont make much difference though. #3 - I cant see how this makes a difference once you enter the playing field #5 - is very devious. WI succumbed to even Hirwani. Enough Said :-). Success in Spin Bowling should be measured by success against India. In any case, Shane Warne fails that test. Records against WI shouldnt count as a measure of greatness as far as spin bowling is concerened. By the same token, ofcourse, Warne's "Feats" against ENgland, SA, NZ etc dont really deserve accolades. But try telling that to Aussies and English men... I agree with 1,2,8 & 9. Graham Gooch - well his testimony can hardly be taken as the final word. But then, if an Englishman, despite being an Englishman, says that an Asian is actually better than a White, then we must believe that he was really impressed by the Asian otherwise he wouldnt have admitted it. So, in that sense, it is an important testimony to consider.

  • Andrew Johnson on January 5, 2007, 13:30 GMT

    Let us hope one thing: The author of this fasard was drunk or atleast under the influence of a very powerful mind-altering drug at the time of relese. I can not for the life of me belive that anybody could be so dim-witted as to claim such an obsurdity. Shane Warne couldnt bowl a googley? I hate to rain on your parade but lets look to the 3rd test of the ashes in adelaide. The following is an exact copy of the online commentry deleivered by the un-biased good people at cricinfo: 57.5 Warne to Hoggard, OUT, lovely, lovely bowling. A big, flighted googly, 18 inches wide of off stump and it's too much for Hoggard to resist ... he shapes to drive and the ball snorts back and into his stumps, aided by a big inside edge. The height did for Hoggard there ... his eyes lit up as he saw it arcing towards him. "C'mon!" cries a grinning Warne, pumping his fist and sending Hoggard on his way with a raised index finger which screams 'You're out' MJ Hoggard b Warne 4. As an ametur bowler playing in a average suburban senior cricket side (the clubs 3rd 11) I do not begin to claim for a second that i am even a respectable leg-spinner (infact i dont even bowl legspinners in matchs such is my incompitence). However, occasionally I like to bowl some "warney's" in the nets at training for a bit of fun. Whilst bowling my slow, loopy,offen inaccurate leg cutters I occasionally throw in a googley. Therin lies my point! I CAN BOWL A GOOGLEY. Now, certinly if i can bowl a googley surley shane warne can (as he has proved on countless occasions). It is interesting to note however, I (like abdul qadir) am incapeable of bowling a slider, flipper, zooter or any of the other delieverys shane warne has utilised effectivly throughout his illustrious career. To the author of these ridiculous lies i say this: Stop wasting people time with lies about wrong 'un's and the like. We all know shane warne can bowl a damm good wrong un' and your making a fool of yourself. Quit being an envious sod and apreciate Warne's supreme skill. last of all I would like to make a point that our intelectually challenged author "forgot" to point out. Qadir played the vast majority of his cricket on raging turner sub continental pitch's. Shane warne has not had that privilidge. My suggestion for you would be to properly research your facts before coming out with such crap. I have a deep, deep sympathy for you as any viewer of this page who knew the first thing about cricket is probably in the midst of a belly laugh at your sheer ignorence and biasm.

  • Adil Arif on January 5, 2007, 13:32 GMT

    Yes, I agree with all but one thing that you didn't mentioned is that, warne bowled in the era where batsman are not well equipped with their techniques, i mean most of the batsman are unlike Viv Richard, Clive Llyod and so on, there fore it was easy for warne to get them, but on contrary it was very tough for Abdul Qadir, that is why i will give Qadir full marks. WELL DONE ABDUL QADIR. Thanks Adil.

  • T G on January 5, 2007, 13:35 GMT

    And my brother was a better batsman than Yousuf Youhana just that nobody's gave him a chance to play for India!

    There's no place for what-ifs and maybe's in this world.

    Warnie is the best! Period.

    PS: So what if he didn't have a googly. His stock deliveries were hard enough for most to handle.

  • Yousuf on January 5, 2007, 13:36 GMT

    I've been debating this point of view for some time now but it has been ignored as 'sour grapes from a bitter Pakistani'. Qadir was a far more menacing bowler than Warne, his amazing control over the devices of flight and spin was nothing short of mesmerising.

  • Faisal on January 5, 2007, 13:38 GMT

    I don't think comparing players of different eras is a good idea. Like comparing Murali to Shane makes more sense then to Qadir. There are lots of parameters that changes with the time so i think they are both champions of their era.

  • Sridhar on January 5, 2007, 13:38 GMT

    It is interesting to note that Sambit Bal writes on the same site that "Mohinder Amarnath once recounted to me with relish how he and Sunil Gavaskar used to shout out "googles" every time Abdul Qadir tried to bowl a googly" Having said that, Shane Warne too has fared poorly against Indians. But you will have to tip the scale in favour of Warne for having done outstandingly well for more than 140 tests..700 plus wickets is no mean feat.

  • Arslan Shaukat on January 5, 2007, 13:39 GMT

    Agree with u on some arguments, but disagree on others. Qadir possessing a variety of googlies does not make him a better leg spinner than Warne. Mushy, also possessed a great googly and so does Kaneria, but none of these two come anywhere near Warne when compared in stature. It is not how much variety u have in your bowling arsenal, but rather what u do with those deliveries in the context of getting batsmen out, which really matters.

    Warne's greatness lies in his ability to out duel and outthink batsmen by wearing them out, step by step in the process. I have read Lara declaring that Warne never troubled him as a leg spinner, but it was Warne's perseverance and fighting spirit which made him such a great bowler. According to Lara, even when he was dominating Warne, a look at Warne's eyes would never suggest even a hint of defeat. Warne still believed that he is going to get Lara out eventually. Warne never backed off a fight, a duel. He always believed that ultimately, he is going to win the battle. For me, this ability of Warne to keep coming back and refusing to give up is what makes him greater than his peers.

    All in all, in my opinion, Warne has been far more efficient and effective in the context of dominating and getting batsmen out, than Qadir ever was, with inferior natural talent. This is a tribute to Warne’s iron-willed character, his mental strength and dogged resistance.