Turner or Maxwell must tour India

Turner may be a good off-spin all-rounder, but will he play along-with Lyon, or may be Lyon has to sit-out in that case.

I was alive also. At least I think I was. I'm 66. But hey, Don I accept your right to have an opinion...just. Nudge nudge wink wink

Yep...I was alive when it all happened. Re-telling your version of it doesn't change anything. Warne was better than Benaud and Murali. Warne was the best ever. Your version of events will not alter that opinion.

The rule change was not made because of his unusual action. That was deemed within the rules. The rule change came with the doosra because it required a 9 degree elbow action and the ICC stipulated maximum 5 degrees, But it was found that the vast majority of spin bowlers were already bending their elbow beyond 5 degrees, so they change the rule. Without that rule change the doosra wouldn't exist. And just pointing out Yardley was SL coach is incidental when the ICC passed his bowling action, and they are the authority of the game. Perhaps you would like it played only the way that suits you.

Yardley was Sri Lanka's coach and Murali's personal coach for years. Of course he'd clear him. A congenital condition doesn't qualify him for a sympathy vote. He could have played baseball or become a batsman. His wickets identify the advantage he had. Take that rule change away and he is just another offie.

My comment about Benaud was that 'he was a spin bowler comparable to Warne and he could bat'. I think I made that comment fairly clear from the start. As for seeing him bowl, most of his top years were from 1955-59, so you must be well over 70 to have been old enough to assess his ability dispassionately.. He suffered shoulder problems after that and was not as effective. He didnt start as a great bowler but during his top years he was taking his wickets at 20 runs and was considered one of the most innovative bowlers of his time. Many of his skills were followed by Warne such as the flipper. He didnt spin the ball as much but like O'Keefe, used flight, variable pace and accuracy. He was generally recognised as Australia's finest spin bowler to that time and like Wayne, had a great fast bowling support of O'Reilly, Warne had McGrath. Understating Benaud's ability is another example of your tendency to assess by personal perception instead of overall results, As for Muri, yes he was questioned twice about his bowling action, but he bowled in a strange way owing to a congenital condition on his bowling arm. Following testing it was found he was within acceptable limits by the International Cricket Council. The main issue about bowling action came with his innovative 'doosra'. The main issue was to degree of elbow extension and after bio-mechanical analysis testing and the revelation that in fact 99% of bowlers exceeded the degree set, the rule was changed and the Doosra is now used regularly by spin bowlers. It should be noted that Wisdens, the Cricket Bible, rates Muri the greatest bowler of all time as does the International Cricket Council.. It should also be noted that it was Bruce Yardley, an Australian spin bowler, who checked to make sure Muri was bowling within the ICC limits after that, and he gave Muri a pass. But of course again it comes down to your perceptions doesnt it.

I am arguing nothing of the sort about Murali. Nice bloke that he is, Murali cheated because he didn't bowl. Even the rule change to pretend he was a bowler was after he had cheated for 500 wickets. I did see Benaud play. He was one of my heroes...behind McKenzie. He was not close to Warne as a bowler. Your argument that he was a better batsman is a new argument. It was not your point at all, initially.

Lets get a few things correct here Don. Firstly I have rarely seen Benaud bowl and neither have you, unless you saw him as a boy, which always distorts images.. All we have are some past shots of him in a few tests. So we have nothing more than his averages to compare. And his bowling is about equal to Warne's as shown in their almost identical test and first class averages, and his batting far better. Now to Murilitheran. His first class averages was 19.64 and test average 22.72, which are far better than Warne. But yes you are going to say that he played mainly in the sub continent where spin is favoured and also played more of the minions such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. A point quite valid. So I ran through his performances against only Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand. And I went a step further and picked only games played on those foreign soils. Muri's average comes out at 25.45. Warnes test average is 25.41. Now you may consider that a fair way of handling it, but of course Warne had home ground advantage in his averages, as well as playing in the sub continent where spin is more effective and I didnt take out Warne's performances against the minions. I therefore calculated in a manner that was biased in Warne's favour. And yet look at the averages. Two points. I never said Warne was not a great spin bowler. He was. My argument was that Benaud was more valuable to his team because of an almost 10 runs per innings better batting average. I still also maintain Muri was the better bowler and I think the stats demonstrate that. Unlike Warne, Muri is like Benaud was, very modest. Warne is not.

Oh please Bear...Benaud was way less "brilliant" than Warne. Benaud was a roller of the ball, a la Trevor Hohns/Bob Paulsen. He was also, often, very loose. Murali was not even a bowler...and he concedes Warne was way better. I can't believe how many people want to rewrite Warne's history because they don't like his personality.

I'll never challenge Warne's right to be considered among the best spin bowlers of all time, but there were better including Muri. I also think Benaud was our best because he offered brilliance as a spin bowler comparable to Warne, and he could also bat. And Benaud was modest and was prepared to put Warne ahead of himself in his assessments. Warne would never do that.

Warne shown up at Test level? That would be vecause his test record is so bad?

Swepson may be an outstanding rising talent. But I suspect its just a little too soon to take him on tour. He might look the goods and watching him might give an impression he is the next big thing, but the game is about results-outcomes not appearances and perceptions. His average is quite healthy at 32.82 but this year in first class cricket he's averaging 46. Give him another year I think and take Agar as the third spin option. He has more than one and a bit seasons in first class cricket and can bat, in my opinion. Personally, I suspect Warne has a thing against O'Keefe, as several players seem to have. It may be a personal issue because both can be abrasive characters. It may be that Warne can only appreciate a spin bowler who can spin the ball a lot. Or it might come down to jealousy because O'Keefe's first class averages are quite a bit superior to Warnes at 23.68 to 26.11 and he may fear O'Keefe may show him up in test cricket and threaten his Golden Boy status

Nothing wrong with the product. The programming is terrible.

It would be really foolish if Maxwell is not even picked in the touring squad. Have him in the squad. And pick him in the team if required for 3rd or 4th test.. That guy can whack Indian spinners in India.. Agreed, for a perfect Test quality batsman - you would want batsmen who can block spinners convincingly. But if you don't have that talent available, then go for Maxwell type. Having one in a team wont hurt.. One crazy knock can turn things around. Let the Indian bowlers think that "if Warner doesn't get you, Maxwell might". Put them under pressure.. Warner at 1 and Maxwell at 6 is ideal for Indian conditions..

Warne might be harsh on O'Keefe and wrong when he called for Beer, but Swepson is sure talented.Certainly the most talented spinner we have had since Warne and MaGill. Should he be taken to India? Well if they want a leg spinner then he should be included.

Sorry Don, but there is something wrong with the product, as pointed out above, it stops for 6 weeks to cater for some big bash cricket. Meaning those interested in players who could play Tests for Australia have to wait (until the Test season is over) to view them. I think that's a problem.

Cannot find bowling figures??? In the age of the internet.

Have you batted on some of the pitches in the Lancashire League? Esp early in the summer, plenty of movement. And plenty of cold brittle fingers in the slips. A real test.

qwetzen, how many of his tests were played against the might of the West Indies?? Have a feeling that contributed to his stats with the ball. Not an excuse, but its a logical reason. He was a very good day 3/4 bowler in his day, could bowl his team to victory, which is what we want from a spinner surely. He also knocked up 3 Test hundreds (from memory, don't double check me...) , and in the days before Gilly, that was awesome from a batsman batting 6 or 7. Lets not throw darts at players from the past without considering all elements. Plus he bowled with his cap on. That adds something.... :-)

George, wouldn't mind watching a days cricket with you, you seem to understand Test cricket.